Topic: KanoPool kano.is lowest 0.9% fee 🐈 since 2014 - Worldwide - 2432 blocks - page 1478. (Read 5352420 times)

BBBBlockkk by Jays86!  That would be his 10th kano block...double digits!

it's a good destresser those videos - laughter is the best medicine!

During my regional sales days, a few times I used these videos to clinch deals; to stress that when things goes south, it can really go south - that's why they need to consider my gear... blah x 3

It works to get the points across, regardless of countries, culture and language - laughter is truly the best medicine!

After I wrote it I realized it kind of describes every politician and a fair few religious "authorities" as well.

@thedreamer, I apologize.  Sincerely this time.  I meant no offense with my post about cognitive dissonance, I was merely pointing out a contradiction in your statement.  I got my undies in a bunch over your response and got a little pissy.  What can I say, I'm sensitive like that.

I just watched both the soccer and volleyball videos again... yup... still just as damn funny

Meanwhile..... taking some fresh air at, solo.ckpool.org, created new BTC address and replace worker "LuckyJuvia" with "ScottSterling" 

In case there's more to come on the above argument, I'll end it here and delete any more attempts by either side to belittle each other.

Firstly not.you is correct regarding statistics.
Indeed there's no reason to assume changing pools will do better than staying here.
I've been unable to find a cause for the bad luck other than, it's bad luck.
More analysis may find a cause, but the likelihood of that is very small.

However, thedreamer has more $ on the line to decide what he will do, and of course, he can reduce his risk by temporarily (or permanently) moving to a larger pool ... due to lower variance.
I doesn't mean he 'will' do better, but it does mean he can 'expect' less variance.

History here shows a long term good side to the variance ... most of the time.
But that variance is mostly random and unpredictable.

I'm not here to insist what risk people should take with their $

I can say that the pool is expected, on average, to be rewarding close to PPS% when luck is 100%
The pool fees are covered by the better transactions fees we find.

Orphans are still low, even though we've had them more often in the last couple of months, but even orphans are now expected to be lower thanks to the CN node.

--

Simple answer: no one can predict the future, and while the pool software and connectivity gives better expected results, the results themselves include a random element that is out of anyone's control. We control, very well, the element that is not random, while not trying to destroy bitcoin at the same time ...

Two things that should never be brought into bitcoin, blockchain or this forum are religion and politics lol.

Oh I apologize your majesty.  I didn't realize what a big deal you are.  I guess when you get to be a big enough deal you can proclaim a belief while acting in direct opposition to it without any mental calisthenics.  Reminds me of a certain someone running for president of the U.S. actually...

It sounds like you are 100% on it

I have been around long enough (I first started programming on a TSR-80, when I was a little kid, like you been a fan of RedHat since the late 90's (however, I am more of a Ubuntu guy now though), etc) to recognize that things can get very complicated.  Sometimes, when you start seeing different results it is worth a double check that nothing has changed, that is all...  Thanks for entertaining the thought, I know we are in good hands

CKDB also checks every share that CKPool gets and also reports on the console shares within 5% of being a block, no matter what error state they have.
2 independent programs and pieces of code doing the checks.

So if, completely unexpectedly, CKPool didn't recognise a share that was block worthy, it would still show up in CKDB on the console.
I also have a command to check the console logs for them that I run every so often to see if we are finding 'near misses'.
The last near miss was:

There are of course other scenarios if say a share got lost and never made it to CKDB, but even then CKDB tracks that also.
Each message generated to be sent to CKDB from CKPool has 2 sequence numbers, one for all messages and one for each message type.
These are checked in CKDB also and reported if any are ever missing. They actually go through 3 stages that are all reported, if a number is out of sequence for more than a few seconds. Transient, Missing, Lost.
That's the code that caused me some trouble with the threading changes that I finally fixed.
Yeah it's a little complicated

Of course all code has bugs, and indeed there are some rather unexpected ways shares could be lost, but of course that exists in any system, and I go to a lot of effort in CKDB to detect anything missing.

Good to hear. Once things go back to the normal block days, I'm switching back to here, just had to leave to pucker up my cheeks a bit after the past week's losses and the BW / Orphan drama with FUPool.
I wouldn't put it past a large chinese person/org to hoze a successful 'competitor' in spite.. WOuldn't be the first time I saw this.. 

For the top miners, most of them have their own hardware, so would be silly for them to withhold.
Looking at the luck report for the top miners, most of them have Block to BDR ratios above 1.
Any that are below 1 are well within statistical expectation.

BDR - Block Diff Ratio (a name I call it) is the DiffAccepted for the miner as a % of a block, given each share as a % of a block at the time it was submitted, then add them all up. Shares are summarised into shifts, and shifts don't cross a difficulty boundary, so it's not an impossibly large calculation to do.

The Block to BDR ratio is 1 for 100% luck, greater than 1 for > 100% luck and less than 1 for < 100% luck
e.g. 12TM has found 23 Blocks with a BDR of 19.21 - so yep that's REALLY good for the pool ... 23/19.21 = 1.20
GLORYTrading has found 21 Blocks with a BDR of 11.15 ... to be blunt, fucking awesome ... 21/11.15 = 1.88
(The BDR stats currently only go back to Feb last year)

However, there is of course the issue of IP subnets and rentals.
I've detected problems on IP subnets before and they are always in my list I check for each time and block.
I'm making some more changes, over the next few weeks, to deal with detecting problems more easily if people are trying to hide them.
That will, of course, include checking these over past history, which will take some effort to calculate.

There are other checks I do, like how many high diff shares people submit vs their DiffAcc, their value ranges, and I also keep a close eye on any accounts that have any numbers that, although they may be within statistical expectation, are on the high side of bad luck.

So far as I can see, this is indeed some unfortunate bad luck, but I'm still working on ways to analyse it better.

You seriously just asked that? Please read my other posts and support for this pool and then make a proper comment will ya?

Unless your losses are in the thousands, no input from the peanut gallery, thank you.

Just throwing out an idea out there...

Is it possible that some bug has been introduced into the system in the last 2 weeks or so?  Is there anything that changed about 2 weeks ago?

Overall, this pool is amazing, but this recent string of luck does look a little unusual?  The CDF for the last 25 blocks is .9984, so there is about a 0.16% chance of that happening.  The time interval is 10.3 days, so this 10.3 day string of luck should happen once every 6,437.5 days (unless I am reading it wrong) and that does appear high.  In addition, the luck very suddenly changed about 2 weeks ago and has been pretty stable for that last 2 weeks.  This makes me think something changed 2 weeks ago.

Working on and keeping a complicated system working at 100% is very, very difficult.  Not only does the code change but daemons crash, memory leaks (and changes without ECC), packets get lost, etc.  There are 1,000's of things to go wrong and only 1 way to get it right.

Kano, are blocks being found on all servers people connect to (in the correct ratios), nothing changing in the mining code 2 weeks ago, etc?  I know with small sample sizes the numbers may not be statistically significant, but you know what looks right and what looks suspicious.

When things appear to change, it at least is worth entertaining the possibility that something changed.  I am not suspicious of any foul play, but you gotta make sure things are running at 100%.  I am sure Kano is looking into the system and making sure it is at 100%, just bringing it up for discussion.

Thanks appreciate it

I run a luck check before every payout.
The main issue with that of course is that it's not possible to detect problems smaller than a certain amount.

However, the top 10 hash rates on the pool are obviously OK.

... block ...

Will type more later

Block by kcmines with 20.60THs!  Welcome to the Acclaim Board with your first kano block!  

EDIT:  Dang, this block opened up the floodgates by confirming 4 payout blocks!

That was great - thanks  
Ok, back to business....how about a block guys?
[Edit] and gals

Say over the next couple weeks we get back to average on all counts. That's going to be a bunch of blocks.

eh, i'm movin most of my miners back over to antpoo as well,it's not as much as here on good days, but its pretty steady
i need to set aside some $$ for power supplies, i had one loose its magic smoke, i'm pushing a pair of evga 1300w g2's to max in its absence

good luck to you all

You guys need to tie Scott Sterling on top of the server so we can get some more blocks