Topic: [∞ YH] solo.ckpool.org 1% fee solo mining USA/DE 251 blocks solved! - page 353. (Read 1514501 times)

https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/tx/bcd866ef568918d574322429675cff8fa05fac3c0eac22aea16aef6acbe45a79

And as I say that...

Congratulations to 1LjZmRdMV7Mk88bx7oMMWgKWaFF8yG1qtp

Code:

{"hashrate1m": "78.8T", "hashrate5m": "78.9T", "hashrate1hr": "79.1T", "hashrate1d": "22.9T", "hashrate7d": "3.76T"

Code:

[2015-06-24 22:34:47] Possible block solve diff 95001997913.532944 !
[2015-06-24 22:34:47] BLOCK ACCEPTED!
[2015-06-24 22:34:47] Solved and confirmed block 362389

That is insane for that hashrate, awesome job whoever mined it.

aarons6

legendary

Activity: 1736

Merit: 1006

Quote from: -ck on June 25, 2015, 12:15:24 AM

Quote from: LoneRangir on June 25, 2015, 12:12:12 AM

Quote from: LoneRangir on June 24, 2015, 11:23:43 PM

...
How efficient is cgminer on an S3 or S5 at splitting its time among two pools? When you choose "balanced" or "load balanced", do you leave " a little on the table"? I would like to point half my miner to this solo pool and half to kano pool. If the machines do not operate optimally under these conditions, I may reconsider. Will this lead to more unaccepted/stale shares?

No idea why you think cgminer would lose anything extra in this configuration (no idea about other miners)
It doesn't lose shares/work ... or anything extra from using multiple pools.

Though I do mean cgminer, not the hacked versions of cgminer produced by others, that I can not vouch for at all since they seem to often do stupid things in their versions.

Okay, to put it another way.... does the over head of managing two pools (or three) erode the efficiency of the limited processing power of the on-board cpu enough to make it less efficient than it otherwise would only communicating with one pool?

Don't get me wrong... I like your answer! It makes a hobbyist like me able to multi-plex my pool allegiance without getting penalized!

I get that you say the answer is 'no', but I question the computing power of the little onboard ARM cpu. It can walk and chew gum....

It's fine. It takes virtually no more cpu power to speak to 2 pools concurrently.

hmm some reason when i do it on my s3 i get a TON of rejects on pool 2 and 3.
its like its taking the work of pool 1, submitting it to 2 and 3 and they reject it.

ill turn it on for a few and show a screenshot.

edit here is screen shot..
if you notice pool 2 is not accepting almost half the work. every time i refresh the page i get about 30 more rejects
this is antpool normally i get about 1 or 2 rejects a day..
if i leave it run for awhile. eventually pool 3 will start doing the same thing. i am using the cgminer from nicehash.

LoneRangir

hero member

Activity: 615

Merit: 500

Quote from: -ck on June 25, 2015, 12:15:24 AM

Quote from: LoneRangir on June 25, 2015, 12:12:12 AM

Quote from: LoneRangir on June 24, 2015, 11:23:43 PM

...
How efficient is cgminer on an S3 or S5 at splitting its time among two pools? When you choose "balanced" or "load balanced", do you leave " a little on the table"? I would like to point half my miner to this solo pool and half to kano pool. If the machines do not operate optimally under these conditions, I may reconsider. Will this lead to more unaccepted/stale shares?

No idea why you think cgminer would lose anything extra in this configuration (no idea about other miners)
It doesn't lose shares/work ... or anything extra from using multiple pools.

Though I do mean cgminer, not the hacked versions of cgminer produced by others, that I can not vouch for at all since they seem to often do stupid things in their versions.

Okay, to put it another way.... does the over head of managing two pools (or three) erode the efficiency of the limited processing power of the on-board cpu enough to make it less efficient than it otherwise would only communicating with one pool?

Don't get me wrong... I like your answer! It makes a hobbyist like me able to multi-plex my pool allegiance without getting penalized!

I get that you say the answer is 'no', but I question the computing power of the little onboard ARM cpu. It can walk and chew gum....

It's fine. It takes virtually no more cpu power to speak to 2 pools concurrently.

I appreciate the confirmation!

-ck

legendary

Activity: 4088

Merit: 1631

Ruu \o/

Quote from: LoneRangir on June 25, 2015, 12:12:12 AM

Quote from: LoneRangir on June 24, 2015, 11:23:43 PM

...
How efficient is cgminer on an S3 or S5 at splitting its time among two pools? When you choose "balanced" or "load balanced", do you leave " a little on the table"? I would like to point half my miner to this solo pool and half to kano pool. If the machines do not operate optimally under these conditions, I may reconsider. Will this lead to more unaccepted/stale shares?

No idea why you think cgminer would lose anything extra in this configuration (no idea about other miners)
It doesn't lose shares/work ... or anything extra from using multiple pools.

Though I do mean cgminer, not the hacked versions of cgminer produced by others, that I can not vouch for at all since they seem to often do stupid things in their versions.

Okay, to put it another way.... does the over head of managing two pools (or three) erode the efficiency of the limited processing power of the on-board cpu enough to make it less efficient than it otherwise would only communicating with one pool?

Don't get me wrong... I like your answer! It makes a hobbyist like me able to multi-plex my pool allegiance without getting penalized!

I get that you say the answer is 'no', but I question the computing power of the little onboard ARM cpu. It can walk and chew gum....

It's fine. It takes virtually no more cpu power to speak to 2 pools concurrently.

LoneRangir

hero member

Activity: 615

Merit: 500

Quote from: LoneRangir on June 24, 2015, 11:23:43 PM

...
How efficient is cgminer on an S3 or S5 at splitting its time among two pools? When you choose "balanced" or "load balanced", do you leave " a little on the table"? I would like to point half my miner to this solo pool and half to kano pool. If the machines do not operate optimally under these conditions, I may reconsider. Will this lead to more unaccepted/stale shares?

No idea why you think cgminer would lose anything extra in this configuration (no idea about other miners)
It doesn't lose shares/work ... or anything extra from using multiple pools.

Though I do mean cgminer, not the hacked versions of cgminer produced by others, that I can not vouch for at all since they seem to often do stupid things in their versions.

Okay, to put it another way.... does the over head of managing two pools (or three) erode the efficiency of the limited processing power of the on-board cpu enough to make it less efficient than it otherwise would only communicating with one pool?

Don't get me wrong... I like your answer! It makes a hobbyist like me able to multi-plex my pool allegiance without getting penalized!

I get that you say the answer is 'no', but I question the computing power of the little onboard ARM cpu. It can walk and chew gum....

kano

legendary

Activity: 4592

Merit: 1851

Linux since 1997 RedHat 4

Quote from: LoneRangir on June 24, 2015, 11:23:43 PM

...
How efficient is cgminer on an S3 or S5 at splitting its time among two pools? When you choose "balanced" or "load balanced", do you leave " a little on the table"? I would like to point half my miner to this solo pool and half to kano pool. If the machines do not operate optimally under these conditions, I may reconsider. Will this lead to more unaccepted/stale shares?

No idea why you think cgminer would lose anything extra in this configuration (no idea about other miners)
It doesn't lose shares/work ... or anything extra from using multiple pools.

Though I do mean cgminer, not the hacked versions of cgminer produced by others, that I can not vouch for at all since they seem to often do stupid things in their versions.

LoneRangir

hero member

Activity: 615

Merit: 500

Quote from: 727miner on June 24, 2015, 07:27:18 PM

Quote from: Mikestang on June 24, 2015, 07:13:29 PM

https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/tx/bcd866ef568918d574322429675cff8fa05fac3c0eac22aea16aef6acbe45a79

And as I say that...

Congratulations to 1LjZmRdMV7Mk88bx7oMMWgKWaFF8yG1qtp

Code:

{"hashrate1m": "78.8T", "hashrate5m": "78.9T", "hashrate1hr": "79.1T", "hashrate1d": "22.9T", "hashrate7d": "3.76T"

Code:

[2015-06-24 22:34:47] Possible block solve diff 95001997913.532944 !
[2015-06-24 22:34:47] BLOCK ACCEPTED!
[2015-06-24 22:34:47] Solved and confirmed block 362389

Nice, I love to see the solo solves. Looks like a little bit of rental did it for this lucky finder!

It's funny that I/we think of 80T as "not that much hash power", but when you picture 75 S5s in a room you realize it's quite substantial.

Indeed, rental hash is the sh*t Wink

. I have 2 x SP20's & an S4 baking my office & one of the SP20's hit a 3G share today and I got excited lol. I can't imagine 75 S5's in the same place or haobtc's kangding mine with 11k+ S3 miners, that must be insane.

How efficient is cgminer on an S3 or S5 at splitting its time among two pools? When you choose "balanced" or "load balanced", do you leave " a little on the table"? I would like to point half my miner to this solo pool and half to kano pool. If the machines do not operate optimally under these conditions, I may reconsider. Will this lead to more unaccepted/stale shares?

Cheeseater

sr. member

Activity: 351

Merit: 250

Congrats to the lucky winner. Wiped my 15G share clean away Tongue

727miner

hero member

Activity: 543

Merit: 500

Quote from: Mikestang on June 24, 2015, 07:13:29 PM

https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/tx/bcd866ef568918d574322429675cff8fa05fac3c0eac22aea16aef6acbe45a79

And as I say that...

Congratulations to 1LjZmRdMV7Mk88bx7oMMWgKWaFF8yG1qtp

Code:

{"hashrate1m": "78.8T", "hashrate5m": "78.9T", "hashrate1hr": "79.1T", "hashrate1d": "22.9T", "hashrate7d": "3.76T"

Code:

[2015-06-24 22:34:47] Possible block solve diff 95001997913.532944 !
[2015-06-24 22:34:47] BLOCK ACCEPTED!
[2015-06-24 22:34:47] Solved and confirmed block 362389

Nice, I love to see the solo solves. Looks like a little bit of rental did it for this lucky finder!

It's funny that I/we think of 80T as "not that much hash power", but when you picture 75 S5s in a room you realize it's quite substantial.

Indeed, rental hash is the sh*t Wink

. I have 2 x SP20's & an S4 baking my office & one of the SP20's hit a 3G share today and I got excited lol. I can't imagine 75 S5's in the same place or haobtc's kangding mine with 11k+ S3 miners, that must be insane.

Mikestang

legendary

Activity: 1274

Merit: 1000

https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/tx/bcd866ef568918d574322429675cff8fa05fac3c0eac22aea16aef6acbe45a79

And as I say that...

Congratulations to 1LjZmRdMV7Mk88bx7oMMWgKWaFF8yG1qtp

Code:

{"hashrate1m": "78.8T", "hashrate5m": "78.9T", "hashrate1hr": "79.1T", "hashrate1d": "22.9T", "hashrate7d": "3.76T"

Code:

[2015-06-24 22:34:47] Possible block solve diff 95001997913.532944 !
[2015-06-24 22:34:47] BLOCK ACCEPTED!
[2015-06-24 22:34:47] Solved and confirmed block 362389

Nice, I love to see the solo solves. Looks like a little bit of rental did it for this lucky finder!

It's funny that I/we think of 80T as "not that much hash power", but when you picture 75 S5s in a room you realize it's quite substantial.

hedgy73

legendary

Activity: 1414

Merit: 1077

Damn thought it might have been me... Well done block finder

727miner

hero member

Activity: 543

Merit: 500