Question about shares and the difficulty level:
Over in the support thread for the new terminus miners, we are working on correcting a USB traffic load problem that seems to pop up with multiple miners. Someone floated the idea of using the -suggest diff setting to increase the recognized shares difficulty.
If that ends up working, would that negatively impact our shares in this pool? For the solo pool it makes no difference as the only thing that matters is a hash enough to solve a block... But on this pool our contribution is accumulated over time. Would a suggest diff of, say, 100,000 therefore end up with less herp/derp than one of 40?
It may be a moot point because your pool automatically adjusts to the miner within minutes regardless of the difficulty level...
Increasing the suggested diff beyond what the pool sets will decrease your bandwidth but increase your variance. Overall your share payout will pretty much end up the same but fluctuate a bit more. Given this pool finds blocks every few weeks I doubt you'll notice any difference whatsoever so if you're trying to decrease bandwidth it's a fine way to do it. |
|
|
|
|
...And yet still the discussion simply turns to how much money the pioneers would have made. No mention of what bitcoin technology has turned into over those last 8 years thanks to those pioneers and how much effort they've put in and most still continue to.
|
|
|
|
congrats 16GsNC3q6KgVXkUX7j7aPxSUdHrt1sN2yN, found a block a few mins ago
[2018-03-17 13:23:38.074] Possible block solve diff 4145417665731.273926 !
[2018-03-17 13:23:38.159] BLOCK ACCEPTED!
[2018-03-17 13:23:38.165] Solved and confirmed block 513974 by 16GsNC3q6KgVXkUX7j7aPxSUdHrt1sN2yN
[2018-03-17 13:23:38.165] User 16GsNC3q6KgVXkUX7j7aPxSUdHrt1sN2yN:{"hashrate1m": "1.9P", "hashrate5m": "1.49P", "hashrate1hr": "1.33P", "hashrate1d": "1.3P", "hashrate7d": "1.3P"}
[2018-03-17 13:23:38.165] Worker 16GsNC3q6KgVXkUX7j7aPxSUdHrt1sN2yN:{"hashrate1m": "1.8P", "hashrate5m": "1.43P", "hashrate1hr": "1.32P", "hashrate1d": "1.3P", "hashrate7d": "1.29P"}
[2018-03-17 13:23:38.166] Block solved after 8770536482245 shares at 266.5% diff
|
|
|
|
There's a good chance that he IS mining, but hasn't produced even one single share which shows how fucking futile what he's doing is.
I so wanted to say that, but I've been working on being more polite that I normally am.  Seems my sarcasm failed  I'm usually polite, but sometimes you just have to tell it like it is or they won't get it. |
|
|
|
recently pointed some of my older cards at this solo pool, figured it would be more fun than watching a 200W GPU make $00.02 a day. However I am not able to monitor my stats. I go to http://solo.ckpool.org/users/3L6o9aXs4fWtaUaFArYiXYG1TmVisDTDXM and I just get a 404. Any help would be appreciated, id hate to think i made a mistake and haven't actually been mining for the last week. Yeah, your address is still not visible, so you are not mining. There's a good chance that he IS mining, but hasn't produced even one single share which shows how fucking futile what he's doing is. |
|
|
|
The main difference is pool fees - 2% at Slush and 0.9% at Kano. Kano pays 1.1% more per block found. What are other diff's bt pools? I know slushpool but not CK pool? ckpool.org 's fee is zero. 0%. |
|
|
|
Hey -cK is solo pool down or something?
my miners were beeping, so i thought it was my internet. internet good,
not hashing or connected to solo pool but yet the pool still showing hashrate at my max speed without my miners connected?
Had some bitcoin daemon instability which took the pool with it, sorry about that. Pool has been restarted. |
|
|
|
who owns ckpool?
i read on their website that its now owned by Bitmain?
Lol that's one of the funniest posts this year. |
|
|
|
{"hashrate1m": "13.3P",
alright! got some serious hash going now, cmon block come to my small hashrate. hmmm? thinking about pushing a rental also
While it's tempting, renting when other people are renting is a bad idea because you end up unintentionally in a bidding war over what available hashrate there is to rent. |
|
|
|
That's offtopic for this thread. I'm not in a position to pass judgement on them and their alleged hardware. |
|
|
|
has anyone felt gambly and chucked on 2.5 PHs rental to solo.mine for 12 hours?
lol
Lots of people have rented a hell of a lot more for a hell of a lot longer too. Once upon a time that would have given you a good chance of finding a block, but not any more. -ck.... which node is the luckiest US or DE.... I feel like throwing the dice now. They're both one now with DE being a passthrough only to main solo. Dice thrown.... port 4334 accepts 1m diff now? Yup |
|
|
|
has anyone felt gambly and chucked on 2.5 PHs rental to solo.mine for 12 hours?
lol
Lots of people have rented a hell of a lot more for a hell of a lot longer too. Once upon a time that would have given you a good chance of finding a block, but not any more. -ck.... which node is the luckiest US or DE.... I feel like throwing the dice now. They're both one now with DE being a passthrough only to main solo. |
|
|
|
has anyone felt gambly and chucked on 2.5 PHs rental to solo.mine for 12 hours?
lol
Lots of people have rented a hell of a lot more for a hell of a lot longer too. Once upon a time that would have given you a good chance of finding a block, but not any more. |
|
|
|
-ck what work is involved pool side to support AsicBoost?
The code to support it is in my public gits already. It needs to support a couple of new stratum messages and know how to handle an extra parameter on shares being returned. |
|
|
|
No manufacturer will make a new miner without asicboost now and lose the 20% efficiency gains. Efficiency is everything in this game and I can't see any maker passing it up now. It'll only be a matter of time.
Hopefully some manufacturers can offer some sort of updates to their recent equipment as well. Also, will the DRAGONMINT come Pre configured with Slush, or your pool? Hopefully, it's yours, and it can help out Non-Corporate for once! Asicboost needs asic chip hardware support. As far as I'm aware, the S9 had asicboost built in but bitmain never managed to get their software support working. It's not entirely impossible that it could be made to work but bitmain have been so secretive about everything, and so incompetent in their coding that it may never happen. No other hardware as far as I'm aware has the capability so there is no way to modify it to work. I've been talking to halong about their pool selection and it's not clear what they're going to do but they'll probably not configure default pools but come with recommendations instead. I don't see ckpool.org suddenly becoming massive from this even though it's fee free, though they did find that pretty exciting when I first told them. |
|
|
|
|
No manufacturer will make a new miner without asicboost now and lose the 20% efficiency gains. Efficiency is everything in this game and I can't see any maker passing it up now. It'll only be a matter of time.
|
|
|
|
So here's the rub, and I'll quote my question from another thread. Thing that I'd like some clarity on, ASICboost was only suppost to improve the efficiency of a miner, not its hashing speed, so it did the same but used less power. Overall of course this would lead to either being able to push the miner faster for the same power usage (if the hardware could handle it) or running more individual miners but using the same power. (e.g. if it gave a 25% reduction in power, you could run 5 miners for the power you used to run 4 miners)
Is this new version of overt ASICboost different? There are hints that the Dragonmint miners will only run at 1/4 speed on non-asicboost pools. That sort of doesn't line up with how we all thought ASICboost
It's the same form of asicboost but avoiding the switching topology to enable/disable asicboost makes the chips simpler and smaller. |
|
|
|
|
By the way I forgot to mention with my rewritten driver and this hardware's capabilities, it is an excellent match for p2pool; probably the first ASIC in a very long time to be. The reject rate I'm getting at my pool with this miner is <0.1%
|
|
|
|
Yes, but why should pools change their protocol because one mining company says so? Why not make chips that hash at their advertised rates, and then ASICBOOT if your pool supports it to get up to higher rates?
Pools are designed to make money from miners. Do you think pools will refuse to implement it and shut out potential new customers? Will CKPool support it day 1? It's already deployed on both ckpools  I'm mining with an experimental sample already on ckpool.org Do you have any real numbers of how it performs with Asicboost on or off on the pool? Cheers It's an engineering sample so not final silicon but this one is doing 15.5TH. I don't have it here so cannot comment on power draw. It's 1/4 speed trying to mine on a pool without asicboost if I force it to but basically it will currently refuse to mine on a pool that doesn't support it for now. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
