Topic: [CLOSED] BTC Guild - Pays TxFees+NMC, Stratum, VarDiff, Private Servers - page 14. (Read 903150 times)

Thank, eleuthria, yes the Bitcoin protocol is quite elegant, ultimately it should always be the nodes that make up the network of the economic majority that dictate the most viable fork to mine.

there will probably always be exceptions and strange presidents. As far as I know, Gavin's proposal is more simple and has been toned down a lot when it comes to the increasing mechanism you described.

I'm glad we wont be on the metaphorical 0.7 fork when 0.8 roles out.

thanks,  

Yes, I'm sure there would never be such a drastic split.  Was just using an extreme example.  The main point was that it doesn't matter what miners do (unless the hard fork is implemented in a way that requires a mining consensus to take effect).  It's  also extremely unlikely that miners wouldn't follow the money.  Miners will go wherever they get paid, and that is decided by the businesses and exchanges that accept Bitcoin.

Well, if it really was 95% vs 5% then yes miners would decide it.
If blocks suddenly take 20x longer to confirm, quite a few businesses would need to switch to the main mining fork or be in a lot of trouble for (on average) at least 20 weeks.

The problem is that it wouldn't ever be 95% vs 5%
The big mining farms like KnC, Bitmain, Bitfury, (Ghash) ... that's probably 40%+ ... would of course switch.
Their interest in bitcoin is the exchange value of it and exchanging it, they would be very unlikely to take any notice of the reasons behind a fork unless they could see it negatively affecting their bottom line in the very short term ... i.e. they would switch with the businesses.

A common misunderstanding:  Miners actually have zero influence over hardforking.  If a hard fork is going to happen, it doesn't matter if 99% of miners decide not to follow it.  If all of the major Bitcoin businesses, payment processors, and exchanges move to Bitcoin (New) and the miners all stay on Bitcoin (Old), it doesn't matter, forks do NOT require mining consensus unless the fork requires one, such as the "Block Version 1" -> "Block Version 2" fork, where the network switched to enforcing version 2 blocks after 95% of the last 1000(?) blocks were V2.


Guess which one is going to retain any value?  Especially post-fork when the miners realize they can't exchange their BTC for goods or cash because no exchanges will accept BTC-A coins.

I believe we absolutely need to remove the 1MB block limit.  I'm not opposed to the jump from 1MB to 20MB, as I think it will have very minimal impact what the new limit is for quite some time.  I'm not sure if this jump to 20MB also implements the original proposal for automatically increasing the limit annually.  I do have objections to that one as I think Gavin's original proposed annual increase was FAR too aggressive and optimistic regarding throughput and bandwidth quotas for huge portions of the world.

What I think probably won't matter much though.  With a March 2016 prospective date, I'm not so sure the pool will even still be around by the time it's time to choose a side, given how much noise is being made by regulatory bodies who have absolutely no clue what to do with Bitcoin but sure as hell want to regulate it anyways.

He's probably talking about the 20MB block fork. I've heard that it's planned to happen in March 2016, and has been proposed by the main Bitcoin dev Gavin.

Here's a link if you want to read some more on it:
https://gavinandresen.svbtle.com/why-increasing-the-max-block-size-is-urgent

What fork? Care to enlighten us?

@ eleuthria,
as miners, we don't relay make decision, regarding soft and hard forks, we leave a lot to you to manage and pay the 2% premium for the luxury.

I think you handheld the 7 - 8 fork disaster well. 


That said, I was wondering how things like Gavan's proposed fork would be dealt with?

Do you have a process, a political affiliation or look for miners feedback? How would you go about assessing which fork to support?

Thanks for your consideration.

wonderful thank you!

Just go into your settings and change your timezone.  You'll see things displayed local to you.

Eleuthria,


                   Any chance you could add actual pool time to the website somewhere? Or just tell me the timezone? I had an outage last night and i really have no way of knowing when they went down other then when i stopped accumulating shares on a certain shift... which is time stamped in some crazy time like EU time.

Block payments are based off contribution average over 10 shifts, which is something like 18-20 hours depending on pool speed.  If you drop out for an hour, your share of blocks will be decreased by roughly 5% of your normal contribution (1 hour missing out of the 20 hour evaluation window) until the shift with an hour missing is no longer part of the last 10 shifts.

PPLNS basically distributes the effect of your mining activity.  Instead of getting paid nothing while your miner was offline, you get paid slightly less averaged out over the shifts.

10 shifts

How many rounds does one need to fill to get the full payout?
I'm not sure I'm asking this correctly, but the example I'll use is this.
block was found this am at 926 am, I had a miner drop off prior to that so I didn't get a normal payout for that miner.
The shift that was part of that block I'm guessing ended at 8:48 am.
Next several shifts miner is at full contribution it normally does.
So 10:32 , 12:16 and 2pm shifts all have normal contributions. 350%

So why wouldn't I get the "normal" payout for the block that was found at 2:47 pm.
the 3:44 shift was also the miners full normal contribution.

3 full complete shifts that my miner was at 350% but the pay was for only 301%

Pool hash is the same. just different days with that small drop off for 2 shifts.
The miner still contributed work through all the shifts, just not what it normall did.
So I can understand a low payout on the am block but not so much on the afternoon one.
Now if a few blocks were found before noon, I would understand a low payout there too.
But it seems off the miner needs to work that long and still not be "ramped back up"

I sent again and you responded promptly. Thank you, eleuthria.

Let's hope for some luck now, need them coins!

You're saying this while the 3-day average is at 110% (and was at 130% 2-days ago during that massive spike of luck).

Will also point out that any time somebody is claiming multiple days at less than half:  You need to redo your math.  That hasn't happened.  In the last 3 months there has not been 2 consecutive days under 50%.  Hell, there's only been 2 or 3 24-hour periods (if you cherry pick a start and end time) at under 50%.

Has everyone experienced seriously horrible pool luck lately? I've had a streak of a few days of being less than half my typical payout. So far in 10 hours of today I got 0.00024963 with 1.25TH/s

One of the private servers had an outage earlier.  There was an error in the configuration when updating it, and instead of failing so I knew immediately it was there, it created a silent failure/process hang that didn't alert me until my monitoring script noticed it wasn't getting a new response after a block change.

The problem has been corrected.

Everything is patched up and running again.  Migrating the web server is such a pain when everything important that it talks to is locked down by IP.  I have to do a strange ritual dance just to remember the right combination of servers to connect through to actually let myself in.

Fantastic!