Topic: KanoPool kano.is lowest 0.9% fee 🐈 since 2014 - Worldwide - 2432 blocks - page 59. (Read 5352119 times)

When did this happened last year? Kano paying pool operators?

When a pool gets too low in hashrate then that is the worst gambling since the % difference per block is large.  (4/5 vs 5/5 is 20%.  99/100 vs 100/100 is 1%)

It's like a regular guy trying his luck at the high stakes table in a casino.  He can't ride the ups and downs of chance and can easily bottom out. (in miner terms, that's being short on your monthly electric bill instead of having the variance to work itself out during the month)


Last year the same thing started to happen here and Kano went out and paid big pool operators to avoid being in quicksand.  Seems it's back to that again.  Unless you are able to extend your timelines to years instead of weeks to even things out.  If you go too far then the reward halving will draw the line and then future luck ain't the same reward so you can only correct till that moment.

There are certain regions with a very cheap (official) electricity price. But you need to physically be there, or at least have a trusted local person in order to even think about an investment. Otherwise, the risks are too high...

Update done and hash rate is back where it was before the update.
Mine On!

I wonder what is the current electricity price in Siberia and how feasible it is for foreigners to invest in mining there. I recall reading some news about a special incentive from the government, Do you know if it is true?

Nice work Rabinovitch!

It looks that I have attracted a miner with 2 PH to this pool. I could share a screenshot of my PMs with this person if you could understand Russian. ))

Yes, statistics are over your head.

Look at the Shift Graph.

Your 5Nd is simply a (green) tank.
The amount going out of the tank (on the left) must be less than the amount going into the tank (on the right)
for the average line to go up.

If they are the same, the 5Nd line will stay the same.

If input hash rate on the right is less than the amount going out the left, then the average line will go down, but the rate it goes down depends on the difference.

Strange thing i dont understand. Maybe someone can explain...

i put my miners at Kano for about a week, and pulled them temporary to an other pool to generate some coins.
Naturally, my hash graph slowly decreases.
By the time first block January hits, i get paid for 166Th
Next block: 153 and then 152Th
I added all my miners again, and my graph is 130-ish.

Since i added my 235Th, my graph is still declining for the past 2 days?
Yesterday was 118 average, now it is 102??? With 2 days miners running already?

Anyone care to explain?

The blocks have been great.

Just managed to get myself over the 100 TH mark. Hoping to keep that stable for the rest of Winter.

I told you so, didn't I? Just joking, I know you can't game luck, despite what some fools believe...

And the pool's hashrate is looking good @ 175ish PH/s:

Fun fun fun!

Nice, another slightly over-100%-ish block!

EDIT: This is our 1st of BLOCK MONDAY!

another block! found by luckyant!

MINE ON!

The problem is other people having no understanding of statistics and making claims about abilities to predict the future.
Seriously, that is actually what happens.

The 250 Block Luck (still) includes the two worst blocks of all time in Oct 2017 - the 928% and 875% blocks.
They are currently blocks 234 and 236 counting back.

Now if we calculate the worst run of 5 blocks around those two (that is also faking statistics to get a worse results) we get:
Or a total of 1936.203% for 5 blocks = a mean of 387.2406% per block.
The CDF[Erland] of that is 0.999972 or about 1 in 35714
So yep that's pretty unexpected if we rig the numbers to be as bad as possible.

However, that occurred in the last 250 blocks, so any statistics that includes those two blocks will show low for quite a long time,
irrelevant of how the pool has performed since then.
Luck does NOT always magically reverse itself.
How is luck expected to approach 100% after a large fall in luck?
Simply by the fact that if you continue to get the expected 100% luck, lower luck will approach 100% over time.

The currently shown, 108 blocks on the web site, is effectively showing the last 207 blocks in the "100 Luck%" statistics.

That shows the number (as I already stated) going up and down from 91% to 108% and again I discussed that above.
The luck since then is not unexpected, it has been going up and down, just the pools size has been small so that the variance is higher.

So what's the point of this?
Firstly, no, people can't predict the future.
Yes bad luck happens.

Since then, the stats have actually been within expectation.

Expecting that historical luck will match future luck is not what you can do on this pool.
I regularly run detailed statistical analysis of the pool - well above and beyond what any other pool does.
So that we can identify such problems if possible and act on them.
You can't ever expect good luck on any pool to mean future good luck.
You may be able to expect bad luck on any pool to mean future bad luck, if they don't do a high level statistical analysis of the pool data.
Which is the case for most pools - and some do absolutely none at all.

Now, what happened after that issue in Oct 2017? I explained this before but will repeat it.
I added a bunch of new code to KDB to verify all shares coming into the pool that they matched the results that ckpool got for them and also checked for blocks and submitted the blocks from KDB also.
Effectively a double check of everything with completely independent code, independent of the less accurate calculations done in ckpool.
Then I reran KDB with the 3 months of data around the time of Oct 2017 on a backup server, and verified all that data a seconds time.
Results: no missing blocks and all shares came out correct.

So the only 2 possible assumptions I can make are:
1) It was just a run of very bad luck
2) There was a large source of hash rate that caused (accidentally or purposefully) some of the loss of blocks

At the time, about half the pool hash rate (for a short period) came from NiceHash
So that was the only hash rate on the pool that could directly cause such a problem, if it wasn't just bad luck, or only partially bad luck.
The other large hash rates on the pool, large enough to 'possibly' cause it, were known miners who I can assure you did not cause it.
The probability of causing a "16 block withhold" in 10 days with anything but a large hash rate, is obviously way too low to consider.

Thus I have since then enforced a ban/block on rental hashes, since, as I have stated on the forum many times since then (and before then), there is a financial incentive for rental hashes to withhold blocks, and that risk is too high.

.
.

Now that all leads to another point about all this, and that is about slush.
Why do I bring them up?
Because they are a very large pool who has had worse than this happen on 2 occasions, and yet I don't see reminders about the specifically known withholding fact that did occur there in Dec-2015 and slush effectively hushed up and made all his miners pay for it, or the more recent case of possible withholding where they had a run of 5 blocks worse than our run of bad luck in Oct 2017, yet no one seems to even care about it and nothing was done about it, it was just brushed under the carpet.

i.e. my point being 2 things:
1) that bad luck does occur on all pools, variance makes it more obvious on pools our size, but the large pools that most people mine on don't do anything useful about about (slush did nothing about it for over 5 years and then initially ignored the problem when others pointed it out)
2) you certainly can't know if it is bad luck, or some other problems without a good analysis going on. Personal opinion counts for nothing at all.

I really don't care that Phil doesn't mine here, it doesn't bother me all if not everyone mines here.
Unfortunately pool size does make variance much more obvious, but Phil's withholding statement has absolutely no basis, it's just actually an incorrect opinion based on some emotional outburst, and nothing more.


Specifically

This is rubbish, it has no statistical backing at all, it's either emotional, or more likely some form of bias.
I don't really care what he 'suspects' coz it's not based on anything other than uninformed guesses.

There's a large bunch of terms and examples related to this
Confirmation Bias, Frequency Illusion, A Reassuring Lie, Gambler’s Fallacy, Anchoring Effect, Availability Heuristic
What they help to show us all, is that people in general have all sorts of reasons for bias and ignoring statistics, but conversely it is statistics that we should take notice of.

Hey Phil

I think you had the 92.5% inverted.

100% here anyways just refers to expected time to find a block.*

So having 92.5 means we're on the better side of luck at the moment. For simplicity sake 100 blocks were found in the expected time frame to find 92.5

Well you can disregard that, I was mixing up what i was checking on mobile. Sorry about that.

Though with any historical data, hindsight is 20/20. Had any number of things changed through that time such as transaction fees it could have been a different story. On total earnings against a pps+ pool.


* and yes kanoites i remember were always 100% from the next block... or something along those lines

---

I don't disagree there have been very shitty blocks, and runs if bad luck but, they are expected just as often as a block found in 10 seconds.

I don't think we've had anybody withholding maliciously. I remember a while back when that was a supposition Kano re ran a bunch of numbers , mixed a potion and was satisfied everything was above board.

I also take some comfort in the fact that despite these larger miners flip flopping on staying Kano has spoken to them and met them (i think), and I've gathered they like money to much to play games like that.

I can only say this 92.35 translates to 9235 usd instead of 10000 usd

If you mine at a pps pool and are paid 98%

You get 9800 usd.

My monthly numbers are such that  I pay 4500 for power and I collect 4900 in coins.

A big profit of 400 a month.

If I had been at Kano the last year

I would have paid 4500 and collected 4617 a month.  A smaller 117 profit each month.
With many months in the negative.

So a lot of miners in the tight profit era we are in are forced to go pps+ vs a 5n like Kano.

Last year or so luck has been brutal?  Luck for the last year (250 Block Luck) is 92.35% which is not too shabby no matter how you look at it.  It's well within the expected range for that time frame.

It seems proclamations about the death of the KanoPool have been greatly exaggerated.