Strange things with bitcoin.com pool (pool.bitcoin.com).

[dylben1234]

So I posted this same question on the bitcoin.com forums, but have yet to get a reply. Thought maybe someone here could shed some light...

`On the "Blocks" page, I notice 4 recent blocks that appear to have been found in pairs (i.e. the latter block has the exact same timestamp as the previous block.) The second block in the pair shows exactly 100.0% difficulty for both instances. The two blocks found at 20 Mar 2017 07:19:26 have consecutive heights. The blocks found at 22 Mar 2017 00:22:27 (most recent blocks found as I write this,) have heights which are 21 blocks apart, which would be impossible unless mining was occurring on two separate block-chains simultaneously, or mining was occurring on one and PoW was being submitted to the second as well. Is this the case? I'm trying to wrap my head around what's going on. Can you please fully explain this anomaly? Also can you please re-clarify exactly how the mining structure of this pool differs from a "standard" pool?'

For those that don't know, this is Roger Ver's personal pool and a co-venture with John McAfee.

It pays 110% of the block reward with no fees. They keep the TX fee, but doing the math, the pool barely breaks even. I asked and had confirmed on the official thread that the purpose of the pool was in fact not a money making venture, but instead to use the computing power culminated in the pool to help Ver influence the blockchain towards BU.

But anyway, they recently mined 2 "pairs" of blocks. The timestamps they show are close but don't exactly match the official time on the blockchain explorers I've checked. On their "found blocks" page it shows 2 sets of blocks with the same time stamps, as if the pool found 2 blocks at once. It seems impossible.

For reference to anyone without an account on the pool to see for yourself, the blocks are 458103 & 458104 (pair 1) and 458328 & 458349.

Something seems fishy. I don't know for sure. Maybe someone who knows more may be able to clarify. Thanks.

[beltsniffer]

So I posted this same question on the bitcoin.com forums, but have yet to get a reply. Thought maybe someone here could shed some light...

`On the "Blocks" page, I notice 4 recent blocks that appear to have been found in pairs (i.e. the latter block has the exact same timestamp as the previous block.) The second block in the pair shows exactly 100.0% difficulty for both instances. The two blocks found at 20 Mar 2017 07:19:26 have consecutive heights. The blocks found at 22 Mar 2017 00:22:27 (most recent blocks found as I write this,) have heights which are 21 blocks apart, which would be impossible unless mining was occurring on two separate block-chains simultaneously, or mining was occurring on one and PoW was being submitted to the second as well. Is this the case? I'm trying to wrap my head around what's going on. Can you please fully explain this anomaly? Also can you please re-clarify exactly how the mining structure of this pool differs from a "standard" pool?'

For those that don't know, this is Roger Ver's personal pool and a co-venture with John McAfee.

It pays 110% of the block reward with no fees. They keep the TX fee, but doing the math, the pool barely breaks even. I asked and had confirmed on the official thread that the purpose of the pool was in fact not a money making venture, but instead to use the computing power culminated in the pool to help Ver influence the blockchain towards BU.

But anyway, they recently mined 2 "pairs" of blocks. The timestamps they show are close but don't exactly match the official time on the blockchain explorers I've checked. On their "found blocks" page it shows 2 sets of blocks with the same time stamps, as if the pool found 2 blocks at once. It seems impossible.

For reference to anyone without an account on the pool to see for yourself, the blocks are 458103 & 458104 (pair 1) and 458328 & 458349.

Something seems fishy. I don't know for sure. Maybe someone who knows more may be able to clarify. Thanks.

Blocktrail.com has them at different times.

458349 Tuesday, March 21st 2017, 21:12:23
458328 Tuesday, March 21st 2017, 17:27:09
458103 Monday, March 20th 2017, 4:19:03
458102 Monday, March 20th 2017, 4:18:42

[dylben1234]

So I posted this same question on the bitcoin.com forums, but have yet to get a reply. Thought maybe someone here could shed some light...

`On the "Blocks" page, I notice 4 recent blocks that appear to have been found in pairs (i.e. the latter block has the exact same timestamp as the previous block.) The second block in the pair shows exactly 100.0% difficulty for both instances. The two blocks found at 20 Mar 2017 07:19:26 have consecutive heights. The blocks found at 22 Mar 2017 00:22:27 (most recent blocks found as I write this,) have heights which are 21 blocks apart, which would be impossible unless mining was occurring on two separate block-chains simultaneously, or mining was occurring on one and PoW was being submitted to the second as well. Is this the case? I'm trying to wrap my head around what's going on. Can you please fully explain this anomaly? Also can you please re-clarify exactly how the mining structure of this pool differs from a "standard" pool?'

For those that don't know, this is Roger Ver's personal pool and a co-venture with John McAfee.

It pays 110% of the block reward with no fees. They keep the TX fee, but doing the math, the pool barely breaks even. I asked and had confirmed on the official thread that the purpose of the pool was in fact not a money making venture, but instead to use the computing power culminated in the pool to help Ver influence the blockchain towards BU.

But anyway, they recently mined 2 "pairs" of blocks. The timestamps they show are close but don't exactly match the official time on the blockchain explorers I've checked. On their "found blocks" page it shows 2 sets of blocks with the same time stamps, as if the pool found 2 blocks at once. It seems impossible.

For reference to anyone without an account on the pool to see for yourself, the blocks are 458103 & 458104 (pair 1) and 458328 & 458349.

Something seems fishy. I don't know for sure. Maybe someone who knows more may be able to clarify. Thanks.

Blocktrail.com has them at different times.

458349 Tuesday, March 21st 2017, 21:12:23
458328 Tuesday, March 21st 2017, 17:27:09
458103 Monday, March 20th 2017, 4:19:03
458102 Monday, March 20th 2017, 4:18:42

Blockchain.info... I think there's a timezone difference, but doesn't explain the discrepancy in the pool info, also the time difference is larger than usual. Something's wrong. And the pool stats don't match anything, it's like it's just made up.
                                                   POOL STATS
#458349 - 2017-03-22 04:12:23-|  22 Mar 2017 00:22:27
#458328 - 2017-03-22 00:27:09-|  22 Mar 2017 00:22:27

#458104 - 2017-03-20 11:19:03-|  20 Mar 2017 07:19:26
#458103 - 2017-03-20 11:18:42-|  20 Mar 2017 07:19:26
#458102 - 2017-03-20 11:18:28*Not one of the "pairs". It was the above pair, but 14 seconds between blocks is also quite strange. It wasn't mined by bitcoin.com pool, but still, that's the shortest block gap I've ever personally seen.

There's always been something off to me about that pool. At the least they're cooking stats to attract more miners. But I feel like something bigger is afoot.

[beltsniffer]

Blockchain.info... I think there's a timezone difference, but doesn't explain the discrepancy in the pool info, also the time difference is larger than usual. Something's wrong. And the pool stats don't match anything, it's like it's just made up.
                                                   POOL STATS
#458349 - 2017-03-22 04:12:23-|  22 Mar 2017 00:22:27
#458328 - 2017-03-22 00:27:09-|  22 Mar 2017 00:22:27

#458104 - 2017-03-20 11:19:03-|  20 Mar 2017 07:19:26
#458103 - 2017-03-20 11:18:42-|  20 Mar 2017 07:19:26
#458102 - 2017-03-20 11:18:28*Not one of the "pairs". It was the above pair, but 14 seconds between blocks is also quite strange. It wasn't mined by bitcoin.com pool, but still, that's the shortest block gap I've ever personally seen.

There's always been something off to me about that pool. At the least they're cooking stats to attract more miners. But I feel like something bigger is afoot.

Probably, but I've never mined there or had a desire to. Though I understand the appeal of their 110% PPS, it's just not sustainable for the long term.

[dylben1234]

Blockchain.info... I think there's a timezone difference, but doesn't explain the discrepancy in the pool info, also the time difference is larger than usual. Something's wrong. And the pool stats don't match anything, it's like it's just made up.
                                                   POOL STATS
#458349 - 2017-03-22 04:12:23-|  22 Mar 2017 00:22:27
#458328 - 2017-03-22 00:27:09-|  22 Mar 2017 00:22:27

#458104 - 2017-03-20 11:19:03-|  20 Mar 2017 07:19:26
#458103 - 2017-03-20 11:18:42-|  20 Mar 2017 07:19:26
#458102 - 2017-03-20 11:18:28*Not one of the "pairs". It was the above pair, but 14 seconds between blocks is also quite strange. It wasn't mined by bitcoin.com pool, but still, that's the shortest block gap I've ever personally seen.

There's always been something off to me about that pool. At the least they're cooking stats to attract more miners. But I feel like something bigger is afoot.

Probably, but I've never mined there or had a desire to. Though I understand the appeal of their 110% PPS, it's just not sustainable for the long term.

It's not about who's mining on the pool. The implications go a lot further. This is the so called "Bitcoin Jesus's" personal pool. He's one of the largest holders of bitcoin, as well as several top Bitcoin domains (bitcoin.com for one.) That pool had its first controversy when it mined a block larger than 1MB a few months back. Now this with no explanation. This pool will be a major player in the BU / SegWIt debate when it all comes to a head. Roger Ver is one of the biggest proponents of BU, and has a lot to gain. Nowadays, the pool operators control the vote. If Ver is cooking statistics to gain more miners, more hashing power, more voting influence, that's a big deal. I'm not making any accusations, just suggesting the possibility. Perhaps this was all just an error, but maybe it isn't... Someone really needs to look into this. Someone with a little more blockchain forensic knowhow than I.

[os2sam]

Never heard of the pool, domain or the person.

I would recommend mining at some other pool that is better known and has a better reputation.

Are you wanting to mine at a pool that signals BU?  I think the mining pool list shows which pools are signalling what now.

[dylben1234]

Never heard of the pool, domain or the person.

I would recommend mining at some other pool that is better known and has a better reputation.

Are you wanting to mine at a pool that signals BU?  I think the mining pool list shows which pools are signalling what now.

Really, you've never heard of Roger Ver?? He was an early investor in bitcoin, and is attributed with its bringing into the main stream. He's the largest proponent of BU, so he's been in the (bitcoin related, but mainstream) news lately. The root site is bitcoin.com. The domain by name alone must be worth millions. The pool started about 6 months ago in beta, then went open signup a short while ago. Although I'm beginning to doubt everything I've read by them, and 90% of the posts in their forums I think are just their own search engine bait. The backers of BU have been extremely vocal of their backing, while slowly becoming less transparent in their business practices. Something is not right. Has anyone ever considered the implications of having inside knowledge on a looming hard fork? The major pools have all the say. Bitcoin is interesting in a trading sense. Insider trading isn't a crime, because it's not regulated as such. Ver would be fine with a hard fork, in fact, I believe he wants a hard fork. One that would ruin the chances of further legitimization and chances of capital being pumped into the system by the approvals of mainstream ETFs on big markets like the NYSE. I've heard it time and time again on this forum. Altcoins are pump and dump. Well why would the largest holders of BTC want BU and a hard fork, if BU will then essentially become an altcoin? Because initial trades of BU in the ensuing chaos will be worth a lot, as investors and holders try to make sense of the split. Dump your BU and hold onto the BTC. Yes, BTC will drop, but it will eventually recover (that's the long position,) the short is BU, which for a short while after a fork will be worth as much as BTC.

[kano]

The pool uses a modified ckpool and ckdb - there's a git of their version.
Unfortunately they did some really silly things with ckdb - but I guess they've been working on fixing them - I did explain to their dev in simple terms
(though I've no idea, I've not heard from them for quite a while)

[os2sam]

Never heard of the pool, domain or the person.

I would recommend mining at some other pool that is better known and has a better reputation.

Are you wanting to mine at a pool that signals BU?  I think the mining pool list shows which pools are signalling what now.

Really, you've never heard of Roger Ver?? He was an early investor in bitcoin, and is attributed with its bringing into the main stream. He's the largest proponent of BU, so he's been in the (bitcoin related, but mainstream) news lately.

Nope, never heard of him.  Not that that means anything.

If any one person should be attributed to bringing Bitcoin into the mainstream that would be Steve Gibson with this 2011 podcast

https://media.grc.com/sn/sn-287-lq.mp3

So it sounds like your not a BU proponent.  The Bitcoin mining pool list has pie charts showing which pools are signalling what.  So pick a reputable pool that signals what you want and quit stressing about some obscure pool which has an agenda.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=104664.msg1146108#msg1146108

Personally neither segwit nor BU are acceptable to me so I just want to stick with the status quo for now until someone comes up with a reasonable plan to increase block size incrementally according to the number of transactions available.  Increasing blocksize by 32MB or even 8MB at once would be bad for Bitcoin.  I believe where we are now is healthy, but I agree that we do need to plan for the future.

[QBblock]

I don't understand, what are the strange things?

[icon73]

Personally neither segwit nor BU are acceptable to me so I just want to stick with the status quo for now until someone comes up with a reasonable plan to increase block size incrementally according to the number of transactions available.  Increasing blocksize by 32MB or even 8MB at once would be bad for Bitcoin.  I believe where we are now is healthy, but I agree that we do need to plan for the future.

Doing nothing will likely result in continued loss of market to alt coins.  I personally believe Bitcoin Unlimited is the best solution that has been proposed.  You may want to do additional research, and begin to support a proposal, or make another.

[os2sam]

Personally neither segwit nor BU are acceptable to me so I just want to stick with the status quo for now until someone comes up with a reasonable plan to increase block size incrementally according to the number of transactions available.  Increasing blocksize by 32MB or even 8MB at once would be bad for Bitcoin.  I believe where we are now is healthy, but I agree that we do need to plan for the future.

Doing nothing will likely result in continued loss of market to alt coins.  I personally believe Bitcoin Unlimited is the best solution that has been proposed.  You may want to do additional research, and begin to support a proposal, or make another.

Well it seems to me that either option makes Bitcoin and alt coin anyway.  So if there is a good alt coin that rises to prominence that may be better than these available options, which are full of personal agendas, then so be it.  If Bitcoin REALLY needs to be constantly tweaked and turned into something that it wasn't supposed to be in order to survive, then it should be allowed to die!  However I don't believe that it is in need of constant tweaking.  Bitcoin just needs to be allowed to do what is was designed to do.  With the exception of the P2SH fiasco Bitcoin is doing what it was intended, and quite well.

I agree I should do some more research, but unfortunately there is very little objective information out there.  Most of what I have seen full of FUD, name calling and agendas that are not good for Bitcoin.  So if you know of a thread which has true Objective information that explains things clearly I would love to see it.

As far as coming up with a better proposal, I lack the programming skills to develop a workable solution.  So I leave that to others who do have the skills for that.  I just hope there are some dev's who not only have the comp sci skills but also some wisdom.  I just haven't seen that yet.

[Qartada]

Personally neither segwit nor BU are acceptable to me so I just want to stick with the status quo for now until someone comes up with a reasonable plan to increase block size incrementally according to the number of transactions available.  Increasing blocksize by 32MB or even 8MB at once would be bad for Bitcoin.  I believe where we are now is healthy, but I agree that we do need to plan for the future.

Doing nothing will likely result in continued loss of market to alt coins.  I personally believe Bitcoin Unlimited is the best solution that has been proposed.  You may want to do additional research, and begin to support a proposal, or make another.

If Bitcoin REALLY needs to be constantly tweaked and turned into something that it wasn't supposed to be in order to survive, then it should be allowed to die!  However I don't believe that it is in need of constant tweaking.

Bitcoin was supposed to be able to adapt to different situations and change, with the same intended overall purposes, and it should be allowed to do so.

We can exclude BU from that though, since it's not really Bitcoin, it's a separate coin based around Bitcoin.

[icon73]

We can exclude BU from that though, since it's not really Bitcoin, it's a separate coin based around Bitcoin.

You apparently need to do more research.  BU is the only solution that follows the original whitepaper.  The block size was intended to be variable. 

[hansen.ng]

Please do not mine here. You will lose your earning. I tried withdrawing and it won't let me.

[icon73]

Please do not mine here. You will lose your earning. I tried withdrawing and it won't let me.

While you seem to be spamming everyplace that you are not being paid, I think everyone else who is using the pool is being paid just fine.  I get nightly payments at 11pm PDT exactly on time.  You are obviously doing something wrong.

[hansen.ng]

Please do not mine here. You will lose your earning. I tried withdrawing and it won't let me.

While you seem to be spamming everyplace that you are not being paid, I think everyone else who is using the pool is being paid just fine.  I get nightly payments at 11pm PDT exactly on time.  You are obviously doing something wrong.

The support finally got in touch with me and got everything resolved.

[-ck]

One thread is enough for this pool:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1816313.0
Locking this one.