...
I read the * note and the ? note. Doesn't make block 378548 a lucky block, but it's shown as one. Seems weird to try and display it based on only the shares since the "unworthy" block...
Just like 368390... it wasn't lucky at all, but the stats have it shown in green...
Yep, as I already said
...
The single line stats are on the single line.
...
On the right they show the same number so yes for those 4 blocks you'd have to add the 2 numbers together
... like the code link does for the top.
I understand your explanation. And for orphan blocks it would make sense to display things like this. Throwing these completely fake "unworthy" blocks in the mix just screws things up and makes real blocks look luckier than they really are. That's all.
Looking at a single block to gauge the luck of the pool is pretty pointless.
The table at the top shows the pool luck ... pretty well with no confusion
... there's even a pretty good graph of the luck and all sorts of other information you can't see without an account
... and yep my usual answer to the question about ... "did you do it correctly" ... is ... "of course".
https://bitbucket.org/ckolivas/ckpool/src/0635c75560ee1823650d81008da2385f69843624/pool/page_luck.php?at=master&fileviewer=file-view-default#page_luck.php-91I'd suggest a quite reasonable assumption with my code is that I did do it correctly.
If you find a mistake somewhere, I'll fix it, but asking if I did it correctly is pretty pointless unless you've found a bug somewhere.
All code has bugs ... but yeah unless you actually find one ... there's not much point asking if I did something correctly
However, with the blocks page itself, if I start doubling up data on the page, like you are suggesting, then I can see that causing problems for anyone trying to do anything with the data ... and I'm certainly not going to hide anything.
Yes I gather that you assume it's impossible for your code to get a different difficulty calculation than bitcoind ... even though your code is python and bitcoind is C++ - however we don't assume that to be the case and have a small margin of error to ensure we can't throw a block away.
The result is: yes so far twice, 2 "Unworthy" shares on the blocks page.
That information in itself is interesting - so much so that I also have my ckdb console report any shares that are within 5% of being a block (or are a block or better) and also stale/invalid shares that are within 5% of being a block ... or even stale but 'block worthy'
Yep a stale block would suck, and may or may not make it onto the blocks page depending on if it was stale vs bitcoind - in both cases it will show there as an orphan
Now lastly related to that ... regarding this:
...
Orphan rates have been on par and normal despite kano's trolling.
...
You checked that yet?
But this one ...
Kano's own pool has been running about a year, roughly 25% of the time that the current version of Eligius has been online and has mined 368 blocks as of this writing, a whopping 3% of the blocks Eligius has mined and has data on. I don't know about you, but I'm reasonably certain Eligius has much more valid long term statistical data. So while kano's young pool may have about 0.5% stale rate over 368 blocks, let's check back in about 30 years when that total block count catches up to what Eligius's today and see where things actually stand. Kano saying Eligius's orphan rate is high is like a guy at the roulette table who is up a few % after a few hours going around telling people that this roulette table must be better. lol. Pretty sure I'll stick with legitimate long term stats on the topic when discussing it.
lulz worthy ...
If you want to actually play with numbers, you need to check what your numbers actually mean.
The statistical term that matters is 'confidence interval' and it's not linear
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_interval
