arklan
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400


May 20, 2012, 02:51:32 AM 

hmm. interesting. removing the http:// corrected the poclbm issue, (yay!) but for p2pool poclbm says "Problems communicating with bitcoin RPC 1 2"
EDIT: although, sincei can just connect to p2pmining.com, i suppose, for now, it's a non issue. thanks for the help smoov!







Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.


Smoovious


May 20, 2012, 02:57:07 AM 

nope. tried that just now. (also "localhost") still the same message.
...when i break things, i break 'em good.
stopped and restarted the miner? oh... and, what version guiminer?  Smoov




arklan
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400


May 20, 2012, 02:59:09 AM 

guiminer v20120219.
stop and started several times, yea. but like i siad  i'm giving up and sticking with p2pmining.com, for now. i'll sort this out when i get an fpga.




Smoovious


May 20, 2012, 03:02:18 AM 

hmm. interesting. removing the http:// corrected the poclbm issue, (yay!) but for p2pool poclbm says "Problems communicating with bitcoin RPC 1 2"
EDIT: although, sincei can just connect to p2pmining.com, i suppose, for now, it's a non issue. thanks for the help smoov!
GUIminer, for me at least, doesn't seem to like to remember the port I want it on in between runs, putting it back to 8332 when I run it again. Did it do that this time? Should be 9332  Smoov





arklan
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400


May 20, 2012, 03:07:58 AM 

hmm. interesting. removing the http:// corrected the poclbm issue, (yay!) but for p2pool poclbm says "Problems communicating with bitcoin RPC 1 2"
EDIT: although, sincei can just connect to p2pmining.com, i suppose, for now, it's a non issue. thanks for the help smoov!
GUIminer, for me at least, doesn't seem to like to remember the port I want it on in between runs, putting it back to 8332 when I run it again. Did it do that this time? Should be 9332  Smoov nope. not that. wait... it... oh for fucks sake. i had typed 9333 before. *headdesk* shoot me now. it's working fine.




check_status


May 20, 2012, 03:19:40 AM 

hmm. interesting. removing the http:// corrected the poclbm issue, (yay!) but for p2pool poclbm says "Problems communicating with bitcoin RPC 1 2"
EDIT: although, sincei can just connect to p2pmining.com, i suppose, for now, it's a non issue. thanks for the help smoov!
GUIminer, for me at least, doesn't seem to like to remember the port I want it on in between runs, putting it back to 8332 when I run it again. Did it do that this time? Should be 9332  Smoov nope. not that. wait... it... oh for fucks sake. i had typed 9333 before. *headdesk* shoot me now. it's working fine. I was close. It was a port issue, just didn't involve a firewall.

For Bitcoin to be a true global currency the value of BTC needs always to rise. If BTC became the global currency & money supply = 100 Trillion then ⊅1.00 BTC = $4,761,904.76. P2Pool Server List  How To's and Guides Mega List  1 EndfedSryGUZK9sPrdvxHntYzv2EBexGA



arklan
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400


May 20, 2012, 03:21:09 AM 

reason to not try ot fix things when alseep #1324662324...




kano
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2156
Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


May 20, 2012, 03:41:46 AM 

⊅ 'not a superset of' So BTC is not a superset of anything? While we're at it then, in the same vein, we could use ☃  meaning not a snowballs chance in ...

Pool: https://kano.is Here on Bitcointalk: Forum BTC: 1 KanoPb8cKYqNrswjaA8cRDk4FAS9eDMLU 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!



Smoovious


May 20, 2012, 03:42:22 AM 

I like that one... Say I am telling someone to send me 9 BTC I'd just say Send me ⊍9⊍ Smoov




bitpop
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2100
https://keybase.io/bitpop


May 20, 2012, 03:45:10 AM 

☃




organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2044
Poor impulse control.


May 20, 2012, 03:46:09 AM 

Why would you expect that? It really depends on how the luck is calculated and what the luck % actually means right. Then you can get a confidence interval of how likely it is to be chance. You cant just guess this kind of stuff though, you have to calculate it. I guess that 90% means that we are getting 90% of the expectation value. One thought is that we have so many hashes going on that you would expect real tight statistics, but you have to remember that the probability is exceedingly low so you may not expect the distribution to be as tight as first thought. Given our number of trials for the last 90 days, and the number of hits is .9 within a std dev.? (Im guessing this has probably been discussed elsewhere ) The mean (roundshares/difficulty) for the last 442 rounds is approx: 1.12 The sd (roundshares/difficulty) for the last 442 rounds is approx: 1.10 So the probability a mean (roundshares/difficulty) being greater than the current mean is given by the normal CDF for a quantile of 1.12 in a normal dist with a mean of 1 and sd = sqrt(442)/1.1. The result is 0.013. So there's only a 1.3% chance that a larger mean than this could exist if the population mean is actually 1.0. What does this mean? Well, it can't be completely accurate, for one thing. Included in the mean calculations are negative round shares, and the round shares are calculated from hashrate, not share submissions. But I think it does nothing to disprove the possibility that on average p2Pool users are earning less than at other pools (except deepbit PPS).




Smoovious


May 20, 2012, 03:53:53 AM 

...math... Alright... off to the corner for a half hour, for sticking a bunch of math into the middle of our silliness...  Smoov




organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2044
Poor impulse control.


May 20, 2012, 04:20:10 AM 

...math... Alright... off to the corner for a half hour, for sticking a bunch of math into the middle of our silliness...  Smoov And here I was thinking p2Pool users were a cut above the average miner




tucenaber


May 20, 2012, 06:18:45 AM 

*Image removed* (Late to the party, I jumped on ancow for no reason when it was check_status who used the symbol in crazy ways.)




rav3n_pl
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1344
Don`t panic! Organize!


May 20, 2012, 11:47:57 AM 

For about 2 weeks of mining my 6770 (~170MH/s) I get 1.3BTC from p2pool. I tried bigger pools earlier, where pay2share is and i get MUCH LESS (even 5x less!). P2pool is best for me




nibor


May 20, 2012, 02:36:52 PM 

I did some statistical analysis and simulation of the expected Luck for p2pool. From it the current Luck over 90 days of 87.3% is at about the 99% confidence band. i.e. with luck this low there is only a 1% chance that it is caused by bad luck and a 99% chance it is a bug. See this spreadsheet for my proof and simulation. http://bitcoinstatus.rowit.co.uk/p2pool/odds.xlsmIn doing this I had to make a number of assumptions: 1) BTC hash rate constant at 12T Hash/sec 2) P2Pool hash rate constant at 300 G Hash/sec (about average over last 90 days). 3) BTC and P2Pool difficulty constant over period. In summary for 90 day luck I would expect luck to be 100% with a standard deviation of 5.6%. So as you can see 87.3% is unlikely by possible. On the spreadsheet you can update the current BTC hash rate and also the pool hash rate and it will recalculate the Luck standard deviations for each of the 3 time periods. It will also update the chart on the second tab. Also note that when looking at the chart on the second tab press F9 to rerun the simulation and get another chart (and enable macros when you open it). Other possibility is that the charts on p2pool.info have a bug. Has anyone audited their numbers? Below is image of simulation that shows assumptions seem to be reasonable:




organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2044
Poor impulse control.


May 20, 2012, 03:22:37 PM 

Other possibility is that the charts on p2pool.info have a bug. Has anyone audited their numbers?
Yes, five posts above yours. I'm not following what your calculations mean or what they're based on, though, or what the simulation is for. A p value is easily determined by assuming a normal distribution of means and applying the CDF. In this case: H0: The population mean (round length/difficulty) = 1 Ha: The population mean (round length/difficulty) > 1 The p.value is 0.013, so there's a good probability that the mean roundlength/D for p2Pool is greater than 1.0 How did you calculate your confidence interval? I'm intrigued.




Tittiez


May 20, 2012, 03:36:09 PM 

For about 2 weeks of mining my 6770 (~170MH/s) I get 1.3BTC from p2pool. I tried bigger pools earlier, where pay2share is and i get MUCH LESS (even 5x less!). P2pool is best for me 0.099 x 14 Days = 1.386BTC If you were mining at a 0% Fee PPS pool you would make more then what your making now.




nibor


May 20, 2012, 04:19:02 PM 

How did you calculate your confidence interval? I'm intrigued.
I have not looked at round length, as that is zero bounded so not normally distributed. I instead looked at Blocks in Given period. So long as the period is reasonably long such that the odds of finding zero blocks in that period is very close to zero, these are normally distributed. I also looked at the odds of a given share being "low" enough to find a block. So since the probability (i.e. mean) of a share being a block is just the relative difficulties / 60 (as shares occur every 10 secs but block every 10 mins). So in my example this was 1/2400. i.e. one share in 2400 is expected to find a block. This is a Bernoulli process. So the variance of a share finding a block is p . (1  p) where p is the probability of a share finding a block. So for one share: Mean = 1/2400 = 0.00041666 Variance = 1/2400.(11/2400)=0.0004164931 The spreadsheet shows that the above is true by simulating. I then say that the 90 day "Blocks Found" variance can be calculated by saying that it is just the sum of 777600 (6 per min . 60 mins . 24 hours. 90 days) independent and uncorrelated random variables (i.e. each share), so I can just sum the means and variances. So the Mean for this is 777600 * 0.000416666 = 323.94 blocks per 90 day period. And the Variance = 777600 * 0.0004164931 = 323.79 Standard Deviation = sqrt(323.79)=17.99 So to convert the 90 Blocks Standard Deviation into "90 Day Luck" I just have to divide by the expected blocks in that period: StdDev of 90 day Luck = 17.99/323.79 = 0.0555 = 5.5% So I would expect the 90 day Luck to be 100% with a standard distribution of 5.5%. So the current figure of 87.3 is 2.3 standard distributions from the mean, so unlikely but possible. Make sense? Do you think I am correct in my logic?




