Topic: Kano.is v slush was Re: [9000 TH] Slush's Pool (mining.bitcoin.cz); TX FEES + VarDiff (Read 7680 times)

Topic split off from slush thread for being offtopic and then the remainder of the discussion deleted and locked for turning into trolling.

Yes, it is fantastic. Thanks for asking.

Now, how about that proof I mentioned to backup the claims you made?
Obviously those little pesky things called facts, honesty, someone being able to depend on what you say is true, well, those things just don't mean much to you do they?

I'm confident Slush loves having you in their corner.

Feel free to carry on with your BS. It is also obvious a rational, honest discussion eludes you.

As a reminder of some of the simple items you can do to backup the things you say:

I've been catching up on my reading in this thread and what excitement the past few pages.
By the way, just to make sure everyone is aware, it is OK if I post in this thread. You may not like it, but I can do so anyway. It does discuss Slush as well, and I mention some of my experience while mining here.

I mined here for a little over a month, maybe six weeks and then moved to kano.is because I enjoy the way it is setup more. I like the long 'N' time.  
I have been there for about 8 months, maybe more total.

I had more problems with the super fast ramp down here at Slush than anything. Well, that and I was here during a magnificient unlucky streak.
Here at Slush if you take your miners down for a few, maybe 5 minutes at the most, it isn't long and poof, nada, you get paid nothing. The ramp down is FAST. If anyone needs proof on that please let's time it because I do not want to state anything as fact we cannot prove.

I think that is my biggest problem with the points you have made Pekatete. You haven't stated anything with proof behind it, something everyone can test for themselves and get a result immediately. Something someone would go through the trouble of testing for himself.

If you go back and read the past few pages of your posts you have to be reasonable and see them through the eyes of someone who doesn't spend as much time as maybe some others do, and they see what appears to be someone randomly going off on DMWardJR over mentioning Kano.is and Slush in the same sentence, or suggesting it as a backup. That is an opinion of yours, and you have every right to it, I would fight anyone for your right to have it, but it is an opinion and not fact. As you go deeper in your posts you represent the things you claim as facts, and not opinion. I'm sorry, but that is not the case when debated unless the appropriate evidence is presented with alleged items.

Do you have any evidence to backup a claim of the Kano.Is mining pool of cheating? I am only interested in proof, evidence, etc, not someone repeating the same words, or the same idea using different words, but something to show those things are true as in a quoted post, a PM, a screen shot.

Misrepresenting solved blocks?

Different code being ran on the actual pool versus what is stored on the Git? (Obviously you must mean some differences outside what anyone else would change in any pool software. There are mandatory differences in setups, configurations, etc)

This is a for example item. For example say there is a court case where a situation arises and experts are needed who specialize in pool software, operating a pool, how mining ASICS operate today and how they have evolved. Now barring anything except experience do you agree it would be a short list and that Kano and a very short list of others may be called as expert testimony? Where it concerns the actual software running on the miner who on that list would be left as publicly identifiable experts besides the two guys with all of the other experience as well as the most with this? CK and Kano. It is an obvious answer, so I am stretching to see where the proof is to the contrary.

Obviously you do not owe anyone any proof, no one does, but making the same accusations post after post by rearranging the words doesn't carry any weight.

You have made several large accusations without what generally accompanies such if it is expected to be believable and that is a way to verify such.

Fortunately, I can help you, help me understand and see some of the things you have mentioned. If you don't mind helping out a bit I will not ask for much I assure you.
1. I'm sure as much as a defender of the people that you are when you saw a pool taking advantage of the community by not labelling an orphan an orphan, you saw this pool keep a block, not turn in the block, misrepresent a block to the mining public well you took a screenshot.
 - Post it on up here.
2. Kano told you on the forum that he uses different pool code... so another easy one.
 - Post it on up here.
3. That same pool is ripping off miners in general and a "slow cooker ripoff" if I have that right? You are stating the pool is stealing from miners slowly over time.
- Post it on up here.
 - I am sure you will have some math to back that up. You should be able to use Organofcorti's charts as well to give a proper presentation. Unless... are you saying Organofcorti is in on it as well and his data is inaccurate?
Please, explain it to those of us who must be unable to catch it!

I think there were a couple of more things, but these should cover your posts. If you can prove any of these claims you would be giving the community reason to believe any of them and then may have an impact on who mines where. Not to mention if anyone was operating a pool in a way which used shady tactics plenty of people would be up in arms about it.

A lack of any proof makes it seem more like a personal problem.

I don't understand pools, or their fees really. Who benefits in the long run, the owner of the pool and the people who reinvest? It's a bit too confusing for me to get into, I think I'll stick to faucets and hobby mining. Meh.

Dude, you are like a little girl in elementary school who makes pointed accusations [Without any proof] in an effort to gratify your own selfish and meaningless existence.  It's quite obvious who is making a fool of themselves on here.  You've been owned.  Plain and simple...

Yep I'm an authority, and I'm still not sure what you are deluding yourself about.

Sigh - do you lack any understanding of english?

Read it again:
"wrote most of the software"

I've not claimed anything like your delusional post says of claiming "all the credit"

-ck forked cpuminer as cgminer and since then most of the cpuminer code has been replaced.
Not all of it, but most of it.
github shows this quite clearly - learn some technical skills and go find out what code is original and unchanged ... though clearly that is beyond you since you are making false claims about what I said.

Well, considering -ck (1st) and myself (2nd) wrote most of the software in the miners that mine most of the Bitcoin blocks on the planet ... yep I do consider myself an authority on the subject ...

Sigh - still more lies about my https://kano.is/ pool. What is your problem?

You got upset that slush didn't keep his 0% fee after the end of August?
The average payout at my pool has been more than here for a long time.
The 12 blocks in October were pretty unlucky at my pool, but even that didn't push the long term average luck at https://kano.is/ under 101%.
The current https://kano.is/ long term average luck is 101.72% You don't seem to even understand that shares are only blocks when they are equal or above network difficulty. They also can't be an orphan when they are below network difficulty because an orphan has to meet the network difficulty of a block to start with

Sheesh you should actually learn about mining - there's a network difficulty that changes every 2016 blocks.
Not matter what you think slush might pretend to do, on my https://kano.is/ pool, no share below the network difficulty is counted as a block in block statistics.
It may show up initially as a block on the web page, but soon after will change state.
I wonder how often you complain to pool owners when you get a share that's 1,000,000 diff (or 1,000 diff or 10,000,000 diff or ... any value under network difficulty) that they ripped everyone off on the pool because they didn't include it as a block in payouts?

Your not making any sense, and you are lying and not providing any proof of those lies because there is no proof.

Though I'm wasting my time replying because you clearly are either some clueless moron who knows nothing about blocks and shares, or your just lying. Either way it's a waste of time since you've provided no proof of any of your complaints about my pool. Have fun in your delusions. I've had enough since there is no proof and will be no proof

organofcorti, you are the hero this drama needs!

"Trite" is an adjective not a noun so I don't think you can use the word this way. Can you paraphrase so I can figure out what you meant?

Kano pool's long term luck is above 100%, so yes it does even out in the end.

I have many miners on Kano's pool and operate an even larger pool(~3PH) based on the ckpool/ckdb code with a few very minor patches and custom webui. Do you know how PPLNS works? Obviously variance is higher on a smaller pool than a larger one.

Slush pool has a 2% fee for one which is higher than 0.9%. Anyways I've run ckpool/ckdb in a production environment and it works as expected.

Most of the hashrate is from large experienced miners.

0.9% ...

Show this record.
ckpool and ckdb are what is in git other than the payout address changes as are seen in all the pool blocks and explained in my pool thread and in the above post.

What changes I make to other software on the server ... so what ... I also have custom shell scripts that deal with all sorts of server side issues.
Yeah I'm a programmer who can manage a server and everything there is to know about it

You are lying. Only found and confirmed blocks are counted as blocks in the statistics ... as it states at the bottom of the blocks page.

Not sure why you feel the need to lie on a public forum about that - but the code is there in git and anyone can read the code I run on the pool and even see the change history about when I added/changed anything.
The only change I make to ckpool itself is the payout address and the 'fee %' as can be seen in every block the pool has found and I've stated when I've changed those addresses, twice so far since the initial addresses.

You pulled it out of your ass and put your head in there instead
Get anyone who actually isn't a moron to read the code I run on the pool and tell me where this "trickery" is.
It's in the public git, there is no "trickery"

The code looks fine to me in regards to dropping rejected/unworthy shares from the stats calculation. Ckpool/ckdb is standard PPLNS which is widely deployed across many pools, yes it takes a lot longer to get to full payout per block find on a small pool but it also takes a lot longer to drop off, it evens out in the end.

Unworthy shares are not factored into any luck calculations(the same as on any other pool), so I'm not sure what the problem you have is. Ckpool/ckdb are both open source while Slush's pool is not, so not sure where you are getting "behind the scenes code trickery" from.

I don't know of any other pool software to report unworthy shares in the same way ckpool does(every share that a miner submits that is below network difficulty is unworthy), it's not a metric that has any affect on pool luck, ckpool simply reports unworthy shares if they are within 1% of network diff. It is not a bug it is simply an intentional reporting quirk ckpool has. I think some other pools report orphans as invalid, but that is different from unworthy.

No, not orphans, not invalids, nothing. Just a share. It's just that ckpool reports near-misses and no other pool does. There was one on the solo pool in the last 24 hours.