Topic: [4+ EH] Slush Pool (slushpool.com); Overt AsicBoost; World First Mining Pool - page 895. (Read 4382653 times)
May 28, 2012, 02:39:59 AM
Payouts are still disabled, I came at home too late and it's always better to be fresh while handling with coins. I'm working on fix right now and payouts should be enabled very soon.
May 28, 2012, 02:39:02 AM
splitt, invalid ratio is slightly under 1% in long term average. Yes, in recent days there were some extra invalids, but as you can trace on blockchain.info, it was really just bad luck, there isn't any obvious mistake. Pool is also directly connected to some well propagated nodes and also to few other pools to minimize latency.
May 27, 2012, 03:12:49 PM
Hi. I noticed that recently there have been a lot of invalid blocks here on Slush.
Is that normal or just bad luck?
What is the average number of invalid blocks for, say, 30 days?
Thanks!
Is that normal or just bad luck?
What is the average number of invalid blocks for, say, 30 days?
Thanks!
May 27, 2012, 01:50:52 AM
Writing from mobile connection; i was fixing one issue on the server, sorry for short outage. Connection from here was incredibly laggy. I also stopped payouts, they'll be back on the evening UTC.
May 27, 2012, 12:15:55 AM
pool appears to be offline atm 
still first time Ive ever seen an outage on slush, finally had to configure a failover pool in cgminer.
still first time Ive ever seen an outage on slush, finally had to configure a failover pool in cgminer.
May 25, 2012, 12:29:43 PM
...so it can't be too much harder than PPLNS to implement here - especially when Slush has more experience than anyone at running a pool using exponential scoring).
The main difference between current score implementation is that score equation needs only time as an input, but proper implementation of DGM need to know also count of already submitted shares (across all backends). Pool core is designed quite scalable, there's no online synchronization between backends necessary, but it goes against DGM requirements. And it's the pain and the reason why it takes so much time. Originally I expect that it won't be so hard, but I felt into solving strange threading issues (cause framework which I'm currently using doesn't natively support user's threads).
Can't you multiply (or add the logs) of all the "s" variables from all the backend nodes and then do the same for the per-user scores (sk) ?
It might work, but I suck at math, Meni may have an idea on how to algebrize that.
Edit: Just in case I was not clear, the idea would be to have each backend node do DGM independently and then multiply all the backend "s" together and all the backend "sk" together to estimate or compute the payout.
May 24, 2012, 04:41:03 PM
Ok, it's back up, downtime was 35 minutes.
May 24, 2012, 03:29:08 PM
I'll start linux kernel & database update in following 30 minutes. Unfortunately I need to stop application, expected downtime will be 20-30 minutes.
May 24, 2012, 02:00:09 AM
Would moving to PPLNS temporarily be a possibility? Or would you be changing one difficult to solve problem for another?
At this moment is simplier to finish DGM than do all coding and testing for PPLNS and then DGM again...
May 24, 2012, 01:36:26 AM
The main difference between current score implementation is that score equation needs only time as an input, but proper implementation of DGM need to know also count of already submitted shares (across all backends). Pool core is designed quite scalable, there's no online synchronization between backends necessary, but it goes against DGM requirements. And it's the pain and the reason why it takes so much time. Originally I expect that it won't be so hard, but I felt into solving strange threading issues (cause framework which I'm currently using doesn't natively support user's threads).
Thanks for your input there - it's interesting to know how the differences in payout implementation affect pool operators.
Would moving to PPLNS temporarily be a possibility? Or would you be changing one difficult to solve problem for another?
May 24, 2012, 12:55:14 AM
...so it can't be too much harder than PPLNS to implement here - especially when Slush has more experience than anyone at running a pool using exponential scoring).
The main difference between current score implementation is that score equation needs only time as an input, but proper implementation of DGM need to know also count of already submitted shares (across all backends). Pool core is designed quite scalable, there's no online synchronization between backends necessary, but it goes against DGM requirements. And it's the pain and the reason why it takes so much time. Originally I expect that it won't be so hard, but I felt into solving strange threading issues (cause framework which I'm currently using doesn't natively support user's threads).
May 23, 2012, 08:39:00 PM
Can anyone explain the benefit of DGM over PPLNS? Pool hopping is also prevented by PPLNS and seems like it would be much easier to implement. From what I gather, DGM helps 'absorb' a little bit of variation but I would imagine that isn't as big a deal on a larger pool like Slush's.
PPLNS is a subset of DGM solutions. DGM has much more flexibility than PPLNS: variance and maturity time can be tuned to the miners' and pool op's needs and wants. PPLNS cannot.
All of the info (not just my interpretation of it) is here.
Btw there are a number of DGM pools now, so it can't be too much harder than PPLNS to implement here - especially when Slush has more experience than anyone at running a pool using exponential scoring).
May 23, 2012, 08:33:05 PM
Can anyone explain the benefit of DGM over PPLNS? Pool hopping is also prevented by PPLNS and seems like it would be much easier to implement. From what I gather, DGM helps 'absorb' a little bit of variation but I would imagine that isn't as big a deal on a larger pool like Slush's.
May 23, 2012, 08:15:58 PM
I like the wait... Something Zen about it I suppose...
I would imagine that is a built-in safety to better allow for the detection of fraud or manipulation.
I would imagine that is a built-in safety to better allow for the detection of fraud or manipulation.
May 23, 2012, 04:58:14 AM
No big deal, but comfort... It's useless to wait that much, even 10 confirmations (<2 hours !) is more than enough.
Well, then ask Satoshi why he defined 100 blocks for validation in Bitcoin protocol :-).
My original idea was to implement pooled mining with the same rules as original Bitcoin network, which I'm still keeping. But I agree that it has some PR drawbacks. I'll think about paying blocks faster...
May 22, 2012, 07:00:25 AM
What's the big deal? Mining is longterm business, couple of hours won't kill you.
Yes, there are pools that pay right after block discovery, but they are doing it at their own risk. Slush's pool is in this way very conservative (and this is IMHO good).
Maybe 50 would be enough, but that makes no difference though - 10 or 20 hours vs. weeks or months of mining....
Yes, there are pools that pay right after block discovery, but they are doing it at their own risk. Slush's pool is in this way very conservative (and this is IMHO good).
Maybe 50 would be enough, but that makes no difference though - 10 or 20 hours vs. weeks or months of mining....
No big deal, but comfort... It's useless to wait that much, even 10 confirmations (<2 hours !) is more than enough.
I guess a lot of people don't like to wait either, I've read some that don't mine at Slush because of this and the more hashing power Slush get, the better for us (less variance for everybody...).
May 22, 2012, 06:53:51 AM
Hi Slush, Hi Everyone,
Is waiting 100 confirmations really necessary? Did you ever saw a block with 10 or even 5 confirmations to be invalid?
Like many, I don't like waiting for confirmations... Blocks get confirmed ~20 hours after being discovered, I think this is way too much waiting...
Also, I hope DGM will come soon, because I don't like hoppers (but I like slush's pool, don't want to switch to ozcoin...)
Is waiting 100 confirmations really necessary? Did you ever saw a block with 10 or even 5 confirmations to be invalid?
Like many, I don't like waiting for confirmations... Blocks get confirmed ~20 hours after being discovered, I think this is way too much waiting...
Also, I hope DGM will come soon, because I don't like hoppers (but I like slush's pool, don't want to switch to ozcoin...)
What's the big deal? Mining is longterm business, couple of hours won't kill you.
Yes, there are pools that pay right after block discovery, but they are doing it at their own risk. Slush's pool is in this way very conservative (and this is IMHO good).
Maybe 50 would be enough, but that makes no difference though - 10 or 20 hours vs. weeks or months of mining....
May 22, 2012, 02:16:46 AM
Hi Slush, Hi Everyone,
Is waiting 100 confirmations really necessary? Did you ever saw a block with 10 or even 5 confirmations to be invalid?
Like many, I don't like waiting for confirmations... Blocks get confirmed ~20 hours after being discovered, I think this is way too much waiting...
Also, I hope DGM will come soon, because I don't like hoppers (but I like slush's pool, don't want to switch to ozcoin...)
Is waiting 100 confirmations really necessary? Did you ever saw a block with 10 or even 5 confirmations to be invalid?
Like many, I don't like waiting for confirmations... Blocks get confirmed ~20 hours after being discovered, I think this is way too much waiting...
Also, I hope DGM will come soon, because I don't like hoppers (but I like slush's pool, don't want to switch to ozcoin...)
May 20, 2012, 02:13:49 PM
Hello slush pool! I dove in for a swim yesterday for the first time, and I'm curious as to how long it takes to validate blocks and why invalid blocks exist in the first place.
Hello werdna94, it takes 100 another blocks to validate freshly mined block, it's part of Bitcoin protocol rules. There are few reasons why block can be invalid: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Invalid_block
May 20, 2012, 02:10:44 PM
I'm sorry for those invalid blocks yesterday, it was fixed manually few hours later. Yes, it was because of blockexplorer.com.
Jump to: