Bitcoin Forum

This thread is following the forum rules, Frodo, do not delete it, since that will (yet again) simply be your bias, and not within the rules of the forum.

The original thread owner has deleted both my posts, so following the forum message in that thread:

Here's my reply to the OP of Laurentia Pool:

While you keep deleting my posts that actually provide information that you should take notice of,
I will make a summary, so you can take note and prove you do care about the profit and losses of those people you are convincing to mine on your pool in the future.

Firstly, as per my first deleted post on the subject, you should not use the pool software you have chosen to run the pool.
It is high risk, requires a full time developer so that the pool doesn't have weeks of outage when problems occur,
and that software has a well known history of losing blocks.

Secondly, your last post update clearly shows that someone is providing false information to you, or you are providing false information to your prospective miners. Only you will know the answer to that.

My criticising him about not testing software rather than running it untested, that he later posted a joke of a reply for the ignorant, was 1-Apr:

The lost block on his pool was 10-May
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5237323.msg54403667#msg54403667
Yeah maybe he should have taken notice of my post a few weeks earlier after all ...
The claim was the server's performance was the fault, yet the replacement server is, in my opinion, below what should be used to run a pool., yet some people seem have the ignorant opinion that it could run 10 pools ...
I wonder how bad the original server was ... the same server that people were throwing large sums of mining rental money at.


Directly related to that: has anyone tested if the latest updated code in the git finds blocks correctly?
Are you waiting for his solo pool testing to succeed or fail finding a block before you go live?
It is an historical fact, on multiple occasions, that the coder has made changes in the git that lead to losing blocks due to not testing the software properly.

While you may be one of his zealots who ignores the facts, but since you are starting a pool, it would be advisable to not ignore the facts, and waste the expensive resources of those you may have convince to mine there.
I've no suggestions of what other software would be good to use, but there are, no doubt, options out there that you could consider.

Now regarding your pool whitepaper, there are a couple of issues also.

Firstly, every 2 weeks, the network difficulty changes.
This means that to keep up to a minimum target, as you have made clear in the quote below, you will need to get more hash rate on the pool every time the diff increases, if you are not above the minimum specified, not just when you start the pool. That's a tough issue that you should understand as a pool operator.


There are issues with paying out to miners in the coinbase.
Some miners wont accept work that has a valid, but larger, coinbase.
The coinbase generated by your chosen pool software is, as is clearly stated, out of date with rewards each time it is sent to a miner.
It does not include the expectation of finding a block.
See the p2pool code about how that should be done correctly.


With the recent improved core bitcoin block distribution code (in the past couple of years), when you find a block, it can be distributed much faster than before.
However, if your coinbase is large due to including payouts in it, it will of course mean that your block distribution data will also be larger, since the coinbase transaction is the one transaction that no other bitcoin will know, and must be distributed to them all with the block.
Be wary of making it too large for miners or too large such that it slows down block distribution.

Lastly, you should understand, and comment about: if you will be using the Fibre Block Relay and how you handle when it isn't working.
The last outage of the Fibre Block Relay was the US-West node, for a number of hours recently, and thus during that time, any blocks you may have found and sent to that specific relay, will not have been distributed quickly around the world and into china, unless you have a secondary solution (like I have)
Ignoring this can easily lead to losing blocks due to stales and orphan races.
Also, not relaying your blocks yourself, directly into china, is an expectation of losing some blocks, since the largest mining pools are in china.

Feel free to ignore all this at the detriment of your miners :(

I believe this thread is referred to as defamation and your actions referred to as desperation.

There are zero issues with our code, score, or anything else. If anything laurentia pool is highly optimized for the stratum protocol without need for bloatware that only benefits multi node mining while delivering extremely low latency worldwide.
I would suggest you focus on developing your struggling user base in place of tearing down competition, likely you may receive more reward in heeding this advice and revive your pool.

Though I feel this thread/post should be removed it will serve as great motivation to continue to deliver for the user and for the space where others obviously fail and is the reason the pool exists to begin with.
I do appreciate you giving this opportunity to communicate here as I wouldn't disrupt your pool thread with baseless accusations, mud slinging, and trolling. In that regard if you follow me on twitter, you're way out of your league.

We're more than aware of incompatibility of fw on some asics and communicate to our users as appropriate so they can make the best decisions in their mining venture, and understand that our pool may not be the best choice for their equipment. We also are working on partnerships with fw developers to allow the use of these asics on our pool considering the volume of hashrate we are driving to achieve long term and would like to foster any relationship that would benefit our user base.

Our minimum cadence obviously adjusts in hashrate due to network conditions if you follow our thread or commitment page, it is updated frequently (which we've been getting numerous hits from AUS of late ;)). As a baseline we plan to be well beyond that mark to make relevant argument to your ranting. We are insured, plan to use funds from fee generation as proof of reserves in case of any errors in or out of our control to safety net our users work in lieu of insurance in the future.

Essentially there is zero information you can provide to us that we haven't accounted, and due to your own self destructive nature we're unlikely to take much notice either. Unless it's another desperate vie for attention like this thread. You're more than welcome to keep harassing and producing inflammatory content. If you feel you're doing the community a service here that's a wonderful soap box to be on when we're already 110% transparent.

We invite anyone with interest in our pool service to reach out at anytime. And if you have a productive thoughtful post for our pool thread Kano, it would likely not get removed.

#mineon

PS. Your pool has a high fee.

That is the one good thing I have yet read about your pool. Too bad a certain other pool op that you have partnered with did not do that to cover losses incurred when they lost yet another block on May 10.

You do realize that you are running a Financial enterprise and in more ways then 1 this is a form of accounting software, right?  Would you run any other business or personal accounting software that has not been properly vetted? I highly doubt it.

Think what you will about Kano but also know that his pool has NEVER lost a block. Part of the reason is that as one of the developers of the code you use, he is well aware of the bugs in it and he addressed them long ago. Before you ask 'then why has he not pushed them to the ckpool git' it is because -ck booted him from it when they had a falling out several years ago.

The other reason is that Kano extensively TESTS his code changes before taking them live. We already know -ck's attitude towards code testing - he believes it to be a waste of time, if it doesn't crash he considers it 'good'...

Oh, huge part of why -ck and Kano parted ways is that issue about testing and having funds set aside to cover any fups. 1 guess who firmly thought it was/is not needed.

We've done testnet and mainnet testing and refinement over several weeks and are 100% confident in our product.

Then Kudos are in order and let's hope your confidence is justified.
I'm curious - who pushed for the testing? I hope the answer is knowledgeable investors...

No investors, we are 100% self funded. Giving us the control to achieve with out inhibition outside of limiting all risk possible to those poised to mine our pool.

-ck was/is the driving catalyst for all previous and current testing.

All our work makes this thread redundant and baseless as it's more aligned to discredit an individual but in place attacks our product.

No, it's point is to bring up valid concerns and allow you to address them. eg, Our concern is <subject> and your reply should be < we have done x y z to address that point>. Not a blanket 'nothing to see here, move along'.

You refuse to do so in your main thread so per your request another thread was created to do it.

You are providing a service that people will be spending a good amount of money to use in terms of hardware, power, infra, etc. I would think that said people will like to be aware of any and all 'gotcha's' and know how you have addressed them. That includes past histories of the developers.

Defamation and personal attacks will not be allowed in our thread. Feel free to voice constructive concerns there or to us directly.

That said Laurentia Pool is not "bad risk" to any user. This thread should be removed or at minimum re titled.

How can you be so sure? "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," no?

The reason why people were aware of ckpool losing the 10th of May block for an example was the fact that the miner was mining solo, in other words, I own a lot of mining gears, I only care about the shares of 2-3 of them that are mining solo, the rest of them could be finding blocks and pool is losing some of them and I am totally unaware of it, I don't pretend to know more than you do about this subject, not making any claims, I am simply asking you a question because I can't ask Kano due to his obvious filthy attitude.  ;D


I also think his attitude has a lot to do with this, I rather mine to a pool whose operator would respond to me with total respect and patience regardless of the risk, rather than mining on a "better" pool owned by someone who is disrespectful.::), but that is just me.

I've found neither of them to be disrespectful to me personally.

whether solo or not, you will know if you found a block - my miners have found blocks numerous times on other pools and I know it each time, I have also lost blocks (I think 3 times now). When reaching out to the pool operators each time, they are able to tell me why the block was lost. This is true for Slush/ViaBTC and Gos.cx (the three pools where I have lost blocks). This is irregardless of whether it is solo/pps/pplns.

While it most definitely affects your reward in solo mining, it does in pplns as well. PPS, I would say zero effect, except the pool might be changing their pps rate if they keep losing blocks.

That is my two cents.

You should be aware of it. Even if not mining solo, lost blocks mean lost income for you (unless on a PPS pool). Pretty sure that you do care about that...

Any decent miner monitoring software such as AwesomeMiner can be setup to notify you and record when one of your miners thinks it has found a block. Grant you, because I do not sit all day glued to a monitor I usually find out first via Discord or the pool thread but unlike Stryfe I have been lucky enough to never have a miner report it found a block that wasn't reported by the pool as well.

Pointless and irrelevant comment.

Every work sent to every miner, about once every 30 seconds, says in it what pool the block is for and the address it will pay to.

If you think that pools are randomly changing this and no one has ever noticed it, you clearly have no understanding for how mining actually works.

Anyone can look at the work they are mining, and you can even watch it go by with a network monitor program - in ascii for the identification of most pools.

When a block is found on the network, it will contain that text, and everyone on the planet will see it, so know which pool found it.
That's how all the block explorer sites work.

It's a ridiculous scenario you seem to want to be true, and though you may find common in the scam coin section of the forum, not here on this pool that has been around for almost 6 years:

The miner itself will also know it has found a block, so I guess you think it's a game to try and hide a block and hope no one will notice?

On top of that, mine is also the only pool that immediately reports blocks on the web site and to the miners, even if it is stale, orphan, rejected, valid or otherwise.
You can see the original code for that in the public git.
Even ck's fuck up recently would show up as a block on my pool, if the user was mining here, and I was stupid enough to allow the bitcoind to get behind on the network - however, that negligence wouldn't happen here.

Trying understanding something first ...


Aside to the ignorant person who is the subject of this thread: I'll find time soon, to show the git and forum post proof of 4 blocks lost by ck and the scenario of another related to it.

Your pool doesn't exist, and your god (ck) charges more than twice my pool fees ... so you should take that up with him ...

well 2 of the 3 times I have had it, it was simply someone else also submitted at the same time and thus their block accepted not mine, was on a pps pool so not any noticeable impact to my payment - the 3rd has never been fully explained to my satisfaction and is another reason why I do not use that pool anymore, it was pplns so does affect my payout - while it also affects everyone else as well so the impact is spread out.

My only point is that is very easy to see when you got a block - do most care in a pplns or pps pool? I would guess not, they worry about the pool as a whole perhaps. But no matter how you cut it, any lost block affects all versions of payouts, one way or another.

This one line answers the question, the rest of the wall of text was nothing but a waste of the forum resources and more proof of your terrible attitude for everyone else to see.

@nNotFuzzyWarm , @Stryfe

Both replies didn't answer my question, it is safe to assume that most people mine on pps pools (given the hashrate of those large pools), people pay 4% in fees to mine on Viabtc, why would they waste time or even bother if the pool loses a block?it is the pool responsablity to ensure blocks go through.

The point i was making is that many non-solo pools could be losing a ton of blocks, but because miners don't care those blocks go unoticed, now based on kano's answer (assuming he is telling the truth) miners will know if a block was stale or rejected, and without providing such features, one can't say (i never lost a block) because they could very well lose blocks and nobody would notice.

Hope i made myself clear, Thanks both.

-ck is a partner, you seem to be one to put him on a pedestal just to attempt to bring him down, let alone anyone else you decide to publicly slander. Your comments only continue to prove your issue is with an individual and not our product.

Our pool is live, we're just responsible enough not to dupe miners into losses just to make a show. We're already drafting plans to open with our 66PH to push a blockfind in about 9-10 days then have the group failover to maximize rewards for them through an adjustment period.

I still think if you put all this energy into marketing your own product you'd be more successful with your pool. But you seem want expend that energy to attempt to intimidate and belittle others, even those in your own "camp".

Still I invite you to post and everyone to post in our thread constructive feedback but obviously it's in Kano's best interest here to promote our product as "bad" which is just conjecture and personal opinion due to his disdain for our partner.

agreed - it is the pools responsibility but who wants to mine on a pool that consistently drops/loses blocks? you said you had no way to even tell. my point was it is very easy to tell. but yes, for pps it would be moot unless the pool was dropping a lot of them and thus lowered their pps rate because of that. not all pools pay the same pps rates.

I never said i had no way to tell, I said I don't care, there is a difference.

When I mine solo I set awesomeminer to send me 2 different emails when a block is found but I don't do that when I mine to a pool (mostly fpps/pps+) I don't bother, most people don't I suppose, and that was my concern when NotFuzzyWarm said that pool never lost a block, anyway the answer is now clear, as for pps pools, I am pretty sure they operate on the right server and with the proper code, highly unlikely that nowadays pps pools lose a block for any reason but "bad luck", despite the fees running a pool on fpps has a lot of risks, losing blocks is something they would never want happen.

Also, one thing to keep in mind that losing a block due to bad luck and not technical deficiencies has to do how many blocks a pool is subject to find in the first place, Kano pool hardly finds any blocks on the grand scheme of things, I even saw him brag about not mining an empty block in my empty blocks analysis topic  (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5245388.msg54349647#msg54349647), I didn't want to comment on his post in that section to not trigger him there and make members of that section suffer reading his disrespectful replies, it's enough that members of mining board are suffering.  ;D

what Kano seems to don't know or ignore is that the probability of him hitting an orphan/empty block is directly related to his chances of hitting a block in the first place, given the tiny hashrate he has compared to the large pools it makes sense why he is unlikely to hit an empty or orphan block, of course, with all technical aspects like having the right code, server, and connection being equal.

Think about it this way, what is the probability of a coin landing on its side when you toss it 1 time vs 1000 time?, Kano said the time to verify and construct a block is less than 2 seconds, so applying "cumulative distribution function aka CDF of the exponential distribution" on his numbers we get:

exp(−1/60)−exp(−2/60) = 0.016 or 1.6%, all miners combined are expected to hit a block between 1 and 2 seconds at a probability of 1.6%, what is Kano's hashrate % compared to the whole network?

90,000,000TH vs 10,241THs ? 0.011%, the chances of collision with another pool and hitting an empty block are close to 0, so not finding orphan or empty blocks is fairly based on his tiny little share of the total network hashrate.

To be fair, of course, this doesn't negate that fact his pool's infrastructure is good enough to maintain his tiny 0.011% chances at 100% whereby he doesn't lose the blocks he hardly finds, so that's good overall, but it doesn't make his pool better than those pools that lose blocks due to "bad luck", and regardless of anything I highly doubt he runs a better code or owns a better server than those multi-billion $ pools, but it's good to have a few small pools around, in fact, if he wasn't such a jerk - I would point at least 2-3ph to his pool, but with his attitude, not a chance in hell.

easy man - I was not attacking you here :) you said you would be unaware, I was only pointing out that it is easy to tell if a block is found or lost is all so unaware is a choice is all. and I do agree in a larger pool that is pps, it wouldn't matter that much.

I don't know how you arrived at the conclusion that I think you were attacking me. ::) I never said that. you misunderstood my previous post, so did NFW, surprisingly and ironically only Kano understood it, so I had to explain myself, I am not attacking anybody either, all good.  ;)

The rest of my reply is general information for everyone, not pointed directly to you.

Thanks.

Surely if you mined on a small PPLNS pool then you would care if a block was missed due to it having a massive impact on your earnings along with everyone else on the pool.

The bigger the pool the less likelyhood of it having an impact on you, especially if the pool is PPS.

But the danger is, it is all relative, if a big pool is losing blocks due to bad code or infrastructure, or you build a big pool based on bad code or infrastructure then it does become a big deal. Because a big pool will lose lots of blocks, or at least potentially a string of them before its noticed and something is done about it.

Fact is some big pools have lost lots of blocks due to either bad code or due to not being aware of what is going on down to the minutiae of information or not having the log files to check back, or just not caring. The history is there to see.

I can understand it not being a big concern on your part because of your mining strategy, although I would question why anyone would continue to mine on a solo pool that has demonstrably lost blocks on more than one occassion. The potential loss of earnings is just too high.

I understood - and in all of my replies, I never said I was addressing your question - why? because I knew I could not answer it, I simply was addressing how easy it is to be completely aware of whether your blocks found are being dropped/lost/orphaned by the pool.

each time I commented you would say I failed to address your question - I was never trying to :)

as long as no one is mad here :) I am good. I wish I had your hash rate btw - maybe by next year :)

happy mining!

That makes sense, this also answers a part of the question by the way, thanks for pointing that out.


I am aware of this, I am also aware of that fact that things now are different, hence the reason why I said



Everyone has a different point of view, I can't speak for those who still mine on Cksolo and even went to as far as paying for the server, to me personally I have good memories with the pool, and I trust CK, he explained exactly what went wrong and he made sure he corrected it, and what's more important than this are MANNERS, something some people lack, CK has been respectful and nice to most of us, I would go to the extent of paying solely for the server and point a good portion of my hash rate to Cksolo, this is more of a culture thing I suppose, I am sure many people don't mind dealing with people who show no manners, and all that matters to them is the business itself, to me, respect and attitude matter, will I lose a block on Cksolo pool? no problem, I still wouldn't mine to a pool whose owner calls someone who is probably at the age of their father "stupid".


You too. ;)

I moved the reply to where it belongs:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5251592.msg54514603#msg54514603

2429 blocks is NOTHING in the grand scheme of things, the pools in my analysis each of them probably found 100000% more blocks than your pool did ( lazy to do the maths but my estimate was rather conservative i suppose), what i wrote above is a simple statistical point, it is not what I think, the numbers state that the chances for your pool to find an empty or orphan block are slim to nothing, it is like someone who drives once a year around his empty farm and brags about the fact that he got into less car accidents than Michael Schumacher, thinking he has better driving skills when in reality it is merely statistics and probability doing their thing.


I understand very well that mathematically empty blocks MUST happen unless the time it takes to download a block, verify transactions, deal with the mempool, build a block =< zero ms, which is not true even if you claim so, even if all pools run on the same LAN with block size being 1byte time will never be =< 0, there will always be empty blocks and there will always be orphan blocks, this is unfortunately how the math works, your words and attempts to deny these facts mean nothing, nobody in their right mind will think that pools purposely mine empty blocks when fees alone are 2btc at times, except for the obvious use of covert asicboost and the other reasons I explained in my topic which you used to advertise your pool  ::).


Lol there is no "maybe", if you know the time it takes to download a block all the way to reconstructing it, you can tell EXACTLY how many empty blocks could be found without anyone doing it purposely, people have been studying statistics for hundreds of years not for you to randomly state that "less than half a dozen", i explained in a great detail what is concidered reasonable and what formula to use to figure that out, read the topic again and actually try to learn something.


Well all i did was use Siméon Denis Poisson's formulas, if you have a problem with it complain to him (sadly he passed away a few hundred years back or so).


Was reffering to someone else you called stupid, was the first comment of yours i read when i joined the forum, i knew from the start what type of a person you likely were, time has only proved my intial guess. ::)


On a side note (Again), this topic doesn't belong to the mining board by any means, you are accusing another pool of something, it only fits reputation/service discussion since it is not your pool you are advertising.

Going to put you on ignore for a few months, hopefully you would learn how to communicate with respect and manners by then.

Adiós.

I moved the reply to where it belongs:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5251592.msg54514603#msg54514603

Our server is highly optimized and more efficient than any other pool on market. Full stop.

I would invite everyone to read our whitepaper and note the section on networking which was drafted by -ck with minuscule edits (a few double spaces). We have optimized mining conditions for the user in every avenue and provided a hyper competitive product against any scoring scheme including PPS. Our limited user space is specifically designed to produce optimal coinbase transactions for the group. I would be happy to elaborate more in our own thread but technical questions may have to be differed to -ck which his focus on bitcointalk will likely be his own products and projects.

Mine Farm Buy LLC is to manage clients and our front end while -ck is to manage server, code, payout and is literally the only person we would trust to do so (which other pool operators obviously are malicious and produce loss to their users, ie. changing scoring scheme).

This is a completely separate product and not intended to replace a beloved community pool in ckpool.org which was closed at the sole discretion of -ck himself and after our soft launch. 

Kano is using this thread to promote his own product, in a poor attempt to discredit our hard work and personnel knowingly full well -ck refuses to interact with him due to his condescending, self destructive, alienating nature. 

We have done exceptional work bring our model to market and have very much limited the "BAD risk" that other pools overlook to their users by thoughtful design, experience, and market analysis. Again, making this thread baseless defamation and conjecture, and obviously extremely biased.

Everyone is allowed to post constructive feedback in our own thread. Please note Kano knowingly posted inflammatory, baseless content there to be removed and under the guise of censorship opened this thread which isn't any different. He and all are welcome to join us there, all we ask is people interact with a small sense of courtesy when directing comments specifically at individuals.

Thank you though to Kano for promoting our services for us, hits on our landing page have been highly accelerated of late. Unfortunately this will be last reply here, as hopefully the reasons for this decision are abundantly clear. #mineon

And just where has he said anything in this thread that can be construed as Marketing of his pool? Nowhere. It started as a way to bring to light valid concerns regarding the pool software used and its known problems in the past. I agree the title is a bit over the top but at least it got the conversations going ;)

When specific points have been brought up he states what he has done regarding those points. Ja he tends to also point out what others have not done - so what? As a counter point one can always explain why they think his solutions are unnecessary. This is a technical discussion after all and that is how discussions are supposed to work...

The only time an empty block MUST happen is the very very rare times mempool is empty. Aside from that, generating empty blocks is a conscious decision made by the operators of certain large pools. They are not a random event that any pool might do in the course of normal operations.

Orphans are another story and mainly related just to how fast a pool connects with the rest of the BTC network to make it known they found a valid block and have their block included into the next work generated vs a different block found at nearly the same time. As such, yes any pool can and will from time to time have orphans but a well connected pool should have very few.

I would like to point out that lifetimes stats for luck on kano.is

are 101.17%   for 2429 blocks

but that for the last 1000 blocks

the luck is 96.02%

and for the last 500 blocks

the luck is 92.41 %

This last 500 blocks took 153.8 weeks

153.8 weeks is very close to 3 years ago.

May 27 2017 is  3 years ago.

June 15 or June June 16 2017 is 153.8 weeks ago

My point is once BTC became valuable or more valuable

Kano.is has had really bad luck.

Coinbase price on:

 June 11 2017   about  3000
 July  13  2017  about  2300
 Aug  14  2017  about  4300
 Sept 15  2017  about  3700
 Oct   17 2017   about  5500

May 27   2020   about  9200

I could go on and since I am a stupid moron I will go on.

500/.92 = 543.47

so kano.is is off 43.47 blocks since his last 500 blocks made.

So As a stupid moron I ask why has kano.is had brutal luck over the last 500 blocks made by the pool.

Why did kano.is have great luck  when they made the first 1929 blocks

the luck was so good when blocks were worth very little
the luck is brutal when blocks became valuable.

Does it mean anything?  I don't know I am a stupid moron.

but 105% for 1929 blocks.   coins under 3000

and 92%  for 500 blocks.     coins over 3000

So  even if solo.ckpool sucks and lost 3 to 4 blocks out of 255 blocks

kano.is has had a 500 block 153.8 week unlucky streak.

But as i said I am a stupid moron.  Please correct my math if I made any errors.

Personally if possible I would mine in a:

 kano.is solo pool
 solo.ckpool

 pps+ pool

A moron? Hardly.
Yes kanopool's luck has not been great after the pool had a prolonged run of bad luck forcing some very large players to go elsewhere last year. Thing is, registered users have access to a very clear stats page regarding blocks found and pool Luck. Its users have summarized full data, warts and all, going back to the start of the pool to base their decisions on. Few if any other pools do that.

Since you brought it up this is not marketing: a Kano solo pool is in the works. While he will understandably still not welcome miners using 3rd-party firmware hacks, the solo WILL accept rentals.

Along those lines btw, in late 2017 (?) there was an issue with both MR and NH rental services that really skewed work received through them for well over a month - that is why they were banned from the main pool. Similar to the Slush/Genesis kerfuffle some very large (and since was a 5ND PPLNS pool, very long term) rentals were getting an unwarranted share of miner rewards from blocks found by others. It was only because full logs of miner performance and pool-state are kept in KDB that the issue and root cause was discovered which led to the rentals ban. With a solo pool that becomes a moot point.

Somewhere, sometime in the past I actually posted something similar to what mikeywith said about preferring to mine in a friendlier environment with a more pleasant operator.

As the saying goes time is money, and if I have to spend *time* dealing with an issue because the person running the pool does not want to, or has the mentality that "it's never my fault, I do a better job then everyone else" then I don't mine there. Because, with the equipment I have after electric & everything else I am only netting about $500 a month. It's not worth it for a few extra bucks to get grief and waste a 1/2 day dealing with something.

Case in point. I spend a lot of time dealing with network routing. I was having issues connecting to a certain pool years ago. Sent the operator detailed logs, showed him where the issue was in his network / data provider and then got back a reply that it had to be my fault everyone else was connecting fine. Guess what, they were not, they just did not notice that what should have been a 10ms to 40ms response depending on where they were was actually closer to 125ms. I showed again what the issue was and posted in the thread where it was. And the post got deleted. So I left.


Unless I am missing something if it's solo then 3rd party firmware should not matter.

Stay safe.

-Dave

Getting OT here but,It matters because as one of the major developers of cgminer who worked with -ck, Kano takes great umbrage towards folks that violate the GPL license.  -ck not caring anymore about that point is up to him.

In my book he rightly refuses to support folks who do not care about copyright and usage licenses. He cannot reasonably block equipment from Bitmain, MicroBT and a few others that started the chain of violation but he can keep the far smaller number of folks from using 3rd party mods of it on his pool.

This is a misconception spread by Kano to advertise his pool.

Empty blocks MUST happen regardless of everything else, I can go with the technical explanation of why must they happen, but since I have already explained that I'll refer you to aantonop (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dizF2S63RXY).

Now let's take simple practical examples.

Today viabtc mined an empty block 631926 (https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/block/631926) , the next block (https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/block/631927) had 0.46 in fees, yesterday 1THash&58COIN mined an empty block 631806 and block 631807 had 0.75BTC in fees.

Are you implying that these pools are sacrificing thousands of dollars for nothing? does a pool that owns 10% or 20% or 30% of the network hashrate run an inadequate code or slow servers?? of course NOT.

Empty blocks will ALWAYS come by because the time it takes to download and verify the transactions of the previous blocks is >0 and <x and the probability of hitting a block between 0 and x seconds is always there, the pools will have two options.

1- Wait until they verify the transactions of the last block.
2- Risk putting transactions which were included in the previous block.

Number 1 is risky because another pool might beat you to it, Number 2 is risky because if you include a transaction from the previous block your block will be invalid and nobody in their mind will take that risk.

If the above is still hard to digest, take a look at the number of empty blocks mined this year, exactly 14 empty blocks for each month

Jan 14 empty blocks.
Feb 14 empty blocks.
March 14 empty blocks.
April 14 empty blocks.

Those empty blocks are found by various different pools, what does that mean?

A- Pool operators sit together in a closed room and decided how much money they want to lose.
B- Statistics, maths, and probability.

if you believe in A, stop reading, if not please continue.

What does finding 14 blocks mean?

every day we find 14/30 = 0.46 empty blocks = 1.63% of all blocks WILL be empty

For T = 0.46 a nd % = 1.63

exp(−TimefromSeconds/AverageBlocktime)−exp(−TimetoSeconds/Averageblocktime) = 0.016 > 1.63%

exp(−1/60)−exp(−2/60) = 0.016 > 1.63%

This means the average time for mining pools to download and verify transactions of the previous blocks is greater than 2 seconds, anything that falls between >0 and <200ms WILL HAVE to be empty, Kano can't do shit about, Pools can't avoid it, Satoshi can't fix it, Albert Einstein won't bother with trying to change it.


or he doesn't give a shit about Cgminer license, but he is an attention seeker, and since

1- Bitmain, Microbt won't be wasting their time replying to him > no attention
2- Most of the custom firmware devs are active on this forum and they will reply to him > attention received

Add to that the fact that the majority of mining gears probably run stock firmware (which violate the GPL license a million times more than these custom firmware ran on a relatively small number of miners) the loss in profit that comes with blocking stock firmware that violate that exact same license is way too huge for his pool to handle, but the small quantity of miners running custom firmware is not a big loss.

So Bitmain and MicroBT violate Cgminer license > No problem, you can mine to my pool. Two or three custom firmware violate Cgminer license> You can't mine to my pool because I argued with you on the forum and I told you that you were wrong, my ego doesn't let me.

If kano REALLY cares about the Cgminer license as he pretends, he MUST block all Bitmain and Microbt firmware from mining to his pool/s, if he doesn't do that, I can only call this "hypocrisy", and I won't be surprised if after 1-2 years custom firmware dominates the mining gears, he will allow them to use his pool.

I know kano has had a very small next to nothing tx fee block.

I don't recall if it was under 30 seconds for sure.  I think the clock times were 9 or 17 seconds.  He was close to a fee less block.

Part of the empty blocks are due to manipulation and skipping the last transaction from the previous block.  Thus a very fast "empty" block.  But a block none the less.

So would you rather hit 5 blanks a month.  Or all the blanks have a small amount of tx fees but you don't get the 5 you lose one to a guy that went shortcut method.

I wonder which is better.  It would be really hard to determine how many small fee fast blocks happen for a pool using kano's method vs 1 extra block empty via the shortcut method.

If both are legal it is a pool operators choice to do one or the other.

As block reward 1/2 's more pools may not choose the faster method as tx rewards are greater.

But as I said I truly do know how stupid I am and will continue to be. So I just like friendly people to run my pools.  I am not going to get rich here. so why argue.

And I refer you to what you talking about - SPV mining (https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/38437/what-is-spv-mining-and-how-did-it-inadvertently-cause-the-fork-after-bip66-wa) which is a subject wholly off-topic here.That said, one last bit about it from Core developer Gregory Maxwell that he posted long ago on Reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3c305f/if_you_are_using_any_wallet_other_than_bitcoin/csrsrf9/) Very salient point he says at the end:


The fact remains that it is up to the pool operator to decide to use it or not. Kano does not and only references fully validated blocks - not just the headers. Ergo - no empty blocks.

re: 'Hypocrisy over cgminer usage by manufacturers and hacks thereof, I refer you to the more appropriate thread were I answered that (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5246604.msg54513156#msg54513156).

I moved the reply to kano.is where it belongs.
No idea why Phil is posting 'questions' about kano.is here :P
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=789369.msg54514542#msg54514542

Well i know that i was talking about SPV mining, but don't nearly all pools conduct spv mining? If kano does not then he must state things as they are, in his reply to my topic he makes it seem like he is magically beating the odds, which is not the case.

Also fully validating blocks the way he does it "taking your words for it because I don't know if he does" lowers the pool chances of finding blocks, those who mine to his pool waste a portion of their hash power "doing nothing" until the previous block's transactions are validated and thus risking a potential empty block (The exact reasons why most large pools do the opposite)

I am not implying that one thing is better than the other to bitcoin as a whole, simply stating the potential risk and loss in the way he conducts his pool, as you may already know most miners would prefer not to risk losing a block by wasting a few seconds of mining for the sake of block rewards ( the majority probably don't care about anything but fiat profit), if Kano does that he should make it clear and then miners can chose if they want to use his pool or not, but he doesn't do that, he simply uses that fact to advertise his pool, the same thing he is doing now in this thread and his thread by attacking Ckpool, Laurentia pool and nearly all pools, every pool except for his is a terrible pool according to him.

Anyway, i am out of here, @NotFuzzyWarm thanks for the civilized conversation and friendly attitude, if people won't learn anything new from this discussion they could at least learn to be polite.

Not only does kano.is not conduct SPV mining, neither does ckpool nor does your pool. Empty blocks was not what this topic was concerning.


Just to be clear, no-one is attacking ckpool or Laurentia pool for mining empty blocks. I'm not sure why you brought empty blocks into the discussion, the first mention of it in this thread is in post 18 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5250876.msg54505711#msg54505711)

... and a minor update to this regarding the white paper.

The Fibre block relay was shut down yesterday.
So getting your blocks to other pools fast, now depends entirely on your own block distribution and worldwide node network connectivity.

Thus Laurentia would expect a higher orphan rate (LOST blocks) than any pool that does have a good worldwide distribution of nodes ... like my pool does.

... and related to that, whoever wrote in the white paper about the irrelevant issue of multiple nodes finding more than one block at the same time, clearly has no understanding of that.
It doesn't matter if 2 miners find 2 blocks at the same time. Of course you will only get one, no matter what you do about that.
However, it is ALWAYS possible for 2 miners to find blocks at the same time no matter where they mine, even on the same node.

The biggest issue with ckpool about this, is that it hides this information.
Like the last block that pool lost, no one knew about it except the miner, until the pool OP was prompted to look into it.
Aside: if that happened with a rental service, no one would ever know if you can't check with the rental service best shares or blocks found.

My KDB displays ALL blocks found by all miners on the pool, immediately on the web site, then reports which blocks are valid/orphan/rejected/stale etc.

--

This is a claim you are making with zero proof - nothing to back it up.
ck has never tested his pool code performance against the other pool's code performance.
It is simply just his arrogant opinion that his pool code is "more efficient than any other pool on market"

A simple comparison I CAN make, my KDB software running on my pool, that does all the same work as the ckpool front end running on my pool except it doesn't do work generation once every 30 seconds and network IO to miners, but it does also do a lot more work processing, web site processing and accounting, uses approximately only 1/3 of the CPU of ckpool running on the same hardware with it.
This is simple for me to see, looking at the CPU usage of the two processing running on the pool, as anyone else can also verify the performance of the current git of both pieces of software - though my current KDB now has even better performance than the public git version.

FIBRE is non essential for LP or solo ckpool, it's loss will be missed by the network but ck pools are unaffected. So beyond that our server is extremely well connected and block switching is extremely fast for both the pool -ck hosts and LP which he co-operates specifically the server side.

Of course like you state any pool which submits a "winning" share from two miners at the same will have conflict. Our whitepaper outlines well our take on networking, and reasoning for our single node setup. I'm not sure what you're trying to argue as larger pools are starting to either adopt something similar or develop more on stratum like V2 which is mostly to support better the inefficiencies of satellite/proxy nodes within the same pool. Also we don't expect higher orphan chance, we expect less than competitors.

Our UI now although very basic displays best share so I'm not sure how we're not transparent as you claim when other pools provide less insight in these metrics, but still have the need to attack our service. Our goal as well is to use our fee to build out the UI to our users needs which could include more metrics requested by consensus. If anything we, including -ck are very open and transparent. Likely this is well known by anyone who has engaged with us before.

Everything you state in this thread is extremely assumptive, we've had great response to our whitepaper and service even from competitors. Which most are welcoming and excited to have new challengers in the sector. So it's more odd you give us soo much negative attention, then I've addressed my speculation on that in previous replies.

As for the technical aspects you'd have to consult -ck but I know that relationship is tarnished, so good luck getting answers. I'll just say there is a reason we chose new high end equipment to host our server on, to not just benefit us as operators but to benefit our users and future optimizations and efficiencies without restraint. 

The quote, those are my words and if wrong I'm happy to fall on that sword. It just shows our confidence in our product and displays without a doubt we're here to compete and drive results. I'm ok with being arrogant or perceived as in this regard, I do find it amusing though that this argument comes from you of all people here.

Please continue to feel free to slander our product and pump your own at the same time which is the theme of this thread. I just don't think you'll be able to piggyback our momentum this way.

70.1 PH in commitments so far, 230 PH needed pending network, likely less now honestly if trend continues.

"Laruentia Pool - BAD risk for miners. .. to not mine with us".

#mineon

At a pool fee of 0.3% it will take you 333 blocks to just cover the cost of a single lost block, with no income to pay for servers or anything else.

I did this on KanoPool due to the problems of -ck's poorly coded and tested code, and that was just before what lead up to him kicking me out of the ckpool and cgminer git. He wasn't happy about it :P
My pool already has a few (current) blocks worth of pool fees that I've not paid to my wallet, to cover anything that might go drastically wrong.
But I have also removed specific problems from the ckpool code I use that are still there in the public git.
Aside: there is more code in the ckpool git by me than by -ck.

You can't just make a statement that is clearly wrong, without some proof of why you think the logical need of distributing your blocks quickly and getting blocks from the majority of pools quickly isn't necessary.
That makes no sense at all for anyone who has even the slightest understanding of how bitcoin works.

No matter what you say, it takes some number of milliseconds to process a block find.
But then that block needs to get to all the other pools, to stop them trying to find a competing block with the one you found, and move on to finding the next height block built off your block.
On top of that, there is the requirement to see the blocks of other pools as quickly as possible, so you aren't working on stale work, like what happened on the solo pool in the extreme when they recently lost a block.

Without the fibre network, your block will only get to other pools by relay from your bitcoind to those you are connected to.
Thus it will be a number of (slow) steps from wherever your bitcoind is to the pools in china ...

It's no conflict, it's simply expected to happen no matter how many nodes you have, one or 1000.
Having only one node doesn't stop it from happening.
Each hash is random - it's not going to make any difference if two miners are talking to the same node or two different nodes.
If you think for some reason two miners pointing to the same node cannot find 2 blocks at the same time, then you don't understand bitcoin mining.

You mention "V2" but this is simply just slush trying to market themselves, since they are falling in size compared to the other larger pools.
V2 is GBT relabeled, that died out for many good reasons

Your block distribution is worse than most pools, by your own design.
So you WILL expect more orphans.

... interesting how your opinion of having a UI has changed ... to quote YOU in the past:

... and yet on the multiple occasions that his pools have lost blocks, no one knew except the miner who found the block, that then prompted him to explain why.
That's not transparent - that's hiding important information.

I've run a reliable pool for 6 years, and had to deal with the problem known as -ck for many of those years.
There's no assumptions in anything I've said.
I'll make it quite clear that I am an expert in bitcoin, networks, software development and server management.

If your definition of "high end" is that tiny server -ck uses for the solo pool, then you clearly have no idea what is required to run a pool.
Remember, he ran a pool on a piece of junk for years that only by luck didn't lose more blocks than it did (or did it and no one knew?)

As a lot of the people on my pool know, I use two types of servers just for the nodes, one equivalent of your so called "high end" and one with half the ram - duplicated in the major areas on two different providers.
The main server is MUCH more powerful.

Basically you are saying you are cutting corners, spending only $120 a month on a server to support millions of dollars of mining hardware,
instead of setting up a proper pool with distributed nodes to get the blocks out to the rest of the network.
One lost block due to poor network distribution is (currently) about $50,000 yet you're only willing to spend $120 a month to deal with network distribution :P

"Laruentia Pool - BAD risk for miners"
Using software developed by someone who has so far lost 4 blocks due to buggy code and negligence.
... and has a white paper full of design flaws.

We can go back an forth forever. There's nothing in your criticisms that is note worthy as every pool has it's features and benefits. You're biased as are we, we can just admit it. Also our code isn't public so please stop assuming you know anything about anything regarding LP. It's a protected mining environment and although -ck would like to make it public we've asked him not to at this point. Which you can flame as non transparent as well but other ops don't have public code either.

0.3% fee covers the cost of operating the pool and more at our minimum cadence, to drive more development specifically to the pool. I've already addressed block loss due to operational error. The fee also scales for us as operators like any other pool, so the more hashrate the sooner we can have reserves and leave fiat based insurance and the more we an do for our users. This is grass roots startup with no VC funding rounds, no grants, and is the product of considerable thought and analysis, and we specifically reached out to -ck because of his skill and bitcoin centric motivations. Also his care for performance, professionalism, and the synergy for us works 110%. We're also showing how operators needlessly rent seek miners with high fees, though we're not greedy but still want our payday. As well we're very transparent in our fee as large pool already have back door deals with farms for considerably low fees. As every hash has the same probability it doesn't make sense to tax one user over another. We don't have a login requirement just pw, and no op wallet to manage for users. So overhead is even less. So who is putting reward and personal data at more risk? I wouldn't trust you hold a door a for someone let alone hold coin.

It's fine if you think you operate a pool "better", I would believe all operators would make the same case. You just seem to be fixated on LP for reasons already mentioned prior. Again, I'm flattered for the attention you give us, as it's just more exposure. Where any sane person easily sees that there's been considerable thought into our design and we're more than proud to work along side -ck. It's also ok if you disagree with anything and everything, we can't please everyone.

If you want to take my distain for pools with a considerable fee that in my opinion doesn't really innovate for it's pool base but funds projects and also excepts grant monies for projects, it fits the narrative you'd like to tell, though completely out of context. And as once a long time Slush Pool user I'm allowed as a consumer to have an opinion on their service. I also don't have a flaming thread attempting to discredit all their work, nor have I cared to flame your work excessively like you do. It also shows that anyone can pick anything apart if they choose to. We don't have a great relationship with Slush Pool but still these are people we happily engage with and always look to have productive, provoking discourse and they take my critiques seriously in our private and public conversations.

Even after all your blatant attempts to incite us to come down to your "karen'ing" of the mining section here, just tells me you're more focused on what others are doing than your own work. Likely scrambling for a FIBRE fix thinking your some sort of god while we already made their loss a non event for us, like many other points in our design.

If you'd like to continue to compare LP to a free and feely open community pool that's ok as well but still has nothing to do with LP besides any arbitrary association you stretch to make. And again, you're still using this thread to promote YOUR work, YOUR preferences, and lack of relationship skills under the guise of some sjw assumptive, conjecture that you then reflect onto us.

You could be so much more productive than continue to write replies that will be tl;dr'd once people realize the immense time sink this is to no result. Which you seem to have in ample supply, showing it's doesn't take much to run a pool now does it. 

We cut zero corners with our services, which are provided at a high level or would not occur. We have limited risk considerably in multiple ways for our users. Our whitepaper isn't perfect but considering the competition is well ahead of the curve and we're not going anywhere.

"So get used to it".

#mineon

And here we have it.
The basis of why you've made so many mistakes in your white paper and either made a lot of it up or were lead astray by someone else.

You believe it doesn't take much effort ... and your white paper states you are doing exactly that ... to run a reliable good pool.

Time sink for me? Not much.
Running a pool? Yes I do it 24/7/365.25 for almost 6 years now.

No, I’m saying you simply reap the rewards from the effort you put in. Obviously you don’t care about your pool to focus your efforts there.

My wife never touches her desktop yet it’s been on 24/7/365 for years as well.

Again saying how you think it takes no effort to run a pool.

The people who do mine on my pool do know how much effort I put into it.

The last person, who we both well know was putting no effort into a pool, was -ck who didn't give a shit about the solo pool, ignored it, and lost someone around $50,000
Then he decided that although he has thousands of BTC, he wouldn't cover the losses his negligence caused.
The same person you are saying:

Again and quite obvious:
"Laruentia Pool - BAD risk for miners"
Using software developed by someone who has so far lost 4 blocks due to buggy code and negligence.
... and has a white paper full of design flaws.

I don’t think it’s easy at all, considering the effort we’ve put into our project. You’re just on a personal vendetta that has nothing to do with LP and the time you waste here could be spent being much more productive on your own work. Specifically your user base, is the point I’m attempting to communicate. Which that and everyother point you mischaracterize to suit the narrative you’re after. Or just simply avoid.
We’ll keep building and you’ll keep complaining, constantly presenting yourself as a desperate, sad, forum troll short on fluoxetine and vitamin D.

If people don’t already know, spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt to intentionally disadvantage competition is a widely known tactic, used typically in desperation and obviously with malice of intent. And why my first comment here was that this entire thread is defamation and the actual narrative here is just a really sad attempt to pump yourself and shit all over someone who is actually respected by bitcoiners.

You just enjoy your night there thinking of more ways to be unproductive.

We’ll catch up again in a few weeks and let everyone here enjoy some popcorn again ok?

#mineon

Using a common tactic to hide the truth.
... there's nothing I've stated about your pool design or -ck that isn't fact.

The opening post here is about why you should use different software.
Alas you're ignorance of Bitcoin and server management will be leading people astray and probably losing money unnecessarily.

I'm not sure what rubbish -ck has been telling you to make you pay him, but his priority is not Bitcoin at all.
You can find all about his priority here on his reddit account:
https://www.reddit.com/user/ittaku

... and lastly ...
The 'k' in ckpool stands for 'kano'

Funnily enough many people also know all this.

--

Now you seem to think that there's something special about how you are planning to run a pool that will make people flock to it.
Yet you have been posting about it here for months and your pool shows nothing for it.
Don't forget the obvious, there's currently well over 100EH of miners out there ... so yaw so called 'great design' that 'works' should have easily got that exceptionally tiny % of that 100EH that you 'need' by now ...

Running the best pool for Bitcoin (which I do) does not guarantee hash rate.

Most Bitcoin miners are ignorant of how bitcoin works - like you.
Most pools have large miner bases either due to requiring them to mine on their pool or by deception in their marketing.
Alas I'm not happy to do that.

Your white paper clearly says you are happy to do that - though it's not working for you either yet ...
Just post after post trying to bump your own thread ... against the rules of the forum :P

I just find it "odd" we work with a rival and you proceed with a full attack. Then we expected it.

You also know: That we don't work on the technicals for the pool. That -ck refuses to interact with you. So it's opportunistic "5N" for you to fud the shit out of the thread. Or ours, but I won't allow your bullshit. Likely you'll play your righteous card from a soap box and quote this line pushing your deflective, deceptive narrative towards us.

I believe our mission is 110% explained in detail in our whitepaper. And I'm being frugal with that number. Our server is highly optimized, and ready for mining
https://laurentiapool.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/laurentiapool_whitepaper.pdf 

We do client services, and seek dev on UI by user review, interested devs can dm me for contract or split of fee agreement (please read on). -ck works the server. We collaborate well, and are proactive in management. If you have interest in mining with Laurentia Pool it's entirely up to you and we can be easily contacted for any matter unless you're a complete douche. What we're driving to achieve is to highly compete to out perform F/PPS score and increase revenue directly to the user. All while reducing as much trust as possible for all parties in our methods. All we require is a 2016 block commitment. Using what we believe are the best tools and code to do that to date and pouring our fee into exactly what matters; our server, ui, and development. Our minimum operation cadence, or hashrate, is a projected 5 blockfinds per diffadj, with a score system that will still payout after exit, yet incentivizing continued participation.

If you have millions of dollars in infra, it's likely you'd appreciate and value a full coinbase derived payment directly to your own control. If you have a usb stick you can still mine here, likely we would not be counting you as a dedicated user since your payout would be deferred greatly, still we'd suggest you solo mine. Yet all potential users are allowed to mine right away, knowing fully the risks involved regarding probability and conflicts with fw, hosts, or rentals. Essentially our pool is gauged to those who actually own equipment in possession due to our pw strength. Every hash is scored and accounted and does payout till fall off.

And yes, 70Ph is a feat in this environment for a self funded start up. Debatable to be under expectation but is still a celebrated feat, and we look forward to continued commitments. https://laurentiapool.org/commitment

We're proud of the work we've accomplished, as we know full well none of this easy. We can fund the server without use, as it costs less for us than to manage it than active and also to not have already had preset expectations directly with a user before entrance.
We can easily manage 100 active mining users daily with our recourses. Our fee scales so it incentivizes us to grow and develop, incentivizes participation from any active miner dedicated to the bitcoin network, and obviously and greatly our own.

I really don't care what you say or how much stalk -ck with your weird manic depressive compulsive disorder.

And just to make clear our post was originally locked because we knew you'd be the first to flame, and voila  . . here we are. We also are able to bump once every 24 hours, per forum rules. I'd think a "legend" here would know that. Still we adjusted our method to support the the fluidity of the forum to just major announcements/updates as they occur. Which are reformatted and unfortunately to our unliking so we revise to default, and without complaint.

Again, our only karen is you, as our feedback has been great. Which brings me back to the first line of this reply.

#mineon

Blah blah blah repeat the same stuff I've already pointed out the problems with - that you clearly do not understand.

Lulz - you sure you're not a -ck sock puppet?

He thinks that anyone who reads all of the pool section of this forum is a stalker of him?

I made one post in the past year on one of his threads and that is called being a stalker?

Not sure why anyone thinks that one post in the past year on his pool page is called stalking ...
That's called paranoia. Read up all about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoia

My one line post that means I'm a stalker :P
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=763510.msg54139427#msg54139427

But that was his 'stalker' comment you copied:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=763510.msg54140865#msg54140865

The guy spends most of his time working on animated child porn.
Check his reddit page.
He's the one who sounds like a stalker ...

How can anyone tell if your pool or any other mining pool for that matter actually lost a block and the miner didn't notice it? what if due to a packet loss caused by a server faliture or a connection problem from the pool side caused a loss of a block and went unnoticed, or even worse what if the pool lost a block due to the exact reasons CK pool lost some blocks?

I am not attacking your pool or anything else, I know CK could have prevented the last block if he had the right resources, I am not making excuses for him, actually running a solo pool is the best test since almost EVERYONE looks at their miner's status, but when mining on a pool especially if it's a PPS and in the grand scheme of things almost NOBODY watches their status simply because finding a block won't make them earn an extra penny, so really, how can someone (doesn't have to be you) claim that their pool never lost a block? based on what?



I am probably the one who likes Kano the least here, but the concerns he has should be answered, if -ck refuses to answer them, then it's your duty as the pool owner to answer these questions and deny Kano's accusations, if the software your pool uses is the same one that lost a few blocks due to what Kano claims to be "lack of testing" then why would miners trust your pool? if -ck has has already fixed those issues (assuming there are issues aside from the inadequate server resources he had) then him or you should state that, if -ck now runs a different version from the one on github then that should be also stated, if Kano is making stuff up because of the personal issues between him and -ck then -ck should at least deny the allegations either by posting here personally or through you as the pool owner/manager.

Feel free to ignore my oppinion since i am not one of your clients, I have zero issues with -ck in fact I do like him, but when it comes to being honest when giving unbiased oppinion, Kano's terrible attitude doesn't get in the way of my judgment.

I wouldn't say "NOBODY watches their status" - I track every block I find on any algo and or pool - now on PPS that can be tedious to go thru the blocks but it is not impossible. I keep screenshots as well.

Not debating or arguing any other point of your statement but you can't say NOBODY tracks it because I know I am not the only one.

here is just the past few months - some images are of one block - some images have details on quite a few blocks. I store the block number - hash - and diff of each block in a spreadsheet as well.

https://i.ibb.co/JkjGK21/Capture.jpg (https://ibb.co/9YH1N2D)

Any client or potential is able to contact -ck. I have already recommend making a genuine inquiry on our thread or our other contact methods. Even invited Kano to do so. There’s no reason I'm needed as a proxy or mediator for discourse especially by what should be amongst peers.

I will not ask ck or mandate he, or anyone engage with someone like Kano regardless of any history.

Firstly, this is off topic.
Post it in my pool thread, which is only what you are posting about.

Secondly, again, mr gambler shows his complete lack of understanding of statistics.
You do this over and over again and pretend you know what you are talking about and each time I point out why you don't.

I will again point out what you are showing and clearly unable to read:

So you picked the worst PAPPS% line in the whole table :)
1) Last 50 Blocks   87.9wks   117.94%   103.35%   0.8937   84.79%   86.84%

This is 50 blocks. Not 100, not 1000, simply 50 blocks.
What does the CDF[Erl] say about the probability - 0.8937 i.e. it's inside even the 90th percentile.
Approx one in ten chance of that happening ... damn that's ... one in ten wow - why is this an issue?

Someone posted slush's luck stats in my discord channel this morning before I kicked him ... hmm let me go get them ...
https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/457139201092091919/735549475765878784/slush.png

OhMyFuckingGod - they had 83.69% luck over their last 50 blocks - we better go call the police ... that's worse than kano.is luck ...

Yes I do get sick of this rubbish from phil who clearly has no understanding of statistics and keeps making posts like these :P


... I don't suppose you know how bad the statistics are on the CKPools? No he hides that information.
LA pool will have none also - he'll be hiding that as well.
The ckpool single block difficulty ratio/luck calculation is also WRONG

--
Edit:

and he's now deleted all the accusations he made :P

The luck isn't terrible - it's expected approx 1 in 10 runs of 50 blocks - so every 500 blocks on every pool you'd expect to get a run of 50 blocks with that luck.

i have deleted all my posts. kano is right i am stupid.

PPS is more and more what people want.

If it's good for the miner / pool operator has to be determined on an individual basis.

Personally, I have about $7.50 in dust left on Kano's pool since 2016. Due to PPLNS and the lack of luck, it's just a write off to me at the moment, never going to get paid and unless I put some crap miner on there when they happen to get lucky and find a block I'm never going to get paid. In terms of crypto mining losses it's a small one.

For smaller pools like Kano and Laurentia, PPS is looking to be the only way to gain more users. A small user might mine there knowing they will get paid what they mine (minus the fee) if they grow into a larger miner they might stay.
But, very few larger miners are going to move to or start with a small PPLNS pool.

Same with Laurentia I am not going to mine here, I just changed out some equipment and barely have 1PH.

It's all older, outdated, inefficient gear. But since I have fixed power costs it works for me.
Since I have fixed expenses PPS works best for me.

Having had many discussions with other people what I am doing seems to be a recurring theme.

-Dave

oh kano is right i will stay off this thread. i opened another. here in the pool section.

If it's above dust 10,000 sat, I'll probably get around to sending it out sooner or later.
I've been very busy with coding on the KanoPool.
As everyone knows we have a full 100% proof of payment page (uses the blockchain information to prove the payments)
with a CSV download

I've also been doing dust payouts to any miner who gets a payout
i.e. Block reward + owed dust, so most of the current miners have zero dust left
(there were only a few owed extra in the last block)

The KDB code has had sizeable additions done over the last months (and still uses way less CPU than ckpool), and soon there'll also be the option for Solo mining on KanoPool.
For a limited few medium long term miners (of my choice) they'll also be able to mine 50% PPS until the PPS funds run out :P

PPS is normally NOT an option for small pools, since to run it long term, the backing is a large amount of BTC.
Using Meni's calculation from my post here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=104664.msg48795003#msg48795003
Current reward 6.25 BTC for a 0.1% chance of the pool going bankrupt, with a 3% fee, the backing required is:
719.5625 BTC or about $6.8 million

(my PPS I'll have is simply to have a buffer that when it runs out, they'll simply have to switch their miners elsewhere or to PPLNS - but no losses since I'll payout the trailing end of mining of course and can switch off PPS mining with a command)

Ok perhaps that was poor wordings on my side, changed that nobody to almost nobody, you are right, but this doesn't invalidate the point that the motive to watch blocks found on a PPS pool or a very large PPLNS is slim to nothing when compared to mining solo, maybe even "almost nobody" is far from accurate but i am sure you get the point.

Still waiting for Kano to answer my question and show us all on what bases can a mining pool claim they never lost a block when nobody has access to their database, not saying it can't be done, i am simply asking a question and willing to be educated on the subject.

Of course it's above 10K sat. How else do you get to $7.50  ;D


Which as a miner kind of puts you into a loop. Do you mine on a small PPLNS pool that might never find a block so you never get paid before they close? (bitminter). Or do you take a loss and pay the 3% or 4% fee and mine on a PPS pool?

If you are creating a pool, how do you encourage people to join if they might not get paid more then once a month or possibly every other month or once a quarter? Same loop as above just from the other side.

Which brings us back to the original thought of this thread. "Laurentia Pool - BAD risk for miners". It's might be, it might not be. For me, even if they had the best coders in the world and the best pool infrastructure in the world etc. It would be because if they don't find blocks or have them orphaned then I'm loosing money. Same with your pool Kano.

On the flip side, if I needed to squeeze every last $ out of my miners and could wait for payment, then PPS @ 4% would be a bad risk. And I should be mining someplace else.

Blanket statements are bad

If it's just about the coding and the back end and connectivity, then without a full review of their code and a complete network and peer map then it's just a guess.

-Dave

:) agreed.

Actually it's quite simple :)

Firstly, while I've made no where near the BTC of the large pools charging large fees and -ck charging ridiculous amounts to write crappy, buggy code, so they have to pay him more again to fix it,
I have made enough to be happy (2 digits) and also keep the pool running for the future - even though it's running at a loss at the moment.
Where did that BTC I made come from? Running a pool of course - so why not keep it running using that BTC ...

Anyway the simple answer is, as has happened a number of times in the past on my pool, some large miner gets fed up with the fees and lies of the pool they are using, and they come by and talk to me.
Unfortunately the last two (900PH and 200PH) couldn't convince their board that joining a small pool would be a good idea.
Odd though, since the pool wouldn't be small any more :P

But it happens on occasion, and it will only take one of them to come on board, then lots of small and medium miners will join again after that.

The sooner the better of course, but alas, it's random when it happens.

Maybe some of the new features I've spent so much time and effort on will help convince the next one :)

My pool is the best connected and best for Bitcoin pool, without doubt.
Alas at the moment it's too small to attract lots of small to medium miners.

Exactly what I am trying to state here, Kano claims his pool has the best code and connectivity, the only source for these claims are obviously his own words which I for obvious reasons can't trust without an inpedenent review of his claims, he could have lost 10 blocks and all went unnoticed, just like any pool could, so to claim that you never lost a block without providing a proof on how does your code/connectivety prevent this and how do they differ from other well known large pools who can afford to pay the best devs on planet and rent or probably own their own high-end servers.

We know about the last block cksolo pool lost because that person happen to check his miner's best share (mainly due to the fact that he was mining solo) we don't know many blocks in TOTAL did ckpool (non-solo) lose neither do we know about Kano's pool, and since "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" we can't tell if Kano lost a few blocks without knowing or actually he knows but never admitted it, it remains a guess, so unless he states a straight forward proof to support his claim, I will still believe that he is simply promoting his mining pool. ::)

Heh funny about all that merit you got - even the mod who doesn't follow the forum rules unless he's told to :)

Firstly, you've been on ignore for a long time, so I never read your posts.
The only reason I read it was all the merit :)

Fun fact, all this information about my pool configuration is available in many posts I've made in the past in detail :)

That being: the pool has nodes all over the world, working on accepting shares and distributing blocks as quickly as possible.
The nodes themselves submit blocks to the bitcoin network as soon as a share, that is a block, arrives to them from the miner.
The share is of course also sent back to the master server where ckpool and KDB both process it (KDB accurately, unlike ckpool) and they both submit the block also.
ckpool also sends the share to every other node to do the same block submission.
This point also was completely confused in the Laurentia white paper - mfb clearly does not even understand ckpool.
His paper says he uses ckpool without this advantage, that some of the 137 BTC I gave -ck covered the cost of adding.
Of course the current ckpool git doesn't work with AB blocks but I fixed that in my copy when I first did all the AB testing before putting the AB changes live.

Secondly, you are, like phil did, simply trashing -ck with most of this comment.
As I've pointed out here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5264067.msg54855598#msg54855598

Now there's probably also some explanation necessary since I'd guess you don't understand what's meant by 'lost' blocks in all this discussion.
Your comments about not even caring if you find blocks or not, are alarming at the least, so I doubt you understand the various issues with finding blocks.

By 'lost' I specifically mean lost by negligence and code bugs.

In these cases, the miner may know it found a block, the pool will get the share that represents a block, but the block was not sent out to the network when it should have been or not sent out at all, due to a code fault or in the most recent cksolo one, server management negligence.

There are of course also stale and orphan blocks, caused by rare block find timing (orphans) slow pools (orphans/stales) remote miners not well connected to the pool (stales) or miners generally slow getting the block to the pool for whatever reason (stales)
But they don't fall under the heading of 'lost' - but all 'should' be displayed by all pools (though I doubt most of them do)

If instead a block is lost due to network issues like the share never being delivered to the pool, well then there's no way for the pool to handle that, since it never got the share - only the miner could know about that one, assuming cgminer actually reports it.

So related specifically to this item - my pool's worldwide node distribution is relevant to that - miners have nodes close to them - nodes that submit blocks to the bitcoin network immediately, not waiting until they are processed less than 100ms later by the master server.
(the ckpool master node latency report for each KanoPool node is under 70ms for all but the Singapore node which is 86ms)

But what this also leads to, by design, is that every node on the Worldwide KanoPool network submits the block to the area it is in.
The block submission does not require the full block to be sent to each node, only the tiny share data, thus it distributes the blocks around the world faster than any other pool - and there certainly can be no argument against this now that the Fibre Block relay is gone - though when the Fibre Block relay was working, the process of only sending a share via TCP rather than the full block via UDP was also probably faster than the Fibre Block relay, since the incoming block to the FIbre Block relay, and outgoing to the other pools on the network 'at the other end', was also TCP.
Also, of course, the KanoPool nodes are all interconnected with their bitcoinds as well.

As for blocks 'missing'
Well this is a rather curious suggestion that a pool could make blocks disappear but still get the BTC
To do this would require:
1) sending a miner different work to the rest of the pool, not identifying the block as Kano
2) the miner would then find a block and have to never notice that it found a block
Both of these things, any miner 'can' check, so I'd magically have to know which miners would never check this and hope I never get caught even once over the years.

While this has never happened on KanoPool, I guess I 'could' come up with some excuses like ckpool has over the years for losing blocks ... if it ever did happen :P

Lastly, as can been seen in the old git, but of course not my current private git, but has happened with every block found on the pool, KDB immediately displays the block found irrelevant of if it is valid/stale/orphan/rejected and I also do this in IRC and Discord.
... unlike all the ckpools ... including laurentia

--

Edit: While people may say that 'the big pools' must have more resources and a better network:
There are currently 11 KanoPool nodes around the world, 4 of which are bare metal hardware, the equivalent power of the server that's runs all of cksolo or laurentia (4Core/8Thread, SSD, 32GB RAM though one has 64GB), the other 7 are VPS, 16GB/4vCPU/SSD AWS/Vultr/RamNode/Aliyun.
Also the 3 main connections, Netherland, US-West and US-East, have two nodes each, one metal and one VPS i.e. with 2 providers to handle the case if there is an issue involving one or the other provider.
These are the servers I add as needed, or also for large miners to have a dedicated node, part of the KanoPool network.
The main (metal) server is a 'bit' more powerful ... 24Core/48Thread 96GB RAM, SSD ... though I'll probably upgrade that soon.
The web server is also a separate metal server the same as the nodes (4Core/8Thread/32GB/SSD)

“Laurentia Pool - BADLY advertising kano pool”

Take care bud.

Then to claim that your pool has never lost a block is not accurate, the proper way of stating this would be "your pool never lost a block that you know of" since the connection between the miner and the pool depends on both the miner's connection and the pool's connection, there is a chance that at the time when a miner submitted a share your sever wasn't listening for many reasons such as bad connectivity which resulted in a packet loss of some kind, and that person didn't happen to check his miner's status page, he could have rebooted the miner a while later, and proof of a block went missing forever, "when it's techinally possible, it can happen, it could have happened".


Most pools have worldwide node distribution, so this isn't Kano pool's exulsive feature. ::)


Do you have access to the code and servers of every mining pool on planet earth? if not then I call bullshit, you don't know how the other pools operate, you are using CKpool which he himself admitted to be running on an inadequate server with a code which he probably hasn't improved forever because he doesn't treat his mining pools as a source of income, and just because your pool is better than CK's you have the nerve to claim without a proof that your pool distributes blocks faster than ALL pools.


Comparing your servers' specs and connectivity to CKpool and coming up with the conclusion that your pool runs on the BEST servers, and has the BEST connectivity and the BEST code is plain stupid really, the only way for your claims to be real is if they are backed by solid evidence, those include a breakdown of ALL the other pool's servers, connectivity and code, but since most of that is private information nobody in thier right mind will claim thier pool is the best when they can't see what their competitors actually have.

I do know that you are a professional developer, you probably invested all you could afford on the pool's resources, I am not debating that, but I also know that pools which generate millions of dollars in profit, and owned by multi-billion $ companies most likely have and 'can' afford a better code, servers and worldwide connectivity than a pool of your size.

Having said that, I am not against your pool, I have actually told people in this very forum that if they don't have a problem with your terrible attitude they should certainly mine at your pool, I benifit directly by more pools and more competition in the mining industry, so I indeed wish to see your pool grow bigger, but without the b.s of it being the BEST pool. ::)

Unless they do the same as my pool - share distribution, not block distribution, then they will be slower.

As for the assumption that money = quality, well that's easy to prove wrong.
All the way up to the S7, BM did not include the changes I made in the S1,S2,S3 in the public cgminer git into their miner.
The miner driver code BM added to cgminer has same glaringly obvious issues.
The S9 did make 2 related changes, but not all of them.
Yet they have been for a very long time the largest miner producer on the planet :P

As "Laurentia" likes to advertise "Dr Con Kolivas a computer programmer" - alas he has no computing degree at all, and is only an Anesthetist by his own words - which by USA specifications, is an RN, not an MD.
Though I think that is called marketing - wording something so it appears better than it is - but wording it so that no one can claim they are doing that.
Yet, BM still use cgminer code also ... while it wouldn't be all that hard to write a better one themselves ...
and e.g. remove the failover bug that's existed in it since stratum was first added, and causes problems for all miners.

Another fun fact, F2Pool once posted specifically how they had a better network and they could orphan KanoPool as they liked.
They shut up about that after KanoPool orphaned one of their blocks ...

Odd though, that you'd ignore this comment in this thread ... yet post multiple times before and after it :)
A single server tucked away in some corner in the US ...

P.S. Mine On :)
As people have been posting "Mine On" in the KanoPool thread since 2016 :)

--

Edit: oh you missed the "Best for Bitcoin" bit.
We don't produce empty blocks - all the top pools do.

--

Edit2:
Actually it is quite relevant, since I know the servers I use are never overloaded and are specified above the requirements to ensure that.
Simple one actually.

Our whitepaper outlines our efficiencies compared to pools with multiple slave nodes. Imagine there will be long reply inc now.

With all your TL;DR's here we all could really quote out considerable "claims" from karen.

I don't make rules regarding titles for countries so you can debate that with Australia. I think we state it twice on website in reference to Con, not sure if we've marketed the pool directly as such. But sure marketing. ..  just like your Kano pool pump thread here at our expense or at least your imaginary one.

You want to clown me about my use of #mineon like we trademarked it or some lame shit like we own the phrase.

Anything else? or can we wrap this up? I've never witnessed anyone deeply committed to the demise of project that's just getting started. I just put it down to jealously. It's incredibly obvious and I don't think you realize how much damage to your already dwindled reputation this is causing.

There are so many deliberate scams in this space and you choose to single us out. A project actually attempting to achieve a little something with principle, and dedication to the user and network.

Kudo's, well done.

#mineon

You DON'T know if they propagate only the share or the whole block, you CAN't tell, you are only assuming that you are the only person on planet earth who knows that distributing a share is faster and more effienct than sending out a whole block, I don't know how the other pools operate, but if I had to take a bet, I bet they know better and that they utilize all aspects to keep their found blocks distribution as fast and effienct as possible, so long story short, your pool isn't proven to be the best, for all I know and since all of those large pools are based in China, they could very well be communcitng within the same LAN and ALL of them have better and faster connections to the other mining nodes (that matter), that of course is an assumption just like the many assumptions you make.

All the way up to the S7, BM did not include the changes I made in the S1,S2,S3 in the public cgminer git into their miner. The miner driver code BM added to cgminer has same glaringly obvious issues. The S9 did make 2 related changes, but not all of them. Yet they have been for a very long time the largest miner producer on the planet :P


This doesn't prove that you have a better network, not sure why you bring this up because I know you know very well that oprhan blocks aren't caused only buy a poor node-connecevity.


I call B.S on that as well, that's a baseless claim just like the many once you make, the only difference is that my guess is that he said that out of frustration because you pissed him off, which I suppose he would, later on, edit it or provide a proof on how is his server "more efficient than any other pool on market", and since we all know he has no proof on that, I suppose he should take that back, or he could of course follow your lead and keep claiming things with zero evidence. ::)


Which makes me wonder Kano, you kind of had the "pole position" in the mining pool race, and yet you now sit at the very back with a tiny amount of hashrate, a fresh pool like this one which hasn't gone online yet has hashrate commitments of about 70PH, maybe (just maybe) it would be best if you hire someone else who would take care of all things non-techincal, and that starts with interacting with the forum members, I am 100% positive that your attitude is one of the main reasons why your pool isn't attracting enough miners, I mean based on the current hashrate you own, you make about 160$ a month or so, this probably doesn't even pay for the "best" servers you rent, you should really shake things up while you have the chance, and start by droping the attitude. Good luck.

actually mikey  give kano a break.

He went from the hottest pool on earth 104% luck for his first 1431 blocks.

His pool has done 1000 blocks since at 96% luck.

Which is not terrible but a huge letdown when compared to 104% luck.

Kano is actually a victim of those 1431 first blocks.  
He has failed to keep pace with that and lost most of his network share.

I am convinced he has made a coding error and is blind to it due to not having a second eyes check it. {a guy like ck}

Thus he acts out in a very angry manner to the community.

He really is a victim of his 1431 block 104% luck starting streak.

Think if he was 96% for first 1000 blocks then 104% for last 1431 block his pool would be godlike and he would be riding high.

If you go back and read early parts of his thread it was like this.

I guess he is like a washed up athlete his glory days are past and it eats him alive.

I for one would love for him to read this go look at his code find a way to tweak it and go on a god like hot steak.

@ kano I truly am not fucking with your head here. This is  a sincere wish for you to be able to recaptchture the pools magic .



It would be nice to see him happy like he once was. Rather then the angry person he seems to be now.
@ kano you and I were once friendly for more then a few years.  I rathe stop fighting with you and see you cheer up.

Look at the code and try some tweak on the mofo  good luck at it.

I mean those that remember the pool back in the day known what I am talking about.

Phil, all of that, sarcasm and mockery is beneath you. You know as well as anyone that luck is luck, nothing can change it, we should not expect to get better than 100% luck over the long term, and the longer the term the closer to 100% the needle swings.

As far as I can tell he's not angry with any of you, his modus operandi is to try and educate people to do things the right way, and highlight things that are just plain wrong or illogical.

If you don't listen and try to bluff you way through the science or just post plain wrong information then he will correct it, if you continue to do it then he'll correct it stronger. He's not the only person who does this.

In the past, just about every pool that has come up and then fallen by the wayside because it was badly managed or conceived or just a complete scam has been called out and held to account by kano, and earlier on in the day by ck as well.

Which tells me his main concern is to educate, both the pool operators and the miners. Most of the time in those instances he is battling against the tide of perceived wisdom, because "who cares if its a scam as long as I'm getting 10% bonus while I mine there" etc.

Your analysis of the luck of the pool is erroneous, you know it, I don't know why you bang on about it other than because you feel slighted in someway, or just because you don't understand it. Who knows. Let it go.

Just my tuppence worth.

As far as laurentia goes good luck (sic) to you, I think your crazy trying to run it all on one pool and I don't agree with any of the science in your whitepaper, but I'm just a miner not a pool operator and I hope you prove me wrong. For now I'll keep on doing what I'm doing luck has been great last few blocks at kano, but I run half my hash half the time on a PPS pool to help pay the bills. I'm probably not doing it right, but it feels right.

That's my take on things, hopefully I've been pretty even handed about it, I've tried to stay out of it but felt I needed to say my peice, I've no problem with any of you, and you've all been pretty decent to me most of the time. So there you go :D

I'll say this yet again - since people in general seem to like making things up and then claiming them as fact.

Firstly, the KanoPool has never even been as high 4% of the network.

Next, though not really related, I have stated many times that I'd never let it get over 10%.
Though I'll also throw in, that most people on the pool know, I'll also lower the fee to 0.6% if the pool ever gets over 400PH :)

Anyway, the ups and downs of the pool hash rate are various, but the hash rate running down since Nov 2018 is quite straight forward to explain and, again, I've explained it before on multiple occasions.
I guess the problem is that people prefer to make up reasons and pretend they are fact, rather than ask.

The largest miner on the pool, that had been on KanoPool for a year, that was something like 75% of the hash rate, moved to ViaBTC due to a low month luck in Nov 2018.
He IPO'd his company that year, and the board of directors couldn't understand or handle variance :P
Yet for that year, including that bad month of luck, the pool was still ahead of the top pools in PAPPS%
It was simply a 'quarter' issue - companies get upset when one quarter is bad - even if the other quarters make up for it.

It's quite obvious on the "Monthly Statistics" table - Nov 2018 200+PH - then Dec 2018 50+PH

The hash rate after that had someone throwing a % of their pool at KanoPool every so often, but that source of hashrate ... got shutdown.

Thus like EVERY other small pool that's been around for a while, the low hash rate has scared away miners.

3 of the many offers I've had for a large miner to join the pool, that I rejected were:
1) I guess he quoted his hash rate to get me interested, but ended up saying he only wanted me to do cgminer changes - so no use for the pool.
2) Wanted ownership of part of the pool - sorry not going to do that since it's effectively just giving someone free mining
3) One group, who only did management of the mining for someone, but didn't own it, said they wanted kick backs and that ViaBTC gave them kick backs so I should also. Not sure where these kick backs were supposed to come from since the pool fee here was way lower than they were paying there :P

As mentioned previously, I've also had 2 people discuss joining (900PH and 200PH) but couldn't get their board to agree - so alas didn't happen.

Thus I really don't have issue with how I've been running the pool.

1PH is only 10-20 miners these days, so you need to be talking a couple hundred PH before you are referring to a 'large' miner.

The irony is everything is a claim until we start mining. When people ask me for recommendations on pools, I recommend ones that are actively mining. People who want to mine on Laurentia Pool obviously reach out and express their interest. I also don’t need to sweep under any comment I make. Context is important but still we’re motivated to deliver, will thrive on competition, and we assume skepticism as we would be as well.

Even the million/billion dollar companies use the same hardware we do, just more of it. A single server is more than enough for 100 users who most are using their own proxies to point to LP.

I think we’ve worked an incredible plan to drive revenue to every user, while focusing on a consistent mining environment in a pooled scenario, that pays from coinbase. With hashrate in pool that is fixed every difficulty adjustment and highly incentivizing continued participation.

Also our push is to compete with PPS, and show it’s inherent net loss, which I would think a non PPS op would appreciate. Still there’s nothing wrong with preference, or mining at a lower margin for more consistency if desired. Still I’m not in here attacking PPS pools or their users. Just offering a choice we see as better. If anything simply providing more options in market. Everything we’re pushing for is deliberate and proactive. Still no one has to agree or see our side, and the expectation will always be to let our work speak for it’s self.

Which at this point still only brings us back to first sentence of this reply till we hit 340PH (or more) to open, allowing us to use actuals in data, and monitor a single server of 100 users (not thousands) and check and adjust like any business would to stay on mission to provide excellence in service.

If anyone wants details on technicals I’ll parrot this again and again: speak with ck directly, make a genuine inquiry on our thread, or in email. As this thread only exists is because the intent is to flame and fud, not to have an open dialogue, while manipulating the situation of our division labor. And lastly that we require some essence of civility in our thread.

If anyone really sees or think we’re being deceptive it’s because literally no one is making the effort to follow the advice the service organizer of our pool is giving to get the answers they’re seeking. If it can’t be seen why there’s no benefit for us to provide anything of substance here, or for me proxy technical information that can easily derived from our dev. Then I’m sorry, this just isn’t the thread we desire to have become the collection of inquiry for our work.

#mineon

this is why I wrote what I wrote. I would never mock kano.

I think that a 1431 block streak at 104% luck changing to 96% 100 block streak is killing kano in his head.

You know that in the first 3 years of the pool I was a loyal supporter of kano and sincerely thought he had written a superior mining pool code.

I think no one has ever had a streak like his streak.  I think it haunts him that he can't figure out the drop off.

Never think you know sarcasm I have zero need to be nasty or sarcastic to kano.
I truly feel sorry for him as I know it has to be killing him to see the pool shift that way.

I have been here a long time if you think I am mocking kano you are wrong.

I am not mocking him. I do feel sorry for him. Why would I lie about something like that. I have no skin in this game.

Am I angry yes.
Being called a stupid moron  can do that.
Being called a criminal can do that.

Am I being sarcastic no.
I am saddened that it has come to this.

No more no less.

It's not killing me.
Money does not drive me in any way.
It never has.

The luck is nothing to be unexpected running a PPLNS pool.

I have never posted anywhere saying I expect better than 100% luck or that the miners on the pool should ever expect that.
I have always made the point, when we do better (or worse), that it is simply luck, not some magic coding - since that is impossible - and I know it better than most since I've written code for miners and pools and understand this equal or possibly better than anyone else in bitcoin.

Heck read the Help->Luck page on my pool - it's quite clear about that:
https://kano.is/index.php?k=poisson

In fact I usually add the point that all pools should expect below 100% due to orphans and stales
(which are now much rarer due to bitcoin core finally speeding the block change code up in it, only a few years ago)

Alas, pool size is the only Issue I have with the pool.

Kano timing is every thing.
If the pools first 1000 blocks were 96% luck and the latest 1431 blocks were 104% luck your pools size would be at least 1eh as I type.

That is a fact, whether is was all simple luck or not does not really matter.
I will say it was nice while it lasted and it would be nice to see a streak like that again.

Phil, no luck is everything.

Luck is luck, you can't do anything about it, its just luck. Only gamblers think they have any control over luck.

So when you say "whether it was all simple luck or not does not really matter." that is a misleading statement. Maybe that is what you believe is true, but its not true.

It's not "simple luck or not" there is no "or not" its just simple luck, period.

As kano says all pools, everything being equal will even out to 100% luck all the time, the only thing that will reduce that number and how it relates to payouts to miners are what has been listed:

1. Orphans
2. Stales
3. Fees

You can try and minimise them by building your pool to have excellent performance, uptime, redundancy and connectivity, but you can't remove them altogether.

So I will say it this way { kano.is }  had the bad luck to be the luckiest pool on earth from block 1 to block 1431 over 104% luck

then followed up with 1000 blocks at 96% luck.

This is simply bad luck to be really lucky then not so lucky

Bad luck that when coins paid under 3000 usd the luck was great.
Bad luck that when coins paid over 3000 usd luck was a bit less then the norm of 99-100 it was 96

This caused the pool to shrink because people were spoiled by the 1431 streak at 104%

It simply is what happened.

A 1431  block 104%  hot streak when coins were under 3000
A 1000 block.   96% cool spell when coins are over 3000.

This causes pool shrinkage.
Which kano is frustrated with.

Now I am not sure if kano had the luckiest steak in the history of BTC

block 1 to block 1431 = 104%+

But I don't think anyone ever had that record.

From block 1 to block 1431. (104% +)  It truly is an amazing record.

I simply think it has caused him grief or at least has caused him pool shrinkage.

If the pool simply stayed near 100 % every month the pool would not have shrunk.

That drop off was the pools cause of shrinking more than any other reason.

True, it's all about luck, I don't think phill is suggesting that Kano could have prevented the bad luck with the last 1000 or so blocks, but if, only if his pool's luck was better recently than earlier that would most likely be more beneficial to the pool, timining from luck perspective is indeed crucial, but it will be labeled under the same concept of luck, and here is an example:

A new guy with 500PH is looking around for the best pool, with all other things being equal, he goes to check the pools' luck, and just so happened that pool x had 96% luck for the latest 1000 blocks while another pool had 104%, since most people including large scale miners don't really understand statistics and probablity they "believe" that future incidents are related to the once in the past, where in reality bitcoin mining is merely "poison " distributed and eventually all pools will have very very close ratio to 100%.

There are other people who understand how "luck" functions, and they assume that a 1000 blocks is a long enough "events" that happened in a long enough "interval" and they would assume that IF the pool's luck is far from 100% then the pool has other major problems like code or connectivity, these conclusions are wrong but many new comers when they see a pool with 96% luck over a period of months, it will scare them away.

Now as far as Laurentia's being bad risk for miners, only time will tell, and for Laurentia's owner, I know that Kano is probably doing all of this because 1- you are a competitor 2- the pool has -CK in it and that does trigger oneway or the other, but with that being said, he did you a great favour by pointing out a few weaknesses which you should work on, get another 3rd party dev to "check" your pool's specs and code, not that I don't trust -CK, but it isn't wise to count on one person's knowledge to carry an operation of such size.

Good luck to both pools Kano and Laurentia.

This post - I'm pointing out why ignoring statistics means you don't understand the subject of bitcoin mining.
ckpool/laurentia has no valid statistics

With yet another lucky block on KanoPool, the July month now reads:

2020 July…  10.32PHs  2  0.37  18.44%  107.57%  0.0534  542.36%  578.16%

So claiming that you can't simply have bad luck with a high CDF[Erl] (90%) is quite literally like claiming you can't have good luck with a low CDF[Erl] below 10% - in this case 5.3% ... and ... 542% luck

... and before anyone says something pointless about the number of blocks, yes the number of events (blocks) is specifically the point of the CDF[Erl] calculation.

Again, ckpool/laurentia has NO such statistics.
They only have one value available, BlockDiff/NetworkDiff ... which is also wrong.
https://bitbucket.org/ckolivas/ckpool-solo/commits/7691dd01a123d25349a04018acda4df4109437a4
You need to add up each share's %, which also has issues in C, which can underestimate the value due to the accuracy of the largest float.

Still waiting for you to remove the automated ban for the only proper (written from scratch open source) replacement cgminer ever had for the S9. That, or write your own kanominer we could easily drop in instead... But i guess its easier to stick to the bmminer tyranny which you love so much because you are too busy to audit someone else code since you don't trust the people who wrote it.

Surely you could find flaws in bosminer and expose its risks too?, rather than act on a whim banning for something they might have done 5 years ago in a totally unrelated project, which is their pool which happens to currently measure hash rate in the exa hash range as opposed to yours which for your own aesthetic reason, decided to measure in tera hash when its currently just about 8 peta hashes per second.

Even with your technically superior software and infrastructure, they flock to Chinese pools that eat their transaction fees away and probably even "lose" more blocks. Laurentia is nothing, i don't even see why you bother talking about them, why do you even care they use ckpool? Angry they didn't use kanopool you don't even bother to keep updated on github instead? Or are you afraid Biffa and canaan would leave your pool taking 25% of your entire hashrate to them? I don't think so...

The conditions to enter Laurentia are ridiculous to begin with, its trying to be an exclusive club for miner "whales", and those whales love their Chinese pps pools too much to bother with obscure pools to begin with. Just leave them be and be more productive rather than a not so subtle advertising thread in the forum you dislike so much but yet refuse to sponsor a signature campaign with that fortune of yours or your whale miners who would directly benefit from the increased hash rate you desperately need before going the way of ck's pool before its last swan song of finding a block right after another at 6% in the middle of your not so lucky beginning of 2020. But duh, luck is luck, it cannot be helped, and he didn't bother banning rentals or "dubious" firmware either...

Only last year it was his at 8 PH. How is a block per year sounding for Kano's pool? As mining becomes less and less profitable, so do the pools, and they will also shrink (and or close). We will see if you succumb or not to the temptation of just quit and close when you go under the peta hash per second mark. Can you even justify maintaining that infrastructure of yours? Just how many miners are in Singapore anyway? most of your nodes belong to countries with expensive electricity unsuitable for mining, so you have fast nodes to nowhere, cool i guess.

My country, one of the few where mass S9 mining still occurs post halving, has no node of yours. And probably never will, when you learn we don't even have an IXP and the best link here won't ever get under 150ms (and would go to US east anyway). Unless Elon Musk's Starlink becomes available here with its 20ms world coverage promise...

Now stop ranting about how superior your pool is, how inferior all other pools are, and get that code update you promised.

Has it found a block on the main BTC chain yet? I keep asking the dev's but they ignore me, I'd fucking love to run it, but its a big risk for me if I don't know that it will find a block or not.

Someone show me somewhere where its found a block, I'd like to see the miner status GUI showing a block found, the difficulty it found the block at and then the corresponding block info at the pool where it was found, preferably a reputable pool.

Be nice if there was more than one.

Well when I hit one with it I will let you know.
I have seen a screen shot of it hitting a block.

You would think there would be more as there is enough hash using it to hit a block.

I agree - there are great claims about how many are using these altered firmwares and to date I think I have seen only one screenshot of a firmware that found a block but it was also not open source code - a violation of the GPL --- so there is always something it seems.

Are you solo mining with it? I'd hate to think you were happy risking everyones potential earnings on a pplns pool with untested software.

I guess if you were mining on a PPS pool it'd be ok as its only the pool owner wallet you would be hurting. ::)

my two braiins units point to solo.ckpool.

both are two board or about 8+8 = 16 th use around 1250 watts.

Good to hear, I'd be very pleased to see some proof of a block hit with Braiins, as you said there should be loads of evidence given how many people are supposed to be running it. Although I doubt there are that many big farms running it because they just wouldn't have that many S9's.

@ biffa a lot is not known about aftermarket firmware

I did see a clear cut piece of evidence that shows at least one block hit with braiins. Plus braiins has some permission to run its firmware as i understand it.

While I have encourage aftermarket firmware development I have been particular about what I use for my 1.7 ph of gear.

I use all bitmain and a tiny bit of braiins.

While I would like to strike a deal about using t17 s17 and all the letters that go with that  I have not.

If and when I acquire working aftermarket gear for the above it will mine directly to a solo pool.

with the address published and no funds to be taken in and out of it if it indeed hits a block.

I only have access to one solo pool  that is solo.ckpool.

My hope would be to use 2 t17e miners with 1 pointed to solo.ckpool and one pointed to solo.kano.is pool.

If they hit a block I would give ⅓ to kano ⅓ to ck and ⅓ to me.

I really want the war to end { no sarcasm} so  I am working with thierry4wd.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1656984

I can't think of a better idea than this .

But if it were to  work and mine to the two solo pools that would be good.
if it were to hit a block that would be better.

risk to ck = zero
risk to kano = zero

risk to me I lose 115th of mining earnings for months to come.

benefits to ck ⅓ of a block possible.
benefits to kano ⅓ of a block possible
benefits to me ⅓ of a block possible oh  I look like someone trying to help everybody
benefits to thierry4wd proof his firmware works and can hit blocks

benefits to mining community working software/firmware that helps with bitmain 17 gear.

No thanks, while I may have only 1/50th of the BTC ck has, I have no desire for people to donate me BTC.
I charge a low fee, I provide a much better service, and that's all I want.

If you find a block you keep it less the fee.
My pool fee for solo with be 0.5% - that's all I want, so no point saying you'll give me something I don't want.

The solo code on my pool will be only my own code modifications to KDB (and removal of some code from ckpool), which you cannot, in any reasonable and reliable way, run ckpool without KDB.

Yet another reason why Laurentia Pool is a BAD risk for miners.
If ckpool ever stops unexpectedly, the pool is 100% guaranteed to lose shares.
It only stores stats in a simple text file as at whatever time it writes them, no history, no reliable relation database, no shifts to specify clear cut data storage times, and no way to ever replay history, ckpool has no such code.
It has no 'reload' function, like KDB adds.

Also why I have no idea how he could come up with some excuse about a backup slowing down bitcoin.
ckpool only generates tiny text files, one for each miner.
(yeah that's what ckpool uses to store those 10 of thousands of dollars owed when a block is found, a directory full of text files)
What backup process of that tiny amount of data could cause a server to get behind?
Unless of course it was a cheap piece of crap and not monitored.
Straight forward negligence.

I also have no idea why people would use a server that always has been and always will be mismanaged by him.
... and he'll be doing that again with Laurentia Pool :P
Yet another reason why Laurentia Pool is a BAD risk for miners.

thierry4wd (according to him) simply "hacks" or modifies the original firmware, not sure if a pool can differentiate between his firmware and the original one, and if that is the case, I see no benefits coming out of this test, also the only pool that blocks custom firmware is Kano.is which is a drop in the ocean as far as mining pools are concerned.

I am also not buying this whole idea of known custom firmware not finding blocks, simply put all these large PPS pools count on the ability of the miners to find blocks, taking all the risk ALONE, i am pretty sure if a pool went on for long enough without hitting a block or their luck was far from 100% they would have suspected that some miners use a firmware that doesn't find a block and they have MORE interest to ban those than Kano since the latter doesn't pay miners out of his own pocket, so it's safe to assume that all the known and widely used firmware DO find blocks, we have seen proof that Vnish (probably the most used custom firmware) found blocks on the mainnet, I also remember hearing about Braiins.

Also there is no problem here so not sure what are you trying to fix, the only thing that needs fixing here is that person's behavior towards everybody else who doesn't agree to everything he says, fixing such a problem is 1- impossible 2- Adds no value to the mining community, so why would you risk over a 100 terahash worth of hash power only be treated like shit by him? but again, your miners - your call.

Actually there is a very good reason to do what I am doing.

I am looking to encourage firmware development

Kano seems to not want to encourage firmware development

My goal is to help each and every btc miner in the world and it is worth spending 115th of mining gear for months.

Once I finish the theirry4wd testing I would move onto the vnish testing.

With luck a few others would point to the solo pools we would hit a few blocks and end the controversy of blockless aftermarket firmware.

I have more to do here. but that is it for now.

I'm not interested in any other "firmware" except BraiinsOS, I just don't understand that if it sooooo obvious that people are finding blocks using it, then surely the pools and the users finding these blocks with it should be shouting from the friggin rooftops, the Braiins web site should have a page with proof of every block found using Braiins, hell they even have a massive pool associated with their firmware that can EASILY help them prove it.

I think there are vast overestimates of how many people with large farm would bother to risk it, and big overestimate on the percentage of people bothering to use it period. I think that Braiins hasn't found one block using their software on mainnet.

I don't know how anyone who cares about mining and bitcoin can advocate using something as CRITICAL to the entire ethos and infrastructure of the system without knowing 100% that it actually does the job its supposed to.

It's not that much to ask. Its the least we should be asking.

Anything else and they sound like ye-olde-snakeoil-seller.

I know your intentions are good and that you are trying to help the community, however pointing 115th to a solo block needs 20 years of 100% luck to hit a block, also what you are trying to fix is not broken, Kano bans aftermarket firmware because according to him "They violate cgminer license", it's only Bifa who is worried about the "blockless" issue and given that he mines to a small pool his concern is 100% valid.

Vnish has a proof of finding blocks, but Kano still doesn't allow it on his pool, if you somehow managed to hit a block and prove that theirry4wd's version finds blocks, Kano will still ask theirry4wd for the source code, theirry4wd will say he doesn't have it because bitmain didn't release it, it's a dead end until bitmain provide the source code, which probably isn't going to happen, so you are going to be burning over $300 a month for almost nothing.


Why would they want to do that? probably 99% of all miners with custom firmware mine on PPS pools or at least fairly large PPLNS pools where they don't seem to bother to check anything aside from their daily payment, also probably nobody except a few members around the forum take the "block finding ability" seriously, and the vast majority of miners don't even understand what does it mean to find a block, all they understand is that you point your gear to a mining pool and get paid accordingly, I don't understand on what bases do people expect that the average miner cares about finding a block when their mining gear is pointed to a PPS pool.!


I agree 100%, it should be pretty easy for slushpool to prove that, they have a ton of money and they could probably afford to even PAY enough miners to test their firmware and prove that their firmware does find blocks.

The question is why would they want to do that? who is asking them for it? a random person on the forum like myself, you or phill? if you send a support ticket requesting that it will probably be automatically deleted, if someone who owns a 1EH farm request it, they will probably prove it to them (assuming their firmware does find blocks).

Keep in mind that even Vnish's proof of finding blocks came from regular users, Vnish probably doesn't care if  anyone believes that his firmware finds a block, he knows that most people want to overclock/underclock their gears, mine to a large pool, get paid and that's pretty much it, as terrible as it sounds this is the sad ugy truth.


Miners are incentivized by profit, most miners would do anything to make the most money, if they get their hands on something that would help them "cheat" the system to make more profit even if that was to bring bitcoin security and decentralization down, they would still use it, proof is Bitmain didn't blink an eye before using the patented covert Asicboost.

Long story short, the pools that accept miners with custom firmware carry the most risk, it's pretty much their JOB to ensure that every share they pay for is capable of finding a block and given that almost no mining pool that pays PPS (the pools that are most effected by not finding blocks) havn't banned those people - suggests that everything seems to be working just fine.

With that being said, I DON'T advocate using a firmware that doesn't find blocks.

Your entire diatribe says you DO.
Edit: back on ignore :)

That is your own conclusion which as usual is based on ZERO facts, you are just mad because I pointed out to the fact that IF these custom firmware were not finding blocks, most if not ALL pools would ban them, but nobody except you does that, simply because you think you know better than every other pool operator/owner.

A pool like F2pool which has over 17E worth of power pays about 125BTC every single day, that is about 1.3 million dollars, if they weren't finding that many blocks they would have gone bankrupt LONG time ago, these pools take a huge risk by paying "upfront" out of their own pocket, and the fact they survived all these years suggests that:

1- They are NOT losing blocks due to bad resources/connecivity
2- The hashrate they pay for actually FINDS blocks as "expected".

Assuming even a tiny percentage of hashrate say 5% was coming from mining gears that don't find blocks, then these pools would have lost MILLIONS of dollars and that would have triggered the alarm and they would have done exactly what you did.

The above is a fact, unless you think all other pools except yours are running a charity, it's pretty clear that your assumptions of your pool being the best pool is as accurate as all of these custom firmware aren't finding blocks.

Hi all,
As far as I'm concerned, concerning my firmwares, I only spent the boot sequence in FIXED, the code is present, I only activated it,

If I understand correctly, in theory, I could not connect to the kano pool? because Kano blocks custom? I understand well ?

If so, I could prove it, that my firmware is basically "original" if I connect to the Kano pool? you confirm me?

You could prove that it's original with few changes, but even original is breaking the agreement, therefore yours as well as any other custom firmware is also breaking an agreement since they are not providing source code.

And yes, afaik, you wouldn't be able to mine at Kano. I could try it for you, but I doubt it would work.

I don't know how Kano blocks Custom Firmware, but I know mine is basically original, if you could test, it would have been great :) it would only be an argument / proof, that I didn't change the fundamentals code :)

For your "firmware" it has nothing to do with changing the fundamental code, it has to do with distributing bmminer in your code, because bitmain do not give out the source code to bmminer (which is cgminer) and it is licensed under GPL 3 it means that you have to be able to provide the source code if you distribute the executable. You cannot do that so you are not compliant with GPL 3

That is what kano's objection is to these "firmware"

BraiinsOS is the only firmware that is not cgminer based so does not need to comply to this requirement. But until Braiins0S can prove it finds blocks on mainnet it also is banned as it felt that it is too risky to use.

Now if you could distribute your code without bmminer then there would be no problem I suspect.

I think I remember him posting a 'patch' to change the miner web code, not change bmminer/cgminer, not a full firmware download.

i.e. if he doesn't distribute the whole firmware, just a patch to change the web code, and what he distributes doesn't contain any executable bmminer/cgminer then it isn't violating the cgminer license.

Not here to pour fuel on the fire but are you sure about that? Does that mean S17e and all other miners can be unlocked (to UC/OC) without editing bmminer/cgminer?

I made no comment about what can and cannot be unlocked or how to do it. I merely commented about that at one time I think he posted a web patch, not a full firmware with cgminer/bminer in it.

Well I am trying to get better choices for owners of bitmain gear.

I am not interested in turning profits from this t17e mod.

 I have been letting thierry4wd access my 2 t17e units on a separate router/internet service  that we maintain as back up and as a screener for virus filled gear.

At the moment he has been able to alter voltage settings from 1760mv to 1680mv.  which really helps my t17e gear.

This would benefit all miners owning this locked gear. My goal is to help anyone with a locked t17e not burn up their gear.

I also know that if we were to do this and agree as a group of pools and miners it puts pressure on bitmain to allow or at least make better firmware.

The s9 the s9i the s9j firmware from summer 2019 is decent and allows for lowering your miners temps.

So far my testing on the one unlocked t17e is showing lower temps.

The mod is allowing only lower volts at stock freq.

Every pool owner would stand a chance to benefit if miners have better gear.

A t17e using 200 watts less but hashing at same rate = win win

Here you go: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5036844.msg55047651#msg55047651

Hope this satisfies your request.

Lulz it's missing the information that proves it.
Full screen shot or it didn't happen.
Edit: and preferably upload it somewhere where you don't get adverts and browser hacks for porn ...

It is missing alot of information to prove that it was even a btc block found.  put a full page screen shot and blur the private info if needed

Did you want to lock the thread now? Otherwise I'd recommend to return to shitting on our pool service.

Or better yet, get the thread back on-topic to address the heart of the matter: Namely the fact that ckpool by itself has near zero provisions for recording performance of the pool and miners attached to it. To me at least, *That* is the main concern and reason for this thread.

One has to remember that is was written to run -ck's solo pool and for a solo pool all that is needed is recording a users current hash rate, payout address and if they found a block. -ck has and will never change that. That is why the 'records' are scads of tiny text files. However, the data IS available there and can be extracted if one decides to take advantage of it.

Once ckpool started being used to run -ck's now defunct shared rewards pool, a huge part of the feud between -ck and Kano dealt with Kano insisting on putting a database (KDB) behind it to record and verify everything going on including values for each and every share sent out and received. That database is the reason Kano was able to analyze performance of rentals to see that (at the time) they were submitting shares to his pool that were far lower diff than statistics said they should be which is what led to rentals being banned. It is also how he was able to discern that eBangs early miners were crap (and subsequently banned as well).

How much is -ck against incorporating a database? Well, in addition to the fixes he implemented, the last changes he did to ckpool also intentionally and specifically locks out using it with KDB. No idea if it also breaks links to using other DB's. Of course since Kano wrote a lot of it (ckpool) he had no problem getting around those barriers ;) As to why -ck feels that a proper database is not needed, NFI- ask him.

Oh, and if ya did not know it already - Kanopool uses a modified ckpool as its front end which goes to prove that any 'risk' to a pool using it can be mitigated...

Ok so assuming what Kano claims is correct, does this mean every other pool that allows rental hashrate (almost all of them) lack the skills or don't have a KDB to keep records of all of the information needed to protect themselves? the pools that will suffer the most from this issue would be PPS pools, they have way more reasons to do that than Kano, yet, almost nobody does that but him, which means whatever he thinks he figured out was wrong unless Kano is smarter and have better resources than all those multi-billion $ pools, but even then you would at least expect these pools to close down when they end up paying for shares that were programmed to not find blocks.

Well, for a start, how many provide in-depth per worker stats to their users?
 Seriously. It's been many-a-year since I last dabbled with other pools but AFAIK few to none have decent stats available to the user. Considering that generating tailored reports is one of the things  DB's are made for, lack of said stats strongly suggest the lack of a comprehensive back-end database.

Kano has records of every connection, miner type, and share sent/received going back to the very 1st miner the pool connected to. That very deep DB is what allows him to do meaningful statistics and re-run the results when things don't seem quite right - like what led to the rentals ban.

I would hope that other pools DO have something monitoring their assets but are just too lazy to share it. Again, NFI. The Slush kerfuffle a few years back is a rather uncomfortable  indication of how some pools and their operators do things...

I trust that since running a pool is a financial enterprise, you feel it should be ran as such right? To me that means that if performance data is available one should record and use it to make sure operations are running as expected.

Can I add that in all fairness to MFB and Laurentia pool we should move this particular topic of discussion (other pools monitoring practices) to the Kanopool thread (http://) or elsewhere? I have nothing against them and it's not cool to keep bumping this one w/o sticking to the point I mentioned above. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5250876.msg55060073#msg55060073)

edit:created a new thread aimed at this exact topic regarding back-ends (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5271178.0) and worker stats available to users of the various pools out there

LOL - my post deleted from the other thread a short while ago:

The appropriate scenario is to ask why we prefer to retain coinbase payout, not assume ignorance in retaining it.

Most of your white paper is based on ignorance due either someone telling you false information, or you being unable to understand what they said.
I do know a heck of a lot more more about Bitcoin and programming and server management than -ck and have on occasion told him to do things properly that he has ignored.

The Kano pump thread continues.

Alas you are again making claims that are either lies being told to you by someone else, or fabrications on your part.

This rubbish you posted is based on the false assumption that because the reward system,
that has the ridiculously named and implemented herp derp system (aside "herp derp" means stupid accident: https://www.dictionary.com/e/memes/herp-derp/ )
where higher diff shares are rewarded more i.e. smaller miners get MUCH higher reward variance vs larger miners on the same pool,
that somehow this very tiny tiny fraction of a percentage of shares that will produce this effect you are talking about will make it easy to identify mining problems?

No, the fact of the matter is that there is NO statistical analysis of the shares in your ckpool.
None, Nada, Nothing, Zero.

Fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

I’d imagine lower hr would as well. Then reward will have less variance on our server with a locked in hr per diffadj specifically with well operating  equipment.

Ive seen poor fw in action and imagine you have as well. It was easy to determine within five to ten minutes of mining seeing equipment struggle to produce shares and  extreme variance at 50+Th/s than a r606 at 900 gh/s.

But you know what’s best for everyone, so I imagine we’ll hear more about your greatness soon so we don’t forget.

"I know a specific case that shows wide ranges in hash rate shown on the pool"
Those numbers you have stated are more likely to be bugs in ckpool than a miner.

Typical response from you. Ignorance is bliss.

Alas for any future miners considering or having so called 'Commitments', that ignorance is indeed a BAD risk

Laurentia Pool - BAD risk for miners

No pool side variance is about +/-1% for well operating equipment. Everything overtime reports extremely accurate. Guess again fren.

Pool side variance on a shift of 50 minutes is about +/- 7%
Statistical fact.

Read about CDF here: https://kano.is/index.php?k=poisson
Shares are also a CDF distribution. Just a lot more of them that (obviously) makes the variance lower.
Oh you didn't know that? -ck probably doesn't either.

Reality please, no idea where you got that 1% number from, but since your ckpool pool has no shifts, no collection of groups of data, just a stupidly named herp derp as at some specific point of time, written to a text file every so often, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

If you claim that your 5min/hourly hash rate numbers are always within +/-1% of the miner's hash rate, then you are bull shitting people.

I don’t recall specifying a time frame. Again you don’t pose any queries just assume.

For everyone else 1% is a median based on the data I have specifically from analysis of front end which is what I manage. From my own equipment and others, who have compatible factory fw, asicboost, and operate within advertised spec. From 1hr and longer.

But whatever narrative you’d like push here is gospel. I do like bullshit but mostly over beer and good food, not about the service I provide.

Funny thing is if anyone thinks Kano has their best interests at heart here they’re mistaken. This all about ck, kano’s ego, the failing of Kano pool, and some weird, chaotic, flailing attempt to kill our project here because of all of the above.

Again ignoring facts and as usual trying to divert this away to being about KanoPool.
Simply because you have no idea of the details about what you are discussing.
You are just reporting numbers displayed or told to you and words told to you by someone else.
A pool run by a marketing guy - oh dear - the thread title just gets more and more correct every day.
Learn a little: https://kano.is/index.php?k=workdiff

Not even a miner knows it's hash rate.
It must calculate it based on shares submitted since the advent of AsicBoost, though the drivers have already been doing this for a long time anyway, assuming that each share generated represents the difficulty of the request to the miner hardware.
The same way that a pool has to calculate it, as an estimate based on shares submitted, since a pool will never know how many hashes a miner has actually done.

Shares have a Poisson distribution just like blocks and have the same CDF properties.
Thus hash rate has variance, and it's not 1%

Ckpool itself also does not show an accurate hash rate, that's also a fact.
At the pool level, after a long period of running (usually a month or so) it over reports the pool hash rate.
This is blatantly obvious when you group shares into shifts and have a shift by shift calculation of the pool hash rate.
The average of those shifts, over time, will be lower than the ckpool displayed value.
The ckpool displayed value is a decaying function based on the 'current' value, not based on a set from history.
It's also not the values it claims to be 5 min/1 hr, since the decay takes longer than that to reach zero - e.g. a miner doing no mining for the past hour 'should' have a 1 hour hash rate of 0 but it usually doesn't :P

Marketing guy? We don’t have copywriters or the such. How unsurprisingly assumptive of you to speak on what we do.

Link your site again and deflect this thread isn’t about you or your pool.

Again, this is your/Kano’s narrative.

All I communicated was the results of my and others testing. Of course the pool or miner software don’t know cause to them it doesn’t matter that a unit hashes just what it produces. which with a well operating device should be on/close to spec. And sorry I choose to convey and communicate in a manner that isn’t pompous, belittling, or assumptive of peoples intelligence. Maybe that’s what makes me a “marketing guy”, being able to communicate well to broad audiences respectfully?

Laurentia Pool statistics are like all other pools statistics which it seems you may need a refresh on the definition. They are accurate but like all, they will have variance within a tolerable range to give users insight into their operations performance.

1% is the variance that was monitored overtime. If you’d like to talk about decay I’d reach out to ck. The long decay though is optimal for our environment in a service aspect as if a commitment doesn’t decide to comeback they still have potential for reward next block allowing us to compete more inline with PPS but incentivize continued participation to retain maximum payout potential.

And yes because of the decay hr pool side will appear higher, that’s a bit obvious and known to those who are familiar. Still the pool will have a set hr every diffadj as organized and stats would be better displayed for the pool on our dashboard page.

But back to marketing all these CI’s and customs decelerations just like on Mad Men.

Well I guess the point that is relevant to all this is as follows:

In the past, for a very long time, I've been posting about pools that are doing their miners wrong, long before I ran a pool of my own.
-ck has been doing this also.

In the past those pools tended to not try and justify their wrong doing and we usually gave up on responding to their miners who would post like religious zealots, ignorant of the facts.
Some of these pools disappeared, some continued to run.
This is about money, so pools in general will do whatever they can to get some and not care too much about how they do it.
Miners will tend to see they are getting a reward and not really care too much if they are being filched - especially of course if they don't know.

Alas, mfb and -ck have fallen into this same arena of mismanagement, lies and deception, like those other pools we've made posts about in the past.

Your main problem has been trying to justify the crap you are going to do.
Which is it? Ignorance? You've been fed gospel by your god and won't check if it's correct? Money?

The service you will be running is sub-standard and probably better described as negligent due to your involvement with -ck in this.

I really am not interested in getting your miners, that you've misled into believing your pool will be of high quality and reliable.
They are of course already mining somewhere else, they wont come to my pool even if they do finally understand the deceptions your white paper is full of.
You are simply trying to misdirect the facts about your sub-standard offering and point this thread discussion at my pool.
Misdirection is a typical tactic of those trying to deceive others.

If it was about money likely we'd have a higher fee, gone for a high rent seeking score like pps. Looked at generic devs who just want a paycheck as well.

I don't expect everyone to fawn over what we're doing either. It would be nice if this could be more of a discussion than embarrassing ranting but I learned I can't control others along time ago and focus on what I'm doing/looking to achieve. I also could easily hammer, flame, and fud kano pool in retaliation. So consider the absence of that for a moment. 

I expect criticism, skepticism, but this is on another level. We knew this would happen and likely will continue to.

I'll put "the crap" we're going to do simply: Organize miners in a way to predict reward cadence and be paid directly from the network while looking push as much revenue we can directly to the users of our pool.
ckpool code and our support in organization is the best way we could achieve this.

If you don't agree with the whitepaper consider it an op-ed, and feel free to move along.
Still out of thousands of views we've only received minor critiques, outside Kano the Karen of btctalk. Which only solidifies the interpretation of the underlining motives of your relentless pursuit to discredit our, and more so, ck's work.

We can keep going around and around but the point of this thread is to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Stemming from your malice of ck predominantly. It's obvious, was expected, and as soon as we unlocked our thread you were first in line raring to go. So who is misdirecting, who's being deceptive? Maybe you're just being deceptive to yourself and your own motivations. idk, idc, but you're certainly all over the place and all over us.

I've directed you and others to reach out on our thread in an appropriate manner, reach out to ck directly on technicals. Which you like to twist and manipulate into being blind and following, in place of what it is, simply delivering the user experience side of service.

Our service is competitive in the current market, there's no negligence. If anything we're responsible and transparent enough to ensure every user knows exactly what they're getting into before hand. So more fud, more harassment, more malice, more slander, and still only specifically from you.

The case remains you'll flame anything ck touches, you pump yourself and your pool here consistently in almost every reply but are even consistent in this in every thread you touch on the forum. These are just very easy observations to make. Like calling me a "marketing guy" isn't deceptive or misdirection, calling Laurentia Pool negligent when no incidents have occurred, intentionally flaming our thread with accusations and assumptions. You have some weird interpretation of what it is to be a white knight if your true goal is expose some sort of wrong doing, which doesn't even exist.

I would love to have a genuine conversation with you about the pool, still because of our division of labor and expertise you are better off speaking with ck. So reach out to him if you really want to help the pool or others. Otherwise without an honest genuine effort there is clearly malice of intent/motive with every one of your posts and you simply can't deny that.

If people think we're being deceiving, disingenuous, then I wish them the best and can only say that's far from the truth.

The point of this thread is to point out to your 'prospective' miners that they are agreeing to a sub-standard quality, risky pool.
The white paper is full of issues that suggest the person who wrote it doesn't even understand Bitcoin properly.
Some of these have been pointed out in this thread and ignored.
You wont and can't backup/fix the issues you have with your white paper, so the thread goes on.

No idea why you think someone must be a white knight to point out such things.
Like many, my interests are Bitcoin's prosperity, and not passing off lies to fill my wallet.

Clearly you like to turn a blind eye yourself at people risking other's money by lying to them.
I don't - and I'm pretty sure there are many people like that ... unless you consider most people to be scammer?
Again there is no gain for my pool making this thread though you kept saying over and over there was - without providing any.

Since this thread is on repeat every post I might as well just quote myself in reply. Maybe next time I'll simply do that entirely.


We'll just let our service and whitepaper speak for itself, feel free to disagree with our take on mining and the pooled environment as it is presented. Your critique, from your perspective holds no weight being incredibly biased, maliciously motivated, and intentionally inflammatory. Still you wonder why everything you spout is ignored.

There's no need for me to defend our whitepaper. It's simply our perspective, you can take it or leave it as it is. Just like every other in existence. There's nothing to hide or change. So embrace, consider, or get on with your life.

This thread only exists because you can't handle any genuine interaction or achieve any sort of discourse, while still continuing to manipulate the situation. As -ck is the dev for the pool and wont interact with you.

Kano wants to pretend that we're hiding something when his posts were simply deleted because he can't interact anywhere near civilly and always has -ck in his crosshairs. If he could pose a genuine query to the pool thread he wouldn't have had to come here to throw a tantrum as we would love nothing more than to have genuine, thoughtful conversation and inquiry outside this grotesque atmosphere Kano enjoys marinating in.

The gain is for your ego Kano, which includes pumping your pool and self constantly. All you're doing is baselessly slandering reputations publicly now and for what? What you call no personal gain? Then why all of this if not a "white knight'? I'm a lair, a marketing guy, out to deceive people, blinding following. . . You keep altering your narrative to suit, that's fine. Ours is always the same. You literally have no argument and it shows now that you're slandering and name calling like a child who has nothing to comeback with.

We have a great product where no one is at more risk using our service than they would be anywhere else. If anything we've eliminated risk as much as we could for all parties. We're not in the business of losing clients money, we're not in business of extreme rent seeking services. If anything we have an extremely great track record of taking care of all our clients and being very transparent.

So call me what ever you like. I'll take anything you throw at me and continue to point out your hypocrisy in fud you wish to spread and baseless lies, an now attacking my character of late. This is your bed here, sleep in it or wake up and get on with your life. But likely you'll just get bored from someone who's happy to defend themselves in public and move on to your next victim poised for harassment.

So again. .. .Please feel free to make genuine inquiries to our pool operations in our thread, for technical questions ck is our lead but will handle what I can. Again, it's our organizational expertise, the server we both picked, ck's code and maintenance. If you want to support his, our, or both our work please reach out anytime.

Kano can deflect, slander, continue spreading fud. We'll just keep this mentally ill circus going as long as he likes till he grows up and learns to interact like an adult or like I mentioned move on to his next victim. Likely someone more meek and weak cause your ego is going to need an easy win. If anything maybe he might learn some iota of professionalism and that would be a net gain for everyone here.