One of my bigger workers was happily submitting shares but showed zero on the stats page. If there is nothing from Slush soon I'm going to jump ship. This pool appears to be malfunctioning and running unmonitored.
Same, also getting IO errors in guiminer SERVERS People!! Can't stress enough to look in on who is suposed to be recieving the shares as ( for me at least ) we got a 2 fold issue I have more than 20 workers all connecting to the same server. Only one worker had the issue where it appeared to be working on the client side but showed zero shares on the web interface. It just happened to be one of my faster miners. All workers are running from the same internal network so have the same external IP. All of my workers use guiminer with the default slush setting which I believe is forwarded to stratum.bitcoin.cz:3333. |
|
|
|
|
One of my bigger workers was happily submitting shares but showed zero on the stats page. If there is nothing from Slush soon I'm going to jump ship. This pool appears to be malfunctioning and running unmonitored.
|
|
|
|
|
Well my estimated reward didn't climb back up to what it should have been before it ended. Let's see how it calculates...
|
|
|
|
Estimated reward has hit the dirt again...
K.
Yup. This is lame with Slush MIA to address it. |
|
|
|
2013-05-11 16:26:06: Listener for "OpenCL Slush's": stratum.bitcoin.cz:3333 11/05/2013 16:26:06, Verification failed, check hardware! (0:0:Juniper, 2b5342eb)
Only time I ever saw that error was when I installed an updated graphics driver. I ended up rolling back to the previous driver and it went away. I believe what it is saying is that the share you submitted is not a valid hash which would indeed suggest that the hardware is making a computational error. But more than likely (and your testing seems to bear it out) the hardware is fine and it is the way the miner is interfacing with the hardware, in other words the driver. So what hardware and what driver are you using? Your forum name is for nVidia hardware which you would normally want to use a CUDA miner with, but you are talking about an OpenCL miner which would normally be used for an AMD/ATI card. |
|
|
|
|
@organofcorti Although I haven't read nearly all of your blog posts, nor understood all of the ones I have read, it is obvious that you have spent a good deal of time analyzing pool mining. I have also seen your posts in other pool threads and seen your analysis of bitminter. So I am curious, with all of your analysis, where do you mine? You may have said it before but if you did I missed it.
|
|
|
|
Man slush is never gonna come back...
(at least i wouldn't if i were him)
Well the other day there were 30 blocks discovered. 30 blocks at 2% = 15 BTC 15 BTC roughly = $1700$1700 dollars a day would make me sort it out! There's nothing to sort out. All these complaints about rewards are either a result of variance on slow miners, or bad luck with the designed score reset. There are no real problems. Everything is working the way it's designed. Which is why nothing is getting sorted out. When there is a real problem, slush will make an appearance. So did Slush ask you to speak for him? Just curious. I would like something more official, like an actual comment from Slush about block 17925. I have been following this thread for many dozens of pages and I have seen Slush come on here and say a block was miscalculated and see it adjusted. I don't think "working as designed" describes a block where many people got about 1/10,000 of the estimated reward while others got 10-15 times more than the estimated reward. That sounds like a problem. Full time mining removes the probability factor over time so that it does not resemble playing the lottery. Block 17925 looks exactly like playing the lottery. It appears to be an anomaly based on what I have seen over time but nevertheless it indicates a problem. If Slush says that problem doesn't exist or he doesn't want to address it that is one thing (and allows me to make an informed decision about where I want to mine) but if random interwebs guy says it (i.e. you) that means jack. Finally I would point out to those with the browner of noses that this is a partnership. No miners, no pool; no Slush no pool. We all profit together or we all have no pool together. It is in Slush's interests to keep his miners happy because that keeps the pool making profit for all. This is not about us all simply benefitting from Slush's generosity. I paid money to build my miners and I contribute actual computing power (such as it is) to the work of finding blocks. Blocks don't just arrive in the mail and then get divided up by some benevolent pool owner. Having said that I want to see a more or less reliable profit over time, which is the entire point of mining in a pool. If I want to play the lottery I'll take up solo mining. |
|
|
|
But fluctuations are really wild at times here and we need confidence that the pool rewards are computed correctly and honestly.
This.
I think what happened on this block is just a combination of really bad timing and the reward computation algorithm. But if so maybe an algorithm needs a closer look. After all we don't want a "hop-resistant" algorithm to drive people out of the pool due to loss of confidence.
And this. |
|
|
|
Same here
17925 2013-05-08 14:13:44 1:27:14 11634278 756 0.00000023 235160 25.21733124 97 confirmations left
But I have no idea how shares and rewards are calculated. It seems sometimes I have over 2000 shares and slightly over .001 rewards and sometimes I can have as little as 11 shares and have over .002 reward. And since I don't really know how the stuff works... I just sit back and watch it happen.
I got them all lol 17925 2013-05-08 14:13:44 1:27:14 11634278 2366 0.03827581 235160 25.21733124 96 confirmations left My normal is 0.005 or so - This was 7 times my normal run maybe that is where all of mine went. Here is what mine shows for that block: 17925 2013-05-08 14:13:44 1:27:14 11634278 1521 0.00000040 235160 25.21733124 94 confirmations left Put me in the "me too" category on this one: 17925 2013-05-08 14:13:44 1:27:14 11634278 1388 0.00000034 235160 25.21733124 94 confirmations left Don't spend all our bitcoins at one time eh ewitte. |
|
|
|
I just noticed one of the workers happily submitting shares while the account page says I submitted nothing for over an hour. I reconnected and normal operation resumed.
Same here... Me too. |
|
|
|
guiminer connects to stratum.bitcoin.cz:3333 ok, but it can start all 3 gpus, only 1 does any work.
With guiminer and multiple cards you need to create another miner for each card. Just go to file > new miner and setup another one. Then use the device dropdown list to select the next GPU. Create one for each GPU and you should be fine. If you don't already know about it you can select view > show summary and see all of the miners at once. |
|
|
|
Bah, the 105 right now is just a temporarily price, people with huge loads of BTC is probably rushing them over to MTGOX ant BTC-E. As soon as they are cleared they will dump!
Wrong thread homie. I think you want something in the speculation section. meanwhile, 99.95% CDF... |
|
|
|
dear round please end at somepoint this year, thanks a miner...
how is everyone today, was gonna ask how secure the default encrpyted wallet is from the main bitcoin client is
 going to be 10 hours at this rate 99.88% CDF. This block is like my car keys. In the very last place anyone looks for it... |
|
|
|
Probably shouldn't comment since I haven't had a chance to read those yet, but I did mention above about how I thought the system was outdated. Judging by the hash rates in the top of those they aren't very recent. If im wrong, please dont hang me! I'll apologise for my ignorance once I have had time to look at things properly. 4.2 and 4.3 are the important ones - 4.1 is just background. They are from last year, but the score method is the same now as it was then. Very good read indeed. I wonder how many of the forum members will take the time to read & understand (!) it. I see a rather wide spectrum of skills and attitude and many reoccurring questions that makes me assume the majority will just skip anything longer than a few paragraphs. Anyway, congratulations, I really recognize the full worth of these quality articles. Cheers, T Yes I found those the other day and thought they were excellent as well. (When is the next one coming out?) I kept seeing blocks that had under-calculated (by a lot) and it was bugging me until I found those. The TL;DR version is that in order to prevent pool hopping Slush's scoring mechanism rewards shares found later in the round more than shares found earlier in the round. This mechanism as implemented also introduces variance in the pay out. Sometimes you get more than expected for a block and sometimes you get less as compared to a purely proportional payout system. To check, look at your highest and lowest rewards over time and you should find some lower and some higher than the value calculated by this formula: (Block Value * 0.98 * your shares) / total shares If you are a full-time miner however, the long term effect of the variance will disappear and your long term reward will look almost identical to what it would if that formula above were actually being used. The end result is that pool hopping from Slush's pool is only profitable to a very, very tiny degree and full time miners are not losing much reward to pool hoppers. Slush could lower that pool hopping profitability even more but it would raise the payout variance even more which would make some blocks look even worse. |
|
|
|
Sometimes people send bitcoins in order to make pretty sounds on http://www.listentobitcoin.com/The minute you think its more than that, you expose yourself as the conniving one. They're called wallets for a reason... If I choose to move money from my black leather wallet to my blue suede wallet I'm free to do so (and subsequently move it back). If someone chooses to move coins from one wallet to another, now... all of a sudden because the balance of wallets is public, you're entitled to more information? If merely asking what other people think about publicly available information offends you then you may be too sensitive for the internet. |
|
|
|
|
Excellent! Thank you both!
|
|
|
|
|
Can anyone explain the effect of worker difficulty? I see where it asks the expected hashrate of the worker and then raises the difficulty for that worker if the hashrate is very high. What effect does this actually have? What effect does it have on a worker to have too high or too low of a difficulty set? I googled but could not really find it explained. If someone has a link or an explanation I would appreciate it.
|
|
|
|
... Read the whole thing to find out how you get score...
You were right! I didn't read the whole thing. Thanks for that! I can't believe I was just one of those effing guys who doesn't read the explanation even when someone gives him the link... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
