Topic: A solo Bitcoin miner just won block 718214 reward worth 6.25 $BTC (Read 864 times)

blackhat i am talking about this topic. yet you chime in to advertise another topic.. you have derailed

getting back to the topic of solo
ill keep it short

2009+: solo mining: user uses is own node to collate his chosen transactions, form own block template, and hashes it
2010+: pool mining: pool manager collates the chosen transactions, forms own block template, sends work to users

2013+: "solopool": pool manager collates the chosen transactions, forms own block template, sends work to users give winner high %

2022: silly people trying to redeifine "solopool" to be solo mining, ignoring the mining part and pretending solo mining was always about the reward..
no "solopool"(brand) was about the reward as the main difference between "solopool"(brand) vs pool mining(process)..
but the reward was not the consideration between solo mining(process) vs pool mining(process)..

pool mining solo rewarding is the better wording which was shortened to "solopool"(brand) ... NOT solo mining(process)
so stop trying to change solo mining to sound like it has noting to do with solo MINING and everything to do with just the reward share

..
moving on

And yet, another thread that has been derailed by franky. Maybe you want to move to the official, supposedly-discussable thread created solely for such cases: [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain.

the concept of solo mining is as old as bitcoin
the concept of pool mining is as old as 2010+

the brand "solopool" is newer (2014) but even then they still refer to it as a pool.
they actually were saying "solopool" not solo mining
emphasis on the different terms.


back then it was a "solopool" it was not actually trying to define itself as allowing users to set up as a solo mining
so the buzzword was solopool in 2013-4
..
its only this year that they are trying to go hyper on making it viral that its solo mining

heck even ck used to say pool alot even in 2014

but certain people in 2022 are trying to deny the pool element to pretend its the same thing as solo mining, a defined term right back from the start of 2009

..

here is danny in 2022 trying to change things by pretending people dont understand the 2009-2010 concepts.. and then trying to rebrand the 2014 brand 'solopool' into being the same as the 2009 concept solo mining



notice how he removes the word "mining" to avoid talking about what mining(hashing a block) is about (the whole protocol) and wants to pretend mining is just rewarding
and that "unfortunately not all have the skills to setup solo and the stats they would like"

Then why can I find forum topics referring to solopools dated from 2013?  

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-solopool-beta-262712

It's clearly not a "new" description.  I know you have difficulty coping when real life doesn't match your bizarre preconceived notions, but this appears to be yet another one of those occasions.  The term has clearly been in use for a long time.  Hell, it's been in use on these forums longer than I've been registered here.

I did not.


It did not.


You did not.


It has not.


POOL mining is about POOLING (hint is in the word)

danny
you created the strawman. your question involved a fallacy scenario that no one does.. no one has ever done!!
i tried to reel you back to reality by trying to find a real scenario that is as close to what you described.
and i explained how the decision on how to share the reward does not decide if that person was a pool or solo. its just about if someone is generous or not. EG if you have a job. and get paid (employed or self employed) and then decide to just spread your wage around to random people. your generosity is not the decider of your employment status

and just because the dabate is over because you ran out of silly fallacy strawman scenarios that never happen in real life, to use as weird unproven proof of your fallacy new description, is not a win on your side. its your loss.
solo mining is a term thats been known for 12+ years. its not the one your trying to create this year

pool mining is about the MINING   (hint is in the word)

edit to answer below..
seems danny has forgotten the whole point of blockchain protocol. and thinks its just about random token sharing
he seems to be forgetting, avoiding, ignoring, dismissing the real point of mining, just to set a new terminology
danny have you flipped fully to the darkside of "bitcoin without the blockchain" group?

And yet it is.


You have not.  You've ignored the inconvenience of my question, and created your own strawman scenario that was easier for you to deal with.


Glad to hear it.  So, you've come around and accepted that the concept of a "pool" refers to "pooling" the revenue?


This sounds like a new discussion. It seems to be off-topic for this thread.

its not common though.

its not the description of the term thats existed for over a decade,
its something that is trying to go viral this year as being the new description, pretending the 10-12year old term is the false term

.. i think danny has run out of silly non real scenarios. and i answered his hypothetical by trying to find a close approximate real scenario of comparison(andressens faucet) so i have answered his questions.
thus the debate is dead now.

so moving onto other wrongly treated terms(because doomad asked) that change the definition to cause actual risk to users and a false sense of security..
i too prefer keyring instead of wallet, but thats not a seciruty/risk/function change debate worth pushing, its just grammar.. so lets think about some that are related to changing the function/work/risk/security

ill skip the obvious altnet treated as bitcoin risks. (ill be generous this time)

so lets go with pruned defined as full
fullnodes existed before pruning was even an option. where a fullnode was and is validate AND archiving. because thats what fullnodes did from 2009-2015, but for a ~7years people gently, and now this year some are pushing HARD to change the meaning to make a less then full feature/service node pretend to be called a full feature full service node.. without offering the full node features/service/security.

new peers connecting to a pruned node cant Initial Block Download from the pruned node.
a pruned nodes utxoset is not hash locked to periodically check the data is still unedited, meaning trojans can hijack the utxoset, slip in a bad utxo and suddenly.. if including this bad utxo to enough nodes. the nodes wont know any better and treat it as an unspent value that someone can then spend. which can cause a chain split between pruned vs unpruned nodes.
alot of people think its not important whether its archived or pruned. but it actually is. the data accuracy of the hashes is a security feature,
not only that, but  if we moved from:
80,000 full nodes serving 500,000 lite wallets (1 full services 7.25 peers)
to
20,000 full nodes serving 60,000 pruned nodes, 500,000 lite wallets (1 full services 29 peers)
meaning 4x pressure on the full nodes that remain and the decentralised blockchain is 4x less distributed
full nodes is why its called a decentralised blockchain and not a distributed utxoset

im not talking about all 580,000(exampled) users need to be full nodes. im saying that trying to convince existing full noders, or newbies that truly want to be the network backbone support full node users, to downgrade their service/feature/security offering thus have less full nodes. impacts many things

the point is silly people trying to be insincere about the terminology to set an agenda to get some newbies to think they are getting something they are not or they are doing something they are not. pretending newbies are doing more then they actually are. where newbies are then using something they think is secure as what they were told.. but isnt

which if allowed to go viral where everyone believes the insincerity and everyone flipped over to the insincere method. they are going to cause themselves problem, all for the personal gains of the people that want the insincere stuff to be treated as trusted fully working utopia, when its not as utopian in reality.

Does it matter, though?  I very much doubt people are suddenly going to stop calling it Solo mining just because you find it disagreeable.  Much like how I'm never going to convince people to stop calling it a "Bitcoin Wallet" because I personally believe "Bitcoin Keyring" sounds like a far more accurate representation of what that thing actually is.  That's just what everyone calls it.  Even if it doesn't make as much rational sense as it might do to call it something else.  And it's the same for this Solo pool.  People obviously wanted a way to differentiate it from conventional pools.  This just happens to be the name that fell into common parlance and now we're stuck with it.  Just accept it and try not to turn this into another one of your lifelong campaigns / lost causes. 

your scenario is meaningless because its not a thing thats ever happened in bitcoin thus explains nothing.

i gave you an example.. which is more similar example of your fairy tale scaenario
gavin andressen in 2010 doing his faucet.
because he was generous to pay out to random people after mining.. does not make that generosity a deciding factor if he is a solo or pool mining.
simply saying "im going to spread my payment to random people" has nothing to do with mining solo or pool. its just pure generocity

deciding how to split a reward is not a factor of solo or pool mining
solo or pool is about the proof of work protocol. which is about who manages the blocktemplate collation and creation and who decides what nonce/extranonce range to work on. and who created the coinbase tx(no matter what the reward split terms are)


..
ck pool is not where users make their block template. nor are they the one that got to decide the 98%-2% split
ck pool users cannot decide 'nah i prefer to only give ck 0.01%' because they are not in control of the coinbase or template

It's very simple.  Stop trying to find hidden meaning in the question, and just answer the question as stated...

If I create CODE (since you like code so much) that enforces, without trust, an agreement between a group of people that all commit to sharing the reward divided proportionally by the amount of work that each individual does when any one of them solves a block, BUT each participant gets to build their own block headers (including choosing the transactions they want in their block, calculating the merkle root, and building their own 80 byte header).

Is that solo mining (because they are building the headers themselves)?  Or is that pool mining (because they are sharing the reward based on the work each performed)?

yep in that analogy multiplayer deathmatch is were only the person doing the round winning hit gets the reward (via the game server deciding the reward split)
yep in that analogy multiplayer coo is were all players doing the round get the reward no matter who gave the final hit(via the game server deciding the reward split)
where in both cases its lots of individuals working together..

ofcourse some(mostly danny) will want to rebrand a single player campaign to mean multiplayer death match by trying to deny the multiplayer aspect is part of the game. and deny the point of the game "deathmatch" and just say the game is only about the reward.

sorry but the important thing about bitcoin is the WORK.. its called Proof of WORK. not receipt of reward
im surprised someone like danny is trying to re-imagine what proof of work mining is about, just to cater to ck's tweaking of words for some PR.
..
as for dannies silly scenario of just paying random people.. thats called generosity. like deciding if your kids nephews and nieces and cousins deserve a pay out from your lotto win when they had nothing to do with helping choose some numbers and there was no syndicate in place. and no central person managing the tickets or payout(getwork or coinbase allocation)
.... wait.. i think i can see what danny is thinking. that because for instance G andresen mined and operated a faucet to pay random people that he must have been some quasi solo-pool.. where by if g andresen operated a faucet or not was a deciding factor of the pool or solo debate..(in dannys mind)
.. um no he was just generous. his generosity of doing a faucet had nothing to do with if he was solo or pool mining. he just wanted to give away coins. the give away had no impact on how he mined. they are separate scenarios


if you made an agreement that each family member would decide their own numbers, but share the rewards that any winner gets by showing the numbers pre draw and then showing they have the winning numbers after the draw. . they are forming a lotto syndicate. in other words.. a silly insecure pool but still a pool. just not one based on code or structure but based on  "trust"..
something that bitcoin has never been based on. "trust". after all thats what code is for. rules

which is why no one operates such a silly scenario. thus no point making up a non existant thing.

again bitcoin MINING. ill emphasis this because its an important word MINING. is about PoW work, not the reward
its based on rules and structure. not fairy tale imaginary scenarios of trust

getting a reward/paid for work is pretty much common sense that people get paid for work completed. but again the important thing is about the work.

imagine you worked for a living
arguing about getting paid either a salary as a lump sum amount once a year or paid daily does not really explain the work or if your self employed or working for someone.
its common sense you should be paid for doing work. but your not explaining how you got the work or do the work to get the pay

dannys mindset is trying to say "i dont get paid hourly, i get paid once a month so that must mean im self employed."
pay structure does not determine employee or self employed status.

how the work was managed/organised, and who wrote the invoice where by if the work is complete a payment is settled determines employment status.
if you done absolutely everything yourself. your self employed.
if you had a manager that organised and managed the work, telling you what region to work, and he set that you will get 98% of any invoice upon successful completion. then you are employed.. you are just in (good or bad) employment depending on if you get to finish the job or not depending on the terms the manager set

---

this topic has stretched to 60+ posts(4pages)
and danny is still trying to re-write a term that has existed for a decade + to mean something totally new.
maybe he forgets that no one cared about reward amount 11+ years ago
maybe he forgets that no will care about reward amount in 120+ years time
maybe he forgot what mining is all about (PoW)

Sure they would if they could count on those thousands of random people also sharing the rewards. People don't join pools to give up block header creation. They join pools to ensure a regular payday. Although, from what I can tell from what you've said so far, you wouldn't consider it to be pool mining (or would you?)


Viable or not (I still say it's viable), you still haven't answered the question.

I don't know if this is a helpful analogy or if I'm only making it worse, but it seems like we're arguing about the difference between Multiplayer Coop and Multiplayer Deathmatch.  Some people are calling deathmatch "solo" because it's not a team game and someone isn't happy because solo sounds more like the Single Player Campaign which is something else.

Calling it a "Deathmatch Pool" does sound kinda cool, but I doubt the idea would gain popularity, heh.   

danny no one would collate a merkle of transactions, add their own coinbase and hash it themselves... but also then pay out to thousands of random people that done NOTHING.

so your "simple question" is not even a viable scenario, because no one does that

lets use your boat scenario

the amount of fish per 1000m² of water is like a 1 chance per 10 minutes if there are like 100,000 fishermen fishing in that area

there are 510million of km² meaning on average enough fish to last until 2140

the chance of a solo fisherman building his own boat and deciding which lake, and which 100m² area in that lake, and deciding with degree from north to fish in. and then to cast out the line over trillions of casts at different distance from the boat starting from 1cm to 5.6m out. means that fishermans chance of getting a fish in 10 minutes is super small. but he is inchange of all the variables so if he gets lucky so be it he deserves it all

alone in his own lake by himself making all the decisions on where to cast his line (solo)

or
if he gets on another fishermans boat alongside other fisherman. where the boatman decides what lake and what 100m² area in the lake to fish from where he organises 100,000 fishermen to all cast out at a 0.0036^o angle, so that all possible angles are probably met, meaning all 1cm area within the 100m² at all angles would be hit in 10 minutes so the chances of a fisherman on the boat getting a fish is reasonably high

this is pool mining

then yea one fisherman on that boat is likely to get a fish.
and because the boatman organised this fishing trip, the boatman decides what to do with the fish.
the guy that hooked the fish does not get to decide what to do with the fish because he did not organise the fishing trip.
the lucky fisherman cant just take the boat back to shore and keep the fish. because the boatman controls the boat and decides what goes to shore

all a fisherman got to decide was.. before fishing.. should he:
1) fish alone in his own lake by himself making all the decisions on where to cast his line where he decides what goes to shore (solo)
2) fish in an organised boat where the boat manager organises each fishermans cast direction to be more efficient(pool)
where by the boatmaster decides to share the fish
3) fish in an organised boat where the boat manager organises each fishermans cast direction to be more efficient(pool)
where by the boatmaster decides to give 98% of the fish to the guy that hooked it

making a decision to get on someones elses organised managed boat(2&3). is POOL mining.

making the decision to fish(in any scenario) is not solo mining
making the decision to fish(in a managed boat of someone else) does not make one scenario pool or solo.. based on how the fish was shared.. its both still pool

solo is only when its your boat, your choice to cast in what area of what lake and you are in power to decide what goes to shore

I have to disagree with this part. You explain why:
-ck provides an important service, that is network connectivity to the rest of the network.

if you are solo mining from your garage and are using your google fiber internet connection to have your node broadcast any found blocks, if you find a block within x second(s) of a major pool finding a block, your block will likely get orphaned because the pools are very well connected amongst each other, and other pools (miners) are likely to have received (and accepted) a pool's block before ever seeing your block that would have to make its way through the network "organically". I would assume that -ck is running multiple, well-connected nodes, that is capable of quickly broadcasting any found block that someone using his service finds. Another service that -ck provides is ensuring that any block found is valid (more specifically that any miner using his service is mining for a valid block).

Instead of charging a fee to connect to his service, -ck charges on a commission-based model in which he charges a fee out of the block reward of any block found using his service.

I am not sure how large this advantage is, but for every 1 second more quickly that -ck's service is able to get your block to the rest of the miners is a 0.167% reduction in the chance that your block will get orphaned. Someone using -ck's service would receive a similar advantage on the other end too -- a miner using -ck's service is going to be looking for a block on top of the most recently found block more quickly when compared to a miner using his home internet connection to get the most recent block for similar reasons.

Then I would agree with you that the participants are no longer "solo mining".  However, it would still be just as big a stroke of luck for the person that got to keep the 98%.


Sure. In that situation, I'd say that the participants are no longer "solo mining".

You still refuse to answer my very simple question.

a block solve is about the work done on the block data
mining is about mining it.
mining is mining whether the reward is worth nothing in 2009-2010 or 2140+
mining is mining whether the reward is 50, 25, 12.5, 6.25. 3.125.....
mining is mining whether the reward is valued at 0.01 cent or $70,000
mining is mining whether the reward is split 98% or 0.00000x%
 
mining is not based on the reward, its based on the work and who manages the work
if you are solo mining a block you are collating data, forming the block and mining data alone with no ones help, your doing it all on your own SOLO

the reward is not the work, the reward is just payment at the end
infact not just before 2010 did no one care about the reward, but after 2140 no one will care about the reward.

again the emphasis of solo mining a block is not "getting reward" its solo mining a block.. MINING A BLOCK

if you think the because someone got 98% they are solo.
what if ck changes it today where out of his 2% he keeps 1% and at the end of each day shares the other 1% with all his users as a separate transaction..
are people going to suddenly back peddle and then say its pool again..
no its already pool mining the clue is in the fact that ck is a pool already


alll pools ALL POOLS are like restaurants where a manager tells waitresses what tables to work

solo is where a restaurant owner manages his own restaurant and works all his tables in his restaurant, with no help.. he is working solo

solo mining became a redundant term in 2014 because no one was solo mining..
it seems some people want to bring back the term to active use by rebranding what the term means under some new paradigm than its earlier terminology

but if they want to think its just about the rewarding.. then say its solo rewarding

I have gone through the wall of texts again to decipher the disagreement, because I was also as confused as BlackHatCoiner on the context of disagreement. Then these statements of franky1 and DannyHamilton gave me a clue about the disagreement.  While franky1 believes that the manner in which the reward was shared should not determine the manner in which the block was solved.

This is further buttressed in the quote below.;
My take
Without putting much consideration in the technicals that happens at the backend, it is logical to determine the type of mining with the reward. Mining busines is not a charity organisation. So, no miner will contribute in any form and be denied a due reward.

I think a similar thing happened to Etherium recently. All this, in my opinion, demonstrates the presence of additional motivation for the miners of these coins. In addition to constant mining, they have a ghostly chance to receive such a reward. And in fact, everyone can theoretically be in the place of those lucky ones. Big and super fair lottery! This is wonderful!

And yet:


and


And here you still haven't really answered the question yet, have you?  Instead you offered some nonsense about how it would never happen. That doesn't tell me if you would consider it to be a pool or not.

---

That really depends on what you mean by "attempts to solve a block".  As franky1 correctly points out, every unit if ASIC equipment is receiving a completely different block header than every other unit, so (regardless of whether you are in a pool or not) it could be said that there is no way possible to mine in any way other than "all by yourself". Alternatively, an important part of the mining process is the building of the block header (which generally does not use ANY ASIC power at all). So, it could be said that you are only mining "all by yourself" if you yourself (or rather, software that you have direct control over) are creating the block headers that will be fed to the ASICs.

In my opinion, it doesn't matter who creates the block headers. If the block rewards are split up amongst a group that are all contributing hash power, then it is "pooled". If the block rewards are not split up amongst a group that are all contributing hash power, but rather are kept by the person whose ASIC finds the solution, then it is "solo".

Apparently in franky1's opinion, it doesn't matter how the rewards are split up. If the block header was created by software that is under the control of someone else, then it is "pooled". If the block header was created by software that is under the miner's own control then it is "solo".


This is where franky1 and most of the rest of the world disagree.

From what I can tell from what franky1 has said so far, it has nothing to do with the reward.  franky1 seems to be saying that if the miner is depending on a piece of software that someone else is running to supply the "work", then it is a "pool" EVEN IF THE REWARD GOES ENTIRELY TO THE MINER WHOSE ASIC SOLVES THE BLOCK. franky1 also seems to be saying (but I haven't gotten a straight answer from him yet) that if the miner is running their own software to supply the "work" then they are "solo mining" EVEN IF THAT MINER IS IN A GROUP THAT ALL SHARES THE REWARD FROM ANY BLOCKS THAT ARE SOLVED BY ANY ASIC  IN THE GROUP.

Myself, and apparently yourself along with most others, would state that if the reward isn't being shared with others that are contributing "Work" then it is "solo" and if the reward is being shared then it is "pooled".

I'm utterly confused on which statements Danny and Franky disagree. Isn't solo mining when the miner attempts to solve a block all by themselves and whose reward will go entirely to them? Isn't pooled mining when miners are gathered to compute hashes and get rewarded accordingly to how much each contributed when one of those solves a block?

you have not asked me in multiple threads.. but anyway
if your making your own block and hashing it, you wont need a pool. because.. drum roll....  YOUR MAKING YOUR OWN BLOCKS
why would you make your own blocks putting in your own collated data and then hashing it yourself to then share 9X.XX% random others... when they done absolutely nothing to help you
no one would do that.

its not even a thing. no one does that. thats just a silly made up scenario

the only reason ck gives away 98% is because he is not doing the work of hashing

collating your own blocks and hashing them SOLO is what solo mining is
solo mining is a term that existed way before the reward had a value.. solo mining is a thing that existed way before reward sharing..

anything involving requiring a pool is not SOLO mining

there was no pool mining in 2009-2010. no one really cared about the reward value in 2009-2010. but they all knew what solo mining was.
creating and hashing your own block all by yourself independent of anyone else

again every pool has a pool manager that collates block data and gives unique allotments for each asic to churn through so they are all not doing the same work as each other.
ALL pools including ck

so if you think that this means that if asics have different work it makes them solo.. then all asics in your world are solo MINING
but they are not.

the only difference between ck and other pools is the reward. not the mining.. just the reward split

Most wouldn't.  But franky1 keeps saying that solo mining is when you create your own block headers and has nothing to do with how the reward is shared, so I assume he would disagree with you (however, he hasn't answered the question yet even though I've asked it of him in multiple threads now so we don't know for sure).


You've stretched the analogy too far.  In that particular analogy, the restaurant isn't meant to represent the pool. It's meant to represent the Bitcoin mining process. You'll notice that ALL the participants in the analogy work in the same restaurant, just like all the participants being discussed participate in the Bitcoin mining process.  I chose it specifically BECAUSE "tip pooling" is a concept that many people are already familiar with.
 

Well, the first thing to understand is that in bitcoin mining the miner that solves the block does NOT increase his chances of solving a block by participating in a pool.  In your analogy you indicate that the fishers "cannot penetrate the sea" individually, but that on the boat "one person catches the dolphin". This implies that he improved his ability to catch the dolphin because he was on the boat. That doesn't happen with bitcoin mining and mining pools.

Let's make your analogy more accurate...

There is a sea for fishing.  This sea has VERY big fish that don't bite hooks very often, but if they do bite then they are easy to pull in.  Catching a single fish will set a fisher up for decades of fishing costs.  So, hundreds of thousands of fishers go out and try to catch fish in this sea.  Every once in a while 1 fisher will catch a fish and be VERY happy. The money he will get for this fish will take care of his family for a VERY long time. Meanwhile, the other hundreds of thousands of other fishers will come home empty-handed again, and again, and again for their entire lifetime. You can fish from the shore, or you can fish from a boat that you own, or you can fish from someone else's boat.  It doesn't matter, your chances of a fish biting one of your hooks are the same.  You can, however, drop as many hooks into the water as you can afford to buy and maintain.

Eventually, someone with a very big boat comes along.  This person states that anyone can fish from his boat. Everyone understands that fishing from his boat won't make them any more likely to catch a fish, so why should they fish from HIS boat? The owner of the boat tells everyone that he is offering 2 important things for those that fish from his boat.  First, there is some effort involved in the fishing process and he is willing to assist in that effort.  He personally will monitor the hooks and bait them if they no longer have bait on them, he'll also personally reel in the fish if they bite, The fishers just have to provide and maintain the functionality of all the fishing equipment themselves.  ALSO, there is an important condition to be allowed to fish from his boat...  If you catch a fish, you do not get to keep it all to yourself. Instead, he'll remove a small portion of the fish for himself as a fee and then all the remainder of ALL of the fish caught from this boat will be split up amongst all of the fishers on the boat with each fisher receiving an amount of fish that is proportional to the number of hooks they put in the water. Now everyone sees a good reason to participate. The chances for each individual fisher haven't increased at all, but the chances that they'll go home with SOME fish that day are much better since it's a pretty good chance that SOMEONE on the boat will catch a fish. Instead of fishing for their entire life hoping to maybe catch 1 BIG fish, they can fish on this boat and take home a small amount of fish regularly. This would be analogous to traditional "Bitcoin Pool Mining" where the boat owner is the pool operator and the hooks are the hash power.

Now, someone else comes along with another big boat (perhaps not quite as big).  He also offers people the ability to fish from his boat.  Again, everyone understands that fishing from his boat won't make them any more likely to catch a fish, so why should they fish from HIS boat? The owner of this boat tells everyone that like the other boat, he will monitor the hooks and bait them if they no longer have bait on them, he'll also personally reel in the fish if they bite. The fishers still have to provide and maintain the functionality of all the fishing equipment themselves. HOWEVER, if your hook is the one that catches a fish, then you don't share that fish with the others on the boat.  He will remove a small portion of the fish as a fee for himself, and then just like when you were fishing all by yourself, you'll get to keep the rest of the fish for yourself. So, just like when you fish alone, if you're lucky and get a fish on YOUR hook, then you get a HUGE fish, but most end up fishing from this boat for their entire life and never going home with any fish. This would be analogous to CK Solo Pool where the boat owner is again the pool operator and the hooks are the hash power.

In the first scenario, you are "pooling" with the other fishers, sharing in the rewards.  In the second scenario you are "partnering" with the boat owner (paying him a small fee to handle some of the work for you), but you are not "pooling" with other fishers. You are still keeping all the rewards for yourself (minus the small fee you paid to the boat owner). It seems that franky1 would call the second scenario "pooled" because the boat owner is handling some of the work for multiple people.  Most people don't seem to consider that a "pool" since there is no increase in your chances of catching anything or with going home with anything.

Now there's another scenario that I keep asking franky1 about and he does answer:
A group of fishers see what's going on with the first boat and like the idea of getting a small amount of fish regularly, but they don't want to pay the fee, and they want to have control over their own bait. They form an organization. Anyone can join this organization, and you can fish from wherever and however you like. The only condition for being a member of this organization is that you agree that if you ever catch a fish you will split it up with everyone else that is a member of the organization. Each member will get a portion of the fish that is proportional to the number of hooks that they've put in the water.  Note that there is no longer someone else handling the baiting and reeling in for you, but you get to share in all the fish caught by everyone in the organization.  Is this a fishing "pool"?  According to franky1's explanation, it would seem that it is not since you have full control over your own equipment, but I think most people would say that the point of the "pooling" is to increase the frequency that you get some fish.

I wouldn't call it a solo mining.
The scenario of the waitress in the restaurant seems that the miner is paid based on his hash power (working ability) just as an individual waitress. Let's assume the most hardworking waitress is thrown out of the restaurant to serve customers out of nothing, he will not make such money. The waitress is successful because a restaurant(pool) exists.

---

Let's see a scenario where there is a sea for fishing, and the target fish is dolphin. Individual fishers have small canoe that cannot penetrate the sea, then decided to join their canoes to build a big boat. Everyone of them climbs the boat for fishing and then one person catches the dolphin.
Is is correct to call him a solo fisher, because his hook caught the dolphin? Besides there would never be a scenario that two hooks from two fishers will catch the dolphin simultaneously.

CK Pool won another block recently.

Here, just to warm the thread a little bit (as if it were necessary), an article from Bitcoinist:


What’s CK Pool? And, Why Are There So Many Solo Miners Getting Block Rewards?

First they pour a little bit of water on the matter, interviewing CK and letting him explaining it's perfectly normal:




Then, they advance some doubt:


Journalism at his best!

I guess this explains it properly,,, and I guess the technical understanding of pool is different from a rational understanding since I would still see this scenario as tip pooling (I enter the pool, the pool manages my funds and payments, I only get rewarded for the work I do from the customers that pay, especially because the pool takes a commission my mind sees this strictly as a pool.

In other words,,, I would say, ckpool is a rewards pool, but you would be doing solo-mining if you join. So this makes the thread topic to me perfectly accurate.

and your quote you underlined
when they were assigned work

and then re read the page from the prospective of MINING. not rewarding

its pool MINING and solo MINING
not pool REWARDING and solo REWARDING

the main task of a pool is to manage the blocktemplate and the getwork messages.

i know end users that never mined before and dont know about bitcoin technically only think about and care about the reward. but the technical side is different

EG
most users think a car is 'vroom vroom speedy thing' but a car is actually a motorised vehicle for transport of driver and passengers

i know you might want to spend multiple posts being a social drama queen saying "franky wrong coz waitress deserves a tip'
but a waitress is actually a worker for a restaurant. her job is not "tipy tipy" its "clean and serve".

i know a certain group wants to play games, telling people to prune their node and not store blocks, and use altnets instead of bitcoin. and now i have been seeing some trying to break the mining protocol by trying to make mining seem like a useless task apart from getting paid by greedy people... sorry but mining is important and its about the mining of blocks. not the social drama of pretending its only about the tips.

here is a compromise of accurate description of terms

pool mining, 98% solo rewarding

That's not really an answer to the question, is it?


Is it though?

Here's a direct quote from YOUR SOURCE (bold and underline added by me for emphasis):

By the way, YOUR SOURCE also disproves your nonsense about the extranonce in the coinbase transaction being called an extra-extra-nonce.

solo mining was a thing even before the reward had a value.
solo mining was about confirming transactions by collating transaction data and getting a difficult hash of that collected data.

you might have a tardis in your avatar, but you do realise this little detail.. you cant actually go back in time and change history with a tardis avatar


heck. i dont need a tardis avatar to have a sci-fi, fantasy entertainment view of history. i can actually find a real life documentary better way to look at history. its called searching up quotes, and statements made in history

https://braiins.com/stratum-v1
^ hint its all about the 'getwork' and blocktemplate stuff, not the reward share

Happy to do so.


I'm not aware of a single pool that uses OP_RETURN in this way, and I can't think of any reason that they would. It would be inefficient to use OP_RETURN in this way when they can (and do) just use the input section of the transaction for extranonce.


Pool (vs. solo) was created specifically because of the reward. It was created as a way to reduce the time between rewards (and the amount of luck needed to get paid) by entering an agreement with others to all share the rewards that are received.

If a pool exists where the rewards are shared among participants based on the amount of hash power that they each contribute to the pool, BUT each participant gets to run their own software to choose for themselves which transactions are included in the block (and builds those blocks themselves), would you call that solo mining?  Most wouldn't.

no two asics ever do the same work on any pool or any pool.
because thats just inefficient

its about who manages what work each asic should do. who collates the blocks to create the work to be done

analogy:
if you own a cleaning company. and there is 5 different toilets under your management and contract. and you direct the cleaners what to clean..
you dont send all cleaners to clean one toilet. you as a cleaning manager(pool) send one cleaner to each toilet and scrub each toilet until they are all clean

a solo cleaner chooses her own toilets to clean and cleans as many as she can without a manager telling her anything about a toilet

ckpool (hints in the name) do direct asics on what work to do. the asics dont have their own bitcoin node to collate data. they need to be managed and told what work to do.


.. gotta laugh at danny
waitress scenario.. he talks about the reward. not the work
funny part is in all three waitress scenarios.. he talks about a waitress that has a restaurant boss..

scenario 1(old solo, concept accepted for over a decade) should be
a restaurant owner also cleans and serves the tables. he works for no one he is the solo owner and worker of the restaurant, he decides what work to do, no one tells him. he keeps all the tips

scenario 2(early pools, concept accepted for over a decade) should be
a restaurant has several workers. the restaurant owner sets the work for them and he takes the tips. and evenly splits the tips at the end of the month to whomever worked based on their share of work, even if they were not personally tipped

scenario 3(ck pool) should be
a restaurant has several workers. the restaurant owner sets the work for them, but they only get paid in tips, and if they work a table and get a tip they keep 98% of the tip.

..
solo MINING emphasises the work. and who manages the work. its not about the reward.
ck pool is a 98% reward POOL. not a solo managed local independent miner

Perhaps a better analogy would be tip pooling in a restaurant.

Scenario 1 (early days of solo mining):
Restaurant only accepts cash.  All waitstaff are tipped with cash.  Tips are paid directly from the customer to the person waiting on their table. Waitstaff keep their own tips and don't share them with any of the other waitstaff No pooling is happening. Lots of people are working, and sometimes they get a tip from a customer, but they don't share those tips with any of the others that are also working.

Scenario 2 (early days of mining pools):
Restaurant switches to exclusively accepting credit cards. Since restaurant handles payment processing, they end up with all the tips. Restaurant pools the tips together and then distributes them to the waitstaff on payday based on how much time each spent working during that pay period, regardless of how much tips any single employee did or didn't bring in. Now the entire restaurant is acting like a single pool. Everyone gets a share of the tips, even if the. customers that they themselves waited on never tipped.

Scenario 3 (ckpool):
Restaurant still exclusively accepting credit card, and still handling payment processing. Instead of distributing the tips based on how much time each employee spent working during that period, the restaurant keeps track of exactly which tips were paid for which employee.  On payday each employee receives ONLY the tips that were paid by customers whose tables they waited on. Restaurant keeps 2% of the tips from each employee to pay for handling the payment processing and distribution of funds. Like Scenario 1, you only get the tips that were paid by your customers, but like Scenario 2, all funds and payment processing are being managed by the restaurant.

Would you call Scenario 3 "tip pooling"?  One answer might be, no, because each employee only got the tips that were paid to them from the customers, and didn't share in the tips that any other employee received.  Another answer might be, yes, because the restaurant handled the payment processing and kept a bit of the tips for themselves.  This is where the confusion arises. Since ckpool is creating the blockheaders, and is keeping a piece of the earnings for themselves, some people are saying it is not "solo mining".  On the other hand, since the miner receives only the rewards from the blocks that they themselves find the solution for (and don't participate in any rewards from any blocks that anyone else finds the solution for), most people are calling this "solo mining".

As pooya87 has pointed out, the widely accepted definition of "solo mining" is someone that is not pooling the work. If the only way you get paid is when you yourself (or the equipment that you are running) solve a block, then it's generally understood that you are solo mining (regardless of who is creating the block headers that you are working on).  If you get paid for every share of work that you complete (regardless of whether you ever find a block solution yourself), then it's generally understood that you are not solo mining.

In ckpool, as a solo miner, your odds of solving a block, and of therefore getting paid at all, can be calculated based entirely on the ratio of the hash power that you personally have control over vs. the current target difficulty.  This is exactly the same as it is for a solo miner that is creating their own blockheaders.  If you participate in a pool where you are not solo mining, then the odds of a block being solved by the pool can be calculated based on the sum of all the hash power contributed by all the pool participants vs. the current target difficulty.  You therefore get paid much more frequently (albeit a much smaller reward since all the participants in the pool are sharing that reward based on the amount of hash power each contributed).

Just arrived here because of the title,,, and now I am reading the latest discussions saying this guy is not one guy but many people,,, but at the same time it is a solo miner?

So it is like saying, instead of 10 football teams trying to form a league, it is only one football team that also has 23 people on the squad.

A solo team.

I got this right, right?

I already did.

The definition of solo mining is someone who isn't sharing/pooling the "work". Whether or not they run their own node isn't changing that.
However, you can and should criticize that these miners are not independent since they don't run their own node and rely on a third party.

yes please correct me
show me how a ck pool is not a thing. and how users of CK are not pooled, but are all full node users collating transactions into blocks independently to create their own individual blockhash to send only to their own miner

if you think im wrong. explain it.
just explain it without the social drama or your 'confident opinion',
just show some stats or quotes from the service. explaining how users are their own independent block creators, without a pool manager doing the collating and blockheader organising of extra nonce/coinbase

funny how you wish to pretend im wrong by saying the crypto industry has has not yet set accepted concept widely

im sorry to inform you that solo mining* pretty much stopped for bitcoin in 2011-12 when GPU's miners really started to join pools. and then even more so when asics dominated the pools 2013+.

for 8 years now solo mining* has not been a thing on the bitcoin network.

yep solo mining* is a widely understood concept. and trying to pretend it isnt by you setting a new narrative in 2022 just to say "franky wrong" wont defeat the concept of solo mining that has been known about since 2009+
.. but do try to explain where i am actually wrong.
oh and dont confuse solo rewarding(economic buzzword) with solo mining(technical concept)*

*(widely accepted concept 2009-2012+)
solo mining(technical concept of transaction collating and block formation by the user to have their own unique hash to work on without a pool manager doing it for them)

so please show me where ck pool is not collating the transaction data and forming templates and adding in the coinbase to create the hash. and show me where the requirement is of users doing all the transaction data and coinbase creation stuff

It is mathematically expected for solo miners to occasionally find blocks. Like someone winning the Powerball, even if it is expected that someone will eventually win, people still like to talk about the Powerball winner.

---

While I am sure the person using the ~$11k miner is happy they were able to get a ~$262k payout, it is -EV for a miner to mine if the expected number of blocks they will find every frequency that the difficulty increases is less than 1.

For example, if a miner expects to find 0.2 blocks every two weeks, and for the difficulty to increase by 10% every two weeks, if they mine via a pool, they will get approximately 0.2 blocks worth of revenue for the current two week period, and if they are solo mining, they will expect to not receive any revenue during that two week period. Since the difficulty is increasing, the solo miner would not expect to find a block until after the difficulty changes 7 times. After that, they would not expect to find another block for over a year.

Difficulty adjusts based on the amount of hashrate though. So, while these might have effected things temporarily, don't mistake this for permanently making it easier to mine a block. Its an incredible feat to be able to mine a solo block these days even with the issues you mentioned.

Depending on this persons situation this could either mean a nice retirement fund or a ways of investing more. Either way, I wouldn't mind waking up to that figure.

It's all relative. Since, while yeah winning the lottery is expected every few weeks, that's because of the sheer amount of people that enter, and the point your making is definitely valid i.e the amount of miners mining, this sort of thing is expected from time to time. However, its still a pretty nice return on the mining equipment you invested in, so while this isn't a miracle in statistical terms, this could be a life changing amount of money depending on who actually mined it.

As I am not a technical person about mining, could you please point those “facts wrong” and tell me the widely accepted concept of pools vs solo mining?
I just want to understand, no sarcasm.

franky1 speaks very confidently about his opinion regarding ckpool, solo-mining, pool-mining, nonces, and extranonces.  Please do not mistake confidence for knowledge or understanding.  He's got some facts wrong, and his concept of what it means to be solo mining vs pools mining is not the widely accepted and understood concept.

With the current exchange rates, it is like $270,000. I am not sure how much he/she might have spent on the mining equipment, but it should be lower by a magnitude of 100x-1,000x. So this reward is like hitting a lottery jackpot. LOL.. how this miner would have felt after coming to know about the reward? BTW, a few other factors might have contributed to his luck. China hashpower is completely wiped out due to hostile government action. And then there is the ongoing unrest in Kazakhstan, which has knocked out another 15% of the global mining contribution.

solo.Ckpool
is "buzzworded" as solo. but not actually solo..
its configuration is not that the USER has to have a bitcoin node to look at its mempool and collate transactions into a block and create its own blockheader and coinbased rewarding itself. and then independently going through all the possible nonces, extra-nonces and extra-extra-nonces of its own solo block

instead ckpool:
collates the transactions and manages which asic gets which work.
sets the reward arrangement
deciding to only pay itself 2% and the wining asic 98% (instead of collecting 100% and later sharing to all asics)
ckpool does send new work for the block template ck pool creates.


ck pool users:
just need to connect their asic to ck pool with a username and password and start hashing

as the ckpool websote itself says:

its not solo because the 'stratum' is managed by the pool. not by the user
its not solo because that requires the user to have a bitcoin node to collate the transactions and create a template themselves.

the onlything 'solo' about it is the payout(if your luck) is 98% 'solo'
but the block template management is very much pooled

You are referring to the BetterHash and Stratum V2 protocols that give the hashers more control over what transactions go into the blocks.

Regardless, whether or not the hashers are working on the same block with the same coinbase is irrelevant. The basis of a pool is that if anyone in the pool finds a block, everyone in the pool shares the reward. If that is not the case, then it can't be considered to be a pool.

there are only so many nonces, and (timestamp) extra-nonce
an average asic can run through these in seconds.
a pool needs to adjust coinbase data(extra-extra-nonce) to give more varied work over the ~many minutes of a block solve session. and do this for each asic.

a pool of say 13,000 asics will have 13,000 'new work' with different coinbase every few seconds, meaning over the average ~10min blocksolve session thats probably about 4million different 'work' with different coinbase extra-extra-nonce

each asic gets a basic template of their owners blockheader including owners address. so that there is some variance to the work they all do as a pool
EG if all asics didnt have one of the outputs different from other asics and the OP_Return started at 1 to a for all asics. they would all be doing the same work as each other at the same time(waste of time).

ckpool example:
COINBASE (Newly generated coins)        38HRDQeecdfQnCyrnLEtKJGnEsrLG3XUCt      6.14274623 BTC
                                                           1PKN98VN2z5gwSGZvGKS2bj8aADZBkyhkZ  0.12536216 BTC
                                                           OP_RETURN ?x?x?x?x?x?x?x?x?x                  0.00000000 BTC
and each few seconds. the pool changes op return for more variance to work on

in other pools, its the same thing, all thats different is the payout
COINBASE (Newly generated coins)        1PKN98VN2z5gwSGZvGKS2bj8aADZBkyhkZ  6.26810839 BTC
                                                           OP_RETURN ?x?x?x?x?x?x?x?x?x                  0.00000000 BTC
                                                           OP_RETURN ?x?x?x?x?x?x?x?x?x                  0.00000000 BTC

in pools that pay out to a pool owner only(later shared). their 'variance' in this example is instead of using a asics address as one output they use a random op return per asic(like an asic ID, unique to each asic). and then another op return as a an extra-extra-nonce to give that asic more work every few seconds

some pools just have one op return(small pools) and allot 1-> xtrillion to one asic. and then xtrillion -> x*xtrillion to another asic, within the range of the limit of how much entropy the op return allows(large number)
and if the pools asics work through all this variance then the pool can do different tricks by changing the transaction arrangements(order)

but in all cases. its not the asic or its user making these coinbase adjustments or blockheader hashs to then give the asic work to churn through. its the pool that is making these header/coinbase adjustments,
all thats different between usual pools and ck pool is the payout. ck gets 2% fee. and pays rest to one user. other pool gets 100% and pays out to all users

but they all work based on the data management done by the pool

Are you sure about this?
I heard that the newer versions of stratum allow each miner some kind of flexibiliity

Not a pleb anymore, that much bitcoin can easily turn someone's life around for better or for worse. I am not that good with technicals though so I don't get why they have this kind of reward in the first place. Can someone explain to me the technicals behind this stuff in a dumbed down fashion?

A mining pool is referred to a server where miners share the same work and get paid for their contribution. In CK pool (regardless of the name) the work is not shared, so it can't be called a mining pool. In a mining pool, all miners are working on the same exact block with the same exact coinbase.
In CK pool each miner is doing its own work on its own block with their own unique coinbase. CK pool is just providing a node and "header production" service!

solo.ck is actualy a pool.

heres its own pool stats


here it explains within the POOL there are 2050 users with about 5-6 asics on average each
also worth noting that the average actual hashrate breaksdown as being only 2thash each, so some people are using some very crappy old asics on CK solo pool

oh and one last point. dont rely on blockchain.info's "network hashrate" or things like the btc.com pool hashrates. as those numbers are based on math of (time,difficulty,blocks found) rather than actual hashrate provided by the pool direct (such as my link shows)
ck pool is averaging at like 1200% luck for its actual hashrate right now.
its actually performing at 30peta.. but its luck of block finds is as if its performing at the math of 360peta (network guess hashrate)
...
now again to explain.
each asic owner(user) is not forming its own blockheader and adjusting its own reward share to itself. being proper solo

instead the CK pool is managing the block headers and setting the reward share. where it gives itself 2% and the uses the coinbase as an extra-extra-nonce which each user has a coinbase address, thus giving each user on the pool a variety of nonce and extra nonce to work through that are not the same hash permutations as another user
(all pools do this extra-extra-nonce varience)

all pools are collective. and change a coinbase per user/asic to give each asic varied work compared to other users.
and in all pools, a winning hash is always found by one asic

all thats different is instead of CK taking 100% and in a separate later transactions split the reward over all users. ck takes 2% for himself and then lets the winning hash user get the 98%

Now that's what I call a lucky winner. Didn't think the odds were THAT small actually (not that 1 in over a million is small) but I suppose this already pays out his cost, wonder how what his profit margin's been across all those 262 blocks found?

Anyone knows what the record is for solo block found with the most improbability (or lowest odds)?

Indeed the CK solo pool is not actually a pool.
I don’t know if it a known thing, they have a support thread here on bitcointalk.

[∞ YH] solo.ckpool.org 2% fee solo mining 262 blocks solved!

Here instead, the list of the recently minted blocks:
https://btc.com/stats/pool/Solo%20CK

This is not the only one incident of solo miner solving the puzzle and getting block rewards of 6.25 btc at this time where many big mining farms are your competitors and recently there was another that happened again :


There are so many talks about them but the chances of this happening in actual is very rare but for some people might get confused that the solo miners have small setup but in actual he might be using some good hardwares that have helped him to be lucky.

But two cases in a row is indeed arousing some curiosity among members as well as miners also.

again to emphasise. a CK solo pool is not actually solo.. its a pool. and in all pools the solved hash is always solved by 1 asic within the pool. no matter how the pool is described.

the only difference of CK pool is that the asic in question gets 98% rather then sharing the reward between all asics


in lottery analogy.
ck pool and antpool are both names of lottery syndicates (groups of people buying lotto tickets where only one can win)
if antpool has a winning ticket, he pays out 99% to all ticket buyers, the buyer of the winning ticket doesnt get 99% but a shared small %. and the others in the syndicates get the same small% even if their ticket was not a win.
if ck pool wins, he pays out 98% to just the buyer of the winning ticket everyone else doesnt get a shared small %

but in both cases. the lotto system runs by only 1 lotto ticket number wins per game.

the CK 'solo^TM is not true solo where an asic works outside of a pool and gets to form its own block headers of only its control and reward,

That's the only number that you can use to reliably determine the 'luck' (since the hash rates are calculated from shares but also vary over time)

Alas the pool doesn't keep proper luck statistics, so you can only get an approximation of the probability.

Anyway, since Network Diff is 'currently' 24,371,874,614,345.6
and their effort was 951786693123
then an approximation of their luck is 1 chance in (24,371,874,614,345.6 / 951786693123)
or about 1 chance in 25.6 or inverted - 3.9%
So nothing like the completely incorrect numbers being bandied around twitter by twits

However, the luck and chances are better than that, since difficulty has been rising for quite a while, so some or most of those shares would have been in a lower difficulty period and thus have higher luck in the final calculation.

--

The second user who got a block was also nothing like the incorrect luck numbers bandied around twitter by twits.
Their shares were something like "2,4xx,xxx,xxx" and again that number in relation to current network difficulty of 24,371,874,614,345.6
give roughly 1 chance in 10000 or 0.01% chance

This second calculation is all within a single difficulty change so more likely to be accurate.

--

So in all, yes lucky, but no, nothing like the random numbers people have been saying.
Does that pool owner even understand maths and statistics?  
(well he is a medical doctor, with no recognised computing qualifications at all)

People are making this out to be some kind of miracle, but it is not.

Consider the Powerball lottery. The odds of winning it are 1 in 300,000,000, yet somebody always seems to win. That's because of the number of people that enter.

It all comes down to math. So let's do the math.

Let's assume that there are only 100 solo miners, each with 120 TH/s. That's a total of 12 PH/s. The total hash rate is 180,000 PH/s, so the probability of one of these miners winning a block is 0.000067. That is quite low; however, there are 52560 blocks each year.

The probability of one of these solo miners winning at least one block in a year is 1-(1-0.000067)⁵²⁵⁶⁰ = 3%.

It's low, but it is not a miracle. Furthermore, if we assume there are 1000 such miners, then the probability is so close to 1 that it would be a miracle if one of them didn't win a block.

actually I'm still not sure about the thing that solo said but whatever it is he is a very lucky person.
that's over $250,000 at current prices.
frankly I envy this person But this is the gift and congratulations your luck this year is very good and this is the luckiest thing in your life I think

What are the chances? Perhaps that guy must have been doing all of these for the lulz and stuff and wasn't really expecting that they'll solve the block. 100 TH/s is so small in today's standards, that hitting something huge with it is almost impossible. Then again, this just shows you that every miner in the network is accounted for, no matter how small their contributions are. It's just that most of the time, those with lots of exerted output will be rewarded, as the system is designed that way.

100TH/s is single s19j or M30s+, if you go further down the line about 6 old s9 that was released 6 years ago, which in bitcoin terms would he half of a lifetime. So it's low, almost as low as you could possibly count something as mining and not calling it hobby or heater replacement.


Lol, again ~100TH/s 

I do not want to talk too philosophically, but this shows nothing is impossible in this world and there is a possibility for anything that happened to this guy may not happen ever again and if you consider his/her luck between all the miners he was the one who had the chance and between all these blocks mined during these years he got the reward from this block and this show how lucky he is, but still he didn't have low hash rate power and 100 terahashes is still not low for a solo miner as far as I know.

Someone else who is also quite lucky.
https://mempool.space/block/0000000000000000000859aae6845872298f1b9683e222bc77bcd7996d01f99f

Pretty easy, the hashrate is there it was 60th/s for 7 days and spiked to 110th/s so he must have either to s17e m20 models or twice as much in s15. Power bill of course it's according to electricity costs, take 10 cents per kWh and s17e and you have 5000$ a year.
Maybe someone who has upgraded his gear and left a few of the older ones on separate settings, I'm nearly my max allowed power for the contract if I could fit an s9 in it without going over probably I would let it mine some way, it cost you nothing extra and if you hit the jackpot that's it, the amount you gain from normal mining is peanuts anyhow.

Oh my, what a lucky hit. His faith in that is incomparable. I thought solo mining isn't possible anymore as gigantic mining facilities are increasing. I have been relieved of stress, planning to sell my rigs but this came to me and decided to continue.

Lucky pleb: *cackles in a 1-acre mining farm*

Oh my freaking goodness! How lucky is that solo miner. 6.25 BTC x $43k as of today = $268,750.

In the Philippines, it’s worth like 13.4 million pesos, which can be good enough to buy a big land! He landed the jackpot. I bet that solo miner is super duper happy now!

 

What a lucky solo miner who got that much lucky at this time when there are big mining pools having heavy ASIC machines with so much computing power.He really got all his expenses covered with the rewards of 6.25 btc and if he holds them for long he is already sitting on the piles of funds.Great chance for him.

the pool of miners was pushing 43 petahash. meaning it has 390 asics of 110thash
https://solo.ckpool.org/pool/

with bitcoins network hashrate of 165exa, its estimated that a ck pool will find a block every 26 days.
meaning every 26 days one of ck pools 'workers' asics will win 98% of that block. and ck himself gets 2%

meaning. everyone has to mine for 27 years for everyone to get a win(if workers are on 'fair' balance of random probability)
the workers do not share each win per block solved every 26day. instead per block solved goes to the specific solver.
. again in every pool there is always a specific solver(1 asic with the answer), but in most pools they all share the win even if the others never solve a block.

again. the reward sharing is the only difference, its not like other pools where everyone shares 0.0xxxx% per block found even if it was their asic that was the solver.
its that no one shares the winning apart from the block solver.

again
in all pools every block solved hash is down to one asic finding the special number out of the pool. all thats changed in ck is who gets the reward

I am not sure how many ASICs he had in his farm to produce such hashing power, but it makes me wonder how long he had been running the miners minus any rewards while paying for the electricity bills.

He's one guy who really had a lot of faith. Damn! It's just like winning a lottery after years of trying and never giving up.

actually its not solo mining..

what you have to realise is that with all pools. each asic can go through its nonce and timestamp extra nonce permutations every ~1 second/thash. and so pools then use the 'coinbase' transaction as an extra-extra nonce by giving each 110thash asic unique hashes to then 'work' through per 0.x second of hashing cycle.

no pool ever needs 1millions asics to compute on one 'work hash' to combine together to get a single winning hash.
instead its the large farms of asics all given lots of 'work' to churn through where only one asic comes up with a win for the pool.

all that ck pool does differently is instead of taking 100% of the reward for the pool, and change the coinbase using its own address and new output of randomness.. as extra-extra-nonce
 and after a win, then separately divide up the winnings based on shares.

it instead(the pool) sets up the coinbase extra-extra-nonce using the workers address, giving the asic 98% pool 2% of the win.

every block solution ever found, is found by a single asic.
its just the payout terms are different per pool.
ckpool just rewards that asic. rather then take 100% and share to all asics.

its just simple math.
instead of an asic getting 0.00006342% per block in one pool
its getting 98% per every 1576800th block

the work is the same no matter the pool. its just the payout arrangement is different

Yes nice hashrate, we hit last year two blocks on this Solo Pool.
But we used 20PHs nicehash rentals.

Best regards
Willi

Yes, the chances were ~ 1 in 30 years. But he/she/they kept mining ... wow.

I read about this earlier, it’s a once in a lifetime occurrence to be honest. The chances of a solo miner repeating this are miniscule. Congrats to this lucky pleb though, he had a very good day

A solo Bitcoin miner with only ~100 terahashes per second (TH/s) of computing power has become the unlikely winner of the block mining race on the Bitcoin network. By successfully mining block 718124, the lucky miner secured the 6.25 BTC block reward plus 0.10461270 BTC fees. Congratulations!

https://www.theblockcrypto.com/post/129894/bitcoin-miner-beats-1-in-1-3-million-odds-to-mine-a-btc-block
https://twitter.com/BitcoinMagazine/status/1480887982794199047
https://twitter.com/ckpooldev/status/1480843321043865602


Block-hash: 00000000000000000005c098cc11828afdddfe06df7f1bee94e705629680aba3
a solo block on http://solo.ckpool.org

How can we know he only had that hashrate?

The BTC address is the username on solo.ckpool.org.

So if we take the address the reward was paid to and append it to the ckpool URL and see the stats -> https://solo.ckpool.org/users/17zBdPyqq42RMjtHxH5DTx2uRTy4DsmrFw

{
 "hashrate1m": "120T",
 "hashrate5m": "113T",
 "hashrate1hr": "111T",
 "hashrate1d": "65.4T",
 "hashrate7d": "60.5T",
 "lastshare": 1641929294,
 "workers": 1,
 "shares": 951786693123,
 "bestshare": 48931582224457.0,
 "bestever": 48931582224457,
 "worker": [
  {
   "workername": "17zBdPyqq42RMjtHxH5DTx2uRTy4DsmrFw",
   "hashrate1m": "120T",
   "hashrate5m": "113T",
   "hashrate1hr": "111T",
   "hashrate1d": "65.4T",
   "hashrate7d": "60.5T",
   "lastshare": 1641929294,
   "shares": 951786693123,
   "bestshare": 48931582224457.0,
   "bestever": 48931582224457
  }
 ]
}