Topic: [4+ EH] Slush Pool (slushpool.com); Overt AsicBoost; World First Mining Pool - page 128. (Read 4382653 times)

I don't see the Trezor advertisement on the beta site, but it is still on the regular site in my browser.

Just noticed something else, 132 of the 199 blocks found (~66%) when the pool was hashing above 9.8 Ph/s (aka blocks with a difficulty of 40640955016 and 39457671307) were found between 17th Dec 2014 and 12th Jan 2015 (thats ~ a 3 week window).

It might seem off the current topic but my Trezor advert has disappeared from my dashboard.  Has the offer finished?

You are so full of yourself and clearly full of self importance. And yeah, the ignore button is a good option for the feeble minded, like yourself, and those that believe its only their opinion that matters. But that you get enough stupidity in your day already should sum you up nicely (and I know you are reading this ..... you just can't resist!).

Anyway, to keep on with my number crunching, I thought I'd continue my comparison but this time for only the blocks found when the pool hashing rate was above 9 Ph/s as with the 13 rigs' roving 1-2 Ph/s there was a more realistic chance of crossing that 10 Ph/s thresh-hold that seems to suck the blocks from the pool, and here goes:

November 2014 - today above 9 Ph/s: 354 blocks)
155 blocks - Less than 9.8 Ph/s
199 blocks - Above 9.8 Ph/s

I think I can probably manage that.

This might be the most plausible conspiracy theory that I have seen here in years.

Damm this is getting bitchy.  It's obvious the illuminati has infiltrated the pool.  There, case solved.

Hey Mr. Teal, can I ask you a favour?

When you quote pekatete I get to see what he has written even though he one of a very few I have on ignore.

So would you mind not quoting him? I get sufficient stupid in my day already.

Don't be silly, I do what I want on my end .... (see, there you go again!)

Fair enough. Please feel free to add me to your ignore list if it will help with your disregarding.

At this point, I do not care what you think or know, even whether you might have a point. You've adequately demonstrated to me (thus far today), that your opinion is worth disregarding in its entirity.
If you can confirm either way whether the roving hash-rate is from 13 rigs, that would be your time spent well.

Ok, but how much time was spent at each hash rate tier within those difficulty levels?
If 50% of the hashes are submitted while the pool is over 10PH/s but only 1/6 of the blocks are found in that period, something might be wrong. If the pool only spent 1/6th of the time at that level, then the numbers your seeing are what you'd expect.

Seeing I have not yet been able to confirm that the roving 1-2Ph/s is generated from 13 rigs, I took another delve into the stats. Rather than analyse the data without considering the two factors that I have been led to believe are important, i.e hash power and difficulty (I discarded luck as un-important), here's what I have based on difficulty.

Diff: 44455415962 (total: 42 blocks)
16 - Less than 9.5 Ph/s
20 - Between 9.5 Ph/s AND 10 Ph/s
7 - Above 10 Ph/s

 ----------------------

Diff: 41272873894 (total: 61 blocks)
58 - Less than 9.5 Ph/s
2 - Between 9.5 Ph/s AND 10 Ph/s
1 - Above 10 Ph/s

 ----------------------

Diff: 43971662056 (total: 48 blocks)
46 - Less than 9.5 Ph/s
0 - Between 9.5 Ph/s AND 10 Ph/s
2 - Above 10 Ph/s

 ----------------------

Diff: 40640955016 (total: 69 blocks)
0 - Less than 9.5 Ph/s
1 - Between 9.5 Ph/s AND 10 Ph/s
68 - Above 10 Ph/s

 ----------------------

Diff: 39457671307 (total: 73 blocks)
4 - Less than 9.5 Ph/s
5 - Between 9.5 Ph/s AND 10 Ph/s
64 - Above 10 Ph/s

 ----------------------

Diff: 40007470271 (total: 69 blocks)
17 - Less than 9.5 Ph/s
16 - Between 9.5 Ph/s AND 10 Ph/s
36 - Above 10 Ph/s

 ----------------------

Diff: 40300030327 (total: 68 blocks)
63 - Less than 9.5 Ph/s
4 - Between 9.5 Ph/s AND 10 Ph/s
1 - Above 10 Ph/s

 ----------------------

Diff: 39603666252 (total: 77 blocks)
76 - Less than 9.5 Ph/s
1 - Between 9.5 Ph/s AND 10 Ph/s
0 - Above 10 Ph/s

 ----------------------

Diff: 35985640265 (total: 18 blocks)
18 - Less than 9.5 Ph/s
0 - Between 9.5 Ph/s AND 10 Ph/s
0 - Above 10 Ph/s

Finally a dicotomous comparison of the data from November 2014 to today total: 526 blocks.

298 - Less than 9.5 Ph/s
228 - Above 9.5 Ph/s

EDIT: looks like we had our time with the 10 Ph/s threshhold when the difficulty was 40640955016 and 39457671307. Since then, our luck has depleted at that rate ..... there must be a pattern to it, but seeing I only have a sample size of 526 (not enough to be relied on ... I think minimum should be 2000), I'll have to concentrate on establishing whether that roving hash-rate is from 13 rigs!

You are not a legend for nothing .... you truly are pushing your point on the pretext that I (even bigtime) do believe there is an issue here (be that with / without scaling or something else sinister) ... seriously? You even have the time to context this in the first half of 2014 (be it the 10Th/s rate)?
So tell me then, what does it take to be a 4 star general on bitcointalk?

It doesn't, but then I really don't expect it to. Neither does yours. However if I were to set about about to show that the pool was having issues scaling, I would try and do so in a way that actually shed some light on the issue. Feel free to do so however you want, but I will point out that the numbers you posted are useless just so they don't confuse anyone else.

PS - Did you know that this pool found zero blocks in the first half of 2014 when the pool hashrate was above 10TH/s? Seems pretty clearcut to me there's a scaling issue somewhere.

+1
It's very simple on my opinion - people join when there is an increased luck, which should even out latter, so ...

If you do not care enough to bother, then what use would it serve for me (or anyone) to prove your percieved lack of a fundamental problem or otherwise, as the case may be? Or is it the case that you really believe that your opinion matters?

I don't really care enough to bother, I've never seen anything at Slush that suggests a problem. If, like our good friends bigbitmine and rpandassociates, you want assert that there is a fundamental problem with the pool that keeps it from scaling over 10PH/s it's on you to show that the problem isn't just an invention of your imagination.

Your legendary status precedes you!
While you are still basking in it, pull your finger out and post your own numbers that, apparently, make sense (you patronising so and so!)

If you really want to analyze it, please at least do so in a way that makes sense. Saying there were X number of blocks at >10PH/s vs Y blocks at <10PH/s in a given period is a relatively useless measurement.
Take the numbers from whatever period you want (say everything from the start of December onward), calculate the luck for each block solved, then group them along whatever cutoff you want. Then it's just a matter of looking at the data and pulling trends out that support your preconceived bias.