a relaunch would be a mistake, and i would be one of the people that would be out...
it would be one thing if one pool jumped in early, or somehow maliciously attacked the network, but none of these things happened...
having one pool control more then half of the hashrate at a launch of a new coin is not unusual by any means, and happens all the time... most coins seem to get through this fact without an issue...
plus, there was no fork... all pools are on the same block... there was a mistake in coding that allowed one of the pools to mistakenly claim the POC reward... the pool didn't do this on purpose...
Lets say what you claim is correct. Do you think the pool operator should be responsible for stopping his payouts and working with the dev to return those blocks for what they were intended? It clearly says in the ANN what is suppose to happen. Regardless of why it is not happening correctly the pool operator is able to help out the dev by stopping payouts and helping return those blocks. If the cashier gives you back too much change do you just keep it or say something? I guess this is a moral issue..... |
|
|
|
pool.mn has less than 51% now, so everything should be ok.  This thing is the hashrate was more than +51% during the POC blocks, allowing the fork by discovering the block + having the best chain. I have no answer from the pool operators. We are taking a decision at the moment. If we need to restart the coin, we will do it so. As a renter who will lose out on a restart I suggest you restart! No way should that pool benefit from 1888 coins+ if this continues. |
|
|
|
i think you have to cancel and restart
never the miner will leave the pool, because they are earning more and more coin....
Unfortunately I agree. I rented to mine this and will lose out but it would seem the only way to rectify this problem. Unless the owner of the pool that got the coins is honest and willing to stop his payouts and work with you to return those coins to POC account. It is obvious that those payouts of 472 are not meant for the pool. 4 blocks of 472 = 1888 coins that this pool got that they should not have. If owner is not willing to return those coins then I think the only fair thing to everyone else is to cancel the launch. |
|
|
|
Something looks wrong with the POC it is not showing as every 60 blocks in the console and it looks like block 181 was paid out as 472 coins to http://kib.pool.mn |
|
|
|
so username would be address/0+230
cool I will try that
I am actually averaging 963ghs with my S2 on p2pool @ 110% efficiency over 3 days and I was averaging 1003ghs on ghash.io
yuip, that's for an s1, your s2 would have a different figure. 963 isn't too bad, when you have 1th/s 40gh/s isn't much but it's 40gh/s you would otherwise have generating coin. Have not updated the cgminer on S1 form Kano yet but when I added back my S1 to the node. I went from 0 orphans and 0 dead shares to 5 and 1 after adding the S1. Could the S1 actually be causing an issue on my node? address/0+197.2 is what I am using for S1. Also what hash rate should I trust what I see on antminer status page or what I see on the node? very different. Thanks In my experience the ant stats are pretty solid, you may want to check your ants hardware error rate just to be sure: http://www.coincadence.com/antminer-s1-hardware-error/I checked my errors all my S1 and the S2 are very low 0.000xxxx%. My node hash rate varies from just under 1TH to 1.19TH (S1 not oc and S2 not oc) antminer average is 170GHS for S1 and 963GHS for S2. Tried the Kano update on S1 and see no difference. Probably coincidence but ever since I added the S1 to the node I have get more orphans and DOA then with just the S2. My EFF varies between 100 and 109% but was 115+ after 3.5days. I noticed some of the peers on my outgoing connections don't ping or have ping times 100ms+, I found some nodes that ping under 30ms, should I be adding them with --p2pool-node? |
|
|
|
so username would be address/0+230
cool I will try that
I am actually averaging 963ghs with my S2 on p2pool @ 110% efficiency over 3 days and I was averaging 1003ghs on ghash.io
yuip, that's for an s1, your s2 would have a different figure. 963 isn't too bad, when you have 1th/s 40gh/s isn't much but it's 40gh/s you would otherwise have generating coin. Have not updated the cgminer on S1 form Kano yet but when I added back my S1 to the node. I went from 0 orphans and 0 dead shares to 5 and 1 after adding the S1. Could the S1 actually be causing an issue on my node? address/0+197.2 is what I am using for S1. Also what hash rate should I trust what I see on antminer status page or what I see on the node? very different. Thanks |
|
|
|
Thanks for the link. I have not put my S1s on my p2pool yet because with my S2 on it they get high diff on the s1's. Now that I hear S2 is not currently efficient on p2pool I may swap and put my S1's on it with the new cgminer and put my S2 on reg pool. I assume you void warranty when you upgrade cgminer this way  Is it possible to restore to default after this update by using the reset button on S1? or would I have to remove the updated cgminer manually? you can revert back easily as you only rename the old one. you simply rename it back to go back to default. I don't think changing cgminer could void hardware warranty but you'll need to ask Bitmain about that. If you have your s1's and the s2 on your node then use the diff setting as specified a couple of pages back. essentially you add a /0+diff to the end of your miner address. for an s1 at around 200gh/s it's /0+230 If your running S1's set <share> to 0 ("0" defaults to lowest p2pool diff, currently 1677854.73) And <pseudo_share> to 220.4 (optimized for 190GH/s) <pseudo_share> is calculated as your hash rate in KH/s times 0.00000116 i.e. 190,000,000 * 0.00000116 = 220.4 so username would be address/0+230 cool I will try that I am actually averaging 963ghs with my S2 on p2pool @ 110% efficiency over 3 days and I was averaging 1003ghs on ghash.io |
|
|
|
So, right before the latest block found and usual virgin generated BTC payout, there was another much smaller payout that wasn't generated, but it did go to p2pool associated wallet addresses.
Was that a general donation to P2Pool miners, or was that mdude77's merged mining donations being sent out to everyone?
Wasn't me. M Oh well... may be a donation then? Good news regardless... Wait, None of you guys got this little tip in your P2Pool associated addresses? I'm not in p2pool. I'm not wasting 10% of my hashpower pointing my S2s at it. M P2pool not worth it with S2? Kano is working on a driver that may help this. It's always worth it but you need to be ok with initially loosing 10% due to efficiency issues with p2pool. Hopefully Kano can get the new cgminer driver out for the s2 soon If losing 10% of hash power I would be more profitable to stay on regular pool until this is solved. I don't mind the variance but if it less profitable for an s2 on p2pool then regular pool it kind of defeats the purpose. Same issue for S1? This new driver would be offered through a bitmain update ? Kano already has an updated CGMiner for the S1 that works great with p2pool (and other pools). You can get it here: https://github.com/kanoi/cgminer-binaries/tree/master/AntS1He's still working on the S2 version. Thanks for the link. I have not put my S1s on my p2pool yet because with my S2 on it they get high diff on the s1's. Now that I hear S2 is not currently efficient on p2pool I may swap and put my S1's on it with the new cgminer and put my S2 on reg pool. I assume you void warranty when you upgrade cgminer this way Is it possible to restore to default after this update by using the reset button on S1? or would I have to remove the updated cgminer manually? |
|
|
|
So, right before the latest block found and usual virgin generated BTC payout, there was another much smaller payout that wasn't generated, but it did go to p2pool associated wallet addresses.
Was that a general donation to P2Pool miners, or was that mdude77's merged mining donations being sent out to everyone?
Wasn't me. M Oh well... may be a donation then? Good news regardless... Wait, None of you guys got this little tip in your P2Pool associated addresses? I'm not in p2pool. I'm not wasting 10% of my hashpower pointing my S2s at it. M P2pool not worth it with S2? Kano is working on a driver that may help this. It's always worth it but you need to be ok with initially loosing 10% due to efficiency issues with p2pool. Hopefully Kano can get the new cgminer driver out for the s2 soon If losing 10% of hash power I would be more profitable to stay on regular pool until this is solved. I don't mind the variance but if it less profitable for an s2 on p2pool then regular pool it kind of defeats the purpose. Same issue for S1? This new driver would be offered through a bitmain update ? |
|
|
|
So, right before the latest block found and usual virgin generated BTC payout, there was another much smaller payout that wasn't generated, but it did go to p2pool associated wallet addresses.
Was that a general donation to P2Pool miners, or was that mdude77's merged mining donations being sent out to everyone?
Wasn't me. M Oh well... may be a donation then? Good news regardless... Wait, None of you guys got this little tip in your P2Pool associated addresses? I'm not in p2pool. I'm not wasting 10% of my hashpower pointing my S2s at it. M P2pool not worth it with S2? |
|
|
|
Averaging 960GHS on an new S2 after 1D8H uptime...about normal?
I noticed my average is lower on p2pool then on ghash.io ( I was averaging 1003GHS)
P2P will always be lower Thanks for the info. |
|
|
|
|
Averaging 960GHS on an new S2 after 1D8H uptime...about normal?
I noticed my average is lower on p2pool then on ghash.io ( I was averaging 1003GHS)
|
|
|
|
Thanks So my 24hour share estimate is roughly 11.13 for 1 TH if I did it right |
|
|
|
|
Is there a formula to calculate the amount of expected shares in 24 hours given a hashrate on p2pool?
|
|
|
|
Version: 13.4-24-gf0eeb48-dirty
Pool rate: 537TH/s (12% DOA+orphan) Share difficulty: 1570000
Node uptime: 12.9 hours Peers: 20 out, 0 in
Local rate: 415GH/s (0.0% DOA) Expected time to share: 4.5 hours
Shares: 7 total (0 orphaned, 0 dead) Efficiency: 113.3%
Payout if a block were found NOW: 0.01278865 BTC to 1KUeBzZEtGdupam6bK4VfEHFXJhk1C7XCn. Expected after mining for 24 hours: 0.0193 BTC per block.
Current block value: 25 BTC Expected time to block: 1.1 days
I have only 6 peers out, could this be an issue? |
|
|
|
Hi,
Need some advice on if this seems right. I have been running on my own node for 1.2 days at 1.2 TH and my result so far does not seem right.
Local rate: 1.20 TH/s (DOA 38.57 GH/s / 3.51%) Shares: Total: 12 (Orphan: 1, Dead: 0)
Expected payout: 0.01571202
is this just variance related or an obvious issue with my node?
was getting .04+ daily with ghash.io
Variance. You need 3 days to fill out your PPLNS share queue-- so you are only at 1.2/3 = 0.4 of your expected block payout. You had bad luck for 1.2 days, you could do much better. I have been purring along at 530GH/s and per-block between 0.02 to 0.028 the past several blocks. Anything I should be tuning on my end? or just need to have luck average out over time? |
|
|
|
|
Hi,
Need some advice on if this seems right. I have been running on my own node for 1.2 days at 1.2 TH and my result so far does not seem right.
Local rate: 1.20 TH/s (DOA 38.57 GH/s / 3.51%) Shares: Total: 12 (Orphan: 1, Dead: 0)
Expected payout: 0.01571202
is this just variance related or an obvious issue with my node?
was getting .04+ daily with ghash.io
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
Running on my own node for 1.2 days at 1.2TH
Local rate: 1.20TH/s (DOA 34.61 GH/s / 3.37%) Shares: Total: 12 (Orphan: 1, Dead: 0)
Predicated payout : 0.01577042
seems extremely low for 1.2TH where I was getting over .04 per day on ghash.io
does this seem logical or do I have an obvious issue with my node?
|
|
|
|
Anyone else having trouble with recent S1 units? I have 1 out of 3 units giving me problems and bitmaintech is making me go through hoops to get anything resolved!!! https://i.imgur.com/EucppPK.jpgremoved for quote Your first pool is dead. To get rid of X-try to reboot by going into system and reboot without shutting the power off. it helps on mine. Your hashing speed is ~ correct with 5/64 asics not functioning (you are ~7% off in speed as expected). 7% off is still better than to send the miner back. Good luck. I agree that if I have to pay to ship it back and be down for a week with no rig it doesn't make sense but you pay for 180 ghs they should give you 180ghs. If they need to send a replacement board thats on them not my problem. No harm trying, but I doubt that they will replace it. BTW, I never had exactly 180, it was either ~178gh on 350mhz or ~191-192 on 375mhz Yeah I hope they do something but from the reaction I am getting here I doubt it. yeah my other ones are about that 178-182. My S2 is av 1003. just so obvious to me that one is defective though they should just give good customer service and send replacement boards for it. Margins are so low for miners RMA process just kills whatever you have left. Guess you have to know that when you buy from them what you get is what you get. |
|
|
|
Anyone else having trouble with recent S1 units? I have 1 out of 3 units giving me problems and bitmaintech is making me go through hoops to get anything resolved!!!  try setting freq to 300 and doing the pencil mod. If I don't get a reasonable response from bitmain I will try that but for now I don't want to touch a 7 day old unit that has been defective from day 1. bitmain has not been to good with rma. the gear works most of the time. the gear ships fast. I have had about 30 of them 1 was a dud. the dud was a hassle to rma , but thomas from minersource helped me with it . . sushi the seller and bitmaintech were not helpful. . I agree they ship fast that was really impressive. But RMA on these is to costly they should just send replacement boards. Sure looks like I am stuck at lower then advertised hash rates on this one. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
