Topic: [4+ EH] Slush Pool (slushpool.com); Overt AsicBoost; World First Mining Pool - page 408. (Read 4382755 times)
February 16, 2014, 12:07:12 PM
Same here.
February 16, 2014, 12:05:34 PM
I am hoping there is something wrong with the server at this point, I have never complained and been mining solely with this pool for years. But from the last block to this block my estimated payout has been reduced 1/100th of the normal I get. If this is true and not just a display error I will be walking away for good. I have bit my tongue and stayed quite during all the other luck issue we have had, but staying at the same Hash rate to get 1/100th of the normal payout is just not going to happen.
Anyone else having this issue?
Anyone else having this issue?
February 16, 2014, 11:51:51 AM
Hello All.
Looks like Difficulty and Variance are catching up with me on Slush's pool. When I started mining here difficulty was a small, small fraction of what it is today. I am now looking at another 11 hour Block. Block #286208 , and it is staring at me, and laughing in my face. Not nice really. It appears to me over time as Difficulty has risen and variance has followed the extreme blocks are getting longer and longer. I remember when people freaked out over a 10 to 12 hour block. Now they defend it with honor. I am afraid when difficulty triples from where it is today. This will probably take a few days so not to be to concerned, the extreme blocks could easily extend for 24 hours or more.
I am curious. What is the shortest block time, and the longest block time anyone has ever seen here, and what the difficulty was at the time. I am not posting what I remember, but I remember some very fast, and very, very slow blocks, and am curious what others remember.
Looks like Difficulty and Variance are catching up with me on Slush's pool. When I started mining here difficulty was a small, small fraction of what it is today. I am now looking at another 11 hour Block. Block #286208 , and it is staring at me, and laughing in my face. Not nice really. It appears to me over time as Difficulty has risen and variance has followed the extreme blocks are getting longer and longer. I remember when people freaked out over a 10 to 12 hour block. Now they defend it with honor. I am afraid when difficulty triples from where it is today. This will probably take a few days so not to be to concerned, the extreme blocks could easily extend for 24 hours or more.
I am curious. What is the shortest block time, and the longest block time anyone has ever seen here, and what the difficulty was at the time. I am not posting what I remember, but I remember some very fast, and very, very slow blocks, and am curious what others remember.
February 16, 2014, 11:11:19 AM
KNK,
I am not attempting to troll, far from it. I have been with Slush consistently since Oct and run 200 GH/sec, quite satisfied to be here. However, and to have an 86% luck for the pool over the chain growth of over 7000 blocks warrants consideration. It is not just random noise related to small sample issues. I have been reading erudite posts from OoC as well as others' with more or less rational explanations and denials of the trends. Not being an IT professional I am merely suggesting that there might be a systematic advantage in the newly rising data centers' close proximity of the miners to one another that would give them an advantage, fewer stale shares being one. I do believe that there might be room on this forum for intelligent discussion rather than either just cheerleading or flaming.
I am not attempting to troll, far from it. I have been with Slush consistently since Oct and run 200 GH/sec, quite satisfied to be here. However, and to have an 86% luck for the pool over the chain growth of over 7000 blocks warrants consideration. It is not just random noise related to small sample issues. I have been reading erudite posts from OoC as well as others' with more or less rational explanations and denials of the trends. Not being an IT professional I am merely suggesting that there might be a systematic advantage in the newly rising data centers' close proximity of the miners to one another that would give them an advantage, fewer stale shares being one. I do believe that there might be room on this forum for intelligent discussion rather than either just cheerleading or flaming.
February 16, 2014, 10:53:49 AM
I am not an expert in stats, but I have had training and experience. The consistent "bad luck" that we have experienced over the last 10000 blocks is starting to look remarkably systematic, and not a question of chance alone. There might be an underlying factor such as speed of connections within the pool, distance from the pool members to the server where the blocks are recorded, etc. This might be subtle and appear irrelevant but is significant enough in the financial markets to have the servers for the rapid trading systems be in NY and NJ where both reale state and energy are more expensive. You can be sure that the TH corps utilize every such advantage.
I am not an expert in trolling, but to register just to post nonsense as your first post looks as trolling to me.Bad connections may result in more orphan blocks, but when the pool finds a block it submits it to the network and ends the round ... it does not store it at some remote location - it stores the miner score in remote database from where it is displayed on the website, but that operation is not time critical.
The distance from the pool members will increase the stale shares for the user, but again will not affect the pool success and abilty to find a block.
February 16, 2014, 10:23:03 AM
I am not an expert in stats, but I have had training and experience. The consistent "bad luck" that we have experienced over the last 10000 blocks is starting to look remarkably systematic, and not a question of chance alone. There might be an underlying factor such as speed of connections within the pool, distance from the pool members to the server where the blocks are recorded, etc. This might be subtle and appear irrelevant but is significant enough in the financial markets to have the servers for the rapid trading systems be in NY and NJ where both reale state and energy are more expensive. You can be sure that the TH corps utilize every such advantage.
February 16, 2014, 06:39:48 AM
Just wanted to say... I put half my gear on ghash.io and left around half on Slush. Over a short amount of time Slush mining had higher revenues. I didn't keep detailed records, but over 48 hours it was an easy decision to move everything back to Slush.
tough to really get pool stats in 48hrs. Slush got hot--it had to. seems like it has cooled, and it's back to it's regular sluggish self. I just got tired of the consistent inconsistencies in daily earnings.
February 16, 2014, 05:38:11 AM
...over 48 hours it was an easy decision to move everything back to Slush.
Uh-oh. That's put the mockers on us. 
February 16, 2014, 02:27:32 AM
Just wanted to say... I put half my gear on ghash.io and left around half on Slush. Over a short amount of time Slush mining had higher revenues. I didn't keep detailed records, but over 48 hours it was an easy decision to move everything back to Slush.
February 15, 2014, 11:41:08 PM
maybe there should be a discussion over the transferree paying the 0.0001 transfer fee (take it out of the transfer amount) - then let the transferee select whatever amount they want to transfer as long as its over the transfer fee.
Ok, This discussion is kind of silly. Lowering the minimum payout would kind of be futile. You would end up with lots of little transactions in your wallet that you couldn't spend because it would cost you too much in Tx fees to put them back together. I mean, really, we are talking about withdrawing less than US$6. Do you really need to transfer that amount? Let it accumulate in you account until it is big enough. If you are mining so little... well that has been argued adnauseum.
I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but I feel this answer was silly... Regardless of wether it's 6 dollars or less "IT''S MONEY" , not only that but it's money that has to get absorbed back into the general ledger and that is above the advertised 2% . That alone is something I would not want any part of if I were slush because it gives the appearance of impropriety . There are several fair solutions, but I'll just leave it at that. My point is, to dismiss any amount of money shows a total disrespect for money itself.
Really, Trongersoll has a point. In the long run, some time down the track, it might end up costing you $6 to spend that $6 - then what's the point? I think it's better to wait and see if there'll be some change to the client to reduce tx fees as the exchange rate increases by orders of magnitude. If all the money you earn is like that, you wouldn't be able to spend it.
For a one off though, it's not too bad. Eligius will pay your account out fully if you haven't submitted shares for some number of days or weeks. I've had 0.009 locked into DeepBit for years, wouldn't mind seeing it again.
February 15, 2014, 11:24:19 PM
maybe there should be a discussion over the transferree paying the 0.0001 transfer fee (take it out of the transfer amount) - then let the transferee select whatever amount they want to transfer as long as its over the transfer fee.
Ok, This discussion is kind of silly. Lowering the minimum payout would kind of be futile. You would end up with lots of little transactions in your wallet that you couldn't spend because it would cost you too much in Tx fees to put them back together. I mean, really, we are talking about withdrawing less than US$6. Do you really need to transfer that amount? Let it accumulate in you account until it is big enough. If you are mining so little... well that has been argued adnauseum.
I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but I feel this answer was silly... Regardless of wether it's 6 dollars or less "IT''S MONEY" , not only that but it's money that has to get absorbed back into the general ledger and that is above the advertised 2% . That alone is something I would not want any part of if I were slush because it gives the appearance of impropriety . There are several fair solutions, but I'll just leave it at that. My point is, to dismiss any amount of money shows a total disrespect for money itself.
February 15, 2014, 07:32:08 PM
maybe there should be a discussion over the transferree paying the 0.0001 transfer fee (take it out of the transfer amount) - then let the transferee select whatever amount they want to transfer as long as its over the transfer fee.
Ok, This discussion is kind of silly. Lowering the minimum payout would kind of be futile. You would end up with lots of little transactions in your wallet that you couldn't spend because it would cost you too much in Tx fees to put them back together. I mean, really, we are talking about withdrawing less than US$6. Do you really need to transfer that amount? Let it accumulate in your account until it is big enough. If you are mining so little... well that has been argued adnauseum.
February 15, 2014, 07:25:38 PM
Why is the minimum payout so high. My computer mines so slowly that it will take me months to reach the threshold.
.01 BTC is high ?!
February 15, 2014, 07:11:50 PM
maybe there should be a discussion over the transferree paying the 0.0001 transfer fee (take it out of the transfer amount) - then let the transferee select whatever amount they want to transfer as long as its over the transfer fee.
February 15, 2014, 06:08:46 PM
unless you get free electricity.
It's never free, the planet pays...
Come on lady luck!
February 15, 2014, 06:00:14 PM
Why is the minimum payout so high. My computer mines so slowly that it will take me months to reach the threshold.
Slush has to add a small fee to every payment. If the threshold was lower, this would become a substantial part of the pool's running expenses. As Slush takes only a small cut for running the pool (2%) there has to be a limit, or some people would claim every tiny amount they earn, and the thing would be unsustainable.Are you mining using only a CPU or GPU? If so, you are probably not covering your running costs anyway unless you get free electricity.
February 15, 2014, 05:46:48 PM
Why is the minimum payout so high. My computer mines so slowly that it will take me months to reach the threshold.
February 15, 2014, 04:05:08 AM
I dont think it will take 72 hours to get back to 30day luck. More like 1week.
72h was about our weekly luck to recover.Unless my calculations are a bit off, I thought that with neutral luck, we should expect ~7 blocks daily - the CDF hits 50% at 3 and a bit hours IIRC.
You are right. I was sleepy and calculated the time with the current network speed, while it should be at the time of the difficulty change, so 20PH instead of 27PH and it's ~5.6 rounds per day or ~4h 20min per round with our current pool speed.
February 15, 2014, 01:10:22 AM
It's all in the blog post. You will have to figure out 'c' for yourself, since it changes over time. In the post I link to an R script that does it for you - you don't have to do it by hand. Look for "Navigator" in the post.
'c' changed from 300 to 200 about two years ago, but I don't know what it is now.
Edit: I think PostMixer is referring to this post on page 739.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.5053668
'c' changed from 300 to 200 about two years ago, but I don't know what it is now.
Edit: I think PostMixer is referring to this post on page 739.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.5053668
On the News page of the Slush site, dated 2013-09-25, Slush has posted:
While working on completely new and quite exciting rewarding system, we've changed some settings of the current one in order to improve stability (e.g. decrease variance) in miners' income. It has already been deployed.
The change is about altering shape of used scoring function. The function is now less steep than before which means that your submitted shares influence your score for a longer time period. Therefore your score is less sensitive to instant luck of your miners and leads to a lower variance in results.
I've interpreted it as increasing the c constant for myself at that time. Or might the altering shape of used scoring function mean something more substantial?
Yes, I'd say it's just a change in 'c'. You reduce variance by increasing 'c', although this makes the pool more hoppable. He probably put it back up to 300. It might be even higher now, given the decrease in network proportion. My guess is that c is probably 400 right now.
I'm thinking the variance is probably tied to the altering shape of the scoring function. Since it is now less steep than the shares submitted and therefor is less sensitive to instant luck. I would have to guess that c=Cya Later.
:-) You all have a good weekend!!!!!!!!
February 15, 2014, 12:13:47 AM
It's all in the blog post. You will have to figure out 'c' for yourself, since it changes over time. In the post I link to an R script that does it for you - you don't have to do it by hand. Look for "Navigator" in the post.
'c' changed from 300 to 200 about two years ago, but I don't know what it is now.
Edit: I think PostMixer is referring to this post on page 739.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.5053668
'c' changed from 300 to 200 about two years ago, but I don't know what it is now.
Edit: I think PostMixer is referring to this post on page 739.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.5053668
On the News page of the Slush site, dated 2013-09-25, Slush has posted:
While working on completely new and quite exciting rewarding system, we've changed some settings of the current one in order to improve stability (e.g. decrease variance) in miners' income. It has already been deployed.
The change is about altering shape of used scoring function. The function is now less steep than before which means that your submitted shares influence your score for a longer time period. Therefore your score is less sensitive to instant luck of your miners and leads to a lower variance in results.
I've interpreted it as increasing the c constant for myself at that time. Or might the altering shape of used scoring function mean something more substantial?
Yes, I'd say it's just a change in 'c'. You reduce variance by increasing 'c', although this makes the pool more hoppable. He probably put it back up to 300. It might be even higher now, given the decrease in network proportion. My guess is that c is probably 400 right now.
Jump to: