Topic: KanoPool kano.is lowest 0.9% fee 🐈 since 2014 - Worldwide - 2432 blocks - page 2043. (Read 5352086 times)

Thanks for the reply.

I guess what I meant by which address found it, was which user/btc address submitted the winning share.

Kano always posts in this thread when he makes payments.  He hasn't posted yet.


https://kano.is/index.php?k=blocks

I'm new to this pool, but the way I understand it is that after a block is found and has matured after 101 confirmations then payments are made for that block.

So my question is how did he already received a payment for the last block?

Am I missing something?

Also, is there any way to find out which address found the block?

Thanks

You've gone and proven my point.  Statistics, as kano has clearly shown, provide all the evidence needed to understand that it is absolutely expected that at some point in time this pool, and every other pool, will encounter 500%, 600%, 700%, etc.  That absolutely in no way means there is something wrong with the pool.

By the way, looks like the pool found a block a few hours ago.

You picked a bad 7 days to start mining at this pool. Had you been here the previous 7 days, the same 12 S5 miners wouldve made you close to 2 BTC.

We have had comparatively bad luck for the last 7 days, but as you can see on this page http://kano.is/index.php?k=pblocks we have had an all time luck of over 100%.

Diving a little deeper... If you're making 100%, then you should put your total hash rate (12 S5s should be around 13200 GH/s) into the calculator at https://bitcoinwisdom.com/bitcoin/difficulty and it will tell you how much you can expect to receive at 100%/100% difficulty.

Note that higher luck corresponds to lower difficulty (and here I'm referring to difficulty of solving the block, not network difficulty).

Good luck in the past is not an indicator of good luck in the future. In my opinion though, this pool has a few advantages that make it worth mining on. The operators actively monitor and improve the pool where possible. The operators are respected members of the community. The fees are low. The payout system is fair.

Trace ping to pool?

Im having issues with 4 of my s5 miners also they keep disconnecting i got 2 back up and running .

Yes, yesterday and today on mine.

For some reason I'm seeing a couple of my S5 units hosted by Lee's Group failing over to another pool.  Anyone else experiencing problems?

I dont quite understand everything yet but do you get more than 0.12btc for mining for 7 days .i stuck it out on this pool just trying to understand the payments i had like 1,623.567 shares and i just now received a 0.12 btc reward i had 12 s5 miners running for this block thanks i know this is off topic.

Finally, yayyy!!

LOL 666.67%... it's a sign.  It has to be a good sign!!

Thanks ALUZ!

Well obviously Kano fixed the pool code, right? 

Hopefully some/most/all of the hash that came to bust that block stays on this pool.

HAHAHAHA   of course its 666%.   why wouldn't it be.  WOOOHOOOO

666.67% wow, so thats the new records block for this pool.nice we have 5Ph for a while to get over this block. Now 12 more under 100%

Get in there!!!

I am happy  the luck star again 

Have a good weekend.
Antuam.

Ahh finally. 

A little different way of looking at this for all the chicken littles out there.

We're currently at 636% or 6.36x expected amount of work to solve this block. But let's look backwards at recent history.

- the last block was 26%, or approximately .25x or 1/4 of expected work to solve that block

- 2 of the last 7 blocks were around 14% or approximately 1/7 of expected work to solve those blocks

- the last 10 blocks were average 46% or approximately 1/2 of expected work to solve the blocks on average... In other words over the last 10 blocks we've averaged double the amount of btc mined for the amount of work done.

I've linked organofconti's post about luck several times here, but one of the most important things pointed out there is that bad luck lasts longer because work correlates directly with time at similar hashrates.

Now stick with me here for some theoretical analysis.

"Work done" is roughly a function of time and hashrate. If you were to have time fixed and allow the other variables to change the complaints would be about high hashrates but stretches of bad luck as defined by high required hashrates to solve blocks.

So what does longer time or more hashrate boil down to? More cost.

The way this all works though, the variable with the highest delta is time. When the current block is at 6x difficulty, it's not because we've all bought 6x more hardware or rented 6x more hashrate, otherwise pool hashrate would be way higher. Likewise though when blocks were at 1/7 difficulty, its not because we turned off 6/7 worth of our hardware.

So this is a long winded explanation of why bad luck seems to last much longer than good luck. There's no way around variance. And unless people want to buy a ton more hashrate and point it here, our main perception of bad luck will remain in the form of time.

Also keep in mind if we solve this block right now and proceed to hit a couple of 15-25% blocks, we'll be right back on track. But the celebrations of good luck will be just as short lived as the time spent mining the good luck blocks.

The wonders of statistics .... can achieve and fail to deliver granularity in the same breath. Should have been called guessitics.


I actually believed the minimum sample size required to have at least 95% confidence in the result is 2000. (Off my fading memory, doubling that sample size to 4000 would NOT get you into 96% confidence irrespective of the population size....).

It's not extremely bad at all.

The CDF values for different Diff% are:
Simple statistics.

So for example, it is expected on average for 1 in just under 1,001 blocks to be more than 700%
i.e. some time in the near or distant future, it is not at all unexpected to get a block over 700%

That's the same on every pool on the planet (but of course it ignores the factors that can make it worse e.g. orphans and slow pools)

But also note the even more important fact regarding that - sample vs population.
If you only have a small sample of blocks you can't even expect those numbers to be close.
Remember that the bitcoin network itself uses 2016 blocks to determine, inaccurately, the current network performance, so you need a lot of blocks before you can make any reasonable statistical judgements.

But when the statistics show better than the expected average, it's a bit over the top to be calling it "extremely bad" ...