Topic: KanoPool kano.is lowest 0.9% fee 🐈 since 2014 - Worldwide - 2432 blocks - page 1993. (Read 5352429 times)

Good point, I was thinking about this as I am powering up some S7's I just spent a SHIT load on money on, Next 1-2 months I think the Diff will be going up about 5% per period as a lot of S7's and more power from Fury is coming online. That said, variance is a problem as you need to make ROI as FAST as possible before the next Diff change. I have been on this pool since early June and very happy with the Pool and support from Kano. But now that I have over 12K in miners to payoff, variance is an issue. Prior to these S7's, I bought mostly used S5 and used s4 so recovering the hardware cost was not as big a deal since I expected that to drop to near zero. But these expensive miners need to pay off FAST, or at least 50% of the cost and sell them while they still have value. Anyway, lets see now the next 2 weeks runs on luck.

Next difficulty retarget occurs at block 381023.0 (eta 1.9 days): -1.13194444444 / -100.0% [est.]

Difficulty Factor   
60883825480.1
Hash Rate   
19.83

Exchange Rate   
286.6
($/BTC) [user]
BTC / Block   25.00000000   
Calculate

This Difficulty
Coins   Dollars
per Day   0.16379779 BTC   $46.94
per Week   1.14658455 BTC   $328.61
per Month   4.98559531 BTC   $1428.87
this diff (est)   0.30649280 BTC   $87.84
Next Difficulty [estimated]
Coins   Dollars
per Day   -8810181692.01541901 BTC   $-2524998072931.62
per Week   -61671271844.10793304 BTC   $-17674986510521.34
per Month   -268159905250.71932983 BTC   $-76854628844856.16
This is comical Alloscomp.

CKDB restart coming up in a few minutes - backend DB performance change, so nothing added to the web site in this restart.
No miners will be affected as usual for a CKDB restart, just the web statistics are unavailable, mostly showing "?" for about 15 minutes.

Edit: completed

FWIW, I like the 5N range just as it is.

On another subject, with the BTC price increase my spreadsheet says that I reached ROI at the last payout!  It could disappear as fast as it appeared if the price goes back down (or if the pool remains this unlucky), but it is nice to see anyway.

I fail to see how going from 5N to 2N would attract any new miners. If one of the people proposing that could describe it, that would be a discussion, but I see no discussion just assertion.

On the other hand, 5N reduces luck variance for the long-term miners, which is important for a pool that desires to keep people mining long-term. That has been described many times throughout this thread and others. Anyone who can't wait 5N for a full reward is unlikely to be patient enough to stay for long anyway. It boggles the mind why this pool isn't more popular, but I'm glad Kano is happy with the size it is. BTCGuild was ~10N and was extremely popular, so not everyone is statistically challenged.

It's like the reward experiment with little kids: Place a jelly bean in front of a 4 year old and tell her that she can eat it now, but if she can wait 5 minutes before eating it she can have a second one. 3 of my 4 kids waited. The majority of miners can't help themselves and eat the jelly bean right away.

yxt: I, too, like this pool (and some other smaller pools).
And I DO appreciate the work kano does and I'm on your side saying that kano does a good work.

And well, your remark regarding statistics - if you think someone who likes to discuss something just doesn't understand statistics....

Even IF everybody who's into mining would understand statistics, still many of them would do some pool hopping - just because the do ignore statistics due to the need to make a quick buck to pay electricity. My concern is that smaller pools will lose miners over the long run (look how miners obviously jumped from Eligius to Slush's) - and that the Chinese farms and some few other big companies will. at tjhe end of the day, be the only ones who stay in the race.

I'm not saying that I have the solution for this - en contraire. But I was hoping that someone may have an idea...

Spreading hashrate amongst pools also helps with variance if you have the hashrate to spread.  And as Kano said, there is some improbably bad luck happening on other pools at the moment.  When difficulty was rising around 20% at every difficulty adjustment then only getting one or two blocks in a difficulty period was a huge problem in terms of ever getting ROI on a miner, but that isn't happening anymore.  Difficulty adjustments are relatively small in comparison to the overall difficulty so sitting out some bad luck waiting for better luck is more realistic now than it used to be.

Do not worry, kano.
I am very happy with the pool.
If people do not understand statistics, this is not your fault/problem.

keep up the good work  

---

btw: If variance is a problem...
There is a very small PPS pool: www.btcmp.com
It is working since years. But as always: a pool is no bank.
Use it on your own risk

Well, I don't really see the pool's performance as a problem in reality.

And getting some more small miners wont help the hash rate much either.

The luck here at the pool has been poor for ... 25 blocks ...
The luck has been WORSE at other pools for a lot MORE blocks than that.

The the whole point of the CDF and CDF[Erl] numbers - are to be able to compare pool statistics properly.
I'm not trying to hide information, but I do get the feeling that people mine at some pools because those pools don't show that sort of information - probably due to the fact that it would show those pools in the bad light they actually deserve.

In pool mining, the number of shares and blocks is what counts determining luck, not time.
Out first block took ... 22 days ... and everyone got paid about 179% PPS for all their mining for 22 days i.e. they didn't lose out because the first block took 22 days, they simply had much higher variance due to no pay for 21 days and then the equivalent of 179% of those 22 days pay in 1 payout (I got 1.10126283 BTC for my mining on the pool for the first block)
Yep that's not happening at the moment, but it just means that you need to understand variance no matter where you mine.

People who decide that they must mine at the largest pools are either expecting too much of the variance of mining (i.e. don't understand BTC mining and didn't understand what they were getting into when they started mining) or have an unrealistic expectation (lack of statistical understanding) of PPLNS variance.

PPLNS here means the pool is VERY resistant to closing down even when it's only got one PH (at the current difficulty)
The only real tangable risk would be me not being able to afford to run it.
The hardware costs to run the pool are still below the fee - by a bit
Yeah I get slave wages for the time I spend on the pool, but that's ok since I'm the one who started it and runs it
That would change if the pool hash rate went up a lot, but how it is at the moment is OK by me also.

If you can't handle variance, then yep a smaller pool (pretty much any pool with less than 5-10% of the network) is gonna be a problem for you at some stage or other in the future.

 IMO décentralisation died when Asic manufacturers went looking for capital from investors for their R&D and that is due to folks with money set the rules for the money and become involved in the day to day operations of the borrower they also place conditions, market driven will eventually bring centralization, I have to pay for my power bill for just 20 ths so i can't afford luck which has become a luxury in this business now

Payout 380508 sent
3479ca91279082fc158507736d291ce0c21975f4de4ff3ad506749f97cf9a602
and confirmed

I don't think that "mining in a smaller pool" is the problem. When is a pool a "smaller" pool? And why isn't it getting bigger?

If we look at some of those smaller pools, we see that "luck" has ran away lately. You, kano, have your issues with Luke-jr, nevertheless, I'd like to look at Eligius for a second: 12%, 14% luck with a hashrate of 14 PH seems odd.

Cex with 48-hour blocks, too, seems to be beaten by bad luck,... kano.is too.

The problem is that "luck" also seems to being centralized at the moment. I do not know if this has to do with SPV mining of the bigger pools. And yes, I d know that variance and luck are factors which play a role. But I do know, too, that even a small miner like me has to pay the electricity bill. And I do know that I don't want to mine with the Chinese pools. Or with KnC.

So what I would like to see is that smaller pools start discussing possibilities how to survive. Because it is as easy as this: IF small time miners will not be able to pay their bills, they have three choices:
- quit mining
- pay mining with their own money
- switch to bigger pools

So let me look at these possibilities:
- Quit mining basically means that the big pools will get the bigger percentage. So basically no option.
- Pay mining with my own money: That's fine, if someone has only one or two miners. With 60 Th/s, this hurts. I can tell you. And my wife starts beating me....
- Switching to bigger pools - i.e. Chinese pools - is no option. We all have seen again and again in ecomonies what centralization means.

So all these options lead basically to the same conclusion: Mine with the bigger pools, or die.

That's not what I like to see. So despite all feuds, all miners and all small pools should start to discuss what they could do for avoiding this.

Well, yes, of course I can't effect 'actual luck' - I can only reduce the other variables that all pools include in luck - re: lost blocks.
Those variables are definitely better here than other small/medium sized pools.

But with block difficulty, even that last block was under 400% diff.

400% diff or higher is expected to happen:
0.98168436111127  400.000%  1 in 54.6
i.e. every 54.6 or so blocks we'd expect to average a block worse than 400%
and that is true of every single pool out there - though certain other pools seem to be good at getting much worse % numbers

Looking at Oct, yep indeed we've had a lot of blocks over 100% and yes our smaller pool means that those blocks take longer.
Our CDF[Erl] for the last 10 blocks, 24.1 days:
Last 10 Blocks 24.1days 100.7% 158.40% 158.40% 0.9532 63.13%
Which means you'd only expect it to be worse 1 in ~21.4 times (~4.7% of the time)

So, if mining at a smaller pool is a problem due to higher variance, then yes your only solution is to mine with the big pools like F2Pool and Antpool and support their choice of SPV mining and centralising the mining power in single places (FYI Antpool is also BW.Pool) ...
... which obviously enough is a catch-22: people mine there and make them bigger because ... they are bigger

That little block Difficulty, CDF table for those who might need to look at it again

Going to vote with my feet.  Keep drinking the Kool aid.

IMO, nothing needs to be changed

I think it's very accurate.  When Kano started the pool I think it was 100 N ?? . Then when we hit 4000 ths it was adjusted to
500 N.  

BTW I don't see you as a miner here in the beginning.  Maybe you where mining under a different user name.


AKA   Pingster   

This is very inaccurate. But yeah..

Lol nobody complains when the pool is making 200% above pps for a whole week.

I would rather have a higher pool hash rate than the risk of not having shares paid with a 200 N rate.

You are almost better solo mining than wait for 500 N to get fully paid. The risk reward for a new miner sucks at 500 N.
 

Everyone thinks the 500n hurts you but it really helps. A block like the one we just had on another pool thst has a shorter range some of your past shares would have dropped off and you wouldn't have been paid for them

I agree. By being loyal to Kano pool has cost me over 300.00 USD in the last month.  I don't know how much longer I can last.

I would have had made more BTC by just buying BTC with what my electric cost.

Really would like to see more miners here, but with a 500 n range of payout  no one will risk the hash at current difficulty. 
 
This pool has been my choice since Kano began and I will remain here till the end, but some changes should be made in code or
payout N range so we can compete with the Chinese pools and the broken code that they use.

Sorry if this affends anyone.  I'm just frustrated.