Hi All.
New here and excited to be a part of the crypto game.
Got a deal on a s7 to dabble in mining, which i only expect to basicly break even on, but thought it would be a good starting experience mining.
I moved my workers here from bitmain after running it for a few days.
Unfortunatly it appears i moved here just before this whole "hell block" phase.
(maybe i am unlucky?)
Im wondering if someone could point me toward the best way to understand the averages over time and what metrics best describe chances to mine more coin here over time then a large pool like bitmain, which seems fairly consistant.
Im wading through the lingo, and im starting to pick it up, but is a bit of a learning curve for sure!
Thanks for any help !
Topic: KanoPool kano.is lowest 0.9% fee 🐈 since 2014 - Worldwide - 2432 blocks - page 749. (Read 5352367 times)
October 29, 2017, 08:47:56 PM
October 29, 2017, 08:04:28 PM
Yup. Right on.
October 29, 2017, 11:55:33 AM
I’m not worried though, looks like we did damn good after dropping down to 60’s. Remember that happening before Kano? As soon as a bunch of miners left we started hitting them greens! Lol 
If true, then it almost suggests some kind of a bottleneck.
Like, 50ph OK/great, 60 OK/good, 80-90 so-so, 160- bammmo
Not sure if it is real, but anecdotally, every time pool numbers are climbing fast, we hit a roadblock.
I consider this a major reason that we are at 1% instead of 3-4%
I am still here.
EDIT: looking back, though, it was MUCH more important to have good luck in 2014-2016 than in 2017 for a simple reason that you were getting way more btc then. Both 1000 blocks and 162 wk stats are good here, especially comparing with some other (formely popular) pool that had 93% luck in 2014-2015. Those numbers essentially extinguished that pool.
October 29, 2017, 11:22:14 AM
My 40.5 TH's are coming back online today. Let's get some blocks!
w00t w00t!
October 29, 2017, 11:17:12 AM
My 40.5 TH's are coming back online today. Let's get some blocks!
October 29, 2017, 11:13:31 AM
Common, a few more blocks! I am almost back up to my 0.0088 per block
October 29, 2017, 10:34:58 AM
A stale??? The situation just got fuck....d up even more than it was! Just because of this block I think we will get another 10ph or so jumping the ship! 
Really? What's the reason for your guess?I know who the ~30PH was and where they went and why they did
A stale share block is actually a non event.
Most pools don't even tell you about them.
If you are basing your comment on luck, then I'm sure anyone who thought bad luck was a reason to leave would have left after we got the two worst blocks of all time on the pool in short succession.
You’re right, and from the looks of it almost half of miners though that bad luck was a reason to leave.
. I’m just assuming that the stale block makes the luck look even worse, giving more people a reason to doubt and get scared. I’m not worried though, looks like we did damn good after dropping down to 60’s. Remember that happening before Kano? As soon as a bunch of miners left we started hitting them greens! Lol October 29, 2017, 10:28:32 AM
BLOCK! by renanvendas
Welcome to the acclaim board with your first pool block
... and 2 payouts
Edit: that was also a Juvia block
https://a.wattpad.com/cover/108108657-256-k879517.jpg
Welcome to the acclaim board with your first pool block
... and 2 payouts
Edit: that was also a Juvia block
https://a.wattpad.com/cover/108108657-256-k879517.jpg
Finally my first block!
COMEEEE BLOCKKKK
October 29, 2017, 07:45:45 AM
A stale??? The situation just got fuck....d up even more than it was! Just because of this block I think we will get another 10ph or so jumping the ship!
Really? What's the reason for your guess?I know who the ~30PH was and where they went and why they did
A stale share block is actually a non event.
Most pools don't even tell you about them.
If you are basing your comment on luck, then I'm sure anyone who thought bad luck was a reason to leave would have left after we got the two worst blocks of all time on the pool in short succession.
October 29, 2017, 07:08:20 AM
A stale??? The situation just got fuck....d up even more than it was! Just because of this block I think we will get another 10ph or so jumping the ship!
October 29, 2017, 06:42:05 AM
don't you think this wont happen if more nodes where connected to the mining nodes?
Maybe I'm writing a technical stupidity but what if everyone of us set our node to the Kano nodes? whitelist them or something
Maybe I'm writing a technical stupidity but what if everyone of us set our node to the Kano nodes? whitelist them or something
This block would have still been 4 seconds after the other's block.
October 29, 2017, 06:40:58 AM
Orphan ... analysing why - looks like it as a quick double block by BTC.COM to orphan our 'winning' block.
Will post later once I've worked out the details.
Was actually a stale share.Will post later once I've worked out the details.
The 'other' 492189 block arrived at the NL node at 10:56:12.957 UTC
Code:
2017-10-29 10:56:12.956881 ProcessNewBlock
2017-10-29 10:56:13.167517 UpdateTip: new best=0000000000000000008d4bff4bc5796f98bee7e75d9c93c4d0303a7f10d5fdc8 height=492189 version=0x20000000 log2_work=87.372267 tx=266530212 date='2017-10-29 10:56:05' progress=1.000000 cache=129.8MiB(55037tx) warning='3 of last 100 blocks have unexpected version'
The share for our block arrived at 10:56:16.414, so it was a stale share.
When we get a stale share, we switch our work to it to attempt to confirm our block, however the rest of bitcoin will be mining the 'other' 492189 block.
So it becomes a race between us and the rest of the world so either we get a double block, or someone elsewhere finds a block.
The expected result is based on our hash rate of course, so if we are about 1% of bitcoin, we should expect to win this double block 1% of the time a stale happens
Normally it would just be a stale block and be completely ignored, so this is a little better for us than that.
Alas, we didn't confirm it, so it was orphaned by the 'other' pool finding the next network block.
It's a stale, not an orphan, so I've updated it as such.
don't you think this wont happen if more nodes where connected to the mining nodes?
Maybe I'm writing a technical stupidity but what if everyone of us set our node to the Kano nodes? whitelist them or something
It's simply a stale share, that in normal circumstances would be treated as if it didn't exist at all.
However, I 'harassed' core about the ability to switch blocks about 2 years ago:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/6995
One core programmer actually implemented it to be able to switch with less rigorous requirements:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6996
Then it was committed into core about a year later.
Then ckpool was updated to use it some time after that.
Thus when we get a stale share submitted to the pool that is a block, the pool will switch to work on that instead.
As stated, this gives a chance of getting a double block instead of ignoring the stale one.
Seems like a good idea
October 29, 2017, 06:29:19 AM
Orphan ... analysing why - looks like it as a quick double block by BTC.COM to orphan our 'winning' block.
Will post later once I've worked out the details.
Was actually a stale share.Will post later once I've worked out the details.
The 'other' 492189 block arrived at the NL node at 10:56:12.957 UTC
Code:
2017-10-29 10:56:12.956881 ProcessNewBlock
2017-10-29 10:56:13.167517 UpdateTip: new best=0000000000000000008d4bff4bc5796f98bee7e75d9c93c4d0303a7f10d5fdc8 height=492189 version=0x20000000 log2_work=87.372267 tx=266530212 date='2017-10-29 10:56:05' progress=1.000000 cache=129.8MiB(55037tx) warning='3 of last 100 blocks have unexpected version'
The share for our block arrived at 10:56:16.414, so it was a stale share.
When we get a stale share, we switch our work to it to attempt to confirm our block, however the rest of bitcoin will be mining the 'other' 492189 block.
So it becomes a race between us and the rest of the world so either we get a double block, or someone elsewhere finds a block.
The expected result is based on our hash rate of course, so if we are about 1% of bitcoin, we should expect to win this double block 1% of the time a stale happens
Normally it would just be a stale block and be completely ignored, so this is a little better for us than that.
Alas, we didn't confirm it, so it was orphaned by the 'other' pool finding the next network block.
It's a stale, not an orphan, so I've updated it as such.
don't you think this wont happen if more nodes where connected to the mining nodes?
Maybe I'm writing a technical stupidity but what if everyone of us set our node to the Kano nodes? whitelist them or something
October 29, 2017, 06:26:38 AM
Orphan ... analysing why - looks like it as a quick double block by BTC.COM to orphan our 'winning' block.
Will post later once I've worked out the details.
Was actually a stale share.Will post later once I've worked out the details.
The 'other' 492189 block arrived at the NL node at 10:56:12.957 UTC
Code:
2017-10-29 10:56:12.956881 ProcessNewBlock
2017-10-29 10:56:13.167517 UpdateTip: new best=0000000000000000008d4bff4bc5796f98bee7e75d9c93c4d0303a7f10d5fdc8 height=492189 version=0x20000000 log2_work=87.372267 tx=266530212 date='2017-10-29 10:56:05' progress=1.000000 cache=129.8MiB(55037tx) warning='3 of last 100 blocks have unexpected version'
The share for our block arrived at 10:56:16.414, so it was a stale share.
When we get a stale share, we switch our work to it to attempt to confirm our block, however the rest of bitcoin will be mining the 'other' 492189 block.
So it becomes a race between us and the rest of the world so either we get a double block, or someone elsewhere finds a block and we get orphaned.
The expected result is based on our hash rate of course, so if we are about 1% of bitcoin, we should expect to win this double block 1% of the time a stale happens
Normally it would just be a stale block and be completely ignored, so this is a little better for us than that.
Alas, we didn't confirm it, so it was orphaned by the 'other' pool finding the next network block.
It's a stale, not an orphan, so I've updated it as such.
October 29, 2017, 06:20:36 AM
Orphan ... analysing why - looks like it as a quick double block by BTC.COM to orphan our 'winning' block.
Will post later once I've worked out the details.
Will post later once I've worked out the details.
We wait the explanation why it was an orphan block
Thank you Kano
October 29, 2017, 06:00:43 AM
Orphan ... analysing why - looks like it as a quick double block by BTC.COM to orphan our 'winning' block.
Will post later once I've worked out the details.
Will post later once I've worked out the details.
October 29, 2017, 05:54:11 AM
Been stepping though, over the last half hour, each of the nodes and restarting them - not the main node this time.
Each time was to firstly update the node code, but doing them slowly one after the other so as not to failover the whole pool at once, since the update means a failover for each miner on the node.
All updated and working ok.
Mine on.
Each time was to firstly update the node code, but doing them slowly one after the other so as not to failover the whole pool at once, since the update means a failover for each miner on the node.
All updated and working ok.
Mine on.
October 29, 2017, 02:00:40 AM
can anyone advise here or on PM
my latest S9 just lost a board in other words it was working fine for about 24 hours then i made a psu change and it just stoped hashing. two interesting details, one, the miner detects the board but no its not hashing at all GH/S(RT) shows 0000, two, if i connect that particular board by itself it does hash, but only by itself.
any input or advice will be greatly apreciated
i tried diferent psu
and i tried changing resetting all settings
same result
Which brand of psu's are you using?my latest S9 just lost a board in other words it was working fine for about 24 hours then i made a psu change and it just stoped hashing. two interesting details, one, the miner detects the board but no its not hashing at all GH/S(RT) shows 0000, two, if i connect that particular board by itself it does hash, but only by itself.
any input or advice will be greatly apreciated
i tried diferent psu
and i tried changing resetting all settings
same result
i tried both bitmain psu and HP
I have been using the same LEPA PSUs for 2 years, first on AntMiner S7's then on S9's without any PSU problems at all. I've had S9 hashboards fry, but not from the power supplies. The hasboards that fried were always in the one S9 that I have which is Batch 1. I am fairly certain that it is an overheating problem. I have two hasboards out of it now, sent off to Bitmain Warranty in Colorado for repair. When they come back, I am going to underclock that S9 to 600 rather than the default 650 and hope that fixes the problem. In case anyone is interested in the model of PSU I use, they are LEPA G Series G1600-MA 1600W ATX12V / EPS12V SLI Ready CrossFire Ready 80 PLUS GOLD Certified Full Modular Power Supply. I can't speak for all of them, but my anecdotal testimonial evidence is that I have had 3 of them running for 2 years solid, without a minute of downtime other than a couple brief power outages to my house for a couple hours or when I manually shut them down to remove the hashboards to send in for repair. The PSUs themselves have never had any problem, even when running the S7s, which used more wattage than the S9s. When I had the S7's I would have at least 2 industrial surge protectors burn out completely, frying the circuit breaker to toast, per month. That was sheer agony. I couldn't find a surge protector that was S7-proof. I have never had one fry with my S9s.
my S9 are auto
how can i underclock it?
Log into your miner. Click on Miner Configuration. Go up into the ip address. Delete the word "Configuration". Type the word "Advanced" with the capital "A". Hit enter. Choose the frequency you want.
thanks
October 28, 2017, 07:59:56 PM
Miner Configuration Tab. "Customize the fan speed percentage."
Not on a S9.
I am looking at it on an S9. Miner Configuration Tab, Under the General Settings sub tab, at the bottom. It's on all of my S9's, regardless of batch & firmware version.
You must have all s9v1. There are no other tabs under gereral settings. All my firmware is of April of this year though. Let me know if it has changed in newer fw.
Ah! That could explain it. I live by the creed, that "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." I don't update firmware unless it fixes a problem I am having. I've had far more disastrous results from performing upgrades of firmware, software, operating systems, etc. over time than I have had positive results if I just upgraded for the sole reason that an upgrade exists. I find that I either lose functionality in some way or run into other problems more often than I see something "new and improved" come out of it. So, I only upgrade if the upgrade or patch actually targets and fixes a problem I am having or is absolutely necessary for continued functionality.
October 28, 2017, 07:38:13 PM
Miner Configuration Tab. "Customize the fan speed percentage."
Not on a S9.
I am looking at it on an S9. Miner Configuration Tab, Under the General Settings sub tab, at the bottom. It's on all of my S9's, regardless of batch & firmware version.
You must have all s9v1. There are no other tabs under gereral settings. All my firmware is of April of this year though. Let me know if it has changed in newer fw.
Jump to: