I expect swift and decisive attacks for this comment - so feel free if you must but:
These are very interesting and I would actually be inclined to buy a few for the novelty, but given the 50 minimum buy you need to shell out $5000+ usd to buy around 15 gh/s (being generous)
for the same price you could buy 2 BFL singles which are now starting to trickle out into people's hand and shortly in mass.
2 BFL singles would give you about 6 1/3 times the hashing power (100 gh/s compared to about 15 gh/s for 50 usb sticks). I think they are very cool don't get me wrong but economics do not work out. These usb sticks would need to be priced around .15 - .2 bitcoin each to make them competitive with other choices in the marketplace
Even if you do not believe in BFL singles - there is no arguing that the Jalapenos are shipping now - 3 jalapenos cost $822, which would give you the same hashing power as 50 usb sticks.
even looking at just jalapenos, you are paying about $54 per gh/s or you can pay over 6 times that amount for the same hashing power with the usb sticks
They are very cool tech and I will probably buy a few if I can find them for a reasonable price somewhere but they cannot really compete in the mining market with their current price point
+1 |
|
|
|
|
yxt - any update from friedcat?
|
|
|
|
I think that the problem is that we are looking at long term and you are looking short term. Yes, until the difficulty increase the time to find a block would decrease. And you would continue to find them at a constant rate. But, when he difficulty does go up, it will more than compensate for the previous "gift". At least i think it will. there are those that speculate that the date the last Bitcoin is mined is slowly moving closer.
I completely agree - but thats exactly what i said before. If someone else adds hashrate, my reward stays the same _until difficulty adjusts_. nottm28: Okay, we are getting near. Lets say we have two pools, each with half the hasrate (say, 10 GH/s each). Both find a block every 20 minutes, totalling for one block every 10 minutes. Now one pool adds 20 GH/s. Network hashrate is doubled, blocks are found every 5 minutes. One pool has 30 GH/s, tripled hashrate, finds 3 blocks in 20 minutes. The other pool stays at 10 GH/s, finds one block every 20 minutes. In total, 4 blocks in 20 minutes -> one block in 5. One pool gets same number of blocks with same hasrate, so same income as before for all its miners. The other pool gets three times the blocks, but every miner in it now has only one third of the relative hashing power, so he gets one third of his usual rewar per block -> same income as before. I agree with you, only "in the meantime, your reward will have dropped" i cant see. EDIT: Well, yes, might be good not to spam the thread, of course you can reply via pm. Before: Pool A, 10 GH/s, 20 mins per block, 25 coins earned Pool B, 10 GH/s, 20 mins per block, 25 coins earned Me in pool A, 1 GH/s, 20 mins per block, 2.5 coins earned After: (difficulty not increased) Pool A, 10 GH/s, 30 mins per block, 25 coins earned Pool B, 30 GH/s, 10 mins per block, 25 coins earned Me in pool A, 1 GH/s, 30 mins per block, 2.5 coins earned In your scenario, my own earnings jump down from 2.5 coins per 20 mins to 2.5 coins per 30 mins... |
|
|
|
Get it replaced.
Find local shop which sells the same video card buy new one, return the old one saying it broke.
haha |
|
|
|
I can't help but wonder if the people at Ankar aren't sitting scratching their heads wondering why the sales of 10 port powered USB hubs has risen recently,  First AMD must have thought - wow - these GPU's are selling really well. Now USB hub sellers must be thinking the same - I wondered that too  |
|
|
|
One block (by design) is found every 10 mins.
Do you see this?
There we go, thats the point. This "by design" - how do you think it works? It does via adjusting the difficulty. If an increase in hashrate lets the network find blocks more often, difficulty is increased to a value which leads to one block every ten minutes on average, with the current hasrate. If the hasrate drops, and the networks finds blocks too slowly, difficulty is lowered. So "every ten minutes by design" does not work instantly, but is periodically adjusted via the difficulty value. Ok trasla, no worries, I tried heh, this is like tag team. I think that the problem is that we are looking at long term and you are looking short term. Yes, until the difficulty increase the time to find a block would decrease. And you would continue to find them at a constant rate. But, when he difficulty does go up, it will more than compensate for the previous "gift". At least i think it will. there are those that speculate that the date the last Bitcoin is mined is slowly moving closer. I think the 'end date' is coming closer Trong. There's loads of debate about increasing the life span of btc - some complicated maths the likes of organofcorti and a few others understand... [EDIT] trasla - please pm me - we need to take this offline. I don't wanna bloat this thread any worse - sorry guys |
|
|
|
You want to give up?
If you dont agree, just explain to me how the network makes sure one block is found every ten minutes.
Ok, difficulty is set to 'try' and maintain one block find every 10 mins. If suddenly the total network hash rate was doubled (due to a massive sudden addition of asics say). Then difficulty woud stay the same for a few days. Blocks would suddenly be found every 5 mins not 10 for a few days. Until the guys who develop the code say - hey 'we need to increase difficulty' - 'blocks are being found too often'. In the mean time, your reward will have dropped. I'm trying to explain that hash rate is the driver - and difficulty is the compensator... |
|
|
|
One block (by design) is found every 10 mins.
Do you see this?
There we go, thats the point. This "by design" - how do you think it works? It does via adjusting the difficulty. If an increase in hashrate lets the network find blocks more often, difficulty is increased to a value which leads to one block every ten minutes on average, with the current hasrate. If the hasrate drops, and the networks finds blocks too slowly, difficulty is lowered. So "every ten minutes by design" does not work instantly, but is periodically adjusted via the difficulty value. Ok trasla, no worries, I tried |
|
|
|
1) Only if the 100TH/s miner was an existing miner somewhere else (i.e. moved his processing power from somewhere else to slush). If he was a 'new addition' then you share decreases.
2) I don't see that - other pools gaining hash power and slush's pool remaining the same = less blocks found (by chance).
Okay, lets do this step by step. I dont get why you think the hashrate of some other pool should influence how often we find blocks. Finding a block means calculating a hash of some data containing the past block header and new transactions since the last block, and the hash has to meet certain conditions, like starting with 19 million (difficulty) zeros. Do we agree? Step by step is good for me... I dont get why you think the hashrate of some other pool should influence how often we find blocks. Let's say slush's pool combined power is 10% of the total network hash rate. One block (by design) is found every 10 mins. So, on average slush's pool should find a block approx every 100 mins. (could be 10 mins for one block, 20 mins the next, 5 hours the next - but the average is 100 mins). Now, if the total network hash rate suddenly doubled and nothing was added via slush's pool - our combined percentage of the whole network would suddenly drop to 5% - so one block found every 20 mins (not 10). Do you see this? |
|
|
|
Hey nottm, we might as well give up, he just doesn't get it. and we won't convince him that there is more to it than just probability,
This time, you are partly correct, at least. You would not convince me. Really, guys, you did not completely grasp how it works. If you want to, reread the explanations, or ask, or just try to explain to me just why you think it does matter. If you feel like i am just a dumb guy, that okay, i can live with it. My girlfriend has objections anyway: http://xkcd.com/386/No worries my friend believe what you will - I like a strong mind. |
|
|
|
Hey nottm, we might as well give up, he just doesn't get it. and we won't convince him that there is more to it than just probability,
Gave it one more go - look for organofcorti's posts - he really explains things well |
|
|
|
Why should my reward go down?
The frequency in which i find blocks with a given difficulty does not depend on the network hashrate in any way.
If that 'someone' suddenly plugged in their 100 TH/s miner into slush's pool, you would see a smaller share of the pot - result - reward goes down. If they plugged it into another pool then slush's pool would find blocks less frequently (more competition) - result - reward goes down. 1) Reward per block found by the pool goes down, but number of blocks found goes up -> reward stays the same. 2) No, how many blocks slush' pool finds does not decrease when some other pool gets more hashing power, see the post i just wrote before yours. There is nothing like "more competition". You are rolling dice in a casino. You get a dollar on every 5 or 6. If a thousand other people start doing it too, you still earn the same money. Only when the casino decides to only pay out on 6 and no more on 5 (difficulty adjust), you suddenly earn less. 1) Only if the 100TH/s miner was an existing miner somewhere else (i.e. moved his processing power from somewhere else to slush). If he was a 'new addition' then your share decreases. 2) I don't see that - other pools gaining hash power and slush's pool remaining the same = less blocks found (by chance). |
|
|
|
Why should my reward go down?
The frequency in which i find blocks with a given difficulty does not depend on the network hashrate in any way.
If that 'someone' suddenly plugged in their 100 TH/s miner into slush's pool, you would see a smaller share of the pot - result - reward goes down. If they plugged it into another pool then slush's pool would find blocks less frequently (more competition) - result - reward goes down. [EDIT] bottom line is hash rate rules, difficulty follows in order to try and keep 1 block found every 10 mins. |
|
|
|
2) and 3) is not true until difficulty adjusts - so you earn less in the long run, but until the next retarget everybody just earns more, because due to increased network hashrate, blocks will be found more frequently than every ten minutes.
Sorry I beg to differ. Difficulty is simply a reflection of hash rate - not the other way around. Hash rate is the master - difficulty comes into play in an attempt to make 1 block be found every 10 mins. If someone plugged in a 100 TH miner into the network then it would take a while for difficulty to adjust - but your reward would go down straight away. |
|
|
|
Seeing as how AsicMiner dropped the price of USB miners after my auction started and bids were received, I would be willing to end the auction if no current bidders object. This would save the winning bidder many bitcoin (at my expense). I would be willing to lower the winning bid of 5 @ 1.90 by Bigdaddyaz to 5 @ 1.25 if he still wants them. Just can't in good faith hold the high bidder so far to a bid of 5 @ 1.90 . If you placed a bid in this auction, please let me know your thoughts. Thanks.
That is nice to see. SilentSonicBoom respect +1 - now all you need to do is ship to UK and I'll do business with that man! |
|
|
|
Pools hashrate does not matter, really.
The higher it is, the smoother your earnings will be, but its either bigger parts of fewer blocks or smaller parts of more blocks, average the same, as long as the difficulty stays the same.
Exactly Your hash rate should be stable - it will fluctuate slightly depending on individual worker luck - but if you had about 2 GH/s last week, then you should still have 2 GH/s this week. This is regardless of difficulty increases, increases in the pool hash rate or increases in the network hash rate. That is the easy bit - your own hash rate is a relative constant. Now, assuming your own hash rate remains constant (and you are not adding in lots of usb miners - so you stay at 2 GH/s): 1) If the pool hash rate increases but the total network hash rate stays the same (so in other words, other existing miners move their rigs over to slush's pool)? Then you should expect to find blocks more frequently - but your share of the payouts will go down slightly. Net effect is you earn the same over a week. 2) If slush's pool hash rate remains the same but the overall network hash rate increases? Then you should expect to find blocks less frequently - but your share of the payouts will remain the same. Net effect is you earn less per week. 3) More typically, if slush's pool hash rate increases and the total network hash rate increases proportionally? Then you should expect to find blocks relatively consistently - but your share of the payouts will go down. Net effect is you earn less per week. |
|
|
|
cruel funny too! especially with the new "RULES" it is basically impossible to get to 55.
I am beginning to think 42 is on my back
Yeah - what's up with that? I see all these old timers running around with activity = 42. Did I miss some announcement? My activity count is almost identical to what my post count was before the change. Call me crazy, but I'm one of the rare posters who actually tries to stick to meaningful and helpfull topics when I post... |
|
|
|
Down and not pay. I'm worked 5hours for nothing, but Sulsh collected rewards.
18739 2013-06-24 13:11:51 0:00:14 41528 none none
18738 2013-06-24 13:11:37 5:25:06 35542283 4469 0.00000000
18737 2013-06-24 07:46:31 1:48:18 28239829 2130 0.00313965
Same here. I don't get much anyways and working for 5 hours for 0 is bad. Then I missed the fast one afterwards.  Same here:
18739 2013-06-24 13:11:51 0:00:14 41528 none none
18738 2013-06-24 13:11:37 5:25:06 35542283 2853 0.00000000
Hm, none of them has reached the 55 activity limit... So no wonder... (See activity values inserted in quote headers.) What is this 55 activity limit? If activity is less than 55, they get no reward for shares submitted? Sorry I ever started this now https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1976.msg2440026#msg2440026 - it was a joke... |
|
|
|
Are you sure they need fixing?
If the shares were provided at the beginning of the very long round, they could well be worth nothing, cause the score and the end of round would be very high...
And none for a 14 seconds round could just happen with bad luck or low shares/minute ratio.
Yup - agree nothing needs fixing here |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
