|
TiborB
|
 |
December 01, 2013, 01:24:30 AM |
|
I have the impression something is strange in the way shares are counted (or displayed) for very long rounds at current difficulty. Let us see the data:
block 272385, duration 7:48:38, number of shares: 2147483647
block 272149, duration 7:04:27, number of shares: 2147483647
It is rather improbable, but theoretically possible to get the exact same number of shares for these two rounds.
If you look at the number 2147483647 a bit closer, the situation looks even more suspicious.
2147483647 = 231-1
This should raise an alert to people familiar with programming...
It might be merely an issue of how data is displayed, or it might eventually be rooted in deeper layers which might or might not have other side effects.
Anyone any comment?
Cheers,
T
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lucko
|
|
December 01, 2013, 01:34:02 AM |
|
I have the impression something is strange in the way shares are counted (or displayed) for very long rounds at current difficulty. Let us see the data:
block 272385, duration 7:48:38, number of shares: 2147483647
block 272149, duration 7:04:27, number of shares: 2147483647
It is rather improbable, but theoretically possible to get the exact same number of shares for these two rounds.
If you look at the number 2147483647 a bit closer, the situation looks even more suspicious.
2147483647 = 231-1
This should raise an alert to people familiar with programming...
It might be merely an issue of how data is displayed, or it might eventually be rooted in deeper layers which might or might not have other side effects.
Anyone any comment?
Cheers,
T
Well yes it looks to be a problem... I just swiched back to Slush to get BTC I had out and this is what I got for that block for 7+ hours at 100GH... 21007 2013-12-01 00:37:37 7:48:38 2147483647 none none 272385 25.20690867 87 confirmations left Since next block is already calculated 21008 2013-12-01 01:27:43 0:50:06 265077329 66440 0.00642591 272398 25.02827623 99 confirmations left I guess this is an error and I left Slush because of that kind of errors... So I guess it will be best to just forgot my BTC hire and go... |
|
|
|
|
|
nybbler905
|
|
December 01, 2013, 02:12:20 AM |
|
21007 2013-12-01 00:37:37 7:48:38 2147483647 none none 272385 25.20690867 83 confirmations left
What??? i'm trying out block erupter usb sticks and it's fairly consistant until that block... ' none ' when even if i'm sooo slow at just over 1.00 gHash/sec for it to actualy be of value after 7 hours, it should NOT say ' none '
For Perspective...
21009 2013-12-01 01:32:02 0:04:19 22915150 71 0.00007444 272399 25.03550690 97 confirmations left
21008 2013-12-01 01:27:43 0:50:06 265077329 695 0.00006535 272398 25.02827623 96 confirmations left
21007 2013-12-01 00:37:37 7:48:38 2147483647 none none 272385 25.20690867 83 confirmations left
21006 2013-11-30 16:48:59 0:47:42 251032842 670 0.00005810 272318 25.03404462 16 confirmations left
21005 2013-11-30 16:01:17 0:36:01 189004238 476 0.00006833 272313 25.07062858 11 confirmations left
21004 2013-11-30 15:25:16 2:20:08 739833931 1961 0.00007462 272307 25.18938665 5 confirmations left
21003 2013-11-30 13:05:08 0:57:13 308486793 819 0.00006235 272288 25.25633454 confirmed
21002 2013-11-30 12:07:55 1:07:11 355945193 916 0.00005303 272284 25.04851601 confirmed
21001 2013-11-30 11:00:44 1:03:22 328906191 858 0.00006505 272271 25.01071321 confirmed
21000 2013-11-30 09:57:22 1:17:49 406216337 1069 0.00006336 272260 25.12306089 confirmed
20999 2013-11-30 08:39:33 0:28:41 150222160 398 0.00006666 272255 25.24613312 confirmed
20998 2013-11-30 08:10:52 1:38:52 518634435 1401 0.00006232 272251 25.28002503 confirmed
20997 2013-11-30 06:32:00 0:54:52 287744552 740 0.00006716 272242 25.02774408 confirmed
|
Always looking for donations even as low as 1uBTC
14XfpYPdtYiGoEiDcKrSzuvBM3ukhwANUh - BTC
LS7FEfu9ajp3NQcDjui9TSKscwQesj9i8k - LTC
LHe9g5ixMyfdtqAEHU5vErG1eQrDshBFRW -Luckycoin
|
|
|
|
TiborB
|
|
December 01, 2013, 02:16:34 AM |
|
21007 2013-12-01 00:37:37 7:48:38 2147483647 none none 272385 25.20690867 83 confirmations left
What??? i'm trying out block erupter usb sticks and it's fairly consistant until that block... ' none ' when even if i'm sooo slow at just over 1.00 gHash/sec for it to actualy be of value after 7 hours, it should NOT say ' none '
For Perspective...
21009 2013-12-01 01:32:02 0:04:19 22915150 71 0.00007444 272399 25.03550690 97 confirmations left
21008 2013-12-01 01:27:43 0:50:06 265077329 695 0.00006535 272398 25.02827623 96 confirmations left
21007 2013-12-01 00:37:37 7:48:38 2147483647 none none 272385 25.20690867 83 confirmations left
21006 2013-11-30 16:48:59 0:47:42 251032842 670 0.00005810 272318 25.03404462 16 confirmations left
21005 2013-11-30 16:01:17 0:36:01 189004238 476 0.00006833 272313 25.07062858 11 confirmations left
21004 2013-11-30 15:25:16 2:20:08 739833931 1961 0.00007462 272307 25.18938665 5 confirmations left
21003 2013-11-30 13:05:08 0:57:13 308486793 819 0.00006235 272288 25.25633454 confirmed
21002 2013-11-30 12:07:55 1:07:11 355945193 916 0.00005303 272284 25.04851601 confirmed
21001 2013-11-30 11:00:44 1:03:22 328906191 858 0.00006505 272271 25.01071321 confirmed
21000 2013-11-30 09:57:22 1:17:49 406216337 1069 0.00006336 272260 25.12306089 confirmed
20999 2013-11-30 08:39:33 0:28:41 150222160 398 0.00006666 272255 25.24613312 confirmed
20998 2013-11-30 08:10:52 1:38:52 518634435 1401 0.00006232 272251 25.28002503 confirmed
20997 2013-11-30 06:32:00 0:54:52 287744552 740 0.00006716 272242 25.02774408 confirmed
Reading the two posts immediately before yours might give you some idea about this phenomenon. This seems to be affecting many of us. |
|
|
|
|
Tazza
Jr. Member
 Offline
Activity: 41
|
|
December 01, 2013, 02:20:46 AM |
|
Also, I know it has been explained several times before in this thread, but I am no CS major, so most of the lingo used is Greek to me. But looking at my stats I see several blocks where I have 2,3,4 or 5 shares listed, but with no reward. And other blocks with the same amount of shares but with rewards. Is this normal?
Hi Steve, Yep - it's normal. In order to stop people jumping from one pool to another each share is 'weighted' so that those submitted towards the end of a block being found are effectively worth more. Because you're only submitting a few shares each round what's happening is the system sees your last share was submitted x minutes/hours ago and thinks you've buggered off to another pool even though you haven't. The rounds where you have been rewarded are those in which your last share was close enough to the end of the round to still count. It happens to me every now and again when my net connection will drop out for a bit at the end of a round (Mobile broadband so it has a tendency to do that) and I'll get zero reward as well. Cheers |
|
|
|
|
macsheadroom
Member
Offline
Activity: 91
Computer Service Tech
|
|
December 01, 2013, 02:46:56 AM |
|
My reward was half what it should have been, hopefully it will be corrected.
21009 2013-12-01 01:32:02 0:04:19 22915150 2396 0.00260434 272399 25.03550690 94 confirmations left
21008 2013-12-01 01:27:43 0:50:06 265077329 26418 0.00226590 272398 25.02827623 93 confirmations left
21007 2013-12-01 00:37:37 7:48:38 2147483647 122738 0.00122464 272385 25.20690867 80 confirmations left
21006 2013-11-30 16:48:59 0:47:42 251032842 26584 0.00260305 272318 25.03404462 13 confirmations left
21005 2013-11-30 16:01:17 0:36:01 189004238 19118 0.00256829 272313 25.07062858 8 confirmations left
21004 2013-11-30 15:25:16 2:20:08 739833931 76904 0.00248505 272307 25.18938665 2 confirmations left
21003 2013-11-30 13:05:08 0:57:13 308486793 32274 0.00294020 272288 25.25633454 confirmed
|
1FQkmrwQ7yf9MKGLsAUhY2jgMT8WjepwL7
|
|
|
|
bspurloc
|
|
December 01, 2013, 02:56:14 AM |
|
Pondering what the issue with reported hash rate and hash rate slush shows with Blades...
All my Asic USB Miners are dead on their reported hash rate and the slush report.
for example one group of eruptors 22 report 7300mh/s and slush shows 7202.33 which is essentially the same taking into account luck...
However my blades are all consistently 600-2000mh/s wrong.
these 2 grouped together should be 18gh/s yet slush has been showing 15619.041 for days.
10.89/ 8.06/ 7.81Gh/s | A:8791 R:191+0(2.3%) HW:476/.80%
11.97/11.10/10.44Gh/s | A:66460 R:1463+0(2.2%) HW:24273/3.9%
Another blade is running at 8gh/s but consistently shows 7511.846.
I guess that one isnt as bad.
just seems odd the blades have a bigger loss compared to 22 eruptors. Is that normal?
They might be restarting if they are not cool enough. I had issues with my router and eventually went with a crossover cable from my laptop to switch to blades, you might want to try a different way of networking the blades. Other than that, on startup it usually takes the pool's web UI a while to "catch up". If you have a good wind tunnel and solid network connection it should be fine running through the proxy. In regards to other discussion here, I'm almost double the minimum threshold with no payout. nah they arent restarting. one is in a server room cool as anything the other 2 have more than enough fans on them.... funny thing is now slush has 1 of them exactly at their hashing power. Up Time: 4d,09h,48m,54s all 3 have been online 3-4 days. this isnt a network issue. the network issue is why 2 are only at 8gh/s which I havent figured out why these stupid blades have issues with highend switches. and why or lets say WHERE they found 10mbit chips instead of 100mbit. must have been a huge unused stockpile somewhere in China they are using on these blades. |
|
|
|
|
|
bspurloc
|
|
December 01, 2013, 02:58:31 AM |
|
just seems odd the blades have a bigger loss compared to 22 eruptors. Is that normal? It might be that your internet bandwidth is throttling the throughput. I recently noticed that my set-up on cable broadband slows from around 8.6GH to 2.5GH in the early evening when all the World of Warcraft players and video downloaders get busy, before creeping slowly upwards to its normal level by around midnight; I tried swapping to an ADSL broadband connection and got no more than 4.5GH even off-peak. I use a Jalapeno and two block eruptors mining through BFGminer; the reported hash rates for all three devices vary in proportion. well slsuh auto adjusts the diffs to a setting that is supposed to cut down on traffic. but these blades only have 10mbits chips on them so its impossible for them to overload a 100mbit circuit since they themselves cant move that much traffic |
|
|
|
|
|
bspurloc
|
|
December 01, 2013, 03:24:57 AM |
|
Pondering what the issue with reported hash rate and hash rate slush shows with Blades...
All my Asic USB Miners are dead on their reported hash rate and the slush report.
for example one group of eruptors 22 report 7300mh/s and slush shows 7202.33 which is essentially the same taking into account luck...
However my blades are all consistently 600-2000mh/s wrong.
these 2 grouped together should be 18gh/s yet slush has been showing 15619.041 for days.
10.89/ 8.06/ 7.81Gh/s | A:8791 R:191+0(2.3%) HW:476/.80%
11.97/11.10/10.44Gh/s | A:66460 R:1463+0(2.2%) HW:24273/3.9%
Another blade is running at 8gh/s but consistently shows 7511.846.
I guess that one isnt as bad.
just seems odd the blades have a bigger loss compared to 22 eruptors. Is that normal?
OH!!!! NEVER MIND! haha.... I see what is wrong!! I have one of the blades pointing to an account that has Eruptors on it. However the reason I didnt notice this is because the blades on single accounts were showing lower on Slush than what they are actually doing. It must have been really bad luck as both are noW at the exact hash rate as they claim to be doing... hence why I just noticed my error! |
|
|
|
|
|
nybbler905
|
|
December 01, 2013, 03:36:59 AM |
|
My reward was half what it should have been, hopefully it will be corrected.
21009 2013-12-01 01:32:02 0:04:19 22915150 2396 0.00260434 272399 25.03550690 94 confirmations left
21008 2013-12-01 01:27:43 0:50:06 265077329 26418 0.00226590 272398 25.02827623 93 confirmations left
21007 2013-12-01 00:37:37 7:48:38 2147483647 122738 0.00122464 272385 25.20690867 80 confirmations left
21006 2013-11-30 16:48:59 0:47:42 251032842 26584 0.00260305 272318 25.03404462 13 confirmations left
21005 2013-11-30 16:01:17 0:36:01 189004238 19118 0.00256829 272313 25.07062858 8 confirmations left
21004 2013-11-30 15:25:16 2:20:08 739833931 76904 0.00248505 272307 25.18938665 2 confirmations left
21003 2013-11-30 13:05:08 0:57:13 308486793 32274 0.00294020 272288 25.25633454 confirmed
the point was, some of us got ' nothing ' for shares submitted even with usb asic for that 7+ hour stretch of # 21007. There is an issue.... |
Always looking for donations even as low as 1uBTC
14XfpYPdtYiGoEiDcKrSzuvBM3ukhwANUh - BTC
LS7FEfu9ajp3NQcDjui9TSKscwQesj9i8k - LTC
LHe9g5ixMyfdtqAEHU5vErG1eQrDshBFRW -Luckycoin
|
|
|
|
Lucko
|
|
December 01, 2013, 06:39:06 AM |
|
My reward was half what it should have been, hopefully it will be corrected.
21009 2013-12-01 01:32:02 0:04:19 22915150 2396 0.00260434 272399 25.03550690 94 confirmations left
21008 2013-12-01 01:27:43 0:50:06 265077329 26418 0.00226590 272398 25.02827623 93 confirmations left
21007 2013-12-01 00:37:37 7:48:38 2147483647 122738 0.00122464 272385 25.20690867 80 confirmations left
21006 2013-11-30 16:48:59 0:47:42 251032842 26584 0.00260305 272318 25.03404462 13 confirmations left
21005 2013-11-30 16:01:17 0:36:01 189004238 19118 0.00256829 272313 25.07062858 8 confirmations left
21004 2013-11-30 15:25:16 2:20:08 739833931 76904 0.00248505 272307 25.18938665 2 confirmations left
21003 2013-11-30 13:05:08 0:57:13 308486793 32274 0.00294020 272288 25.25633454 confirmed
Yes after being away from pool for 5 mouths pool is still as unreliable as it was when I given up on Slush... You at lest got something I got non for 7+ hours... And I would now say that Slush is unable or unwilling to fix his pool. I hope auto payment is working... I was reading it is not... Grate job Slush... |
|
|
|
|
|
TiborB
|
|
December 01, 2013, 11:10:51 AM |
|
For some (including me) shares/reward for round 21007 still show 'none'. I have seen recalculations/fixes in the past before the block is confirmed, but currently there are only 11 confirmations left...
21007 2013-12-01 00:37:37 7:48:38 2147483647 none none 272385 25.20690867 11 confirmations left
This is the block where the total number of shared might have overflowed a 32bit integer - this is only speculation, but the total of shares is shown as exactly 231-1.
After my post on this issue last night and sending a PM within this forum, I was patiently waiting for this to get fixed, but now I have also sent a mail to pool operators and hope they will take action.
Regards,
T
|
|
|
|
|
|
Humax
|
|
December 01, 2013, 11:35:38 AM |
|
21012 2013-12-01 06:42:52 2:36:50 822353445 235376 0.00659462 272440 25.04495605
21011 2013-12-01 04:06:02 0:34:20 181000803 48822 0.00715762 272413 25.11093992
21010 2013-12-01 03:31:42 1:59:40 639039598 171289 0.00651526 272410 25.14099989
21009 2013-12-01 01:32:02 0:04:19 22915150 5768 0.00608615 272399 25.03550690
21008 2013-12-01 01:27:43 0:50:06 265077329 70864 0.00605277 272398 25.02827623
21007 2013-12-01 00:37:37 7:48:38 2147483647 none none 272385 25.20690867
Fix this please!
|
Help me feed my hamster! Donate sunflower seeds!
|
|
|
|
bobsmoke
|
|
December 02, 2013, 02:00:37 PM |
|
just because of recent mitm attacks...
Is the Thumprint for Slush pool SSL certificate the following: d6 fa 35 fb 99 84 21 07 0c 84 2c 2d ba ce 57 4a 42 d6 3e 63
|
|
|
|
|
|
KNK
|
|
December 02, 2013, 02:23:59 PM |
|
just because of recent mitm attacks...
Is the Thumprint for Slush pool SSL certificate the following: d6 fa 35 fb 99 84 21 07 0c 84 2c 2d ba ce 57 4a 42 d6 3e 63
Confirmed. |
BTC tips: 1KNK1akhpethhtcyhKTF2d3PWTQDUWUzHE
|
|
|
|
TiborB
|
|
December 02, 2013, 04:27:38 PM |
|
21012 2013-12-01 06:42:52 2:36:50 822353445 235376 0.00659462 272440 25.04495605
21011 2013-12-01 04:06:02 0:34:20 181000803 48822 0.00715762 272413 25.11093992
21010 2013-12-01 03:31:42 1:59:40 639039598 171289 0.00651526 272410 25.14099989
21009 2013-12-01 01:32:02 0:04:19 22915150 5768 0.00608615 272399 25.03550690
21008 2013-12-01 01:27:43 0:50:06 265077329 70864 0.00605277 272398 25.02827623
21007 2013-12-01 00:37:37 7:48:38 2147483647 none none 272385 25.20690867
Fix this please!
Just to wrap up: this issue has been fixed - I have the impression there was a recalculation with proportional method. Kudos go to the pool operators. Regards, T |
|
|
|
|
|
osoverflow
|
|
December 02, 2013, 10:12:13 PM |
|
I don't want namecoin for its monetary value, but for its usability value. The ability to set fixed value on a p2p decentralized network that has a bitcoin-like security is very useful and important to develop additional services. It it is another thing that can do something similar, I would love to know about it. namecoin just checks the result from bitcoin mining and if it is good, applies it to the namecoin block tree. BTCguild does namecoin along with bitcoin on pplns. namecoins are worth about 6% of a bitcoin. I send the namecoins i make to BTC-e to convert them to bitcoins. then i have to wait until i meet the minimum transfer amount to send them to my wallet. I wouldn't care if i stopped getting namecoins.
|
|
|
|
stevegreer
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 812
Official Zeitcoin community ambassador
|
|
December 02, 2013, 10:43:56 PM |
|
Also, I know it has been explained several times before in this thread, but I am no CS major, so most of the lingo used is Greek to me. But looking at my stats I see several blocks where I have 2,3,4 or 5 shares listed, but with no reward. And other blocks with the same amount of shares but with rewards. Is this normal?
Hi Steve, Yep - it's normal. In order to stop people jumping from one pool to another each share is 'weighted' so that those submitted towards the end of a block being found are effectively worth more. Because you're only submitting a few shares each round what's happening is the system sees your last share was submitted x minutes/hours ago and thinks you've buggered off to another pool even though you haven't. The rounds where you have been rewarded are those in which your last share was close enough to the end of the round to still count. It happens to me every now and again when my net connection will drop out for a bit at the end of a round (Mobile broadband so it has a tendency to do that) and I'll get zero reward as well. Cheers Thanks for the answer! That makes sense I reckon. Kinda stinks though that my CPU has been plugging away for hours and I have nothing to show for it. So, just out of curiosity, since I noticed that there are quite a few people making comments about not getting rewards even though they know their miners have been hashing away, say in a situation like that, if the pool ends up completing the block, but most everyone's stats shows "none" for rewards, then where do the 25 bitcoins go? I'm sure someone must end up with them, right? So one last rookie question. If I do decide to get more into this, obviously continuing mining with my CPU will NEVER be profitable. At about what hash rate have most of you seen the BTC start rolling in? I'm not delusional enough to think that I will ever make a fortune off of this, but I wouldn't mind seeing at least a couple hundred bucks or so over the course of a month or three in order to make it feel like my efforts are not in vain. Right now my meager 0.00000142 BTC just ain't cutting it!  |
|
|
|
|
bobsmoke
|
|
December 02, 2013, 11:37:12 PM |
|
Hello pool operators, something strange with the reward for block 272726
21027 2013-12-02 23:04:34 5:49:17 1993521951 2763811 0.00040730 272726 25.00902152
Anyone with the same issue?
|
|
|
|
|
Kaos116
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 28
|
|
December 03, 2013, 12:13:19 AM |
|
Hello pool operators, something strange with the reward for block 272726
21027 2013-12-02 23:04:34 5:49:17 1993521951 2763811 0.00040730 272726 25.00902152
Anyone with the same issue?
Yes, 21027 2013-12-02 23:04:34 5:49:17 1993521951 55349 0.00000857 272726 25.00902152 93 confirmations left My average reward is about .00075 |
|
|
|
|
|
Poll
