All 5 of my antminers are running and I'm getting 1.51 to 1.6 ghash/s out of them however the site only shows a little over 2ghash/s. Is it issues with the site?
how long have you let it run? if you start in the middle of a block you will see a less than expected hash rate. |
|
|
|
Personally, i use campBX. haven't had any issues so far.  |
|
|
|
Has anyone noticed that the OP is silent. Thinking Troll.  |
|
|
|
I'd go to Disney World.  |
|
|
|
|
Personally, I use Slush and BTCguild.
Only use Slush if you are not going to try and second guess the pool. Have faith that it is working correctly and that the computer is smarter than you. If you are going to sit and watch it mine(kind of like watching snail races), it will drive you nuts because it is small and suffers from variance. If you are going to double check the calculations, this will make you crazy.
BTCguild is a good, reliable pool with great customer support. I put a miner there that was having difficulties with Slush and now that miner is almost 4 times larger than what i have at slush.
Both are good pools but cater to different personality types.
Just my two Satoshi.
|
|
|
|
|
Technically, it doesn't make any difference where you mine, a given hashrate will produce a given number of Bitcoins over time. The large pools offer less variance. Pool fees are not all the same but the difference isn't real significant.
|
|
|
|
|
It isn't the longest block that is accepted. It it the first block that finds an acceptable Hash that is accepted. In the case of a tie. there is a fork and the longest blockchain is accepted.
|
|
|
|
you need to add "A Hobby" to the poll.  |
|
|
|
As I've said before. When it comes to Slush Pool, only look at it once or twice a day to see if your payouts on the stats page are reasonably consistent, say +-10%. And, that your miners are close to the expected hashrate. Do not try and check the math. the computer is smarter than you and doing this will only make ya crazy.  Mining Slush since May 2013. |
|
|
|
I'm suspicious because it is *exactly* what it would look like if somebody was engaged in selfish mining.
So other than Ghash owning up, what can be done if anything ? Not a whole lot, other than what I've contemplated doing for months: Dropping paid orphans and dropping the fee 1% to compensate. It ends up being roughly the same, except it doesn't involve me having a random 24 hour period where I pay out $50,000 worth of BTC for blocks that were orphaned. For now I can just keep watching to see if this pops up again. It's suspicious, but the unfortunate thing is selfish mining is hard to detect with certainty, and 3 events in 24 hours, while highly unusual, is NOT enough evidence to base a reaction off of. I would actually prefer a 1% pool fee and no paid orphans, and it would give the impression that BtcGuild lowered pool fees even if miners ended up receiving the exact same return. I suspect that BtcGuild would gain a significant amount of hashrate by dropping fees to 1% and not paying out orphans. I think many people perceive that BtcGuild is more expensive than it actually is because they are not aware of how orphans impact payouts. He said "by" 1%, not "to" 1%. |
|
|
|
maybe there should be a discussion over the transferree paying the 0.0001 transfer fee (take it out of the transfer amount) - then let the transferee select whatever amount they want to transfer as long as its over the transfer fee.
Ok, This discussion is kind of silly. Lowering the minimum payout would kind of be futile. You would end up with lots of little transactions in your wallet that you couldn't spend because it would cost you too much in Tx fees to put them back together. I mean, really, we are talking about withdrawing less than US$6. Do you really need to transfer that amount? Let it accumulate in your account until it is big enough. If you are mining so little... well that has been argued adnauseum. |
|
|
|
|
Ok, since everyone is looking for something to blame, here is something to think about. The Pool's adjusted difficulty seems to be adjusted in steps. A certain hashrate range gets a certain difficulty. Cross the border by even one hash and you get then next difficulty. Does a hashrate at the low end of the range for a given difficulty receive fewer shares than the hashrate at the high end of the range because it has fewer finds to submit? An example, becuase i think i stated this awkwardly.
I have a miner that shows 36 Gh/s on CGminer and shows about 31 - 33 Gh/s on the Pool. This is about a 10% difference which i think is acceptable. But, all my other miners which are in the 10 - 12 Gh/s range show exactly the expected hashrate.
I'm thinking that perhaps if my 36 Gh/s miner were on the high side of the range for it's difficulty, it's hashrate would be more accurate.
|
|
|
|
Wow! My miner found a block. Number 285163. A first for me.
Mine found 2 a couple days ago throughout a single day and my rig is microscopic in comparison to what I see out there. Is that equivalent lightning striking twice? yes very odd.. a friends 60gh/s rig found 2 blocks last week. essentially an impossible feat in comparison. but luck is luck, or someone is manipulating the data I have to ask: do you get any kind of "Bonus" when your hardware finds a Block? Or the usual reward you would get for participating? usual reward, no bonus |
|
|
|
Obviously you should mine Bitcoin, otherwise you posted in the wrong forum.  |
|
|
|
So 37% day luck np happens, 70% week luck yeah hmm.... and 91% month.... we sure something isn't wrong? Might have to switch soonish myself but rather support spreading out hash power.
I'm never sure, but then people jump on me and say I'm a conspiracy theorist. I dunno, my opinion is our luck will improve once the database issues are resolved, just like last time it choked when we were getting close to 900TH/S. BUT, nobody wants to even consider the possibility that it's an issue backstage on the pool, which honestly is what appears to be happening. I love that "IT guy" mentality where anyone exploring potential explanations for what looks to be a pattern of "luck" is labeled as an idiot. I dunno, seems very funky. just look at when everything is going smooth how quickly the confirmations for blocks found go....but when there is a glitch, the blocks take forever to get confirmations. one block lasts 23 hours to confirm. how many "website under service" messages have we seen today ? all points to issues behind the scenes. I think during bad luck collective hashing power should be pointed to BTCGuild ...LoL. those guys find blocks left and right...never a sad 30% dry spell for so many days. in the past 7 days or so our month luck dropped big time. What the feezy ? I'm not sure who you talk to, but if you look at the BTCguild thread, You'll see that they are all commenting on a bad luck streak as well. |
|
|
|
I expect commercial interests to take over the role of mining once the number of coins per block diminishes enough—the value of BTC will define was "diminishes enough" means. Certainly within 20 years, probably sooner.
Mining for transactions fees will become a low margin business, and as such will be handled by corporate interests who can invest enough on the infrastructure side to maximize profits. I could definitely see exchanges (or whatever replaces the exchanges) engaging in this as not only a side business, but a service for their users to ensures fast transactions.
So say I from my Throne of Prognostication™.
I disagree. I suspect that when it gets to the point where it is just transaction fees, or close to that, and the exchange rate hasn't compensated for it, then it will be the Hobbyists and people who just just want to support the coin that will remain. The big guys will move on to the next big thing. I can see a day when there are so few miners mining that people will be able to solo mine with a reasonable variance. Let's meet up in 20 years and compare notes. I'll have to pass on that invite. I doubt that i'll live that long.  |
|
|
|
|
Ok. I have a V2 MB. today i added 2 more H cards. Oddly, I've only seen 10 Gh/s increase. I went from 279 Gh/s to 290 Gh/s. Even if the cards were doing 25 Gh/s each I should see 300 Gh/s. One of the new cards is doing about 4 Gh/s, but others are perfroming worse now. I'm wondering if this is indicative of a Power Supply that isn't robust enough.
|
|
|
|
I don't know but i get the feeling ASIC mining is not going to be around for long (or not appealing to the general public), especially in regards to SHA256 coins. Now if they bring forward the ASIC miners for scrypt that may be an entirely different story. ASIC is killing off the joy of mining though: Makes technology available to us at high costs and nearly before the technology has become obsolete (they probably mine the hell out of them before the miners reach us). I may be wrong and comments are welcome.
ASIC scrypt miner? how would that work? It is my understanding that scrypt mining isn't really doable on an ASIC. Something about ASICs not having any memory. So? That chip isn't a true ASIC, but rather an hybrid with on chip ram. |
|
|
|
I am just sad to see there are always newbies buying overpriced hardware with no idea they can never get their investment back...not enough close....
Funny, ever since I started buying mining hardware in May, I have seen people make this statement. And yet, I've made US$5000 over my US$15,000 investment. I'm glad that people are saddened that people buy hardware, otherwise there would be that many more people pushing the difficulty up. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
