Topic: BITMAIN announces Antpool - page 21. (Read 383003 times)
Anyone experiencing delay of payouts? I am still awaiting my payout for july 10
not sure why but i can see ant pool mined many block and after halving and have almost more then 3 conformation ..but i can see that blocks are not added in my hasnest block found and earning ..not sure why do you guys know what can be problem ..
almost 14 blocks are not added in my hashnest account and earning for that is no added
almost 14 blocks are not added in my hashnest account and earning for that is no added
i cant believe anyone is still mining on this pool.
now that the block reward halved, by keeping the tx fees, this pool is paying significantly lower than any other pool.
now that the block reward halved, by keeping the tx fees, this pool is paying significantly lower than any other pool.
On my antpool worker page im confused what rejection is, what the percentage marks mean, and a couple other details. Is there a thread that discusses this stuff? It appears that a lot of my s5 machines are getting rejected? Thanks for any advice!
How much will I make if I used 80 th/s using pplns in antpool with 20 blocks found per day? Can domeone show me the calculation please? Thanks
it seems several pools have been unlucky latetly, and the btc price keep the same, that sounds bad for us after the halving
guys anyone having issues with antpool this week? my hash rate is the same, but im receiving like half the profit
If you look at the stats page and have been following antpool they have had some real unlucky blocks lately. Prolly from using a jacked up version of cgminer. Aka bmminer
as easy as it is and as much tension as it would settle by open sourcing the code they run I don't get why it hasn't been done other than to Keep up tensions. There track record of being good stewards of btc is seriously lacking. If not for the machines they sell they would have been long gone.Best regards
D57heinz
guys anyone having issues with antpool this week? my hash rate is the same, but im receiving like half the profit
A few questions:
1)How exactly does one get paid on Antpool specifically when doing PPLNS?, I am running one S7 (~4.74-5 Th/s) right now (waiting on a few more) and I noticed that everytime Antpool finds a block I get 2 cents? is this 2 cents separate from my daily payout that I am going to get?
2)And also what is the "Diff1 Share Count"?
3)What is the large number under "Accepted" mean?
a little confused here. thanks
1)How exactly does one get paid on Antpool specifically when doing PPLNS?, I am running one S7 (~4.74-5 Th/s) right now (waiting on a few more) and I noticed that everytime Antpool finds a block I get 2 cents? is this 2 cents separate from my daily payout that I am going to get?
2)And also what is the "Diff1 Share Count"?
3)What is the large number under "Accepted" mean?
a little confused here. thanks
Why are people so upset that the s9 is rumored only to be able to be used on AntPool? Besides centralization issues with too much hash power on one pool (which probably can't even happen anymore but still).
I doubt that's true. It wouldn't make any sense whatsoever. I doubt Bitmain is aiming for +51% of what would be a dead chain. They're simply not that stupid. And if there's an ounce of truth to it I'm sure the community will whip up some kind of hacked firmware in no time.
Edit: I might be wrong though:
Bitmain have hacked stratum in the S9 miner.
Adding their own special command for antpool ... who knows what they do with that extra command during authentification ...
We don't allow invalid commands during authentication e.g. to stop DDoS attempts sending rubbish to the pool when they connect.
So, yep as of now the S9 wont work on CKPool.
Any pool that allows the miner to send random rubbish during connection will allow it.
Adding their own special command for antpool ... who knows what they do with that extra command during authentification ...
We don't allow invalid commands during authentication e.g. to stop DDoS attempts sending rubbish to the pool when they connect.
So, yep as of now the S9 wont work on CKPool.
Any pool that allows the miner to send random rubbish during connection will allow it.
Keep an eye on the followup. Kano has long been critical of antpool messing with his code, for now I'm guessing other pools will still accept S9, but def keep an eye on it.
Philipma asked the question:
Well back to a very simple question to bitmaintech:
Please confirm if you restricted your miner's pool choices?
Please confirm if you restricted your miner's pool choices?
If this is answered in the affirmative then it is a serious attack on the integrity of the network.
Why are people so upset that the s9 is rumored only to be able to be used on AntPool? Besides centralization issues with too much hash power on one pool (which probably can't even happen anymore but still).
it could be because antpool mines empty blocks and its known they dont payout all the tx fees to the miners.. there for you get LESS bitcoin per block then if you mined anywhere else..
Why are people so upset that the s9 is rumored only to be able to be used on AntPool? Besides centralization issues with too much hash power on one pool (which probably can't even happen anymore but still).
^
A Bitcoin company fails to deliver on its promises? in MY Bitcoin?! Unthinkable!
BRB, filing nonbinding p2p nonviolent internet police report on the indelible public ledger which is the blogchain.
A Bitcoin company fails to deliver on its promises? in MY Bitcoin?! Unthinkable!
BRB, filing nonbinding p2p nonviolent internet police report on the indelible public ledger which is the blogchain.
[distracting off-topic flamebait]
Yes, let's all stop talking about the Bitmain's false advertising of p2pool support, because of completely unrelated old scam accusations that had their day in court and went nowhere.
Why is it just me who isn't allowed to lose a risky bet on a pre-order without some n00b assclown like you stalking/reminding me forever?
You're not just an innocent little victim.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/icebreaker-hashfast-employee-381687
I think that's the crux of it. Icemaker's just sad about Cypher making so much money from Hashfast, while he shilled for chump change.
Doubt his scaling phobia is fueled by anything more substantial than that.
The problem isn't the lack of p2pool options or lack of good pool alternatives. The problem is that the people who owns the hardware has no interest in using those.
The problem is Bitmain/Antpool told us they would support p2pool when it was to their marketing benefit, then never did anything else.
They didn't even bother to remove the false advertising from the OP.
Quick, drag up some ancient affair you can use a cudgel for bashing me!
Whether or not Gmax and I were low information "victims" lacking agency (or sophisticated gamblers taking a calculated risk) is just your attempt to change the subject to a completely irrelevant controversy from years in the past.
No, this is an attempt by you and Gmaxwell to somehow make the HK agreement null and void by dragging some irrelevant little niggle into it all.
But yeah, Antpool should remove all mention of P2pool if they have no intention of going through with it. Or even better, remove it until they have a solution.
But that's about it. Maybe they'll get to it when the block size issue has been resolved.
Wow, you managed to entirely agree with our conclusion ("Antpool should remove all mention of P2pool if they have no intention of going through with it") yet still get in a couple of bitchy little parting shots at the messengers.
The HK agreement was never valid, nor enforceable, because A. nobody is in charge of Core and thus able to make commitments on its behalf (the "Blockstream is controlling Core with Money and Evil Sorcery" meme is only still taken seriously on rbtc and bitco.in) and, B. f2pool violated the terms of the compact when they starting running Klassique.
The block size issue has been resolved, but not in the way you would have preferred (sorry about that, LOL NOT REALLY
).The lopsided victory of Core over XT and Klassique made you angry, hence your butthurt and eagerness to use anything you can from my past to attack me for daring to hold Bitmain responsible for their false "we support p2pool" advertising.
Yeah, yeah.. I had an itching for a rant, you scratched it.
gg
Edit: Btw, didn't you notice?:
Just thought I'd mention it.
I don't know why they haven't just pulled the plug completely on their p2pool project. It's just bad PR by now.
Then again, I don't see why an [expletive deleted] like yourself would want to stir up shit about it. Especially considering your past affiliations.
The problem isn't the lack of p2pool options or lack of good pool alternatives. The problem is that the people who owns the hardware has no interest in using those.
The problem is Bitmain/Antpool told us they would support p2pool when it was to their marketing benefit, then never did anything else.
They didn't even bother to remove the false advertising from the OP.
Quick, drag up some ancient affair you can use a cudgel for bashing me!
Whether or not Gmax and I were low information "victims" lacking agency (or sophisticated gamblers taking a calculated risk) is just your attempt to change the subject to a completely irrelevant controversy from years in the past.
No, this is an attempt by you and Gmaxwell to somehow make the HK agreement null and void by dragging some irrelevant little niggle into it all.
But yeah, Antpool should remove all mention of P2pool if they have no intention of going through with it. Or even better, remove it until they have a solution.
But that's about it. Maybe they'll get to it when the block size issue has been resolved.
Wow, you managed to entirely agree with our conclusion ("Antpool should remove all mention of P2pool if they have no intention of going through with it") yet still get in a couple of bitchy little parting shots at the messengers.
The HK agreement was never valid, nor enforceable, because A. nobody is in charge of Core and thus able to make commitments on its behalf (the "Blockstream is controlling Core with Money and Evil Sorcery" meme is only still taken seriously on rbtc and bitco.in) and, B. f2pool violated the terms of the compact when they starting running Klassique.
The block size issue has been resolved, but not in the way you would have preferred (sorry about that, LOL NOT REALLY
).The lopsided victory of Core over XT and Klassique made you angry, hence your butthurt and eagerness to use anything you can from my past to attack me for daring to hold Bitmain responsible for their false "we support p2pool" advertising.
The problem isn't the lack of p2pool options or lack of good pool alternatives. The problem is that the people who owns the hardware has no interest in using those.
The problem is Bitmain/Antpool told us they would support p2pool when it was to their marketing benefit, then never did anything else.
They didn't even bother to remove the false advertising from the OP.
Quick, drag up some ancient affair you can use a cudgel for bashing me!
Whether or not Gmax and I were low information "victims" lacking agency (or sophisticated gamblers taking a calculated risk) is just your attempt to change the subject to a completely irrelevant controversy from years in the past.
No, this is an attempt by you and Gmaxwell to somehow make the HK agreement null and void by dragging some irrelevant little niggle into it all.
But yeah, Antpool should remove all mention of P2pool if they have no intention of going through with it. Or even better, remove it until they have a solution.
But that's about it. Maybe they'll get to it when the block size issue has been resolved.
The problem isn't the lack of p2pool options or lack of good pool alternatives. The problem is that the people who owns the hardware has no interest in using those.
The problem is Bitmain/Antpool told us they would support p2pool when it was to their marketing benefit, then never did anything else.
They didn't even bother to remove the false advertising from the OP.
Quick, drag up some ancient affair you can use a cudgel for bashing me!
Whether or not Gmax and I were low information "victims" lacking agency (or sophisticated gamblers taking a calculated risk) is just your attempt to change the subject to a completely irrelevant controversy from years in the past.
Jump to: