Bitclockers would be a great one. Their stats are fun to watch. A new block starts and they will jump to 700 - 900 GH/s, then like clockwork at ~40% their hashrate plummets to 100 - 150 GH/s. Those poor miners making up the 150 GH/s are getting raped like a two bit whore.
Topic: Deepbit hopping - page 2. (Read 6205 times)
]I was talking about monitoring all the hoppers, not the total/average hashrate.
Okay, but even so, the hoppers might just have "pooled together" now.
Now that's an interesting observation/comment. Months go when I was arguing with Meni about hopping I was putting forward proposition that smaller pools might be more vulnerable, and larger pools would be more stable. Therefore I would expect the smaller pools to show more pronounced changes and trends.
I guess what really proves hopping is the % difference in hashrate, regardless of it being a small or big pool. But with a small pool, it might be difficult to get enough data points, without spanning such a long time that all sorts of things might factor in.
But hey, I dont mind trying. What other proportional pools do you know that we could look at?
Well, maybe I misunderstood you, but if some miners moved from deepbit PPS to these 115% proxy pools that are hopping deepbit and others, you wouldnt expect to see a big difference in hashrate. Youd might lose some hashrate on the longer blocks, potentially win some at the beginning of blocks or on short blocks from miners that didnt mine at deepbit before. Not very conclusive IMO.
I was talking about monitoring all the hoppers, not the total/average hashrate.If you are saying these proxy pools registered at deepbit and you are monitoring their behavior.. then that begs the question why on earth they would pay 115% to redirect the hashrate to a pool that pays out 97%, if its not for hopping?
NO, I didn't said that they are registered at deepbit. I don't think that it's related to 115% pools because I'm monitoring all the hoppers (in the process of developing automatic detection) and there were no any changes in their volume when those projects appeared.
Well, maybe I misunderstood you, but if some miners moved from deepbit PPS to these 115% proxy pools that are hopping deepbit and others, you wouldnt expect to see a big difference in hashrate. Youd might lose some hashrate on the longer blocks, potentially win some at the beginning of blocks or on short blocks from miners that didnt mine at deepbit before. Not very conclusive IMO.
If you are saying these proxy pools registered at deepbit and you are monitoring their behavior.. then that begs the question why on earth they would pay 115% to redirect the hashrate to a pool that pays out 97%, if its not for hopping?
I wonder if that couldnt match the hashrate of those 115% PPS fake pools. Add to that they all seem to suffer from high stales, and Im getting quite certain thats whats going on. They are probably not just hopping deepbit, but deepbit are obviously the biggest one, and perhaps the easiest to show it for.
I don't think that it's related to 115% pools because I'm monitoring all the hoppers (in the process of developing automatic detection) and there were no any changes in their volume when those projects appeared. Also, I did some tests and they didn't reported any problems during this time. 
ok, if you take the max at 55,000 and a decline to 50,000, then you get 10%. I wonder if the noise in the chart over-states it. Might only be from 53k to 51k. Either way, it's useful to have a snapshot of data.
The data covers just over 100 blocks that where shorter than 10 minutes. Im sure someone will soon calculate 95% probabilities, but I dont think noise is likely to explain it. It could be over- or understating it though, thats for sure.
My main point is they are being hopped, Im fairly confident the data proves that. Even if its just 5%, I wonder if that couldnt match the hashrate of those 115% PPS fake pools. Add to that they all seem to suffer from high stales, and Im getting quite certain thats whats going on. They are probably not just hopping deepbit, but deepbit are obviously the biggest one, and perhaps the easiest to show it for.
Now that's an interesting observation/comment. Months go when I was arguing with Meni about hopping I was putting forward proposition that smaller pools might be more vulnerable, and larger pools would be more stable. Therefore I would expect the smaller pools to show more pronounced changes and trends.
ok, if you take the max at 55,000 and a decline to 50,000, then you get 10%. I wonder if the noise in the chart over-states it. Might only be from 53k to 51k. Either way, it's useful to have a snapshot of data.
The data covers just over 100 blocks that where shorter than 10 minutes. Im sure someone will soon calculate 95% probabilities, but I dont think noise is likely to explain it. It could be over- or understating it though, thats for sure.
My main point is they are being hopped, Im fairly confident the data proves that. Even if its just 5%, I wonder if that couldnt match the hashrate of those 115% PPS fake pools. Add to that they all seem to suffer from high stales, and Im getting quite certain thats whats going on. They are probably not just hopping deepbit, but deepbit are obviously the biggest one, and perhaps the easiest to show it for.
ok, if you take the max at 55,000 and a decline to 50,000, then you get 10%. I wonder if the noise in the chart over-states it. Might only be from 53k to 51k. Either way, it's useful to have a snapshot of data.
Missing the definitions of the different axes, I assume Y = average hash speed and X = block duration.
Yeah, its in the text.
Quote
The point about graphing the Y axis from zero would better show how much (or little) decline there is. For instance, is deepbit losing 5% or more from hoppers, or less. It is hard to tell given the way it is presented.
Speed never drops to zero. As i said over and over, its just blank space at the bottom. Or top, why not add a lot at the top?
The chart is fairly clear I think, from the sampled data there seems to be about 10% hopping.
Anyway for those who want to play with the data and make their own charts (incl from zero), here is the spreadsheet
http://www.mediafire.com/?ebamgh0fmkrrl45
Its in ODS format (open office). Charts are on the second sheet.
Missing the definitions of the different axes, I assume Y = average hash speed and X = block duration.
The point about graphing the Y axis from zero would better show how much (or little) decline there is. For instance, is deepbit losing 5% or more from hoppers, or less. It is hard to tell given the way it is presented.
Interesting piece of analysis.
The point about graphing the Y axis from zero would better show how much (or little) decline there is. For instance, is deepbit losing 5% or more from hoppers, or less. It is hard to tell given the way it is presented.
Interesting piece of analysis.
Linear regression would smooth the trend line out.
If you post the raw data (x,y) in a code block for the scatter plot I will draw one.
My guess about the dip on the left is due to the delayed stats hoppers are using some mechanism to try and confirm blocks before hopping in. For example if you monitored the top 5 non Deepbit sites and they didn't report a block even delayed or obfuscated the chance it was deepbit increases. On an unknown block there is a roughly 35% chance it is Deepbit's. If the top 10 pools don't report it (and you wait 30 seconds or so for blockchain propogation) then the chance it is deepbt's increases to about 70%. Roughly 50% of the time someone will report a block which guarantees that it isn't Deepbit. That means you are hopping with ~ 85% confidence.
If you post the raw data (x,y) in a code block for the scatter plot I will draw one.
My guess about the dip on the left is due to the delayed stats hoppers are using some mechanism to try and confirm blocks before hopping in. For example if you monitored the top 5 non Deepbit sites and they didn't report a block even delayed or obfuscated the chance it was deepbit increases. On an unknown block there is a roughly 35% chance it is Deepbit's. If the top 10 pools don't report it (and you wait 30 seconds or so for blockchain propogation) then the chance it is deepbt's increases to about 70%. Roughly 50% of the time someone will report a block which guarantees that it isn't Deepbit. That means you are hopping with ~ 85% confidence.
Couldnt find a way to do it with a formula so I manually grouped shorter durations and averaged them. I didnt do that for all durations, so you get some weirdness, but it looks better now:
edit: made a mistake with decimal 30s.. This is one is correct:
Interesting dip on the left side. I originally had a mistake in the spreadsheet adding only 0.4 decimal minutes average to the block length, rather than 0.5 to compensate for the incorrect rounding. Makes a big difference for blocks which take <1 minute obviously. The dip actually makes complete sense, it takes a while for hoppers to notice the new block on the chain and switch to your pool. I think the difference between 0-1 minutes and 0-2 is clearly how many (quick) hoppers you have.
There is no question you are being hopped. Its not massive, but its there.
edit: made a mistake with decimal 30s.. This is one is correct:
Interesting dip on the left side. I originally had a mistake in the spreadsheet adding only 0.4 decimal minutes average to the block length, rather than 0.5 to compensate for the incorrect rounding. Makes a big difference for blocks which take <1 minute obviously. The dip actually makes complete sense, it takes a while for hoppers to notice the new block on the chain and switch to your pool. I think the difference between 0-1 minutes and 0-2 is clearly how many (quick) hoppers you have.
There is no question you are being hopped. Its not massive, but its there.
legendary
Activity: 1862
Merit: 1011
Reverse engineer from time to time
Considering blockchain.info tells me WHICH pool found a block, it is fairly easily(with a 2 minute gap) to find out if deepbit mined a block. Sure it requires additional info, but it could be worth it!
EDIT: BTW, why so many red dots at the zero-time point ?
Because Im not adding them together. Each dot is an average for the next/previous 40 datapoints, and there are many of those with sub 1 and sub 2 minutes. The difference in #shares gives different datapoints, even for the same duration (x axis).It looks weird, but its correct. It would look better if I grouped the data per x minute interval, and showed only 1 point with an average hashrate for that interval, but Ill have to do that later.
Like I said, it just adds blank space. Zero means zero hashrate. It would make more sense to chart the deviations from the average hashrate, then the x axis is at 51K, but the chart will look identical.
Not sure what you mean, but I justed add a 40 point average (and cropped the extremes)
Your Y-axis scale is from 40 000 to 85 000. I asked for 0 to 70 000, to take a look at global scale.EDIT: BTW, why so many red dots at the zero-time point ?
Not sure what you mean, but I justed added a 40 point average (and cropped the extremes):
removed incorrect graph
edit: I see what you mean now. Im no ace at charting in OO, Ill try,but the the above gives a good idea already
Increasing the Y range just adds blank space though
removed incorrect graph
edit: I see what you mean now. Im no ace at charting in OO, Ill try,
Increasing the Y range just adds blank space though
Regardless, from that column its clear you indeed round down, so 59s becomes zero minutes. That means the second chart is correct.
Can you post a graph with those data points averaged for each minute ? I mean, with a line instead of dots.For example, with a Y-range from 0 to 70 000.
Why don't you just use the first column with timestamps ? It's 1-second accuracy there.
Because Im an idiot
Regardless, from that column its clear you indeed round down, so 59s becomes zero minutes. That means the second chart is correct. Still enough of a correlation to prove your pool is being hopped in a significant manner.
Jump to: