The concept of this pool sounds great, but since a good portion of the pool appears to not be using the auto feature, wouldn't the use of PPLNS cause miners to lose money since they are bouncing around from coin to coin? It seems like this would be much better implemented using PPS.
Let me give you an example of the bouncing effect. ARG network hash rate was a low 10kH/s, at block 54,501, so the difficulty dropped, as it does every 250 blocks, this time from 0.85 to 0.2 this made ARG jump up to just over 600% profitability, which made multipool.in hop and suddenly add over 320kH/s to the hash rate, an increase of 3,000% plus whatever other pool hoppers elsewhere did. Since the next 250 ARG blocks were found in minutes, the difficulty jumped back up to 0.85, multipool pool bounced again, leaving ARG with a network hash rate of around 17kH/s currently, and a block time of many minutes instead of the 32sec the coins difficulty target is designed for. This is not fair on the supporters of ARG. My suggestion is either let the miners keep some hashing power on ARG by opening up the direct port again, or take it out of the multipool rotation. multpooli.in represents >51% of the ARG nethash when the miners are pointed to it. |
|
|
|
Just noticed that http://arg.epools.org are charging 3% pool fee now! And the payouts on http://www.argentumpool.com don't seem right, I was the only one mining on the last 4 of the last 5 blocks, no other shares, found them all, and I only got about 1/3rd of the coins from the blocks, go figure! Might as well go solo. |
|
|
|
gee, pray tell me, what exactly will be the next gen chip? AFAIK KNC's Chip is practically top notch, only optimising it would yield better hashrates...
Obviously something not based on standard cell design, eg. a 28nm version of Bitfury's design. |
|
|
|
I think the direct mining ports for LKY, ARG, and PXC should be re-enabled. When the pool is not on those coins there is no way to redeem the round shares you have accumulated for them as no blocks are being found.
Blocks are found so fast when the multiport is on those coins that your shares will have been paid out several times before the multiport moves off. Mining more will also not prevent your old shares from falling off. There's really no reason to include shares from a previous multiport mining session in the next session, with these fast coins. (yeah I said I wasn't going to be here today.. see how well that worked out) Understood, but it's hurting the coins in particular ARG, whose net has has fallen to only 10.64 Mh/s because the difficulty got high after the pool switched. There needs to be a more consistent hash rate for coins like that until they can stand on their own. |
|
|
|
|
The ARG net hash is terrible, what's the story, I thought ARG had the support of the DGC community?
|
|
|
|
at 150million diff. my mercury will still make me 30 bucks a day. thats pretty damn good to me.
It could also make zero or several hundred dollars per day, you don't know what the price of BTC will be when you get the mercury, so the 150mill diff is not the determining factor. If most of the Avalon, ASICminer, and BFL rigs stop being profitable and give up, then guess who will get more of the BTC? The KNCminer owners, until something more efficient comes along. The mindless people spreading the FUD, are trying to drag down one of the most efficient ASIC designs out their atm, assuming it lives up to it's claimed performance, and it's the efficient ones that are going to stay profitable longest, |
|
|
|
Anyway, by the time these guys get this to market the ROI is going to be non-existant based upon current estimates for difficulty.
Oct delivery would be when difficulty is in the 150-250 million range. ANYTHING at all that delays these puppies, and you can forget any kind of return on your investment.
BS you are just trying to spread FUD in almost everyone of your posts in this thread, for starters the ASIC vendors have been rolling out far slower than they said they would be, so the difficulty projections are skewed, secondly a large volume of GPU miners may leave BTC, influenced by the BTC price which you can't predict. Care to put your money where your mouth is? I've gut 3 BTC for you if difficulty is not at 150 mil by end of Oct. Let me know if you are game, I have a feeling you are pretty much just a lot of talk and no show. I am pretty sure you are a troll spreading FUD about this product which you seem to understand very little about, welcome to my ignore list. |
|
|
|
Anyway, by the time these guys get this to market the ROI is going to be non-existant based upon current estimates for difficulty.
Oct delivery would be when difficulty is in the 150-250 million range. ANYTHING at all that delays these puppies, and you can forget any kind of return on your investment.
BS you are just trying to spread FUD in almost everyone of your posts in this thread, for starters the ASIC vendors have been rolling out far slower than they said they would be, so the difficulty projections are skewed, secondly a large volume of GPU miners may leave BTC, influenced by the BTC price which you can't predict. |
|
|
|
please please please can we stop talking about die and package size. lets wait until we see some more specs or a picture first....
ANYWAY
im really hoping they are sandbagging us and making the units now. that would be a huge surprise if they delivered early.
It takes two months to make a wafer, no sandbagging involved, and that's on top of how long it takes you to raise the funds first. |
|
|
|
Plus P3/P4 is over a decade old. You don't don't make packages that big anymore. It costs more money over a smaller, compact package.
Still more nonsense, have you looked at the Intel LGA 2011 CPU specifications? They are bigger than the P3? Please make an effort to check your claims before you post. |
|
|
|
WTF are you on about? The only chip spec KNCminer have published is the package size 55mm x 55mm I don't you where you are coming up with this die size nonsense. Please point me to a release from KNCminer that talks about their die size. Chip Progress report
The more technical audience amongst our customers have been asking for a lot details on the chips we will use. The information we have available to you today is that Jupiter will be a 4 chip design and Saturn a 2 chip design.
This means that we can achieve a minimum of 100GH/s per chip. Which we think most people will agree, puts us far ahead of our current competitors.
Our ASIC package selection has been optimized, allowing the use of a smaller package. The selected package is a 55mm x 55mm HFCBGA package (2046 ball count), optimized for maximum thermal characteristics. https://www.kncminer.com/news/news-22You obviously need new glasses, or simply don't understand the terms "die" and "package" properly. |
|
|
|
OOO! OO!, THAT LOOKS LIKE WHAT I WANT, WHERE CAN I BUY THAT! Try their thread not here please. |
|
|
|
Link for proof please. You don't make a package size of 3000mm2 if you have tiny chips . . .
More nonsense, Pentium III was 49.5 x 49.5mm, Pentium 4 53.3mm x 53.3mm so 55 x 55mm is hardly unusual considering you are trying to dissipate twice the heat of those old processors. |
|
|
|
Except that the KNC chips are MASSIVE in size (expensive to produce) and the Bitfury chips are TINY (and thereby CHEAP). KNC - ~3000mm2 BitFury - ~16mm2 I've gone over this before about why HUGE chips are very very bad for profitability (i.e. low chip yields) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=244584.msg2680796#msg2680796In full disclosure, I have a Bitfury order in process. I bought it because that was looking to be first to market when I made my purchase. I also have Terrahash on order, and that's looking to be a painful experience. Nonsense, their package is 3,000mm2 not the die size. |
|
|
|
Here is a paper on the theory of a bitcoin double spend attack https://bitcoil.co.il/Doublespend.pdf7 Conclusions
In this paper we have explained the basic structure of the Bitcoin blockchain, the protection
it gives against double-spending, and the ways in which this protection can be undermined.
We have derived the probability for a successful double-spend, and tabulated it in various
ways. We have also brie y discussed the conditions in which a double-spending attack can
be economical, and hence likely. In so doing we have dispelled some popular myths, such as
the absolute security believed to be granted by waiting for 6 con rmations, or the length of
time waited (as opposed to the number of con firmations in terms of discrete blocks) as an
allegedly major factor in determining security. So the quicker you can get to a high number of confirmations, the safer you are. This is most likely why during the recent FTC attack, it was carried out when the FTC confirmation time had blown out to over half an hour. |
|
|
|
The shorter the confirmation time, the less time available for an attacker to calculate valid blocks to subvert the chain. Nonsense. Where do people come up with this junk? |
|
|
|
Nice, thanks for the link, running of a Pi is a good idea too. |
|
|
|
Why are you expecting this kind of video from KNCminer when it's pretty obvious that the ASIC wafers are still in production? You can't have a prototype video without the chips! They already did a video with the FPGA prototype. |
|
|
|
Network hashrate: 986.14 MH/s Pool hashrate: 730.81 MH/s
so? when other coin it at it all of you scream, what is now?
They pool hash rates are an estimate calculated from the block numbers and the timestamps, they don't really tell you might about what is going on with the network. The shorter the confirmation time, the less time available for an attacker to calculate valid blocks to subvert the chain. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
