...S9s will forever suffer from the pre-January deficit...
...Luck doesn't correct itself....
See we can agree on some things 
Topic: KanoPool kano.is lowest 0.9% fee 🐈 since 2014 - Worldwide - 2432 blocks - page 1046. (Read 5352445 times)
February 28, 2017, 04:38:57 PM
February 28, 2017, 04:34:33 PM
Quote
Luck doesn't correct itself.
Making any assumption that it does means you clearly have no idea about statistics.
I posted in detail about this the other day also.
Making any assumption that it does means you clearly have no idea about statistics.
I posted in detail about this the other day also.
Sure it does. Last month you were below the expected. This month you are above the expected. You found more blocks this month than you were supposed to. I wonder if that 20ph of s9v1 that left could have found more blocks than they were supposed to in the last few months to bring the "block found" statistic closer to the "expected block" statistic.
February 28, 2017, 04:31:11 PM
@
tournamentdan
do you agree with the world that 1+1 = 2
this is true because the human race made of a set of rules and we stick to it.
the s9 v1 has a cdf of .992
it has made around 95 blocks while it hashed enough to make 120 blocks.
we the human race made up a set of rules that say the cdf is .992
what this means if there was a 1000 groups of correctly functioning s9's v1 that hashed enough to make 120 blocks
we would have lost out to 992 of them and beat 7 of them.
So at what point does shit luck turn into shit software?
I have no idea. but 120 blocks of hashing making 95 blocks means death to me as a miner.
and as kano says the luck is not improving it is still worse
then .99
I get your argument that if 20ph left and we now have 5 ph in s9 v 1 they can not move us back to a cdc of .80 to .70 to .60 since they do not have strength of numbers do it.
but they are still at .992 which is easy to move to .950 even if the hash is 5 ph and not 20ph in s9's v1
.992 is so fucking bad that .85 cdc would move it to .97 cdf and that has not happened.
so when kano comes to the thread
and tells us s9 v1 has improved from .992 cdf to .970 cdf then to .950 cdf
I would say your point could maybe come true.
tournamentdan
do you agree with the world that 1+1 = 2
this is true because the human race made of a set of rules and we stick to it.
the s9 v1 has a cdf of .992
it has made around 95 blocks while it hashed enough to make 120 blocks.
we the human race made up a set of rules that say the cdf is .992
what this means if there was a 1000 groups of correctly functioning s9's v1 that hashed enough to make 120 blocks
we would have lost out to 992 of them and beat 7 of them.
So at what point does shit luck turn into shit software?
I have no idea. but 120 blocks of hashing making 95 blocks means death to me as a miner.
and as kano says the luck is not improving it is still worse
then .99
I get your argument that if 20ph left and we now have 5 ph in s9 v 1 they can not move us back to a cdc of .80 to .70 to .60 since they do not have strength of numbers do it.
but they are still at .992 which is easy to move to .950 even if the hash is 5 ph and not 20ph in s9's v1
.992 is so fucking bad that .85 cdc would move it to .97 cdf and that has not happened.
so when kano comes to the thread
and tells us s9 v1 has improved from .992 cdf to .970 cdf then to .950 cdf
I would say your point could maybe come true.
February 28, 2017, 04:25:39 PM
Quote
Luck doesn't correct itself.
Making any assumption that it does means you clearly have no idea about statistics.
I posted in detail about this the other day also.
Making any assumption that it does means you clearly have no idea about statistics.
I posted in detail about this the other day also.
Sure it does. Last month you were below the expected. This month you are above the expected. You found more blocks this month than you were supposed to. I wonder if that 20ph of s9v1 that left could have found more blocks than they were supposed to in the last few months to bring the "block found" statistic closer to the "expected block" statistic.
February 28, 2017, 04:05:59 PM
Good to know im not the only one who find a block here on kano with S9v1
looks like all those "bad" miners still able to find blocks 
The issue is the total number S9v1 has found is well below what it should have - CDF[Erl] = 0.991261 with that last one.
(They're expected to have found almost 25 more)
Had all those machines stayed they could have hit those blocks.
...
Doesn't matter what they 'could' have done, since that's supposed to be random.
Unfortunately, history suggests otherwise.
You altered the history when you told the S9v1 to leave without a long enough sample size. Had they stayed the variance would of caught back up. Any sample size should be bare minimum one year.
The number of hashes and the number of blocks are the only 2 numbers that matter.
I've no idea where you got 'one year' from.
But they have also been hashing on the pool since I asked people to switch, just not as many.
Again, it is ONLY "The number of hashes and the number of blocks"
Neither have anything to do with time.
Quote
Quote
But they have also been hashing on the pool since I asked people to switch, just not as many.
Yes and that is part of my point. Had the majority of the s9 stayed. They could have gone on a lucky streak and come back even with the expected number. But we will never know now since you asked them to leave based on your statistics taken over a way to short of a time frame.At the same time you asked the s9 to leave. Someone asked about the expected amount for the new avalons. Which you replied there had not been "enough time to get a good idea of the performance of the avalon." Funny how time is a factor when it comes to the avalon. But not the s9.
The time fact I was referring to was actually hashes - meaning for the time they had been on the pool, they had not expended enough hashes to be able to give a useful sample.
Luck doesn't correct itself.
Making any assumption that it does means you clearly have no idea about statistics.
I posted in detail about this the other day also.
February 28, 2017, 03:54:22 PM
Good to know im not the only one who find a block here on kano with S9v1
looks like all those "bad" miners still able to find blocks The issue is the total number S9v1 has found is well below what it should have - CDF[Erl] = 0.991261 with that last one.
(They're expected to have found almost 25 more)
You see this stattistic was directly affected by you asking the s9 people to leave. So in reality you can only count the blocks after the mass exodus of s9v1.
What is the expected for the S9v1 from after we lost half of our hash rate?
February 28, 2017, 03:36:18 PM
Good to know im not the only one who find a block here on kano with S9v1
looks like all those "bad" miners still able to find blocks The issue is the total number S9v1 has found is well below what it should have - CDF[Erl] = 0.991261 with that last one.
(They're expected to have found almost 25 more)
Had all those machines stayed they could have hit those blocks.
...
Doesn't matter what they 'could' have done, since that's supposed to be random.
Unfortunately, history suggests otherwise.
You altered the history when you told the S9v1 to leave without a long enough sample size. Had they stayed the variance would of caught back up. Any sample size should be bare minimum one year.
The number of hashes and the number of blocks are the only 2 numbers that matter.
I've no idea where you got 'one year' from.
But they have also been hashing on the pool since I asked people to switch, just not as many.
Quote
But they have also been hashing on the pool since I asked people to switch, just not as many.
Yes and that is part of my point. Had the majority of the s9 stayed. They could have gone on a lucky streak and come back even with the expected number. But we will never know now since you asked them to leave based on your statistics taken over a way to short of a time frame.At the same time you asked the s9 to leave. Someone asked about the expected amount for the new avalons. Which you replied there had not been "enough time to get a good idea of the performance of the avalon." Funny how time is a factor when it comes to the avalon. But not the s9.
February 28, 2017, 03:33:02 PM
You altered the history when you told the S9v1 to leave without a long enough sample size. Had they stayed the variance would of caught back up. Any sample size should be bare minimum one year.
He didn't "alter" anything. S9s will forever suffer from the pre-January deficit and would have to span months of overages to "break even"; this is not the same as "altering history", it's forcing historical losses to coincide with current statistics.Just a lot fewer.
February 28, 2017, 03:10:29 PM
You altered the history when you told the S9v1 to leave without a long enough sample size. Had they stayed the variance would of caught back up. Any sample size should be bare minimum one year.
He didn't "alter" anything. S9s will forever suffer from the pre-January deficit and would have to span months of overages to "break even"; this is not the same as "altering history", it's forcing historical losses to coincide with current statistics. February 28, 2017, 02:55:02 PM
All those recent ghs added PLEASE LEAVE!!!! It looks like we find blocks faster when we have less ghs going at it.
February 28, 2017, 02:23:28 PM
... as for everyone else asking questions about when the payouts will appear ... read the posts for the last 24 hours that have answered this in detail already 
February 28, 2017, 02:17:58 PM
Good to know im not the only one who find a block here on kano with S9v1
looks like all those "bad" miners still able to find blocks The issue is the total number S9v1 has found is well below what it should have - CDF[Erl] = 0.991261 with that last one.
(They're expected to have found almost 25 more)
Had all those machines stayed they could have hit those blocks.
...
Doesn't matter what they 'could' have done, since that's supposed to be random.
Unfortunately, history suggests otherwise.
You altered the history when you told the S9v1 to leave without a long enough sample size. Had they stayed the variance would of caught back up. Any sample size should be bare minimum one year.
The number of hashes and the number of blocks are the only 2 numbers that matter.
I've no idea where you got 'one year' from.
But they have also been hashing on the pool since I asked people to switch, just not as many.
February 28, 2017, 01:06:59 PM
thanks for the quick response! not what I was wanting to hear, but is better to know how it works
February 28, 2017, 12:41:18 PM
little help please. am using blockchain.info for my wallet and have one incoming and one outgoing transaction that has been confirmed for over 16 hrs...and have other transactions that have been confirmed after those 2. how can I kick them back into gear and get the confirmation?
I don't use any wallet but my own Core, and this is one of the several reasons. I don't have any control over how their vault is managed, or how they initiate their transactions.To answer your question, there is no way to "kick them back into gear." One of the most common reasons for delays in confirmation is that the sender used a very low, or zero, transaction fee...which will sometimes (depending upon the network load) end up causing long...as in a day or two...delay in confirmation. They're not lost...just kicking back.
I do, of course, use other wallets, but only in the exchanges I use for selling BTC, and I only have enough in their vault to cover the current transaction(s). I also run a full node on the network. Even so, when I send I use a transaction fee that will generate a transaction in about 8 blocks. Both inbound and outbound tx's confirm in 30 min or so usually. Before I "got smart," however, I had low fee or zero fee transactions take hours, or even in one instance a couple of days...and I learned my lesson on keeping BTC in someone else's vault with Mt. Gox.
Bottom line...be patient.
February 28, 2017, 12:03:59 PM
ya but that new block we are working one now was on we started on more then 38h ago and the two blocks before it matured while we were still working on this last block we are still on.
If my memory is right the last block that got to maturation when we were something like 16 hours or so in to this block we are still on now.
So I guess it would of worked out real smooth to of gotten this last block done in 100% expected time or better being that would of been not to much longer after block 454915 was done maturing.
If my memory is right the last block that got to maturation when we were something like 16 hours or so in to this block we are still on now.
So I guess it would of worked out real smooth to of gotten this last block done in 100% expected time or better being that would of been not to much longer after block 454915 was done maturing.
February 28, 2017, 11:45:30 AM
little help please. am using blockchain.info for my wallet and have one incoming and one outgoing transaction that has been confirmed for over 16 hrs...and have other transactions that have been confirmed after those 2. how can I kick them back into gear and get the confirmation?
February 28, 2017, 11:39:46 AM
Quote
Can somebody tell me why my last rewards was 40hrs ago in the block 454915 and that was my last reward? Also I don't get my payment for the 2 last block rewards
Regards
Regards
This last block we are trying to smash is just takeing an extra long time to crack it out. But when it does you should get the payments for the last 2 blocks that have been matured and just now waiting for this long block to get done. This sucker is going on 206.29% already. BUt I hope we get to add atleast 1 more block to the month of febuary.
But I guess we got to take the bad luck blocks along with the good streak we have been having.
But our workers are still mining in a new block??? Or we lost all those hours
of course we are mining
February 28, 2017, 11:36:59 AM
Quote
Can somebody tell me why my last rewards was 40hrs ago in the block 454915 and that was my last reward? Also I don't get my payment for the 2 last block rewards
Regards
Regards
This last block we are trying to smash is just takeing an extra long time to crack it out. But when it does you should get the payments for the last 2 blocks that have been matured and just now waiting for this long block to get done. This sucker is going on 206.29% already. BUt I hope we get to add atleast 1 more block to the month of febuary.
But I guess we got to take the bad luck blocks along with the good streak we have been having.
But our workers are still mining in a new block??? Or we lost all those hours
February 28, 2017, 11:15:43 AM
Quote
Can somebody tell me why my last rewards was 40hrs ago in the block 454915 and that was my last reward? Also I don't get my payment for the 2 last block rewards
Regards
Regards
This last block we are trying to smash is just takeing an extra long time to crack it out. But when it does you should get the payments for the last 2 blocks that have been matured and just now waiting for this long block to get done. This sucker is going on 206.29% already. BUt I hope we get to add atleast 1 more block to the month of febuary.
But I guess we got to take the bad luck blocks along with the good streak we have been having.
February 28, 2017, 10:55:05 AM
Can somebody tell me why my last rewards was 40hrs ago in the block 454915 and that was my last reward? Also I don't get my payment for the 2 last block rewards
Regards
Regards
Payment is sended when the block have 100 confirm, so the last 2 blocks was not confirmed when the pool send a payment. Nowtime we are waiting for the block now is almost 40 hours, so when block will be solved you receive paymant for last 2 blocks !!!
Jump to: