Interesting test I did today. I was bored. LOL
With 3.4-3.6PH the pool averaged 204-205 SPS.
I added a 3PH rental from nicehash and westhash to the pool for a while and the share rate only increased to 208SPS average.
Shouldn't it have gone up quite a bit more than that?
They use proxies which combine the shares from multiple machines into much less connections. Does that mena less shares are actually transferred to the pool then? Just a fictitious hash rate increase, but no real increase in shares? Diff |
|
|
|
Interesting test I did today. I was bored. LOL
With 3.4-3.6PH the pool averaged 204-205 SPS.
I added a 3PH rental from nicehash and westhash to the pool for a while and the share rate only increased to 208SPS average.
Shouldn't it have gone up quite a bit more than that?
They use proxies which combine the shares from multiple machines into much less connections. |
|
|
|
P2pool?
It would be nice if some other pools would step in. The T1 has a very fast block change system so would work very well on p2pool if someone were to add version rolling support to it. |
|
|
|
Thanks for the great work on this firmware series -ck. I'm loving the fact that in efficiency mode I can actually work in the same room without hearing protection  Do we need to re-run tuning to take advantage of the changes in 20180425_055323? Did the fan controller change from 20180421? It's overshooting/hunting more in my environment (efficiency mode / 25C room / ~35% fan speed). Lastly, a feature request for consideration - is it feasible to store the tuning results for the various modes so the tuning process isn't necessary on mode switch? Retuning will help with balanced but not the others. Tuning takes less time now though (about 20 mins). Yes I need to roll back the fan changes, I don't like them either (not all changes are mine.) |
|
|
|
T1 tries to have the chip at 75C right?
All my miners have their fans at ~60% with temps at ~69C-71C. But one miner is always at 100% even though the temps never get higher than 71C.
I tried both t1_20180418_054846.swu and t1_20180421_081246.swu firmware. But the results seems consistent : 100% fan and 71C.
Just for troubleshooting, I tried to unplug/replug and I also tried to change the efficiency->balanced->efficiency, just to make sure it was to efficiency setting.
Someone has an idea why this would happen?
It tries to have the hottest chain at 70-75. The only time the hottest chain will be kept lower than 70 degrees is if there is a hot spot with one of the chips being hotter than the rest and close to dangerous levels and then it will keep the fan higher speed intentionally. |
|
|
|
They said T2's are going on sale when T1's ship out.
I'm mixed on the integrated PSU, leaning towards liking it. Quicker setup time!
The myrig PSUs are too noisy compared to the T1 if you run it in efficient mode. A good efficient ATX power supply is much quieter and if noise is an issue and you plan to run them in efficient mode, having the PSU incorporated is a disadvantage. On the other hand, most hardware is so loud these days that almost no one is trying to run them in their actual home. The T1 in efficient mode with a quiet PSU can be run in your home or garage over winter (but not in the same room as you.) |
|
|
|
I don't even know if the T1 can mine at -ck solo pool which would be a 5th pool
Yes it does; I announced support for it on the solo pool thread a long time ago but no one noticed (or perhaps cared.) |
|
|
|
|
No, you misunderstood. You're free to post what you want provided you follow the rules of the forum and subsection - you are creating extra hardware threads when there already is one for the T1s. Post on the existing thread instead of starting a new one; you are only allowed to create a new one if the original thread is self moderated and you wish to start a thread that isn't.
This thread will be removed in time too since it's a moderation discussion and not mining.
Locked.
|
|
|
|
-ck, since 'the other guy' is blocking NH from his pool I assume that NH uses specific ip-addresses or something that identifies a NH rental? If so, could you then not also do an analysis of these rentals on the solo pool? I'm not saying that you should because the burden is with NH itself but I'm just wondering if it could it be done? (if you had the time and inclination to do so which I'm guessing you don't  ) To do a meaningful statistical analysis I'd need to get 10 x diff shares from NH. At this pool's hashrate that would take about 3 years, assuming all the hashrate came from NH, which it is not. Meaning even if I wanted to do such an analysis, I can't. Proving block withholding is actually very difficult and always has been. |
|
|
|
Ohh.. So it was not been proven yet that it actually can be done maliciously then??
Do you want me to prove it? Unfortunately I don't have hundreds of PH at my disposal to convince you but if you set up a low diff testnet pool I can mine at it for days without finding a block for you. |
|
|
|
So how do miners then do block withholding?
That's something I'd rather not educate people on how to do. I wasn't asking on instructions how to do it, but then how do we tell if a rental or anyone is doing it as I have read you write they are? I mean , logically, if we don't know, how do we know it REALLY exists. It's the falling tree in the forest dilemma. If by "exists" you're asking whether someone out there is intentionally or unwittingly block withholding, I cannot answer the question though there have been pools that have inexplicably bad luck from entities in the past that they then blacklisted which turned out to be faulty miner hardware/software designs allegedly rather than malice (as if they'd admit to that anyway). As for a mechanism to do it intentionally, yes it "exists". |
|
|
|
So how do miners then do block withholding?
That's something I'd rather not educate people on how to do. |
|
|
|
...Ever since the banished S9 Batch 1 were said to be bringing bad luck to that pool.....
I'm not sure which I hated more, that claim or the "math" that "supported" it.  While most people who've been around for long enough will know there's no love lost between us, I think it's best to leave discussion of his pool outside this thread please. |
|
|
|
Also how can blockwithholding from rentals like nicehash be proven or tracked?
You can't prove or track it unless you can see the logs of (1) each share submitted by the miners, and then to (2) NH, and then to the solo pool. Since 1 & 2 are opaque, you can't see what they say the share diff is. The only ones that would have enough data to monitor for block withholding is nicehash and they'd have to keep track of every miner's share count and block finds and report the data - this is NOT a big task. As this should be nicehash's responsibility, especially considering the fee they charge, I think they're not providing an adequate service. No one has held them accountable for it and have been blindly buying hashes from them. The miners providing the hashrate stand to gain by block withholding as they get paid regardless of whether blocks are found or not, yet it is in their favour to keep bitcoin difficulty down. Buyer beware. |
|
|
|
Dafuq is an "Eobot"? It's a btc.com fuqup. blockchain.info has the same tag  So someone fuqed up the API they all use. Maybe they recognise eobot from the generation transaction address - perhaps eobot is mining on solo and there's conflict; there certainly is a lot of cash going into that address that solved it, some blocks that weren't found on this pool even. |
|
|
|
Dafuq is an "Eobot"? It's a btc.com fuqup. |
|
|
|
This version is much the same as the previous one I posted, but it includes throttling code in case of overheat instead of just shutting down. |
|
|
|
[2018-04-21 16:01:08.817] Possible block solve diff 14431499523259.867188 !
[2018-04-21 16:01:08.876] BLOCK ACCEPTED!
[2018-04-21 16:01:08.885] Solved and confirmed block 519311 by 16GsNC3q6KgVXkUX7j7aPxSUdHrt1sN2yN
[2018-04-21 16:01:08.885] User 16GsNC3q6KgVXkUX7j7aPxSUdHrt1sN2yN:{"hashrate1m": "1.38P", "hashrate5m": "1.31P", "hashrate1hr": "1.24P", "hashrate1d": "1.27P", "hashrate7d": "1.23P"}
[2018-04-21 16:01:08.885] Worker 16GsNC3q6KgVXkUX7j7aPxSUdHrt1sN2yN:{"hashrate1m": "1.38P", "hashrate5m": "1.31P", "hashrate1hr": "1.24P", "hashrate1d": "1.27P", "hashrate7d": "1.23P"}
[2018-04-21 16:01:08.886] Block solved after 1107906701788 shares at 28.9% diff
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
