Bitcoin Forum
October 18, 2017, 01:24:24 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 [178] 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [1200 TH] EMC: 0 Fee DGM. Anonymous PPS. US & EU servers. No Registration!  (Read 490506 times)
FLHippy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126



View Profile
October 10, 2012, 12:07:14 AM
 #3541


Interesting.  How long did you do this test?

M

About an hour in each configuration.
1508333064
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508333064

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508333064
Reply with quote  #2

1508333064
Report to moderator
1508333064
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508333064

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508333064
Reply with quote  #2

1508333064
Report to moderator
1508333064
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508333064

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508333064
Reply with quote  #2

1508333064
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
jamesg
VIP
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358


AKA: gigavps


View Profile
October 10, 2012, 12:17:53 AM
 #3542

I did some testing this afternoon using three workers on PPS.

Numbers:

combined daily earnings reported by website for all devices on 1 worker on us3. 0.61 BTC/day
combined daily earnings reported by website for one worker per device using us1,us2,us3 0.64 BTC/day
combined daily earnings reported by website for one worker per device using us3. 0.69 BTC/day

Hash rates reported by web server were 1.90Gh/s, 1.98GH/s, and 2.10GH/s


This is because us1 has the highest "share" variance because the server is targeting you to submit less shares per minute by using a higher diff. The more shares you submit per minute, the lower your variance.
mdude77
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1456



View Profile
October 10, 2012, 12:20:07 AM
 #3543


Interesting.  How long did you do this test?

M

About an hour in each configuration.

I don't think an hour is a fair test.  Maybe a week would shake out the inherent sine curve that tends to haunt mining.

M

I'm X-Fueled.  Are you?  I mine BTC at Kano's Pool, the best BTC pool on the planet!
Tip for NiceHash: use their wallet to decrease fees!  Check out Helium!  Referral for Cryptopia.
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2044


Poor impulse control.


View Profile WWW
October 10, 2012, 01:56:23 AM
 #3544

Didn't organofcorti post somewhere the appropriate calculation?
(for vardiff)

It's somewhere in the p2Pool thread.

I'm flat out like a lizard drinking atm, but I'll do an NPW post in the next few days with charts and look up tables based on either a miner selecting a pool difficulty, or a pool selecting a number of shares per minute for all miners.


Bitcoin network and pool analysis 12QxPHEuxDrs7mCyGSx1iVSozTwtquDB3r
follow @oocBlog for new post notifications
kano
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2240


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
October 10, 2012, 02:21:00 AM
 #3545


Interesting.  How long did you do this test?

M

About an hour in each configuration.
Hmm - I'll have to go find that hour where one of my rigs ran 30% above expected results and count that as proof that the pool was better than every other pool in existence ...

Yes that was sarcasm.

Seriously, 1 hour means almost nothing in terms of working out which is best for you ...

The simple fact is that with higher difficulty you will get higher variance.
Standard BTC 101

None of the 3 servers will get you more or less expected BTC in the long term.

Edit: what you are looking for is something along the lines of:
If my hash rate is X GH/s what difficulty would give me an expected variance similar to hashing at 1GH/s with 1 difficulty shares.
... and that's a maths problem - not an observation problem.

Pool: https://kano.is Here on Bitcointalk: Forum BTC: 1KanoPb8cKYqNrswjaA8cRDk4FAS9eDMLU
FreeNode IRC: irc.freenode.net channel #kano.is Majority developer of the ckpool code
Help keep Bitcoin secure by mining on pools with full block verification on all blocks - and NO empty blocks!
FLHippy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126



View Profile
October 10, 2012, 10:26:43 AM
 #3546


Yes that was sarcasm.

mean people suck.
FLHippy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126



View Profile
October 10, 2012, 10:33:46 AM
 #3547


Interesting.  How long did you do this test?

M

About an hour in each configuration.

I don't think an hour is a fair test.  Maybe a week would shake out the inherent sine curve that tends to haunt mining.

M


OOf... I keep expecting next week to be the end of gpu mining :/ I'm running on borrowed time  and every day brings less BTC Smiley
I think I'm just going to leave it where it is and just forget about it.
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2044


Poor impulse control.


View Profile WWW
October 10, 2012, 12:48:55 PM
 #3548

I had a bit more spare time than I thought I would, so I finished the post a little early. It's a bit of a rush job so please let me know if there are any words missing, typos, spelling errors etc.  Post is here: http://organofcorti.blogspot.com/2012/10/71-variable-pool-difficulty.html

If you have any comments or questions about it, please post a comment on the blog or leave a post here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=66026.0

Bitcoin network and pool analysis 12QxPHEuxDrs7mCyGSx1iVSozTwtquDB3r
follow @oocBlog for new post notifications
The00Dustin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 807


View Profile
October 10, 2012, 01:58:05 PM
 #3549

Would "a target of 13 shares per minute would keep variance most consistent with a 1gh/s connection" be a valid conclusion?  I gathered this primarily from the last chart in your blog.  I don't know if that is Inaba's goal anyway, but someone mentioned a desire for something to that effect.
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2240



View Profile
October 10, 2012, 02:04:39 PM
 #3550

Would "a target of 13 shares per minute would keep variance most consistent with a 1gh/s connection" be a valid conclusion?  I gathered this primarily from the last chart in your blog.  I don't know if that is Inaba's goal anyway, but someone mentioned a desire for something to that effect.
The exact number is 13.969838619232177734375 shares per minute: 60 seconds ÷ (232 nonces-per-pdiff1-share-on-average ÷ 1,000,000,000 hashes-per-second)

organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2044


Poor impulse control.


View Profile WWW
October 10, 2012, 02:06:47 PM
 #3551

Would "a target of 13 shares per minute would keep variance most consistent with a 1gh/s connection" be a valid conclusion?  I gathered this primarily from the last chart in your blog.  I don't know if that is Inaba's goal anyway, but someone mentioned a desire for something to that effect.

This probably belongs over in the Neighbourhood Pool Watch thread, but anyway your answer is no it would not be a valid conclusion. If Inaba plans on having a set difficulty per minute for all miners then the variation in average hashrate does not depend on the miner hashrate.

This case is covered in the first table in section two.

A better conclusion would be "a target of 13 shares per minute would keep variation in average average per minute hashrate to -55% to 64%, variation in average hourly hashrate to ~ +/- 7% and variation in average daily hashrate to +/- 1.4%, all with 95% confidence.

HTH.

Bitcoin network and pool analysis 12QxPHEuxDrs7mCyGSx1iVSozTwtquDB3r
follow @oocBlog for new post notifications
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2044


Poor impulse control.


View Profile WWW
October 10, 2012, 02:10:58 PM
 #3552

Would "a target of 13 shares per minute would keep variance most consistent with a 1gh/s connection" be a valid conclusion?  I gathered this primarily from the last chart in your blog.  I don't know if that is Inaba's goal anyway, but someone mentioned a desire for something to that effect.
The exact number is 13.969838619232177734375 shares per minute: 60 seconds ÷ (232 nonces-per-pdiff1-share-on-average ÷ 1,000,000,000 hashes-per-second)

OK then:

A target of 13.969838619232177734375 shares per minute would keep variation in average average per minute hashrate to -50% to 57.5%, variation in average hourly hashrate to ~ +/- 6.7% and variation in average daily hashrate to +/- 1.4%, all with 95% confidence.

Bitcoin network and pool analysis 12QxPHEuxDrs7mCyGSx1iVSozTwtquDB3r
follow @oocBlog for new post notifications
The00Dustin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 807


View Profile
October 10, 2012, 02:43:42 PM
 #3553

So a better conclusion (and I'm still in this thread because I am trying to understand your work only as it applies to his pool right now) would be "if one wants to use a target number of shares per minute, he can only refer to the graphs in the first section to cherry-pick a variation range."  I am assuming letting miners pick their target is a losing option based solely on my opinion of human nature.
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2044


Poor impulse control.


View Profile WWW
October 10, 2012, 02:50:56 PM
 #3554

So a better conclusion (and I'm still in this thread because I am trying to understand your work only as it applies to his pool right now) would be "if one wants to use a target number of shares per minute, he can only refer to the graphs in the first section to cherry-pick a variation range."

Yes. Or the table. Or the CSV files (can't post links here unfortunately)

I am assuming letting miners pick their target is a losing option based solely on my opinion of human nature.

Seems to work ok at HHTT.

Bitcoin network and pool analysis 12QxPHEuxDrs7mCyGSx1iVSozTwtquDB3r
follow @oocBlog for new post notifications
Inaba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile WWW
October 10, 2012, 03:08:15 PM
 #3555

It looks like 20 - 24 is an optimal range to satisfy the 1 minute emotional need for the vast majority of people... am I reading that right?

If you're searching these lines for a point, you've probably missed it.  There was never anything there in the first place.
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2044


Poor impulse control.


View Profile WWW
October 10, 2012, 03:33:06 PM
 #3556

It looks like 20 - 24 is an optimal range to satisfy the 1 minute emotional need for the vast majority of people... am I reading that right?

I think whatever you use the 1 minute variance is going to be something people will worry about. At 20 shares per minute the 95% CI for average per minute hashrate is -40% to +45%, and at 24 shares per minute the 95% CI for average per minute hashrate is -38% to +42%. At 1Ghps and difficulty 1 you're only submitting an average of 13.98 shares per minute anyway.

I'll try to find a way to compare variance miners already experience at pool D = 1 to what they'd experience at another D or number of shares per minute.

Otherwise I think the variance in share submission rates a 1Ghps miner experiences at pool D = 1 should be fine for most miners. Say 14 shares per minute to make it easier to calculate pool D. It also makes it easier for miners to know when the variable pool D begins - at 1Ghps and below pool D = 1, and above 1Ghps pool D starts to increase.

Unless you plan on making the relationship completely linear and reducing pool D to less than one? It would be a great selling point for the tinier miners.

Bitcoin network and pool analysis 12QxPHEuxDrs7mCyGSx1iVSozTwtquDB3r
follow @oocBlog for new post notifications
The00Dustin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 807


View Profile
October 10, 2012, 04:06:24 PM
 #3557

I am assuming letting miners pick their target is a losing option based solely on my opinion of human nature.

Seems to work ok at HHTT.
I assume ASICs don't exist yet.  I have seen a lot of posts about "the biggest miners donate the least."  IF the biggest miners are that selfish, it seems like a safe assumption that they will choose lower diff in order to decrease variance for the same reasons they donate the least.  I know this is an assumption, hence the comment: "based solely on my opinion of human nature."
Askit2
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 715


CHANGE - First Decentralised Global Crypto Bank


View Profile
October 10, 2012, 08:07:56 PM
 #3558

Hey Inaba could you check the email system. The last email I had delivered to inbox or junk mail was on Sunday.
Thank You!

CHANGE FINANCE First Decentralised Global Crypto Bank
LINK TO ICO | LINK TO DISCUSSION
kano
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2240


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
October 11, 2012, 06:47:25 AM
 #3559

...
Unless you plan on making the relationship completely linear and reducing pool D to less than one? It would be a great selling point for the tinier miners.
Although cgminer already works with LTC mining and thus handles fractional D, it wont actually work in any BTC miner (or cgminer) since they all check for H=0 thus you'd lose valid shares if D < 1

Seriously, that's a hard limit in all BTC mining since all BTC devices only return 1 Diff shares (H=0)

That's a big part of the 6.25% performance optimisation in GPU mining ... and anyone who reads this, and is thinking of suggesting all the mining devices and GPU OCL code be rewritten, simply doesn't understand the negative implications or the time wasted in trying to do that Smiley

Pool: https://kano.is Here on Bitcointalk: Forum BTC: 1KanoPb8cKYqNrswjaA8cRDk4FAS9eDMLU
FreeNode IRC: irc.freenode.net channel #kano.is Majority developer of the ckpool code
Help keep Bitcoin secure by mining on pools with full block verification on all blocks - and NO empty blocks!
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2044


Poor impulse control.


View Profile WWW
October 11, 2012, 07:00:01 AM
 #3560

I am assuming letting miners pick their target is a losing option based solely on my opinion of human nature.

Seems to work ok at HHTT.
I assume ASICs don't exist yet.  I have seen a lot of posts about "the biggest miners donate the least."  IF the biggest miners are that selfish, it seems like a safe assumption that they will choose lower diff in order to decrease variance for the same reasons they donate the least.  I know this is an assumption, hence the comment: "based solely on my opinion of human nature."

I don't know about "the biggest miners donate the least." I haven't seen any data on the subject. I have however seen lots of smaller miners complain when Ozcoin introduced fees a little while back. Shock! Horror! Paying for a pool? Inconceivable!

Anyway, this is now sufficiently OT. I return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

Bitcoin network and pool analysis 12QxPHEuxDrs7mCyGSx1iVSozTwtquDB3r
follow @oocBlog for new post notifications
Pages: « 1 ... 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 [178] 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!