[4+ EH] Slush Pool (slushpool.com); Overt AsicBoost; World First Mining Pool - page 601.

n0creativity

member

Activity: 65

Merit: 10

Quote from: Synethstesia on July 14, 2013, 07:17:19 AM

Alright, these blocks are getting ridiculous... I'm jumping ship. Everyone prepare for pool luck to skyrocket upon my departure!! Good luck guys.

Well we apparently identified the problem... Thank you for correcting the issue Synethstesia. Our juju is returning in your absence.

Grin

Altoidnerd

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 251

http://altoidnerd.com

Quote from: Synethstesia on July 14, 2013, 07:17:19 AM

Alright, these blocks are getting ridiculous... I'm jumping ship. Everyone prepare for pool luck to skyrocket upon my departure!! Good luck guys.

This happened

cosurgi

sr. member

Activity: 298

Merit: 250

we got 114% luck today!

5120-01-518-6126

full member

Activity: 174

Merit: 100

< My mining rig >

Quote from: angryrob on July 14, 2013, 07:24:41 AM

paraipan, just an idea to use math to put things in perspective: we can take the two rounds in question 19079 and 19080, and group them separately with the 10 rounds before and after each. then we will use a formula to see the variance between the two groups.

take rounds 19069 - 19079 and add them together. we'll call this 'x' then take rounds 19080 - 19090 and add them together. we'll call this 'y'

then plug the numbers into this formula

((x-y)/(x+y))*100=

if done correctly, that number is your % of variance between rounds 19069-79 and rounds 19080-90.

it should be between 5 and -5

if it's inside of that range then the scoring system is working properly

if it's outside that range then o crap, something's gone wrong. (probably a mistyped number, double check your work!)

I just did this myself, and my variance was 3%, meaning i scored 3% more in rounds 19069-79 vs rounds 19080-90

and i'm a slowwww miner, which means i could actually have greater variance (from 20 to -20) but my variance was only 3, so that's pretty darn good.

At least 20% of all statistical inferences (0.93 confidence factor) are based on false premises, including what I have just stated.

aurel57

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1001

Quote from: paraipan on July 14, 2013, 07:29:05 AM

Nice, thanks dude but still doesn't explain too much. The shouldn't be so much variance between two similar rounds, that's why we mine in a pool remember?

Here is what I am thinking.( for what its worth) . if you watch our pool hash rate its jumping up and down quite a bit, so even if your numbers are constant you have others with some large miners maybe jumping on at the tail end of a block which then throws all others that have been mining from the start of the block off. I jumped off the pool a couple of times yesterday just so I could see how this works and to see what to expect from another pool as I have done all my mining here on slush only. Yesterday on 19093 my shares was only 2078 as I was only on that block for about the last hour but received just a small amount below of what is normal for me (.0064 vs .0072) which in a small way throws off everyone else that was there for the whole 5 hours. Now what if I was a 500GH/s mini rig doing the same thing...instead of my 5GH/s

celeron370

newbie

Activity: 10

Merit: 0

Oh it is happen again
19095    2013-07-14 13:44:00    1:18:43    19615970    262720    0.32906675    246530    25.04310000    96 confirmations left
19094    2013-07-14 12:25:17    1:23:59    20885040    272320    0.31737963    246521    25.16787918    87 confirmations left
19093    2013-07-14 11:01:18    5:27:23    82887784    1103488    0.19835702    246513    25.11315000    79 confirmations left
19092    2013-07-14 05:33:55    1:01:48    15656745    209280    0.35326668    246482    25.07331000    48 confirmations left
19091    2013-07-14 04:32:07    4:19:14    65727074    870192    0.31393872    246473    25.08121000    39 confirmations left
19090    2013-07-14 00:12:53    4:20:53    65591273    873984    0.33193894    246435    25.41995000    1 confirmations left

organofcorti

donator

Activity: 2058

Merit: 1007

Poor impulse control.

Quote from: paraipan on July 14, 2013, 07:29:05 AM

Quote from: angryrob on July 14, 2013, 07:24:41 AM

paraipan, just an idea to use math to put things in perspective: we can take the two rounds in question 19079 and 19080, and group them separately with the 10 rounds before and after each. then we will use a formula to see the variance between the two groups.

take rounds 19069 - 19079 and add them together. we'll call this 'x' then take rounds 19080 - 19090 and add them together. we'll call this 'y'

then plug the numbers into this formula

((x-y)/(x+y))*100=

if done correctly, that number is your % of variance between rounds 19069-79 and rounds 19080-90.

it should be between 5 and -5

if it's inside of that range then the scoring system is working properly

if it's outside that range then o crap, something's gone wrong. (probably a mistyped number, double check your work!)

I just did this myself, and my variance was 3%, meaning i scored 3% more in rounds 19069-79 vs rounds 19080-90

and i'm a slowwww miner, which means i could actually have greater variance (from 20 to -20) but my variance was only 3, so that's pretty darn good.

Nice, thanks dude but still doesn't explain too much. The shouldn't be so much variance between two similar rounds, that's why we mine in a pool remember?

That's because his definition of variance is incorrect.

angryrob

sr. member

Activity: 287

Merit: 250

it's normal for me, but scores prolly reset for a few people. it should be recalculated at some point. that *usually* happens before it gets down to 20 confirmations left.

tw2501

newbie

Activity: 41

Merit: 0

Quote from: twisted on July 14, 2013, 07:12:20 AM

Also block 19093 seems a bit strange...

19093 2013-07-14 11:01:18 5:27:23 82887784 1658 0.00002188 246513 25.11315000 95 confirmations left

or is it only me?

Same for me: less than 5% of normal ...

cosurgi

sr. member

Activity: 298

Merit: 250

Quote from: twisted on July 14, 2013, 07:12:20 AM

Also block 19093 seems a bit strange...

19093 2013-07-14 11:01:18 5:27:23 82887784 1658 0.00002188 246513 25.11315000 95 confirmations left

or is it only me?

for me 19093 is OK

paraipan

legendary

Activity: 924

Merit: 1004

Firstbits: 1pirata

Quote from: angryrob on July 14, 2013, 07:24:41 AM

paraipan, just an idea to use math to put things in perspective: we can take the two rounds in question 19079 and 19080, and group them separately with the 10 rounds before and after each. then we will use a formula to see the variance between the two groups.

take rounds 19069 - 19079 and add them together. we'll call this 'x' then take rounds 19080 - 19090 and add them together. we'll call this 'y'

then plug the numbers into this formula

((x-y)/(x+y))*100=

if done correctly, that number is your % of variance between rounds 19069-79 and rounds 19080-90.

it should be between 5 and -5

if it's inside of that range then the scoring system is working properly

if it's outside that range then o crap, something's gone wrong. (probably a mistyped number, double check your work!)

I just did this myself, and my variance was 3%, meaning i scored 3% more in rounds 19069-79 vs rounds 19080-90

and i'm a slowwww miner, which means i could actually have greater variance (from 20 to -20) but my variance was only 3, so that's pretty darn good.

Nice, thanks dude but still doesn't explain too much. The shouldn't be so much variance between two similar rounds, that's why we mine in a pool remember?

angryrob

sr. member

Activity: 287

Merit: 250

paraipan, just an idea to use math to put things in perspective: we can take the two rounds in question 19079 and 19080, and group them separately with the 10 rounds before and after each. then we will use a formula to see the variance between the two groups.

take rounds 19069 - 19079 and add them together. we'll call this 'x' then take rounds 19080 - 19090 and add them together. we'll call this 'y'

then plug the numbers into this formula

((x-y)/(x+y))*100=

if done correctly, that number is your % of variance between rounds 19069-79 and rounds 19080-90.

it should be between 5 and -5

if it's inside of that range then the scoring system is working properly

if it's outside that range then o crap, something's gone wrong. (probably a mistyped number, double check your work!)

I just did this myself, and my variance was 3%, meaning i scored 3% more in rounds 19069-79 vs rounds 19080-90

and i'm a slowwww miner, which means i could actually have greater variance (from 20 to -20) but my variance was only 3, so that's pretty darn good.

Synethstesia

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

Alright, these blocks are getting ridiculous... I'm jumping ship. Everyone prepare for pool luck to skyrocket upon my departure!! Good luck guys.

twisted

newbie

Activity: 35

Merit: 0

Also block 19093 seems a bit strange...

19093 2013-07-14 11:01:18 5:27:23 82887784 1658 0.00002188 246513 25.11315000 95 confirmations left

or is it only me?

paraipan

legendary

Activity: 924

Merit: 1004

Firstbits: 1pirata

Quote from: TiborB on July 14, 2013, 07:00:51 AM

Quote from: paraipan on July 14, 2013, 06:42:30 AM

I will rephrase the question: How is it possible to be be paid less in similar rounds and without large miners joining the pool?


   block time shares payout
   | | |

Quote

19080 2013-07-13 04:55:43 3:38:04 55146734 216320 0.06683271 246305 25.18400164 confirmado
19079 2013-07-13 01:17:39 3:28:34 53289059 206720 0.10828800 246282 25.48430000 confirmado

Please explain slush! I don't see rounds under 0.08btc in my stats.

The reward you get for one single share depend on when the share was submitted. The score you get for the share is exp(t/C) where t is the number of seconds since the round was started or since the last reset, and C is a constant (200 based on my measurement).
The time a given miner (w/ constant hashrate) spends working a single share varies. Even is the difficulty is the same.
If you were lucky to submit 2 shares in the last few seconds of the round, you will get much more for the round.
If you were unlucky and were working on a share and the round completed before you submitted it, you will get a smaller reward.

Hope this helps.
T

Kind of, thanks. So it has to do with greater difficulty shares, will take note to that.

I still think the current payout system robs miners blind but this way the operator has the incentive to keep the pool in optimum conditions lol

TiborB

member

Activity: 83

Merit: 10

Quote from: paraipan on July 14, 2013, 06:42:30 AM

I will rephrase the question: How is it possible to be be paid less in similar rounds and without large miners joining the pool?


   block time shares payout
   | | |

Quote

19080 2013-07-13 04:55:43 3:38:04 55146734 216320 0.06683271 246305 25.18400164 confirmado
19079 2013-07-13 01:17:39 3:28:34 53289059 206720 0.10828800 246282 25.48430000 confirmado

Please explain slush! I don't see rounds under 0.08btc in my stats.

The reward you get for one single share depend on when the share was submitted. The score you get for the share is exp(t/C) where t is the number of seconds since the round was started or since the last reset, and C is a constant (200 based on my measurement).
The time a given miner (w/ constant hashrate) spends working a single share varies. Even is the difficulty is the same.
If you were lucky to submit 2 shares in the last few seconds of the round, you will get much more for the round.
If you were unlucky and were working on a share and the round completed before you submitted it, you will get a smaller reward.

Hope this helps.
T

paraipan

legendary

Activity: 924

Merit: 1004

Firstbits: 1pirata

Quote from: angryrob on July 14, 2013, 06:42:18 AM

well, you can claim to know about the scoring system, and then complain about it, but that is the reason you got less of a reward for one round vs another. you got paid for the % of your score vs the rest of the pool. you keep pointing back to your shares, but shares are not the full story. they don't reveal if you were scoring higher than average or scoring lower than average, and they also don't reveal how the rest of the pool was scoring.

My score was similar in both rounds.

paraipan

legendary

Activity: 924

Merit: 1004

Firstbits: 1pirata

I will rephrase the question: How is it possible to be be paid less in similar rounds and without large miners joining the pool?


   block time shares payout
   | | |

Quote

19080 2013-07-13 04:55:43 3:38:04 55146734 216320 0.06683271 246305 25.18400164 confirmado
19079 2013-07-13 01:17:39 3:28:34 53289059 206720 0.10828800 246282 25.48430000 confirmado

Please explain slush! I don't see rounds under 0.08btc in my stats.

angryrob

sr. member

Activity: 287

Merit: 250

well, you can claim to know about the scoring system, and then complain about it, but that is the reason you got less of a reward for one round vs another. you got paid for the % of your score vs the rest of the pool. you keep pointing back to your shares, but shares are not the full story. they don't reveal if you were scoring higher than average or scoring lower than average, and they also don't reveal how the rest of the pool was scoring.

paraipan

legendary

Activity: 924

Merit: 1004

Firstbits: 1pirata

Quote from: angryrob on July 14, 2013, 06:20:06 AM

...

I know all about it, and the scoring system too. I was poolhopping 2 years ago but not the case here. The scoring method is designed to reward miners that stay until the block is found and pay only the last half of the shares used to find the block, basically inverse prop. payout. When organof started writing I was experiencing with it imo.

As you probably can see I submitted more shares in the second round even though it lasted only 10 minutes more. My miner didn't disconnect from pool or anything, shares prove that. Btw, I hate the scoring system like everyone else because it penalizes miners for every possible failure, but what we're going to do if poolohoppers are far more dangerous yeah. I will hate Meni Rosenfeld for this one my whole life.

Topic: [4+ EH] Slush Pool (slushpool.com); Overt AsicBoost; World First Mining Pool - page 601. (Read 4382755 times)