Topic: [4+ EH] Slush Pool (slushpool.com); Overt AsicBoost; World First Mining Pool - page 3. (Read 4381861 times)

I’m aware. That’s why I was pointing it out for people who might not be aware of the type of person Kano is. He thinks tearing down others elevates himself. It’s a pretty typical attitude for someone with self esteem issues. I just hate seeing him target a legend like slush who is a Bitcoin mining pioneer.

Kano owns a mining pool so chances are this "shot" is biased, he has problems with almost all pools except his, he claims that some of them have bad code, some have bad owners and the rest don't have good resources and a lot more points he always has to say to any other mining pool.

With that being said, I agree with Kano (I very seldom do) that the word "first" simply means first, there are other more "honest" terms they could use, personally, it's extremely unlikely that I'll tag their profile or anyone involved with negative feedback just because of this small matter, I might (if slush refuses to fix that word) put a neutral on their profile saying "they are not the first pool, at least 1 mining pool was there before them".

I also doubt that any reasonable DT member will go to as extreme as negative feedback just because of this, however, the lost blocks could be worthy of negative feedback, if there is enough proof and at least one victim coming forward to strengthen Kano's claim.

that logic is flawed - To apply it would mean that since the first person to have flown around the world died - they now no longer the first person to have done so.

The "first" pool simply means they were the first functioning pool. However long they lasted is irrelevant if they were the actual "first" pool.

Slush is not the "first" pool - they may be the "oldest" or the "longest running" but that does not make them "first"

With the caveat of 'successful' meaning 'still in business' that ^^ would be absolutely correct and the best way to say it.
It acknowledges that:
 a. There were other pools before them
 b. Said other pools later shut down for one reason or another
 c. It puts Slush as one of the first pools and currently the oldest running one.

Though, that is somewhat of a joke also.

The problem that occurred in Dec 2015 was due to the fact that for the first 5 years that slush ran, they didn't have any proper statistical analysis of their mining.
So when something bad happened with a miner running their own untested software on the pool, it meant that slush just continued to lose blocks and pretend there was no problem, since they didn't even understand how to identify the problem, until Organofcorti told them there was something wrong - after I pointed out the excessive statistical improbability of what happened:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13482822

He also helped them do their current 'proof' they have, but alas people still don't understand that it's not a proof of hash rate, it's a proof of minimum hash rate.

So while you can correctly say they are the 'longest running' pool, they ran blind for the first 5 years and had no idea what was going on.
In that scenario, my pool is possibly the longest running pool with a proper statistical analysis of the mining, since I've been doing it from the start in 2014 Though I've no idea if any of the large pools understand how to do useful statistical analysis of the mining, or if they do, how long they have been doing it. They certainly don't claim to do it or supply any such information.

But anyway, who cares if slush didn't know what they were doing for the first 5 years

... and in case it wasn't obvious, while they let it go on for at least 28 blocks, they should have known 100% that the problem existed at 14 blocks.
Also, Organofcorti pointed out an interesting test that would have picked the particular problem up at around 0.42 of a single block (that I added to my testing from then on)

"Longest running" might be a better, more accurate, and some might say, more impressive moniker.

Who accepted it except themselves?
The details are all above in the post I did - even slush knew it - as I've shown.

The first mining pool is simply ... the first mining pool ... no excuses ... it's very simple english, but I guess it would appear to be difficult to understand for those who may not be very good at english.

Slush was at least the second pool, since there was a pool before them, even as slush stated: "another".
Again a simple english term, when you state you are opening 'another' pool, it means there's already one before you ...
and in his case he said that in the thread where the 'other' pool before him was announced.

No hornets nest involved, it's simple english and some seem to not understand english ...

If the guy who made the first car crashed and killed himself and destroyed it ... he still made the first car ...

I love a good kick to the hornet's nest as much as the next guy, so here goes a good shot.

If Slush Pool isn't the first pool, then show me where to point my miner to mine on the first pool...  If the "first" pool failed, is it the first pool?  If I say I'm going to be the first person to swim around the world, and then I die while being the first to swim around the world, am I the first to do it?  I was swimming around the world the same way the "first" pool was mining...  I believe in this context, Slush Pool is stating they are the first, because they are the first mining pool to survive the test of time.  Other pools may have attempted to be first, but they since failed and were shut down... 

Perhaps they should state they are the first successful pool or the longest running pool?  Seems like this is taking cheap shots at slush's legacy to come and make this argument more than 10 years after this claim has been accepted by the community.

Well a certain person above - Artemis3 - seems to reply 'for' slush pool and bos (which is part of slush pool) regularly on the forum and here in this thread.
He posts release notes for bos - which is pretty damning evidence saying he is involved with slush.

He's the one ignoring it, so I guess he should get the bad rep?

Sounds like a language barrier or lack of understanding, I did not say that you mentioned anything about that, I was stating a general statement, perhaps the correct word is "someone" rather than "you".


Small pool should not shutdown just because they are small, but will I gamble my hard earnings on a small pool that does not find a block for a whole year? absolutely not, however, if someone is willing to do so they have the right to.


Their profile shows last active  "June 21, 2021", so instead of repeating the same statement here, you might want to reach out to them through a different platform since clearly, they don't seem to prioritize the forum.

If they ignore you or refuse to correct that word, you can take it up to the reputation board and see what the other DT members have to say, personally, I don't mind tagging thier profile, but since this isn't an urgent case of scam and nobody's life/money is at stake, I chose to be patient and wait for Slush's response.

Nowhere in my post did I say the bolded, underlined parts that you have implied I said.

Indeed small pools are higher risk due to much higher variance.
Variance also means up and down, not just down.
Even long term there is the potential risk of a lower reward due to difficulty rises.

Seriously, your post basically says two opposite things, either you are saying there should be no small pools, like you are directly implying in the first paragraph, or you are saying they shouldn't shut down as in the 2nd paragraph.
Pick one.

Meanwhile, still no change on the slush web site, it still lies about being the first pool.

It happens to all pools, it is not something a pool can escape, but then using the "block unit" is irrelevant as far as miner's payout is concerned, 300% on a large pool that finds 10 blocks a day is nothing like a 300% on a pool that finds 1 block a year, we all know the payout will eventually be the same if measured against infinity, but that can't happen in a real-world, personally,  I don't mind a 300% block once a day/week on a large pool as I know it will break even the next day/week, but waiting for a couple of years for that to happen isn't feasible, so no, you can't compare a small pool to a large one and say that mining here or there will yield the same payouts.

Of course, I don't think small pools must shut down, I believe miners know the risks beforehand, they also know the benefit of hitting a block on a small pool, so it's a risk they chose to take in return for a potentially larger payout.

So what you are actually saying is that there should be no small pools, they should all shut down.
Interesting that you have that opinion ...

Con shut down his pool coz he lost interest in Bitcoin years ago and spends most of his time producing animated child porn.
This was obvious with his most recent lost block caused by him due to ignoring his pool server - purely due to negligence.

Clearly you have no idea about the statistics of mining.
That was clearly the case in Dec 2015 when slush pool allowed a miner to withhold about 28 blocks and didn't even notice it happen.
Scroll back in this thread and read all about it ...
An interesting comment quoted from slush about it, saying there was no problem
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13418823
Have a read through Dec 2015 here in your thread, saying there's no problem with the pool ... ... ... even though it lost about 28 blocks in that month due to problems ...

Slush made all the miners pay for those lost blocks, rather than just the company that did it.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.17144781
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13482822

The fact that my pool is currently over 300% is nothing to be unexpected.
CDF states clearly that greater than 300% blocks are expected, on average, once every 20.1 blocks ... on every pool.
Yep even slush has it happen that often.
Have a read and learn a little about Bitcoin mining statistics: https://kano.is/index.php?k=poisson

No idea what that has to do with the fact that this pool lies on it home page claiming it was the first mining pool,
while slush himself even knows that it is false, as I've pointed out above.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.57575118

The only part I was directing to you was the last sentence of my post. I made no indication that I "thought" you were answering anyone. To me you made a statement, that, while it may be accurate, is definitely no indication of whether a pool is "good" or "not good".

What makes you think i was even answering to the previous poster? The fact remains: Con Kolivas did the right thing. In comparison, 2021 is almost gone, no blocks in a certain pplns pool. The people who didn't left in the previous block, cannot leave now without incurring in heavy losses, so pretty much the next one should be the last. At least a responsible operator had the decency to close the pool when the exact same thing happened, unlike certain someone.

Of course this is just my personal opinion, everyone is free to use the pool they wish.

the point is still valid - they claim to be the first pool yet they are not. they withheld merged mining payouts for years until the merged coin was worthless. They have allowed firmware that was later proven to be faulty and incapable of finding blocks but still let those using keep all their payments.

Just because they have 6+ EH and find - what did you say? - an average of 5 blocks per day - does not make them any type of a "good" pool.

Hmm this pool is finding about 5 blocks per day. What would you know, there are non chinese non pps pools out there that find more than 3 blocks in a year!

Any reason why they still haven't removed the lie from their web site, stating they were the first mining pool?

By the way, the current Hashrate has been for a while 6+ EH...