Topic: [4+ EH] Slush Pool (slushpool.com); Overt AsicBoost; World First Mining Pool - page 744. (Read 4382801 times)
May 16, 2013, 02:47:40 AM
Well, if I were running something big like a pool and I were visiting family or on vacation or something that required me to be away from my normal access, I would log into forums from time to time, but if I didn't have the time to get the info everyone wanted, I would probably just not say anything. Aside from being the pool operator, he's still a person and entitled to have his own life away from here. The pool is still running, and any issues can be resolved in time.
May 16, 2013, 02:30:49 AM
Yes but beeing on line isn't the same as posting. My girfrend can make me look online just using my computers chrome. I don't see forum as hi security so I'm logged on all the time. So that only means that someone used Slush computer.
EDIT: or it might even be just logged on his account with forum open if he is online all the time or someone wake computer up from sleep or hibernation if he is not on all the time.
The problem here is not whether slush online or not.EDIT: or it might even be just logged on his account with forum open if he is online all the time or someone wake computer up from sleep or hibernation if he is not on all the time.
He is NOT POSTING any posts for the past couple of days.
He tried to post before, even when he goes for vocation.
Both Slush & Tycho are RUNNING BITCOIN MINING POOLS & NOT POSTING FOR COUPLE OF DAYS.
WHY THEY NOT POSTING IS THE QUESTION.
May 16, 2013, 01:46:21 AM
Yes but beeing on line isn't the same as posting. My girfrend can make me look online just using my computers chrome. I don't see forum as hi security so I'm logged on all the time. So that only means that someone used Slush computer.
EDIT: or it might even be just logged on his account with forum open if he is online all the time or someone wake computer up from sleep or hibernation if he is not on all the time.
EDIT: or it might even be just logged on his account with forum open if he is online all the time or someone wake computer up from sleep or hibernation if he is not on all the time.
May 16, 2013, 01:40:39 AM
You took my comment wayyyyyyy to seriously.
May 16, 2013, 01:37:53 AM
May 16, 2013, 01:30:07 AM
Now if only we didn't have to read you go on and on and on and on about it.... yeesh - you're glad you're gone, and so are we - have fun blathering on at your new pool thread....
If there wasn't a stupid comment that there isn't a problem or your stupid comment you wouldn't. I hope that this error soon start affecting you so you will know the pain me and about 10 other users that have reported this had or have. But the comment like that made me move so it is a good think...And Slush is still my backup pool so I'm still looking if it is working correctly and helping with my experiences to users who gets "It is not the pool it is you"(so they know that if they get ping timeout that doesn't mean that they have a problem as someone suggested or that if tracert doesn't work or that they didn't send the shares even if they seen them on screen or that they got disconnected even if the shares were accepted and so on with stupid explanation). I know this is not the case and I can explain why for every example. But seeing more and more reports shares counting errors and I'm relay thinking of changing priority to make Slush backup pool of backup pool. But then again noting is wrong so really don't know why this is happening right?
May 16, 2013, 12:50:19 AM
Man, all the Fear/Uncertainty/Doubt you can dish up.
All the blocks I've seen with incorrect payouts were eventually corrected. I see some people freak out just after "Processing..." is completed. It's clear there are multiple calculations on different boxes to get the final number. I suspect on some of the blocks with "short" payouts, one of the boxes is missing from that calc. You can refresh and watch it grow in 3rds...
I think the pool is better than ever. He moved to a more stable host (and faster IMHO).... I think he's tired of having 5000 employees and having a handful of those who work the least complain the most.
He's recalculating "short" blocks... it seems correct... but I tell you what. Log your next block session, don't lose the logs, and come back and complain with some REAL evidence you're being shorted. Coming on here and bitching about what you suspect doesn't do anyone any favors.'
There are logging options in cgminer. Use them, do the math, and then come back with real evidence and make some real accusations. The pool has never been stronger.... He reacted to a theft, and a DDoS attack, and it's still going strong. All the while, maintaining a good attitude and helping people. Give the guy a break... and we'll see you back next block with some real evidence, right?
You relay don't get it. I had log and this is first time in 10 days someone asked for it. I have explained how I know what I know in forum and also why I can't post them directly. Read back and you will figure it out why none asked to have them. And I'm not the only one who had this problem so realy. I'm not moving back just to give you a log. I'm not stupid. Since I moved I didn't have to make a single complaint about payouts and look at a single log since all is as it should be. Last days at Slush were:"Hell what was wrong with this one, this one and this one...", connecting to miners to see why they are not submitting shares seeing everything is OK and hoping it will fix out. Hell no I don't need this drama. I like that I only need to refresh a page once a day and see all is well. It is relaxing.All the blocks I've seen with incorrect payouts were eventually corrected. I see some people freak out just after "Processing..." is completed. It's clear there are multiple calculations on different boxes to get the final number. I suspect on some of the blocks with "short" payouts, one of the boxes is missing from that calc. You can refresh and watch it grow in 3rds...
I think the pool is better than ever. He moved to a more stable host (and faster IMHO).... I think he's tired of having 5000 employees and having a handful of those who work the least complain the most.
He's recalculating "short" blocks... it seems correct... but I tell you what. Log your next block session, don't lose the logs, and come back and complain with some REAL evidence you're being shorted. Coming on here and bitching about what you suspect doesn't do anyone any favors.'
There are logging options in cgminer. Use them, do the math, and then come back with real evidence and make some real accusations. The pool has never been stronger.... He reacted to a theft, and a DDoS attack, and it's still going strong. All the while, maintaining a good attitude and helping people. Give the guy a break... and we'll see you back next block with some real evidence, right?
Now if only we didn't have to read you go on and on and on and on about it.... yeesh - you're glad you're gone, and so are we - have fun blathering on at your new pool thread....
May 15, 2013, 11:48:52 PM
I disagree, there hasn't been a block miscalculation since the one everybody went berserk about exactly one week ago.
block=start_time,duration,reward,hashes,luck,difficulty,confirmations
235160=2013-05-08 15:13:44,1:27:14,0.00000096,9167,1.34,10076292,100
Since then people have been reporting the slightest variations as problems - when it's perfectly normal to have some variation - based on your own luck and the pool's luck as a whole.
Where people are reporting zero payouts, they are showing that they have submitted no shares - meaning connectivity issue - not block calculation issues.
I think Slush is monitoring from afar (I don't blame him for not coming on here with all the bitching going on) and long may it continue. Connectivity issues should be kept separate from the block miscalculation issues (which seem to have disappeared as I say).
User was looking at screen as he reports(and he is not the only one). I had logs that prove that shares are missing(unfortunately log is deleted when you restart CGminer and I deleted the copy from my computer since there were no way to report it to Slush and the block got confirmed). CGminer reported accepted shares(meaning that cgminer sanded the share and pool confirmed it valid) and pool didn't record them. Nobody is saying it is a calculation issue. It is database issue when you see this.block=start_time,duration,reward,hashes,luck,difficulty,confirmations
235160=2013-05-08 15:13:44,1:27:14,0.00000096,9167,1.34,10076292,100
Since then people have been reporting the slightest variations as problems - when it's perfectly normal to have some variation - based on your own luck and the pool's luck as a whole.
Where people are reporting zero payouts, they are showing that they have submitted no shares - meaning connectivity issue - not block calculation issues.
I think Slush is monitoring from afar (I don't blame him for not coming on here with all the bitching going on) and long may it continue. Connectivity issues should be kept separate from the block miscalculation issues (which seem to have disappeared as I say).
And I don't think Slush is monitoring this. Unfortunately I starting to think that something happened to him about 10 days ago and he can't control the pool and it is having bigger and bigger problems.
I still use Slush as a backup pool and I did see in time of maintenance of my new pool one miner connecting on Slush(stratum) and the other with same configuration going over all stratum server and api to old backup. So tell me that this is normal for a normal working pool. After loosing on 13 blocks I have given up on Slush since it cost me about 0.05BTC
All the blocks I've seen with incorrect payouts were eventually corrected. I see some people freak out just after "Processing..." is completed. It's clear there are multiple calculations on different boxes to get the final number. I suspect on some of the blocks with "short" payouts, one of the boxes is missing from that calc. You can refresh and watch it grow in 3rds...
I think the pool is better than ever. He moved to a more stable host (and faster IMHO).... I think he's tired of having 5000 employees and having a handful of those who work the least complain the most.
He's recalculating "short" blocks... it seems correct... but I tell you what. Log your next block session, don't lose the logs, and come back and complain with some REAL evidence you're being shorted. Coming on here and bitching about what you suspect doesn't do anyone any favors.'
There are logging options in cgminer. Use them, do the math, and then come back with real evidence and make some real accusations. The pool has never been stronger.... He reacted to a theft, and a DDoS attack, and it's still going strong. All the while, maintaining a good attitude and helping people. Give the guy a break... and we'll see you back next block with some real evidence, right?
May 15, 2013, 10:35:04 PM
We've gone through 50pages (at whatever default layout is) in about 2weeks..... most of the last couple weeks has been not worth Slush's time in my opinion.
May 15, 2013, 09:58:05 PM
Pool luck OP 
75%, 88%, 100%
75%, 88%, 100%
And a few days ago, it was ~%150, %99, %100
That's why you're in a pool. It smooths out the peaks and valleys. Are you new here?
May 15, 2013, 09:49:29 PM
Pool luck OP
75%, 88%, 100%
75%, 88%, 100%
May 15, 2013, 09:27:28 PM
Yeah, Slush is cool as hell... I also have a tremendous amount of respect for that guy...
If anything, he deserves all of our support right now. Losing 3000 BTC in an inside hack job on his OVH account, and that DDoS attack from hell... and then people are on here bitching and making assumptions... which I feel were corrected, is just wrong.... and I'm sure that is just the icing on the cake.
Let's all just chill the f*ck out and keep mining on Slush's pool. We all know he's legit and he is a man of his word. So quit bitching and keep your boxes mining.
If anything, he deserves all of our support right now. Losing 3000 BTC in an inside hack job on his OVH account, and that DDoS attack from hell... and then people are on here bitching and making assumptions... which I feel were corrected, is just wrong.... and I'm sure that is just the icing on the cake.
Let's all just chill the f*ck out and keep mining on Slush's pool. We all know he's legit and he is a man of his word. So quit bitching and keep your boxes mining.
May 15, 2013, 09:18:57 PM
I'm on board now... I hadn't realized the most crucial step of the equation..
I thought it was:
score = score + exp(round_time)
But instead it is:
score = score + exp(round_time/C)
Gives me an immense respect for slush and his systems... crunching that large of table of data 24/7 reliably is an immense undertaking! There is a significantly larger amount of data logged per worker than I had previously even begun to fathom.
I thought it was:
score = score + exp(round_time)
But instead it is:
score = score + exp(round_time/C)
Gives me an immense respect for slush and his systems... crunching that large of table of data 24/7 reliably is an immense undertaking! There is a significantly larger amount of data logged per worker than I had previously even begun to fathom.
May 15, 2013, 09:00:17 PM
Slush's pool is scored proportional and so is not much like PPLNS either.
Yes, that is correct. That's why I said "like a PPLNS". It was a bit easier to explain it that way.
For those looking for the more-detailed definition - look at the top of this page: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Comparison_of_mining_pools. And Slush's scoring system is outlined the home page and detailed in this message: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.50002.
OK, let me rephrase: It's not much like PPLNS at all. It's more like proportional, only exponentially scored.
The big difference between PPLNS and prop is that PPLNS breaks round boundaries and is not exploitable, and prop maintains round boundaries and is exploitable. Scored proportional is a version of proportional and is exploitable.
That's a very "accurate" explanation and I completely agree with you. I didn't mean to argue about semantics. I was merely trying to provide a simplified explanation (although not perfectly accurate) which would make it easier to grasp the idea and the differences - especially for people who recently joined the bitcoin mining world.
I understood what you were attempting, and the reason for doing so. But since slush's payment is based on round results ( proportion of shares per round) and PPLNS is not, I thought it was introducing unnecessary confusion.
I applaud your attempt to help new miners understand, though. That sort of help doesn't happen enough.
Anyway, if Gamah wants to look at the posts to which I linked it should all be made clear for him. You'll be able to tell if he read all three posts because if he does he wont be back for a few hours
May 15, 2013, 08:54:38 PM
Slush's pool is scored proportional and so is not much like PPLNS either.
Yes, that is correct. That's why I said "like a PPLNS". It was a bit easier to explain it that way.
For those looking for the more-detailed definition - look at the top of this page: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Comparison_of_mining_pools. And Slush's scoring system is outlined the home page and detailed in this message: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.50002.
OK, let me rephrase: It's not much like PPLNS at all. It's more like proportional, only exponentially scored.
The big difference between PPLNS and prop is that PPLNS breaks round boundaries and is not exploitable, and prop maintains round boundaries and is exploitable. Scored proportional is a version of proportional and is exploitable.
That's a very "accurate" explanation and I completely agree with you. I didn't mean to argue about semantics. I was merely trying to provide a simplified explanation (although not perfectly accurate) which would make it easier to grasp the idea and the differences - especially for people who recently joined the bitcoin mining world.
May 15, 2013, 08:48:22 PM
Slush's pool is scored proportional and so is not much like PPLNS either.
Yes, that is correct. That's why I said "like a PPLNS". It was a bit easier to explain it that way.
For those looking for the more-detailed definition - look at the top of this page: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Comparison_of_mining_pools. And Slush's scoring system is outlined the home page and detailed in this message: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.50002.
OK, let me rephrase: It's not much like PPLNS at all. It's more like proportional, only exponentially scored.
The big difference between PPLNS and prop is that PPLNS breaks round boundaries and is not exploitable, and prop maintains round boundaries and is exploitable. Scored proportional is a version of proportional and is exploitable.
May 15, 2013, 08:44:19 PM
Slush's pool is scored proportional and so is not much like PPLNS either.
Yes, that is correct - it is NOT a PPLNS pool. That's why I said "like a PPLNS". It was a bit easier to explain it that way.
For those looking for the more-detailed definition - look at the top of this page: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Comparison_of_mining_pools. And Slush's scoring system is outlined the home page and detailed in this message: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.50002.
May 15, 2013, 08:44:12 PM
Slush's pool is scored proportional and so is not much like PPLNS either.
So then how do we explain my math at the bottom of the previous page?
I don't have time to explain anything right now, or even look at your problem. But I just wanted to point out that you were looking at the wrong payout method before you spent more time on it.
There's a post in this thread somewhere that out lines the payout method, or you could try these:
[....]
Here's some reading for you both:
http://organofcorti.blogspot.com/2012/04/41-slushs-pool.html
http://organofcorti.blogspot.com/2012/08/42-slushs-score-method-and-miner.html
http://organofcorti.blogspot.com/2012/09/43-slushs-score-method-and-miner.html
Here's some reading for you both:
http://organofcorti.blogspot.com/2012/04/41-slushs-pool.html
http://organofcorti.blogspot.com/2012/08/42-slushs-score-method-and-miner.html
http://organofcorti.blogspot.com/2012/09/43-slushs-score-method-and-miner.html
May 15, 2013, 08:40:06 PM
Slush's pool is scored proportional and so is not much like PPLNS either.
So then how do we explain my math at the bottom of the previous page?
Edit:
Oh now I see vs3.... that makes quite a bit more sense... thanks!
May 15, 2013, 08:39:31 PM
I'm curious as to your reasoning to why you think you deserved 54% payout in the 2nd round when you submitted 82% as many shares/minute as the round before... aka... did 82% as much work per X time.
The reason is - this is not a PPS (pay-per-share) pool, but more like a PPLNS (pay-per-last-N-shares). In Slush's case "last" is about an hour, but when you add exponentially lower score to the older shares - it's really about the last 15-20min.
Many people get confused in this exact way - the number of shares DOES NOT mean a proportional payout. It would be proportional in a PPS pool, which this one IS NOT.
It is the TIME of those shares that matters (and by time I'm referring to how old the shares are, or in other words - how closely before the end of the round did you submit them).
So, back to your question - I learned (although too late) that one of my miners stopped submitting shares, and unfortunately it stopped closer to the beginning than to the end of that round. Hence the payout. I know how Slush's scoring works and that's why I'm not surprised by the result.
If you miner stopped near the beginning of the round, how can you be expected to have pulled a higher total pool percentage?
I have more than one miner. The rest worked fine - the final payout reflects the amount that the rest did.
The newer the shares - the higher the score (and also the older the share - the lower the score which eventually becomes zero). The miner that died had some shares towards the beginning of the round, but by the round end they were already too old and as a result their score was almost zero.
One "feature" that I'd like to have (even if it is a paid one) would be a database dump with the timing of each of my shares and their score. Slush already has that and that's what he uses to calculate the final score. That way everyone can crosscheck and match each share against what his/her logs say. And this can also help with troubleshooting and isolating misbehaving miners (because if you have several miners you can never be sure which was the bad one).
Jump to: