Topic: KanoPool kano.is lowest 0.9% fee 🐈 since 2014 - Worldwide - 2432 blocks - page 2035. (Read 5352086 times)
August 05, 2015, 09:00:57 AM
There are so many hot gingers out there .... however, in the spirit of thedreamer's post (and because it's damn funny):
August 04, 2015, 11:39:48 PM
How about .. GINGER. Nobody wants those. 
August 04, 2015, 10:36:55 PM
Our first 'almost' block - but it wasn't good enough.
ckpool submits the share as a block if it is within a small amount of being a block just to be sure.
So it shows up on the web site, but alas not good enough.
share block was: 52123573961.901596
but current diff is: 52278304845.59168243
It will show up as an orphan, but I guess I need to label it as something else later since it's not an orphan.
ckpool submits the share as a block if it is within a small amount of being a block just to be sure.
So it shows up on the web site, but alas not good enough.
share block was: 52123573961.901596
but current diff is: 52278304845.59168243
It will show up as an orphan, but I guess I need to label it as something else later since it's not an orphan.
You could call it a vagabond or vagrant
Amateur or JV block is what I'd vote. Or water boy.
August 04, 2015, 09:54:57 PM
Since that block wasn't really an orphan that makes #295 a 148.376% Diff block. Isn't that correct?
Yep, that's what the comment at the bottom means and thus the stats count it as a single 148% Diff block. 
August 04, 2015, 08:41:36 PM
Since that block wasn't really an orphan that makes #295 a 148.376% Diff block. Isn't that correct?
August 04, 2015, 05:33:47 PM
Must we continue this 'Battle of the Pool'? It really comes down to choice. I choose kano.is. Battle over, I win!
Seconded, everybody does there own research and chooses a pool based on what he finds. If you don't like this pool then go find another one!
Nice to see the "orphan" get backed up by a couple real blocks, gogo kano ck pool!
August 04, 2015, 05:29:24 PM
Our first 'almost' block - but it wasn't good enough.
ckpool submits the share as a block if it is within a small amount of being a block just to be sure.
So it shows up on the web site, but alas not good enough.
share block was: 52123573961.901596
but current diff is: 52278304845.59168243
It will show up as an orphan, but I guess I need to label it as something else later since it's not an orphan.
ckpool submits the share as a block if it is within a small amount of being a block just to be sure.
So it shows up on the web site, but alas not good enough.
share block was: 52123573961.901596
but current diff is: 52278304845.59168243
It will show up as an orphan, but I guess I need to label it as something else later since it's not an orphan.
I saw that on the block page on your website and wondered, thanks for the clarification.
I recall a similar thing happening on the ck solo pool, where a "close" block solve was submitted but ultimately reject. Close but no cigar!
August 04, 2015, 04:48:53 PM
Our first 'almost' block - but it wasn't good enough.
ckpool submits the share as a block if it is within a small amount of being a block just to be sure.
So it shows up on the web site, but alas not good enough.
share block was: 52123573961.901596
but current diff is: 52278304845.59168243
It will show up as an orphan, but I guess I need to label it as something else later since it's not an orphan.
ckpool submits the share as a block if it is within a small amount of being a block just to be sure.
So it shows up on the web site, but alas not good enough.
share block was: 52123573961.901596
but current diff is: 52278304845.59168243
It will show up as an orphan, but I guess I need to label it as something else later since it's not an orphan.
You could call it a vagabond or vagrant
August 04, 2015, 01:00:23 PM
Woohooo block!! love it!
Was 368348 the 1st orphan for this pool? or was there one early on?
Was 368348 the 1st orphan for this pool? or was there one early on?
I think we have had two in the past, but this one was not an Orphan:
Our first 'almost' block - but it wasn't good enough.
ckpool submits the share as a block if it is within a small amount of being a block just to be sure.
So it shows up on the web site, but alas not good enough.
share block was: 52123573961.901596
but current diff is: 52278304845.59168243
It will show up as an orphan, but I guess I need to label it as something else later since it's not an orphan.
ckpool submits the share as a block if it is within a small amount of being a block just to be sure.
So it shows up on the web site, but alas not good enough.
share block was: 52123573961.901596
but current diff is: 52278304845.59168243
It will show up as an orphan, but I guess I need to label it as something else later since it's not an orphan.
Ahhhh... I missed that post. Thanks for the answer tho.
August 04, 2015, 12:50:01 PM
Woohooo block!! love it!
Was 368348 the 1st orphan for this pool? or was there one early on?
Was 368348 the 1st orphan for this pool? or was there one early on?
I think we have had two in the past, but this one was not an Orphan:
Our first 'almost' block - but it wasn't good enough.
ckpool submits the share as a block if it is within a small amount of being a block just to be sure.
So it shows up on the web site, but alas not good enough.
share block was: 52123573961.901596
but current diff is: 52278304845.59168243
It will show up as an orphan, but I guess I need to label it as something else later since it's not an orphan.
ckpool submits the share as a block if it is within a small amount of being a block just to be sure.
So it shows up on the web site, but alas not good enough.
share block was: 52123573961.901596
but current diff is: 52278304845.59168243
It will show up as an orphan, but I guess I need to label it as something else later since it's not an orphan.
August 04, 2015, 12:44:50 PM
Woohooo block!! love it!
Was 368348 the 1st orphan for this pool? or was there one early on?
Was 368348 the 1st orphan for this pool? or was there one early on?
August 04, 2015, 12:43:12 PM
Canaan...you rock! Block!
August 04, 2015, 11:18:13 AM
Must we continue this 'Battle of the Pool'? It really comes down to choice. I choose kano.is. Battle over, I win!
Seconded, everybody does there own research and chooses a pool based on what he finds. If you don't like this pool then go find another one! August 04, 2015, 09:57:07 AM
Must we continue this 'Battle of the Pool'? It really comes down to choice. I choose kano.is. Battle over, I win!
Seconded, everybody does there own research and chooses a pool based on what he finds. If you don't like this pool then go find another one! August 04, 2015, 08:55:45 AM
Must we continue this 'Battle of the Pool'? It really comes down to choice. I choose kano.is. Battle over, I win!
August 04, 2015, 08:18:05 AM
...
Thus his official terms of service on his web site are wrong ... or you are wrong.
Maybe slush should keep it up to date ... if he has time to and can afford to?
I've no idea which, but I obviously have no want or desire to have an account on slush or follow crap on facedesk.
Since his official terms of service say he is charging you 2% ...
https://mining.bitcoin.cz/terms-of-service
then who knows ...
If you are correct and slush is wrong, then I'd be more worried about the fact that he effectively has no income supporting his pool according to your statement ... and we are heading for another BAN ... if he is forever charging no fees to anyone ever again.
Though of course your 0% fees since 1-Aug you are talking about, is less than 4 days of mining since however long way back when he finally dropped his fees to 2% ... and finishes when?
Thus his official terms of service on his web site are wrong ... or you are wrong.
Maybe slush should keep it up to date ... if he has time to and can afford to?
I've no idea which, but I obviously have no want or desire to have an account on slush or follow crap on facedesk.
Since his official terms of service say he is charging you 2% ...
https://mining.bitcoin.cz/terms-of-service
then who knows ...
If you are correct and slush is wrong, then I'd be more worried about the fact that he effectively has no income supporting his pool according to your statement ... and we are heading for another BAN ... if he is forever charging no fees to anyone ever again.
Though of course your 0% fees since 1-Aug you are talking about, is less than 4 days of mining since however long way back when he finally dropped his fees to 2% ... and finishes when?
We digress, but yes, I am right and the info on the TOS is outdated, but more pertinent, you are wrong (as indeed anyone can be).
If you insist on sticking your head in the sand (even give the impression of doing so), thats your prerogative. Fact is, even before the demise of the fee on slush, actual payouts were better than kano.is expected (and actual) payouts.
Maybe he's only doing it for a week, so he doesn't go broke paying out many hundreds or thousands of dollars a month running the pool servers, and thus your point is basically irrelevant?
As for payout history ... you don't need to have me prove kano.is is better than slush - look at:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11941177
and since his last report, payouts here have continued like that.
So yeah since kano.is has been the best paying pool against BTCGuild, Antpool, F2Pool and NiceHash for payouts over those 12 weeks and payouts have not fallen even with a 666.666% block in there ... I'd have difficulty believing slush was paying better for the past 3 or 4 months ... especially when you provide no proof of that ... and it was reported when we got the 666.666% block, that slush had a worse than 666.666% block in there also ...
Now that the fees on slush have been dropped AND merged mining NMC introduced, I am as sure as can be that payouts at slush will confortably exceed whatever kano.is can expect to payout, even with the supposed better luck that you claim for kano.is;
Your concerns as to how slush gets on without income are purely for anecdotal value as being the pioneer pool, I am confident they can get their numbers right.
You need to look up the meaning of the word anecdotal.Your concerns as to how slush gets on without income are purely for anecdotal value as being the pioneer pool, I am confident they can get their numbers right.
The numbers, according to you, are zero. So yeah I doubt they can get their numbers right if you are correct in saying their income is zero forever more.
August 04, 2015, 08:17:15 AM
Now that the fees on slush have been dropped AND merged mining NMC introduced, I am as sure as can be that payouts at slush will confortably exceed whatever kano.is can expect to payout, even with the supposed better luck that you claim for kano.is;
So, that being the case, why don't you do what johnnybravo has done elsewhere, and point some hardware at both, record the payouts, and compare them so you can prove your point, rather than continue the cat fight back and forth.Really, I could give a shit less about what you, or anyone for that matter, "think" or "know" about any pool being better than any other pool with regards to luck or payouts without empirical data, and I'm sure most of the rest would agree. And, this does not except Kano from that statement either, but he at least has proven before to provide numbers and calculations to attempt to support his assertions, instead of specious knowledge and feelings.
If you prove it with numbers, there is no ability to question or deny at that point. Until then, it's merely speculation and attempts to denigrate.
August 04, 2015, 07:42:06 AM
Yay a real one
August 04, 2015, 06:56:57 AM
No it isn't.
His fee is higher and his long term luck is lower ...........
You really have to keep up if you are going to insist on being pig-headed .... there's no fee on slush. His fee is higher and his long term luck is lower ...........
It is true, merged mining NMC and no fee at slush since the start of this month (see their facebook page as they don't post in this forum much anymore). Thus, you are wrong, again.
Maybe slush should keep it up to date ... if he has time to and can afford to?
I've no idea which, but I obviously have no want or desire to have an account on slush or follow crap on facedesk.
Since his official terms of service say he is charging you 2% ...
https://mining.bitcoin.cz/terms-of-service
then who knows ...
If you are correct and slush is wrong, then I'd be more worried about the fact that he effectively has no income supporting his pool according to your statement ... and we are heading for another BAN ... if he is forever charging no fees to anyone ever again.
Though of course your 0% fees since 1-Aug you are talking about, is less than 4 days of mining since however long way back when he finally dropped his fees to 2% ... and finishes when?
We digress, but yes, I am right and the info on the TOS is outdated, but more pertinent, you are wrong (as indeed anyone can be).
If you insist on sticking your head in the sand (even give the impression of doing so), thats your prerogative. Fact is, even before the demise of the fee on slush, actual payouts were better than kano.is expected (and actual) payouts.
Now that the fees on slush have been dropped AND merged mining NMC introduced, I am as sure as can be that payouts at slush will confortably exceed whatever kano.is can expect to payout, even with the supposed better luck that you claim for kano.is;
Your concerns as to how slush gets on without income are purely for anecdotal value as being the pioneer pool, I am confident they can get their numbers right.
August 04, 2015, 06:32:00 AM
No it isn't.
His fee is higher and his long term luck is lower ...........
You really have to keep up if you are going to insist on being pig-headed .... there's no fee on slush. His fee is higher and his long term luck is lower ...........
It is true, merged mining NMC and no fee at slush since the start of this month (see their facebook page as they don't post in this forum much anymore). Thus, you are wrong, again.
Maybe slush should keep it up to date ... if he has time to and can afford to?
I've no idea which, but I obviously have no want or desire to have an account on slush or follow crap on facedesk.
Since his official terms of service say he is charging you 2% ...
https://mining.bitcoin.cz/terms-of-service
then who knows ...
If you are correct and slush is wrong, then I'd be more worried about the fact that he effectively has no income supporting his pool according to your statement ... and we are heading for another BAN ... if he is forever charging no fees to anyone ever again.
Though of course your 0% fees since 1-Aug you are talking about, is less than 4 days of mining since however long way back when he finally dropped his fees to 2% ... and finishes when?
Jump to: