First of all, God isn't a murder. Why not? God owns everything. So, even if He takes life away, He was the One Who gave it in the first place. It is His by right, to do with as He pleases.
Murder is purposely killing a person. Whether or not you own that person is not in the definition - the only important thing is whether or not the murder was "lawful". If God exists and is omnipotent, or even only omniscient, it will obey no human laws and so if this God kills a person in a way that is not allowed by the laws of a particular nation, it does so unlawfully. It doesn't matter that you think this God's law should have primacy. Given the above (God exists, God is at least omniscient) then if a person's death results from this God's actions in a way considered unlawful by a given nation, then that God has committed a murder in that nation. Interestingly this means that God cannot commit murder in countries that have religious laws since I'm fairly certain they would by definition exempt their God from any crime. |
|
|
|
That thread doesn't explain how the reward method works though -- what does Prop-on-PPLNS mean? Clearly, you're not going to get miners to send you every single hash they make, so how do you pay "by hash"? |
|
|
|
Weren't they meant to indicate your agreement that questioning doctrine was a sin?
I don't believe it says anywhere in the bible that questioning doctrine is a sin Only a fool believes things without questioning them... Though, religion does seem to be a gullibility test of sorts Thanks for the input, Christian doctrine is not something I know a lot about. It's a shame BitNow didn't feel up to sharing his opinion on the matter, I'd really like to know his / her POV on the matter. |
|
|
|
Why then did you respond to my statement with those quotes? Weren't they meant to indicate your agreement that questioning doctrine was a sin?
I was not answering a question. Best regards. Then why quote my question? You're not making sense. If you want to address another forum member, it's best to start with something like @organofcorti, rather than making a cryptic and off-topic response to a post. BTW, my post wasn't meant to offend you, although it clearly did. I honestly thought you would consider questioning doctrine a sin, and I apologise that it's not the case. What sort of doctrine questioning do you think is ok? |
|
|
|
Who "they"? the forum moderators? |
|
|
|
Atheism is a sin.
I said that you would think that questioning doctrine is a sin. I think your first quote makes it clear that you do,
I never said that.
How does your second quote relate to questioning doctrine?
I never said that. Best regards. Why then did you respond to my statement with those quotes? Weren't they meant to indicate your agreement that questioning doctrine was a sin?
Yes it is. You ask BitNow, I'll bet he/she says questioning doctrine is a sin.
" The fear of the Lord is the instruction of wisdom; and before honour is humility." - Pro 15:33 " By humility and the fear of the Lord are riches, and honour, and life." - Pro 22:4 Best regards. |
|
|
|
Yes it is. You ask BitNow, I'll bet he/she says questioning doctrine is a sin.
" The fear of the Lord is the instruction of wisdom; and before honour is humility." - Pro 15:33 " By humility and the fear of the Lord are riches, and honour, and life." - Pro 22:4 Best regards. So, that's a "yes"? You need to ask a question to have an answer. What is your question, maybe I can help you. What do the quotes mean? What you don't understand exactly from my previous quotes? Best regards. Please explain exactly how they relate to my statement. I think I understand how the first quote relates but not the second one. The quotes I stated describe where the Fear of the Lord leads you. As an atheist you are sinning and that's perfectly described in this statement of yours:
Yes it is. You ask BitNow, I'll bet he/she says questioning doctrine is a sin.
in this statement of yours you describe the Fear of the Lord for living as a sinner. For any doubt or information feel free to ask. Best regards. I said that you would think that questioning doctrine is a sin. I think your first quote makes it clear that you do, How does your second quote relate to questioning doctrine? |
|
|
|
Yes it is. You ask BitNow, I'll bet he/she says questioning doctrine is a sin.
" The fear of the Lord is the instruction of wisdom; and before honour is humility." - Pro 15:33 " By humility and the fear of the Lord are riches, and honour, and life." - Pro 22:4 Best regards. So, that's a "yes"? You need to ask a question to have an answer. What is your question, maybe I can help you. What do the quotes mean? What you don't understand exactly from my previous quotes? Best regards. Please explain exactly how they relate to my statement. I think I understand how the first quote relates but not the second one. |
|
|
|
Yes it is. You ask BitNow, I'll bet he/she says questioning doctrine is a sin.
" The fear of the Lord is the instruction of wisdom; and before honour is humility." - Pro 15:33 " By humility and the fear of the Lord are riches, and honour, and life." - Pro 22:4 Best regards. So, that's a "yes"? You need to ask a question to have an answer. What is your question, maybe I can help you. What do the quotes mean? |
|
|
|
Yes it is. You ask BitNow, I'll bet he/she says questioning doctrine is a sin.
" The fear of the Lord is the instruction of wisdom; and before honour is humility." - Pro 15:33 " By humility and the fear of the Lord are riches, and honour, and life." - Pro 22:4 Best regards. So, that's a "yes"? |
|
|
|
Well, the worst cases I've seen of block changes, some pools have missed them entirely. Even so at most it would be say 30 seconds of lost work. You've listed another juicy possibility though in the block withhold idea, which we bring up about every 18 hours on these forums, and still have no answers for... so nothing new there  ... and there could be other vulns (like the GHash.IO one) that aren't directly block withholding, more like share multiplication. But yep, no answers, just lots of guesses and some FUD. |
|
|
|
What do you mean - there are a lot of things in science that haven't been proven, but logic says that they are real: cold fusion, black
holes. These are theories. But just because science hasn't gained up with the reality it doesn't mean they are nor real.
Can you mention some of the things that logic says are real and that science says is not real? |
|
|
|
I don't hate any religion but yeah, some facts and rituals are quite unfair. Almost all religions have different rules for men and women. I don't think any religion should differentiate between two genders.
My religion as well has some facts I don't agree with. "If someone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other cheek as well." "If one doesn't go to the Church on every Sunday, he is a sinner".
Religion shouldn't make someone lose their self respect or make anything compulsory for a person else they are called sinners. I'm not an atheist but do criticize religion at times.
I absolutely agree with you.. We should critisize our religions sometimes rather than believe in it without thinking. . Thinking on its doctrine is Not a sin.. Yes it is. You ask BitNow, I'll bet he/she says questioning doctrine is a sin. |
|
|
|
frankly, your own data (52 wk) has the answer if you look closely and considering ^^^.
my only regret is that i listened for far too long to explanations that included "poor luck".
That's why I'm asking - could such luck be caused by block change inefficiencies, or something else? I think it's unlikely, tbh, and more likely something else is going on. |
|
|
|
Do you have a thread about it that I've missed?
From what you've written, the "luck" statistic (shares per block) can be influenced by orphans that aren't recognised as such (I guess some pools call them "stale" blocks?).
I'd like to make a list of things that can make luck worse, and just of the top of my head:
* incorrect reporting of orphaned blocks - either knowingly (not reporting orphaned blocks) or unknowingly (block is returned so late it is "stale" and bitcoind doesn't recognise it as a valid solution).
* various types of knowing and unknowing block withholding attacks
* a pool identifying both upper and lower case in a hash as different, so one hash can be submitted many times (eg GHash.IO)
What am I missing?
No thread, no. The message has been sparsely distributed across various threads at suitable times as we slowly try and raise awareness, but miners have a tendency to believe in simple messages like "0% fees, +X% merged mining" so it's hard to not feel like you're bashing your head against the wall when trying to educate people about it. SPV pools could be working on false blocks and dead end forks as well as happened going V2->V3. You're on the right track about things that can make luck appear worse. The point is mainly how much work is wasted work - i.e. working on long since changed blocks or, much rarer but much worse, wrong blocks entirely. Slow pool software, poor scalability in chosen software/languages, badly performing bitcoinds, added overhead of waiting for accessory altcoin daemon block changes and so on all contribute to it. Merged mining is a classic as it creates the illusion of greater profit margins when whatever overheads they generate on bitcoin block changes almost certainly outweigh the pitiful profit of said shitcoins. There really is no way of quantifying these losses since they're all lost in the much larger noise of luck variance, and no pool is ever going to tell you what their average bitcoind block change latency is, what their share processing latency is, what their stratum template propagation latency is and so on. So, your points about wasted work would be mostly to do with work lost on a change to a new block, and any found blocks being "stale" (too late to even be in an orphan race)? Say the time lost is on the order of ten seconds, that equates (on average) to a loss of ~ 1.7% of work, and about the same increase of necessary work to solve a block. That could account for pools with slightly poorer luck that is only significant in the long term. Or could the percentage figure be much worse than that? |
|
|
|
Great - mind posting an update when you're ready?
Sure, btw what sort of data and format do you want from it? It would be pretty easy for me to create an API for the existing data on it if it's too hard to parse, one issue is that it's not really designed for long term historical logging right now. The data I'd like is what you have - the block distribution latencies per block, ideally from as many parts of the network as possible. Your page is set up as a HTML table, so I can scrape that easily. The downside of HTML scraping is that if you make any changes to the page format it often breaks scripts, so generally an API is better (CSV or JSON format is fine, the flatter the structure the better). But for now, no need for any API. |
|
|
|
This is why we've been trying to raise awareness that a lot of what is put down to "luck" is everything + luck since there's only the composite final endpoint of blocks and no way to measure the rest. There's no API for it, this is just cgminer set up on a vps in balance mode detecting block changes from many pools and simply laying them out on that website. The owner goes by the handle bitsolutions here I think.
Do you have a thread about it that I've missed? From what you've written, the "luck" statistic (shares per block) can be influenced by orphans that aren't recognised as such (I guess some pools call them "stale" blocks?). I'd like to make a list of things that can make luck worse, and just of the top of my head: * incorrect reporting of orphaned blocks - either knowingly (not reporting orphaned blocks) or unknowingly (block is returned so late it is "stale" and bitcoind doesn't recognise it as a valid solution). * various types of knowing and unknowing block withholding attacks * a pool identifying both upper and lower case in a hash as different, so one hash can be submitted many times (eg GHash.IO) What am I missing? |
|
|
|
I didn't know that was possible, but if it is then I wonder how many other pools are starting to have this issue? Slush has had some significantly poor luck lately. BTW, who runs http://poolbench.antminer.link ? You know if they have a freely available API of some sort? Yeah, there's not really an API right now since the code is a massive hack job to say the least, I'm planning a rewrite at some point but I'm already backlogged with other things so it's not a priority. It should be simple to parse out the data from the html though. Great - mind posting an update when you're ready? |
|
|
|
For example, the time GHash.IO was under attack is clearly visible, and I'd be worried about EclipseMC.
Hi OOC If you watch EMC's performance on blockchanges here http://poolbench.antminer.link/ you'll see they're consistently more than 15 seconds behind almost everyone, from the SPV pools to the full validation ones. That's gonna make their orphanage work overtime in addition to it being so small these days. Thanks -ck, that's interesting. They haven't reported any orphaned blocks so it seems to be mostly luck - although such bad luck that unreported orphaned blocks might be a better explanation for it. Unless of course they're actually submitted so late that even their own bitcoind rejects it which is far more likely than it ever being even recognised as an orphan. Their bitcoinds recognising block changes does NOT equate with whenever a new work template is sent out by their pool server(s) which could be much later. I didn't know that was possible, but if it is then I wonder how many other pools are starting to have this issue? Slush has had some significantly poor luck lately. BTW, who runs http://poolbench.antminer.link ? You know if they have a freely available API of some sort? |
|
|
|
well my question is why not store all shifts? Meaning pay that one 25 BTC divided by ALL the work done, not just by a select group of people who happened to mined during x amount of time.
Is it the lack of server/storage space?
Icon
Thats a proportional reward method, one of the first reward methods used. However it's not used any more as it is proven to be exploitable. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
