What a pleasant surprise to wake up to this morning, kinda feels like the beginning of the month again. How come nobody's complaining it was such a short wait, Block was nearly 6 days early really throws off my whole weekend.  if blocks throw off your weekend, I hope we get more and your weekend goes erratic! lol |
|
|
|
A mod did that. As this is not a self modded thread.
Frodocooper may have cleaned up the posts you made...
ahh i just saw on my phone the notification that my posts got deleted - they tend to always get deleted if I ask questions about how things are working - in this case, the two were just merged. as for the other stuff about this pool - my question is simply why does the pool show one payment when the block chain shows a lower payment - I mine on several pools - a couple large ones and several smaller ones - this is the only pool where my payments do not match. I was also told that I was making substantial accusations against Sigma and that I should not be expected that my word to be easily taken. It was also suggested that I might just be trying to stir up trouble. All of that confuses me - there is no "my word" my question comes directly from what Sigma shows on site and what those very same transactions show on the block chain. I am by no means an expert on mining - hence why I asked the question on the mismatched values seeing as other pools match. In the attached image (I am assuming the copy paste of the transactions is what led to the "my word" statement) I show the payment page from Sigma and the transactions from the pool for 3 payments I got from Sigma - in all 3 cases the amount reported on the payment page is higher than what was submitted - verified by pulling the pulling the transaction on the block chain. For comparison, I also show the last payment I received from kano.is via the rewards page (have to use the second one as the first one shown there has not yet reached enough confirmations to be sent out) and it matches the block chain amount exactly. So - am I being charged a fee after the payment is issued? or is sigma sending less than they state?  |
|
|
|
|
very nice! a second block!
|
|
|
|
Actually, 4 blocks out of 5.4 expected so far is not that bad or unlucky. We have to remember that a 100% block for our pool size is a little over 6 days. Since we had 3 rather quick blocks right at the start of February this 339% block was not out of the realm of normal and we have a real shot of a good February.  no it is not - one more and we will be right where it is estimated to be - but if you go back as far as the table shows, I think we are about 8 blocks or so below expected. |
|
|
|
Slowly but surely, they're bleeding you dry.
Just say no to this scam pool.
Maybe so but a few cents are missing but overall it is doing better than any other pool I am currently in and I now have it set to pay daily.
maybe you could see my posts above and elaborate on how there are no fees? The amount reported in my payments screen are not equal to what was actually received by me nor equal to what was actually sent on the block chain - which, by the way, your transaction links are broken - they point to "blockchair" not "blockchain." |
|
|
|
|
woohoo! a block! let's keep this rolling!
|
|
|
|
|
I tossed 5 S9's on here for nothing else than the 5% bonus.
below is my first week - not counting the first day as it was a partial though.
Date Avg. hashrate 24h Earnings Profitability
20-02-2019 68.57 TH/s 0.00284472 BTC 0.00004148 BTC/TH/s + 0.00001422 BTC/TH/s bonus
19-02-2019 69.44 TH/s 0.00288081 BTC 0.00004148 BTC/TH/s + 0.00001440 BTC/TH/s bonus
18-02-2019 70.17 TH/s 0.00291108 BTC 0.00004148 BTC/TH/s + 0.00001456 BTC/TH/s bonus
17-02-2019 69.23 TH/s 0.00287175 BTC 0.00004148 BTC/TH/s + 0.00001436 BTC/TH/s bonus
16-02-2019 69.50 TH/s 0.00288297 BTC 0.00004148 BTC/TH/s + 0.00001441 BTC/TH/s bonus
15-02-2019 69.31 TH/s 0.00287513 BTC 0.00004148 BTC/TH/s + 0.00001438 BTC/TH/s bonus
14-02-2019 69.67 TH/s 0.00289013 BTC 0.00004148 BTC/TH/s + 0.00001445 BTC/TH/s bonus
13-02-2019 16.59 TH/s 0.00068804 BTC 0.00004148 BTC/TH/s + 0.00000344 BTC/TH/s bonus
first payment was 0.01104313 - and now sitting with 0.01151077 and accruing waiting for it to hit the time they do payout - which should be in the next hour or so.
I can say this - the amount they send and what I receive are not the same
First payment sent was: 0.011043134438 - I received .011026, a difference of .00001713 BTC (.109%)
Second payment sent was: 0.012101170225 - I received .012088 a difference of .00001317 BTC (.155%)
(I am not carrying it out to 12 decimal places as sigma appears to do)
It appears to be some sort of fee on the payment - no other pool I use is being charged this fee - what the other pools send is what I get.
For reference, my last payment from kano.is:
Payment sent was 0.01050444 - I received 0.01050444
I can see that the amount on the blockchain transaction matches what I got from Sigma but does not match what they record as sent.
for the first payment:
on Sigma dashboard - 107d4e58acbacb4faccac3218bd5916608273110e01a09a41cfe007f7b0f6502 0.011043134438
on block chain - 1LD6V8VNXfCTNzRyV6bj2vBhNg6VLTA2Ps 0.01102686 BTC
for the second payment:
on Sigma dashboard - 19ced6b02b7418241bcb6bf20e8a0a70dd7a72a2243f26962b48830d868f1bfa 0.012101170225
on block chain - 1LD6V8VNXfCTNzRyV6bj2vBhNg6VLTA2Ps 0.01208892 BTC
payments do not match between sigma dashboard and actual payment on blockchain
and with the kano.is transaction:
on kano website -
Block Block UTC Miner Reward N Diff N Range Pool N Avg Your % Your N Diff Your N Avg Your BTC
561503 2019-Feb-04 12:50 12.41932163 29.086T 429hr 52m 30s 80.72PHs 0.08% 24.601G 68.28THs 0.01050444
on block chain - 1LD6V8VNXfCTNzRyV6bj2vBhNg6VLTA2Ps 0.01050444 BTC
payment matches between kano.is and blockchain
|
|
|
|
Not completely true.
It would be enough to try "only" 2^160 combinations (for example from key = 1 to key = 2^160) to be able to move the funds from all addresses (P2PKH utxo). With about 2^135 combinations you should get access at one address with funds. (1 random)
and that is what concerns me - theft. while improbable I find it disturbing that it is the goal of a few on here - to steal. |
|
|
|
|
I have read thru a lot of the pages and I have said it before and will say it again - I am confused as to what the goal is here? Is it just to find the addresses? or is the actual attempt here to find a way to take btc from a wallet?
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the update on this. There are however no changes made to Awesome Miner for this. There can still be an issue that the miner, at random times, start to behave like this.
What you could try next time it happens is to use a tool like Microsoft PsPing, where you can test the connection to the monitoring interface (API) port 4028 on the Antminer. It's a good way of testing an Antminer.
maybe you did not do something directly but maybe something else that was adjusted would affect this indirectly? I only had it happen for a few months and then it stopped now 2 updates ago I think. I have not adjusted anything on the miners at all nor affected any changes on their pools. Remember the miners never stopped working nor did the pool ever stop accepting the miners work, only that AM would lose its connection and thus report the miner offline. Either way, I am happy to see that the issue is gone. |
|
|
|
I also have a question concerning my account - when I attempt to log in at https://www.nastyfans.org I am being told my account is "terminated" - not sure why it is but it is - So, when I try to register again, it tells me I cannot because "username already taken" can this be rectified? |
|
|
|
You seem confused. NastyFans is an organization, not a person. It has no signature spot to advertise anything.
maybe so but all your posts have an advertisement for sigma pool in the signature. and that is all I was referencing, I would think your signature would have an advertisement for your pool, that is all. |
|
|
|
Can you please check if the behavior goes away if you take one of the Antminers and change to another pool? Just to confirm if it's the same problem or something else. Thanks!
I forgot that not all miners are on Kano - I do have one miner that is on Slushpool, it has also had the same issue, just less frequently as it is only one miner. Patrike - I wanted to let you know that I have not had this problem at all since your last update to the AM software. I made no changes to any settings but it has not occurred since the last update. |
|
|
|
|
curious - why is nastyfans running a sig for a different pool?
|
|
|
|
|
in the past coupons have always worked as long as their value was 50% or less than the cost of the miner, right? so a $340 coupon should work on any miner over $680 in my opinion, but the site does say that but is it also possible that it has not been updated to allow for the $340 coupons as they are not active until the 26th?
|
|
|
|
oh i know $300 is a stretch but I can dream either way cannot use the coupons until the 26th so who knows what will happen to btc and/or the market by then. |
|
|
|
Not sure what the efficiency setting looks like on the m10 but the t15 in LPM delivers over m10 in stock.
yep now i just wish I could find someone to buy my s9's for $300 each lol |
|
|
|
|
yea - I have way more coupons that I can possibly use. want to buy some coupons? lol I am willing to sell at 25% face value.
I also want to sell some of my s9's and go for the t15's. If by some miracle, I could get $300 for the miners w/psu I could buy 4 t15's for every 5 s9's I sell with no out of pocket on the purchase. that would put me at 92 th for 4 t15's vs the 70 th i am getting for 5 s9's and would save me about 350 watts per hour. A little less th (84 i think) if used in LPM mode but with almost 500 watts per hour less electric consumption.
|
|
|
|
The PPS pools act as a "reserve" for them, but that comes at a price of higher pool fees and the possible loss of the money "in transit", in case they get "hacked" or the pool it does not (really) have the proper reserve to withstand an extended bad luck period (or a combination of).
I guess a day/week loss of payment for a single asic miner isn't much to worry, but the whale miner would lose a fortune. Ironic they rather take the risk than learn to manage themselves. If the PPS pool fails a payment, then they would fail with it. Essentially you are trusting the pool like you would trust a bank, hope they can keep that "reserve" safe... And how can you audit if your PPS pool has the appropriate reserve levels?
agreed. for me it makes no sense why miners with huge hash rates would do a pps vs pplns -- i do understand why small miners do though. |
|
|
|
Yup, looks like they are going to try and clear out all the inventory ready for the new stuff later in the year. Sell out completely as quickly as they can and then generate market anticipation conditions for the new releases.
Strangely you can't apply any of those coupons to your cart, only the $65 ones.
well that is because the new ones are not active until 2.26.19 so another week or so. and yes they have a second generation 7nm chip which they claim is close to 30j/th -- i believe the most efficient ones you can current get are around the 50j/th mark, if I am not mistaken. My guess is those 2nd gens will be expensive with long drawn out ROI's. So it may be time to scoop up the 1st gen 7nm machines now. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
