[4+ EH] Slush Pool (slushpool.com); Overt AsicBoost; World First Mining Pool

[kkurtmann]

If you have EVERYONE's CPU on the guild that COULD be a lot of hashing power if combined.  

No it wouldn't. Please check your numbers. 10,000 of the most powerful CPUs today amount to about one S3 which is 440GH. For a pool with 13,000,000 GH, do you honestly think the pool operator would risk his reputation for that much more?

What I'm mentioning is NOT to continue accusations.  What I'm mentioning is merely to prove a point.

MacBook Pro 17" Early 2011

2.2 GHz Intel Quad Core i7; meaning 2.2 GHz x 4 cores = 8.8 GHz

450 divided by 8.8 = 51.14 MacBook Pro 17" with i7 2.2 GHz Quad Core chips

Most PC's and Mac's today I would say average around 2.2 GHz x 4 for 8.8 GHz but we will use my 2011 model Mac to be conservative.  If you had 10,000 computers with 8.8 GHz average, that would be equivalent to 195.5 S3's; NOT ONE as you say.  Also, if it took 10,000 CPU's to equal 1 S3, you would be saying EACH AND EVERY CPU in each and every computer [10,000 computers] is less than a quarter (.25 cents)!  That is FAR from the truth.  


BM1382 has achieved 15.75 Gh/s in hash performance in each chip:

BitMain BM1382 chip specifications:
- Process Node: 28nm
– Package Type: FCQFN-56
– Packaged Chip Size: 8mm x 8mm
– Number of Cores: 63
– Core Voltage: 0.75 V
– Core Frequency: 250 MHz
– Hash Rate: 15.75 GH/s

      250,000,000  Hz (250 MHz) - Core Frequency
    x              63       Cores (processors)
  15,750,000,000 Hash Rate

multiplied by 28 [63 core processors] = 450,000,000,000 (450GB) Total Hash Rate

The new Bitmain Antminer U3 uses four (4) 1382 chips [4 x 15.75GH] for a total of 63 GH/s

http://www.coindesk.com/hackers-hijack-retailers-showroom-pcs-cryptocurrency-mining/

Also, if it took 10,000 computers, as you say, why would hackers even bother hacking these retail stores for dismal profits from mining?  The reason is because it does not take 10,000 computers to make one S3.  It only takes approximately 50 computers to make one S3 but that is being conservative.  It may only take about 48 computers.

I challenge anyone with a PC that has a QUAD CORE PROCESSOR to mine with their CPU for an hour then multiply their hourly average hash rate x 51 and see if it is somewhat close to one S3.  Well, you might have to multiply it by 58 cause Slush always shows a little slower than what my rigs say.

You might see you have to multiply times close to 200 to get close to 450GH/s.  If that's the case, then it takes approximately 200 to equal 1 S3.

You could not be more wrong!

[1603187799]

1603187799

[1603187799]

1603187799

[whispy]

What a lovely 3 minute block.
Did I hear the word invalid mentioned?

[MrTeal]

What a lovely 3 minute block.
Did I hear the word invalid mentioned?

There's already another block built on them, so it's extremely unlikely we'll get an orphan here.

[pikachuy]

Any advise/information people? I ran slush's pool for 1 hour to test, but I don't see any kind of compensation? I did the same for BTCguild and Ghash and they both compensated my time for the 1 hour test on the their pools, as I can see it on my account. Any clue of why my account with Slush doesn't show any kind compensation? I see on my slush account it was hashing at 2th/s for 60 mins. Any help/information would be appreciated. Thanks.

[MrTeal]

Any advise/information people? I ran slush's pool for 1 hour to test, but I don't see any kind of compensation? I did the same for BTCguild and Ghash and they both compensated my time for the 1 hour test on the their pools, as I can see it on my account. Any clue of why my account with Slush doesn't show any kind compensation? I see on my slush account it was hashing at 2th/s for 60 mins. Any help/information would be appreciated. Thanks.

When were you testing? Slush uses a score based algorithm to deter poolhopping that weighs each share based on when it was submitted. Shares near the start of a block are worth less than shares near the end.

[Sir Alan]

Any advise/information people? I ran slush's pool for 1 hour to test, but I don't see any kind of compensation? I did the same for BTCguild and Ghash and they both compensated my time for the 1 hour test on the their pools, as I can see it on my account. Any clue of why my account with Slush doesn't show any kind compensation? I see on my slush account it was hashing at 2th/s for 60 mins. Any help/information would be appreciated. Thanks.

You don't say when you started and stopped.  Shares on Slush lose value rapidly, so that old shares become worthless after a while.  If you ran your test in the middle of the recent long round, then your reward would have petered out to zero pretty quickly.  It's to discourage pool hoppers.  If you tell us the timing of your test, and the number of shares credited to you, somebody will be able to give you a more definitive answer.  BTCguild operates a different scoring system, and I have never used the Evil Empire so I don't know how they work.

One hour is hardly a fair test of any pool.  You need to give it at least 24 hours - preferably considerably longer.  Try running all three pools evenly balanced for perhaps 3-4 days and compare your earnings.  Over the last 72 hours or so, my earnings from Slush and BTCguild have been more or less the same for roughly the same hashing power.

[Billbags]

Any advise/information people? I ran slush's pool for 1 hour to test, but I don't see any kind of compensation? I did the same for BTCguild and Ghash and they both compensated my time for the 1 hour test on the their pools, as I can see it on my account. Any clue of why my account with Slush doesn't show any kind compensation? I see on my slush account it was hashing at 2th/s for 60 mins. Any help/information would be appreciated. Thanks.

I use the benchmark test in this link for reference.  I have miners here and BTCguild. My neice has 1050ghs over at the dark side(she has a miner that doesn't preform well at most other pools). I can tell you those pools in that link do better than ghash almost every month. I guess due to ghash having a lot of down time and orphans? You have to look over time to really compare.

I will also recommend that you devide your hashrate between at least 2 different pools. It's called Variance. I keep 80% here and 20% at BTCguild. That way if one pool is having bad luck the other May be doing good. A hash is a hash. Don't keep all your eggs in one basket.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=416933.0

[sjc1490]

Third. Does anyone have a Prisma miner up and running on Slush's yet? Wondering about performance, particularly when connected to Slush's pool.

I have 3 Tubes (from the same family) pointed here using the Tube controller. All are performing fine in the 850 to 900 range at a 290 clock.

[kkurtmann]

Any advise/information people? I ran slush's pool for 1 hour to test, but I don't see any kind of compensation? I did the same for BTCguild and Ghash and they both compensated my time for the 1 hour test on the their pools, as I can see it on my account. Any clue of why my account with Slush doesn't show any kind compensation? I see on my slush account it was hashing at 2th/s for 60 mins. Any help/information would be appreciated. Thanks.

I use the benchmark test in this link for reference.  I have miners here and BTCguild. My neice has 1050ghs over at the dark side(she has a miner that doesn't preform well at most other pools). I can tell you those pools in that link do better than ghash almost every month. I guess due to ghash having a lot of down time and orphans? You have to look over time to really compare.

I will also recommend that you devide your hashrate between at least 2 different pools. It's called Variance. I keep 80% here and 20% at BTCguild. That way if one pool is having bad luck the other May be doing good. A hash is a hash. Don't keep all your eggs in one basket.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=416933.0

It's not called variance, it's called load balancing. Variance is something completely different to what you describe.

[pikachuy]

Any advise/information people? I ran slush's pool for 1 hour to test, but I don't see any kind of compensation? I did the same for BTCguild and Ghash and they both compensated my time for the 1 hour test on the their pools, as I can see it on my account. Any clue of why my account with Slush doesn't show any kind compensation? I see on my slush account it was hashing at 2th/s for 60 mins. Any help/information would be appreciated. Thanks.

I use the benchmark test in this link for reference.  I have miners here and BTCguild. My neice has 1050ghs over at the dark side(she has a miner that doesn't preform well at most other pools). I can tell you those pools in that link do better than ghash almost every month. I guess due to ghash having a lot of down time and orphans? You have to look over time to really compare.

I will also recommend that you devide your hashrate between at least 2 different pools. It's called Variance. I keep 80% here and 20% at BTCguild. That way if one pool is having bad luck the other May be doing good. A hash is a hash. Don't keep all your eggs in one basket.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=416933.0

I looked through your benchmark link but it doesn't contain any data for slush's pool =( I'm guessing the best thing to do is to load balance all 3 pools simultaneously (slush, btcguild, ghash) and share my hashes evenly, since it's all based on luck.

Edit: getting a piece of a pie is better then getting no pie i assume. This way I am guarantee 3 pie pieces, instead of hoping for 1 big pie or no pie at all.

[dmwardjr]

If you have EVERYONE's CPU on the guild that COULD be a lot of hashing power if combined.  

No it wouldn't. Please check your numbers. 10,000 of the most powerful CPUs today amount to about one S3 which is 440GH. For a pool with 13,000,000 GH, do you honestly think the pool operator would risk his reputation for that much more?

What I'm mentioning is NOT to continue accusations.  What I'm mentioning is merely to prove a point.

MacBook Pro 17" Early 2011

2.2 GHz Intel Quad Core i7; meaning 2.2 GHz x 4 cores = 8.8 GHz

450 divided by 8.8 = 51.14 MacBook Pro 17" with i7 2.2 GHz Quad Core chips

Most PC's and Mac's today I would say average around 2.2 GHz x 4 for 8.8 GHz but we will use my 2011 model Mac to be conservative.  If you had 10,000 computers with 8.8 GHz average, that would be equivalent to 195.5 S3's; NOT ONE as you say.  Also, if it took 10,000 CPU's to equal 1 S3, you would be saying EACH AND EVERY CPU in each and every computer [10,000 computers] is less than a quarter (.25 cents)!  That is FAR from the truth.  


BM1382 has achieved 15.75 Gh/s in hash performance in each chip:

BitMain BM1382 chip specifications:
- Process Node: 28nm
– Package Type: FCQFN-56
– Packaged Chip Size: 8mm x 8mm
– Number of Cores: 63
– Core Voltage: 0.75 V
– Core Frequency: 250 MHz
– Hash Rate: 15.75 GH/s

      250,000,000  Hz (250 MHz) - Core Frequency
    x              63       Cores (processors)
  15,750,000,000 Hash Rate

multiplied by 28 [63 core processors] = 450,000,000,000 (450GB) Total Hash Rate

The new Bitmain Antminer U3 uses four (4) 1382 chips [4 x 15.75GH] for a total of 63 GH/s

http://www.coindesk.com/hackers-hijack-retailers-showroom-pcs-cryptocurrency-mining/

Also, if it took 10,000 computers, as you say, why would hackers even bother hacking these retail stores for dismal profits from mining?  The reason is because it does not take 10,000 computers to make one S3.  It only takes approximately 50 computers to make one S3 but that is being conservative.  It may only take about 48 computers.

I challenge anyone with a PC that has a QUAD CORE PROCESSOR to mine with their CPU for an hour then multiply their hourly average hash rate x 51 and see if it is somewhat close to one S3.  Well, you might have to multiply it by 58 cause Slush always shows a little slower than what my rigs say.

You might see you have to multiply times close to 200 to get close to 450GH/s.  If that's the case, then it takes approximately 200 to equal 1 S3.

You could not be more wrong!

i checked with my buddies PC.

You're right.

I couldn't be MORE WRONG.

[wasikidding]

I have 2 prisma's on the way as soon as up will report I will be using a rasp pi with new cgminer so should not have any of the problems with certain pools the BE controller had with the tubes (btw those problems were not on Slush's pool) as far as data from those that are running 1400-1440 gh/s at about 1200 w from the wall is what most are seeing

[wasikidding]

In other news if you happen to have some hash at ck's solo pool you may wanna check your wallet as a block was found last night

[kcal63]

Well first, yes I should have posted more info/specs about my error issue. It was across all of my miners, BTCGardens, Rockminers, and Bitmain.I found the problem a bad cable.

Second< I will post more info on the Bitmain U3's as soon as mine arrive, I orderd 2 of them a while ago and they have an expected delivery date of Nov 17 as of now. (I know they are money losing miners but so cute I had to have a couple  )

Third. Does anyone have a Prisma miner up and running on Slush's yet? Wondering about performance, particularly when connected to Slush's pool.

how did you order 2 when they had the min at 60? and now 20?
They dont really explain how to power them too...

Minersource sells them individually. the 60 min is from Bitmain (and at that quantity they are only $56 each) They are supposedly shipping with a power brick but without the power cord for the brick.

[kcal63]

What a lovely 3 minute block.
Did I hear the word invalid mentioned?

AAAAAAAHHHHHH!!
NEVER use  the I -word!
Not even in jest.

It has enough confirms now that it is looking good. Now if we could only find 4 more just like that today.
Ok, everyone speak soothingly to your miners while gently patting it, that ought to do it

[Billbags]

This is old news, but an interesting concept:

Thaddeus Dryja's "proof of idle" idea:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QN2TPeQ9mnA

The idea is to get paid NOT to mine, because it is economically rational for everybody to keep the difficulty lower rather than higher (everybody saves money on electricity if everybody can somehow agree to keep their equipment idle). Thaddeus figured out a way of solving the coordination problem so nobody can lie about how much mining power they have or profit from cheating and running miners that they promised to keep idle.

[kkurtmann]

If you have EVERYONE's CPU on the guild that COULD be a lot of hashing power if combined.  

No it wouldn't. Please check your numbers. 10,000 of the most powerful CPUs today amount to about one S3 which is 440GH. For a pool with 13,000,000 GH, do you honestly think the pool operator would risk his reputation for that much more?

What I'm mentioning is NOT to continue accusations.  What I'm mentioning is merely to prove a point.

MacBook Pro 17" Early 2011

2.2 GHz Intel Quad Core i7; meaning 2.2 GHz x 4 cores = 8.8 GHz

450 divided by 8.8 = 51.14 MacBook Pro 17" with i7 2.2 GHz Quad Core chips

Most PC's and Mac's today I would say average around 2.2 GHz x 4 for 8.8 GHz but we will use my 2011 model Mac to be conservative.  If you had 10,000 computers with 8.8 GHz average, that would be equivalent to 195.5 S3's; NOT ONE as you say.  Also, if it took 10,000 CPU's to equal 1 S3, you would be saying EACH AND EVERY CPU in each and every computer [10,000 computers] is less than a quarter (.25 cents)!  That is FAR from the truth.  


BM1382 has achieved 15.75 Gh/s in hash performance in each chip:

BitMain BM1382 chip specifications:
- Process Node: 28nm
– Package Type: FCQFN-56
– Packaged Chip Size: 8mm x 8mm
– Number of Cores: 63
– Core Voltage: 0.75 V
– Core Frequency: 250 MHz
– Hash Rate: 15.75 GH/s

      250,000,000  Hz (250 MHz) - Core Frequency
    x              63       Cores (processors)
  15,750,000,000 Hash Rate

multiplied by 28 [63 core processors] = 450,000,000,000 (450GB) Total Hash Rate

The new Bitmain Antminer U3 uses four (4) 1382 chips [4 x 15.75GH] for a total of 63 GH/s

http://www.coindesk.com/hackers-hijack-retailers-showroom-pcs-cryptocurrency-mining/

Also, if it took 10,000 computers, as you say, why would hackers even bother hacking these retail stores for dismal profits from mining?  The reason is because it does not take 10,000 computers to make one S3.  It only takes approximately 50 computers to make one S3 but that is being conservative.  It may only take about 48 computers.

I challenge anyone with a PC that has a QUAD CORE PROCESSOR to mine with their CPU for an hour then multiply their hourly average hash rate x 51 and see if it is somewhat close to one S3.  Well, you might have to multiply it by 58 cause Slush always shows a little slower than what my rigs say.

You might see you have to multiply times close to 200 to get close to 450GH/s.  If that's the case, then it takes approximately 200 to equal 1 S3.

You could not be more wrong!

i checked with my buddies PC.

You're right.

I couldn't be MORE WRONG.

Don't take my last response literally, it's just a phrase. Of course you could be more wrong.

[dmwardjr]

Don't take my last response literally, it's just a phrase. Of course you could be more wrong.

np

Yes, I could be more wrong.

[dmwardjr]

Who knows... What I'm doing may give someone else ideas.  Maybe better ones.  If so, please share...

My mining/data closet is coming along slowly but surely.  I've put up shelves that are 20 inches deep.  However they are 3 inches away from the back of the closet to allow room for power cords, etc.  You can see this in the 2nd picture.  

You also see a 14 inch x 6 inch rectangular hole I've cut out in the bottom corner going into the adjacent garage.  I've sprayed a foam insulation that hardens up over time.  I need to trim it after it hardens.  I will be putting vent cover plates on the garage side and inside the closet to cover the rectangular hole once I've trimmed out the excess foam.  I will also put a 14" x 6" filter inside between the garage and closet vents to keep dust in the garage from coming into the closet.

I've also put several strips of wood going across for extra support (bracing).  It is 43.5 inches from right to left and 13 inches between each shelf.

The existing top shelf is only 16 inches deep.  I'm leaving it alone.

S4's are approximately 5.5 inches tall (top to bottom), 17.25 inches wide and 17.02 inches deep (front to back).  Being they are 5.5 inches tall, I can stack two (2) S4's on top of one another and still have 2 inches clearance from the shelf above them.  I designed this so that four (4) S4's will go on the bottom shelf and four (4) S4's on the next shelf above it.  

The four S4's on each shelf will take up 34.25 inches of the 43.5 inches width of each shelf.  This leaves me approximately 9 inches space between each double stack of S4's on each shelf.  That extra 9 inches can be used to double stack two S3's with PSU in between the four S4's on each shelf.  Fourteen (14) S3's will be on the 3rd shelf from the bottom.  Not sure what I will use the top shelf for (4th from the bottom).  I might use it to place my 48 port switch.  Still thinking about it.

This has been planned out to also put 3 more S4's stacked on top of one another on the floor in front of the 14" x 6" vent I just installed.





Just a pic showing the 3" space from the back of the closet wall to allow room for cords, etc...




Then next thing to do is cut an 8 inch circular hole near the ceiling and install duct work going to this 8 inch 720 CFM fan I purchased.  The closet is 122 CFM.  So, this fan with variable resistor should be PLENTY of CFM to suck cool air in from the garage through that 14" x 6" vent up through and around the miners into the 8 inch exhaust fan near the ceiling.

The reason I went with this 8 inch instead of 6 inch or 4 inch is to make sure I had plenty of suction to pull out the heat.  I wanted the re-istat (variable resistor) to turn down the speed of this bad boy so it would not be too loud.  Also, having the larger fan with re-istat turned down allows the fan to last longer than a smaller fan turned up at too high of a speed to contend with getting all the heat out.



More pics to come when I'm finished.

[Billbags]

^ Do you ever stop long enough to sleep? Better slow down or you're gonna get a ticket is that the same room?