Topic: [4+ EH] Slush Pool (slushpool.com); Overt AsicBoost; World First Mining Pool - page 77. (Read 4382653 times)
February 04, 2016, 08:41:49 AM
just noticed it had 2 stale blocked verry close to each other
February 03, 2016, 06:44:45 PM
Love how this pool hits 40ph and stops hitting blocks. Can we say withholding!
Exactly why I stopped mining on here. Took me only a couple of weeks to realize it by doing the simple math. Can you explain how you did that? I wouldn't have thought simple maths is enough to prove your point in this case, so I'm keen to find out how you determined the correlation.
Not trying to belittle you at all and I apologise if I came across that way. I've been working on this problem of Slush's luck for a while -- it's not an easy one to analyse -- and I wanted to know if I'd stupidly missed something simple.
Your maths is fine as far as it goes, but you might also want to consider ways to make the comparisons between pools more valid. For example (assuming your hashrate is constant) compare just payouts over a similar number of blocks rather than similar time period, and I would use a large number of blocks.
Even over a hundred blocks, you're still going to see variance of about +/- 20% of expected. If one pool has a not unusually unlucky hundred blocks and another has a not unusually lucky hundred blocks, there could be a 40% difference between them - just due to variance.
I understand the luck aspect, and the possibility of one pool getting extremely lucky and one not being lucky at all, but when I noticed that what it took me to make in 1 month in BTC at slush, I was able to make in another pool in one week (despite not having a ton of luck the week I mined it), I knew something was up.
February 03, 2016, 06:41:50 PM
Love how this pool hits 40ph and stops hitting blocks. Can we say withholding!
Exactly why I stopped mining on here. Took me only a couple of weeks to realize it by doing the simple math. Can you explain how you did that? I wouldn't have thought simple maths is enough to prove your point in this case, so I'm keen to find out how you determined the correlation.
Not trying to belittle you at all and I apologise if I came across that way. I've been working on this problem of Slush's luck for a while -- it's not an easy one to analyse -- and I wanted to know if I'd stupidly missed something simple.
Your maths is fine as far as it goes (EDIT: I was hoping for something that showed how the pool's hashrate affected the pool's luck), but you might also want to consider ways to make the comparisons between pools more valid. For example (assuming your hashrate is constant) compare just payouts over a similar number of blocks rather than similar time period, and I would use a large number of blocks.
Even over a hundred blocks, you're still going to see variance of about +/- 20% of expected. If one pool has a not unusually unlucky hundred blocks and another has a not unusually lucky hundred blocks, there could be a 40% difference between them - just due to variance.
EDIT: Also, if you're just considering time periods rather than blocks, then difference in variance could be exponentially greater.
February 03, 2016, 06:31:21 PM
Love how this pool hits 40ph and stops hitting blocks. Can we say withholding!
Exactly why I stopped mining on here. Took me only a couple of weeks to realize it by doing the simple math. Can you explain how you did that? I wouldn't have thought simple maths is enough to prove your point in this case, so I'm keen to find out how you determined the correlation.
February 03, 2016, 05:43:42 PM
Love how this pool hits 40ph and stops hitting blocks. Can we say withholding!
Exactly why I stopped mining on here. Took me only a couple of weeks to realize it by doing the simple math. Can you explain how you did that? I wouldn't have thought simple maths is enough to prove your point in this case, so I'm keen to find out how you determined the correlation.
February 03, 2016, 05:26:56 PM
the pool operator should fix that 40PH+ bug that is killing block found....
February 03, 2016, 02:26:01 PM
Love how this pool hits 40ph and stops hitting blocks. Can we say withholding!
Exactly why I stopped mining on here. Took me only a couple of weeks to realize it by doing the simple math. Now under 40ph and hit a ton of blocks. I have a remote miner pointed here because it's a pita to get changed. All my other miners are on Kano and couldn't be happier
February 03, 2016, 10:56:57 AM
Love how this pool hits 40ph and stops hitting blocks. Can we say withholding!
Exactly why I stopped mining on here. Took me only a couple of weeks to realize it by doing the simple math. February 03, 2016, 08:06:40 AM
Love how this pool hits 40ph and stops hitting blocks. Can we say withholding!
February 01, 2016, 03:41:04 AM
This is going to sound noobish, but on the vdiff settings, I can either tick the box so it uses the pre set minimum in my user profile which is 8
or untick it and it will set it manually for independent miners which is also 8
so is this just the starting point and the pool still auto adjust per miner, or is it set at 8 untill I change it?
The pool is still auto-adjusting your diff, but will not go below your minimum (that's why it says minimum right?)or untick it and it will set it manually for independent miners which is also 8
so is this just the starting point and the pool still auto adjust per miner, or is it set at 8 untill I change it?
You don't need to set that your self - some miners have a problem if the diff is too low and it takes longer until they reach their hashrate, hence the setting for a minimum, which in such cases (if you have problem) should be set to about the half of your normal diff or at 2/3 max to 'jump-start' you miner's diff
January 31, 2016, 05:22:46 PM
This is going to sound noobish, but on the vdiff settings, I can either tick the box so it uses the pre set minimum in my user profile which is 8
or untick it and it will set it manually for independent miners which is also 8
so is this just the starting point and the pool still auto adjust per miner, or is it set at 8 untill I change it?
or untick it and it will set it manually for independent miners which is also 8
so is this just the starting point and the pool still auto adjust per miner, or is it set at 8 untill I change it?
January 30, 2016, 05:41:53 AM
...
As to PPLNS... I know Slush has a similar system and I still don't know why he never implemented double geometric method like mmpool. He wanted to do this years ago to fight pool hopping. Of course as a miner one would prefer PPS but meh.
None of the payout systems (PPLNS, DGM, PPS) 'fight' hopping.As to PPLNS... I know Slush has a similar system and I still don't know why he never implemented double geometric method like mmpool. He wanted to do this years ago to fight pool hopping. Of course as a miner one would prefer PPS but meh.
Any perceived affect on hopping is due to not understanding statistics and incorrectly assuming a small sample defines the expected result of a full population.
January 30, 2016, 04:43:42 AM
I thought that those that mine here might want to read this.> Sums it up quite nicely.. I honestly think this pool cant handle 40 ph.. 15 ph pool ok. 40 ph and the server or network cant keep up .. causing a whole heap of issues.. Kano put it really well here.. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13658516
Then take a look at this. Now take out all the super small pools as variance is what has killed some of those pools. Not to mention 20 % diff increases for a small pool would just about kill it if you didnt find a block every diff change! http://organofcorti.blogspot.com/2016/01/january-17th-2016-mining-pool-statistics.html
The fact that slush hasnt really responded to fb or here at all tells me a lot!!!
Best Regards
d57heinz
Then take a look at this. Now take out all the super small pools as variance is what has killed some of those pools. Not to mention 20 % diff increases for a small pool would just about kill it if you didnt find a block every diff change! http://organofcorti.blogspot.com/2016/01/january-17th-2016-mining-pool-statistics.html
The fact that slush hasnt really responded to fb or here at all tells me a lot!!!
Best Regards
d57heinz
I was thinking the same to be honest. I'm a network manager for an ISP and to me it's looking like there is an issue with the pool servers or connectivity that is failing or reaching capacity at about the 40ph/s level. I sincerely hope this is the case. We've had a few good days at just below the 40 level. So hopefully slush is aware, I'd just love to see more frequent updates in here from him or his team...
If there is some issue at 40ph/s the pool could have a serious problem with variance in the future. I also used to mine at MMpool.org until they couldn't solve one block per difficulty change. But unless the hashrate at kano explodes, the pool will have this problem much earlier than Slush. We also do not know if Kano wouldn't have a similar server/connectivity issue unless it hits such hashrate levels.
As to PPLNS... I know Slush has a similar system and I still don't know why he never implemented double geometric method like mmpool. He wanted to do this years ago to fight pool hopping. Of course as a miner one would prefer PPS but meh.
January 28, 2016, 07:16:13 PM
rip my 3ths mining rental
looks like slush fell into another 100% cdf streak.. damn :/
looks like slush fell into another 100% cdf streak.. damn :/
January 27, 2016, 03:39:17 AM
I thought that those that mine here might want to read this.> Sums it up quite nicely.. I honestly think this pool cant handle 40 ph.. 15 ph pool ok. 40 ph and the server or network cant keep up .. causing a whole heap of issues.. Kano put it really well here.. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13658516
Then take a look at this. Now take out all the super small pools as variance is what has killed some of those pools. Not to mention 20 % diff increases for a small pool would just about kill it if you didnt find a block every diff change! http://organofcorti.blogspot.com/2016/01/january-17th-2016-mining-pool-statistics.html
The fact that slush hasnt really responded to fb or here at all tells me a lot!!!
Best Regards
d57heinz
Then take a look at this. Now take out all the super small pools as variance is what has killed some of those pools. Not to mention 20 % diff increases for a small pool would just about kill it if you didnt find a block every diff change! http://organofcorti.blogspot.com/2016/01/january-17th-2016-mining-pool-statistics.html
The fact that slush hasnt really responded to fb or here at all tells me a lot!!!
Best Regards
d57heinz
I was thinking the same to be honest. I'm a network manager for an ISP and to me it's looking like there is an issue with the pool servers or connectivity that is failing or reaching capacity at about the 40ph/s level. I sincerely hope this is the case. We've had a few good days at just below the 40 level. So hopefully slush is aware, I'd just love to see more frequent updates in here from him or his team...
January 26, 2016, 03:45:30 AM
I never liked PPLNS pools as you have to wait forever to get confirmations, so I'll stick to Slush for now, thank you.
Slush's payment scheme is simply a variant of PPLNS so that doesn't make a lot of sense. The difference is you don't get paid your entire balance with each and every block as it's solved here, you have to set a threshold and the pool holds all your rewards till it hits the threshold. Either way, you're not really getting it any faster here. January 26, 2016, 03:24:22 AM
I thought that those that mine here might want to read this.> Sums it up quite nicely.. I honestly think this pool cant handle 40 ph.. 15 ph pool ok. 40 ph and the server or network cant keep up .. causing a whole heap of issues.. Kano put it really well here.. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13658516
Then take a look at this. Now take out all the super small pools as variance is what has killed some of those pools. Not to mention 20 % diff increases for a small pool would just about kill it if you didnt find a block every diff change! http://organofcorti.blogspot.com/2016/01/january-17th-2016-mining-pool-statistics.html
The fact that slush hasnt really responded to fb or here at all tells me a lot!!!
Best Regards
d57heinz
Then take a look at this. Now take out all the super small pools as variance is what has killed some of those pools. Not to mention 20 % diff increases for a small pool would just about kill it if you didnt find a block every diff change! http://organofcorti.blogspot.com/2016/01/january-17th-2016-mining-pool-statistics.html
The fact that slush hasnt really responded to fb or here at all tells me a lot!!!
Best Regards
d57heinz
Thank goodness Slush pool still finds lots of blocks each day. It's great that you guys support small pools like CK, and I set it as a back-up solution as well. But I'm sticking to Slush for now. There are just a few voices too many on this thread praising kano. I never liked PPLNS pools as you have to wait forever to get confirmations, so I'll stick to Slush for now, thank you. If there are network or server issues I'm sure Slush is already on it to make improvements. Also, that other guy a few pages back accused Slush of stealing without any proof whatsoever. Nothing shy of character assassination. I've mined at this pool since spring 2011 until scrypt mining became a thing and again for over a year or more. I fully trust the pool operator with my hashes.
January 24, 2016, 10:09:02 AM
I thought that those that mine here might want to read this.> Sums it up quite nicely.. I honestly think this pool cant handle 40 ph.. 15 ph pool ok. 40 ph and the server or network cant keep up .. causing a whole heap of issues.. Kano put it really well here.. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13658516
Then take a look at this. Now take out all the super small pools as variance is what has killed some of those pools. Not to mention 20 % diff increases for a small pool would just about kill it if you didnt find a block every diff change! http://organofcorti.blogspot.com/2016/01/january-17th-2016-mining-pool-statistics.html
The fact that slush hasnt really responded to fb or here at all tells me a lot!!!
Best Regards
d57heinz
Then take a look at this. Now take out all the super small pools as variance is what has killed some of those pools. Not to mention 20 % diff increases for a small pool would just about kill it if you didnt find a block every diff change! http://organofcorti.blogspot.com/2016/01/january-17th-2016-mining-pool-statistics.html
The fact that slush hasnt really responded to fb or here at all tells me a lot!!!
Best Regards
d57heinz
January 24, 2016, 04:18:56 AM
So Slush appears to be mining many blocks with the default 750000 byte soft limit. Any plans to change that? That's money left on the table.
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/426fjx/so_whos_mining_small_blocks_answer_inside/
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/426fjx/so_whos_mining_small_blocks_answer_inside/
I hope Slush stays at 1MB limit. Otherwise it is time for me to move to the pool that does and respects non-hardforked rules. (Does not matter if it is called "Core" or otherwise.)
But of course people who prefer >1MB branch (and believe that it won't lose its utility and consequently value) are free to commit their hashpower to pool that creates bigblocks.
Problem is that pool operators have not stated their policy clearly (and they are more and more influenced by mass pressures). And even if they did, there is no guarantee they will keep this.
This is nothing to do with the 1mb block size limit but the 750000 byte default soft-limit for mining.
OK, my mistake.
January 23, 2016, 12:04:10 PM
So Slush appears to be mining many blocks with the default 750000 byte soft limit. Any plans to change that? That's money left on the table.
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/426fjx/so_whos_mining_small_blocks_answer_inside/
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/426fjx/so_whos_mining_small_blocks_answer_inside/
I hope Slush stays at 1MB limit. Otherwise it is time for me to move to the pool that does and respects non-hardforked rules. (Does not matter if it is called "Core" or otherwise.)
But of course people who prefer >1MB branch (and believe that it won't lose its utility and consequently value) are free to commit their hashpower to pool that creates bigblocks.
Problem is that pool operators have not stated their policy clearly (and they are more and more influenced by mass pressures). And even if they did, there is no guarantee they will keep this.
This is nothing to do with the 1mb block size limit but the 750000 byte default soft-limit for mining.
Jump to: