Bitcoin Forum
January 22, 2018, 10:42:38 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: What type of pool payouts do you prefer?
Bitcoins - 3211 (80.4%)
Bank transfer / USD - 410 (10.3%)
Gold/silver coins and bars - 371 (9.3%)
Total Voters: 3990

Pages: « 1 ... 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 [1029] 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 ... 1133 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [150+ PH] SlushPool (slushpool.com); World's First Mining Pool  (Read 4322331 times)
bigbitmine
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


Big Bit Mine


View Profile
February 18, 2015, 06:33:31 PM
 #20561

Happy Chinese New Year all you Chinese peeps.  Now turn off your farms and take some time off to party!  Don't worry, we've got it covered.

1516660958
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1516660958

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1516660958
Reply with quote  #2

1516660958
Report to moderator
1516660958
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1516660958

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1516660958
Reply with quote  #2

1516660958
Report to moderator
1516660958
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1516660958

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1516660958
Reply with quote  #2

1516660958
Report to moderator
No Gods or Kings. Only Bitcoin
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1516660958
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1516660958

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1516660958
Reply with quote  #2

1516660958
Report to moderator
1516660958
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1516660958

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1516660958
Reply with quote  #2

1516660958
Report to moderator
MrTeal
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274


View Profile
February 18, 2015, 06:34:20 PM
 #20562

If you really want to analyze it, please at least do so in a way that makes sense. Saying there were X number of blocks at >10PH/s vs Y blocks at <10PH/s in a given period is a relatively useless measurement.
Take the numbers from whatever period you want (say everything from the start of December onward), calculate the luck for each block solved, then group them along whatever cutoff you want. Then it's just a matter of looking at the data and pulling trends out that support your preconceived bias.
pekatete
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518



View Profile WWW
February 18, 2015, 06:37:38 PM
 #20563

If you really want to analyze it, please at least do so in a way that makes sense. Saying there were X number of blocks at >10PH/s vs Y blocks at <10PH/s in a given period is a relatively useless measurement.
Take the numbers from whatever period you want (say everything from the start of December onward), calculate the luck for each block solved, then group them along whatever cutoff you want. Then it's just a matter of looking at the data and pulling trends out that support your preconceived bias.
Your legendary status precedes you!
While you are still basking in it, pull your finger out and post your own numbers that, apparently, make sense (you patronising so and so!)

MrTeal
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274


View Profile
February 18, 2015, 06:54:23 PM
 #20564

If you really want to analyze it, please at least do so in a way that makes sense. Saying there were X number of blocks at >10PH/s vs Y blocks at <10PH/s in a given period is a relatively useless measurement.
Take the numbers from whatever period you want (say everything from the start of December onward), calculate the luck for each block solved, then group them along whatever cutoff you want. Then it's just a matter of looking at the data and pulling trends out that support your preconceived bias.
Your legendary status precedes you!
While you are still basking in it, pull your finger out and post your own numbers that, apparently, make sense (you patronising so and so!)
I don't really care enough to bother, I've never seen anything at Slush that suggests a problem. If, like our good friends bigbitmine and rpandassociates, you want assert that there is a fundamental problem with the pool that keeps it from scaling over 10PH/s it's on you to show that the problem isn't just an invention of your imagination.
pekatete
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518



View Profile WWW
February 18, 2015, 07:01:44 PM
 #20565

If you really want to analyze it, please at least do so in a way that makes sense. Saying there were X number of blocks at >10PH/s vs Y blocks at <10PH/s in a given period is a relatively useless measurement.
Take the numbers from whatever period you want (say everything from the start of December onward), calculate the luck for each block solved, then group them along whatever cutoff you want. Then it's just a matter of looking at the data and pulling trends out that support your preconceived bias.
Your legendary status precedes you!
While you are still basking in it, pull your finger out and post your own numbers that, apparently, make sense (you patronising so and so!)
I don't really care enough to bother, I've never seen anything at Slush that suggests a problem. If, like our good friends bigbitmine and rpandassociates, you want assert that there is a fundamental problem with the pool that keeps it from scaling over 10PH/s it's on you to show that the problem isn't just an invention of your imagination.

If you do not care enough to bother, then what use would it serve for me (or anyone) to prove your percieved lack of a fundamental problem or otherwise, as the case may be? Or is it the case that you really believe that your opinion matters?

KNK
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 669


View Profile
February 18, 2015, 07:02:13 PM
 #20566

I don't really care enough to bother, I've never seen anything at Slush that suggests a problem. If, like our good friends bigbitmine and rpandassociates, you want assert that there is a fundamental problem with the pool that keeps it from scaling over 10PH/s it's on you to show that the problem isn't just an invention of your imagination.
+1
It's very simple on my opinion - people join when there is an increased luck, which should even out latter, so ...

BTC tips: 1KNK1akhpethhtcyhKTF2d3PWTQDUWUzHE
MrTeal
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274


View Profile
February 18, 2015, 08:28:51 PM
 #20567

If you really want to analyze it, please at least do so in a way that makes sense. Saying there were X number of blocks at >10PH/s vs Y blocks at <10PH/s in a given period is a relatively useless measurement.
Take the numbers from whatever period you want (say everything from the start of December onward), calculate the luck for each block solved, then group them along whatever cutoff you want. Then it's just a matter of looking at the data and pulling trends out that support your preconceived bias.
Your legendary status precedes you!
While you are still basking in it, pull your finger out and post your own numbers that, apparently, make sense (you patronising so and so!)
I don't really care enough to bother, I've never seen anything at Slush that suggests a problem. If, like our good friends bigbitmine and rpandassociates, you want assert that there is a fundamental problem with the pool that keeps it from scaling over 10PH/s it's on you to show that the problem isn't just an invention of your imagination.

If you do not care enough to bother, then what use would it serve for me (or anyone) to prove your percieved lack of a fundamental problem or otherwise, as the case may be? Or is it the case that you really believe that your opinion matters?
It doesn't, but then I really don't expect it to. Neither does yours. However if I were to set about about to show that the pool was having issues scaling, I would try and do so in a way that actually shed some light on the issue. Feel free to do so however you want, but I will point out that the numbers you posted are useless just so they don't confuse anyone else.

PS - Did you know that this pool found zero blocks in the first half of 2014 when the pool hashrate was above 10TH/s? Seems pretty clearcut to me there's a scaling issue somewhere.
pekatete
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518



View Profile WWW
February 18, 2015, 08:40:25 PM
 #20568

It doesn't, but then I really don't expect it to. Neither does yours. However if I were to set about about to show that the pool was having issues scaling, I would try and do so in a way that actually shed some light on the issue. Feel free to do so however you want, but I will point out that the numbers you posted are useless just so they don't confuse anyone else.

PS - Did you know that this pool found zero blocks in the first half of 2014 when the pool hashrate was above 10TH/s? Seems pretty clearcut to me there's a scaling issue somewhere.

You are not a legend for nothing .... you truly are pushing your point on the pretext that I (even bigtime) do believe there is an issue here (be that with / without scaling or something else sinister) ... seriously? You even have the time to context this in the first half of 2014 (be it the 10Th/s rate)?
So tell me then, what does it take to be a 4 star general on bitcointalk?

pekatete
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518



View Profile WWW
February 18, 2015, 09:06:35 PM
 #20569

Seeing I have not yet been able to confirm that the roving 1-2Ph/s is generated from 13 rigs, I took another delve into the stats. Rather than analyse the data without considering the two factors that I have been led to believe are important, i.e hash power and difficulty (I discarded luck as un-important), here's what I have based on difficulty.

Diff: 44455415962 (total: 42 blocks)
16 - Less than 9.5 Ph/s
20 - Between 9.5 Ph/s AND 10 Ph/s
7 - Above 10 Ph/s

 ----------------------

Diff: 41272873894 (total: 61 blocks)
58 - Less than 9.5 Ph/s
2 - Between 9.5 Ph/s AND 10 Ph/s
1 - Above 10 Ph/s

 ----------------------

Diff: 43971662056 (total: 48 blocks)
46 - Less than 9.5 Ph/s
0 - Between 9.5 Ph/s AND 10 Ph/s
2 - Above 10 Ph/s

 ----------------------

Diff: 40640955016 (total: 69 blocks)
0 - Less than 9.5 Ph/s
1 - Between 9.5 Ph/s AND 10 Ph/s
68 - Above 10 Ph/s

 ----------------------

Diff: 39457671307 (total: 73 blocks)
4 - Less than 9.5 Ph/s
5 - Between 9.5 Ph/s AND 10 Ph/s
64 - Above 10 Ph/s

 ----------------------

Diff: 40007470271 (total: 69 blocks)
17 - Less than 9.5 Ph/s
16 - Between 9.5 Ph/s AND 10 Ph/s
36 - Above 10 Ph/s

 ----------------------

Diff: 40300030327 (total: 68 blocks)
63 - Less than 9.5 Ph/s
4 - Between 9.5 Ph/s AND 10 Ph/s
1 - Above 10 Ph/s

 ----------------------

Diff: 39603666252 (total: 77 blocks)
76 - Less than 9.5 Ph/s
1 - Between 9.5 Ph/s AND 10 Ph/s
0 - Above 10 Ph/s

 ----------------------

Diff: 35985640265 (total: 18 blocks)
18 - Less than 9.5 Ph/s
0 - Between 9.5 Ph/s AND 10 Ph/s
0 - Above 10 Ph/s

Finally a dicotomous comparison of the data from November 2014 to today total: 526 blocks.

298 - Less than 9.5 Ph/s
228 - Above 9.5 Ph/s

EDIT: looks like we had our time with the 10 Ph/s threshhold when the difficulty was 40640955016 and 39457671307. Since then, our luck has depleted at that rate ..... there must be a pattern to it, but seeing I only have a sample size of 526 (not enough to be relied on ... I think minimum should be 2000), I'll have to concentrate on establishing whether that roving hash-rate is from 13 rigs!

MrTeal
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274


View Profile
February 18, 2015, 09:18:20 PM
 #20570

Seeing I have not yet been able to confirm that the roving 1-2Ph/s is generated from 13 rigs, I took another delve into the stats. Rather than analyse the data without considering the two factors that I have been led to believe are important, i.e hash power and difficulty (I discarded luck as un-important), here's what I have based on difficulty.
Ok, but how much time was spent at each hash rate tier within those difficulty levels?
Quote
Diff: 44455415962 (total: 42 blocks)
1. 16 - Less than 9.5 Ph/s
2. 20 - Between 9.5 Ph/s AND 10 Ph/s
4. 7 - Above 10 Ph/s
If 50% of the hashes are submitted while the pool is over 10PH/s but only 1/6 of the blocks are found in that period, something might be wrong. If the pool only spent 1/6th of the time at that level, then the numbers your seeing are what you'd expect.
pekatete
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518



View Profile WWW
February 18, 2015, 09:23:53 PM
 #20571

Seeing I have not yet been able to confirm that the roving 1-2Ph/s is generated from 13 rigs, I took another delve into the stats. Rather than analyse the data without considering the two factors that I have been led to believe are important, i.e hash power and difficulty (I discarded luck as un-important), here's what I have based on difficulty.
Ok, but how much time was spent at each hash rate tier within those difficulty levels?
Quote
Diff: 44455415962 (total: 42 blocks)
1. 16 - Less than 9.5 Ph/s
2. 20 - Between 9.5 Ph/s AND 10 Ph/s
4. 7 - Above 10 Ph/s
If 50% of the hashes are submitted while the pool is over 10PH/s but only 1/6 of the blocks are found in that period, something might be wrong. If the pool only spent 1/6th of the time at that level, then the numbers your seeing are what you'd expect.
At this point, I do not care what you think or know, even whether you might have a point. You've adequately demonstrated to me (thus far today), that your opinion is worth disregarding in its entirity.
If you can confirm either way whether the roving hash-rate is from 13 rigs, that would be your time spent well.

MrTeal
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274


View Profile
February 18, 2015, 09:45:12 PM
 #20572

At this point, I do not care what you think or know, even whether you might have a point. You've adequately demonstrated to me (thus far today), that your opinion is worth disregarding in its entirity.
If you can confirm either way whether the roving hash-rate is from 13 rigs, that would be your time spent well.
Fair enough. Please feel free to add me to your ignore list if it will help with your disregarding.
pekatete
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518



View Profile WWW
February 18, 2015, 09:46:40 PM
 #20573

Fair enough. Please feel free to add me to your ignore list if it will help with your disregarding.
Don't be silly, I do what I want on my end .... (see, there you go again!)

organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2044


Poor impulse control.


View Profile WWW
February 18, 2015, 10:15:08 PM
 #20574

At this point, I do not care what you think or know, even whether you might have a point. You've adequately demonstrated to me (thus far today), that your opinion is worth disregarding in its entirity.
If you can confirm either way whether the roving hash-rate is from 13 rigs, that would be your time spent well.
Fair enough. Please feel free to add me to your ignore list if it will help with your disregarding.

Hey Mr. Teal, can I ask you a favour?

When you quote pekatete I get to see what he has written even though he one of a very few I have on ignore.

So would you mind not quoting him? I get sufficient stupid in my day already.

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

Activity: 210


Big Bit Mine


View Profile
February 18, 2015, 10:41:06 PM
 #20575

Damm this is getting bitchy.  It's obvious the illuminati has infiltrated the pool.  There, case solved.

kkurtmann
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 475



View Profile WWW
February 18, 2015, 11:32:47 PM
 #20576

Damm this is getting bitchy.  It's obvious the illuminati has infiltrated the pool.  There, case solved.

This might be the most plausible conspiracy theory that I have seen here in years.

https://www.buytrezor.com?a=55c37b866c11   well sir, I like it!
MrTeal
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274


View Profile
February 18, 2015, 11:56:40 PM
 #20577

Hey Mr. Teal, can I ask you a favour?

When you quote pekatete I get to see what he has written even though he one of a very few I have on ignore.

So would you mind not quoting him? I get sufficient stupid in my day already.

I think I can probably manage that.
pekatete
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518



View Profile WWW
February 18, 2015, 11:58:28 PM
 #20578

At this point, I do not care what you think or know, even whether you might have a point. You've adequately demonstrated to me (thus far today), that your opinion is worth disregarding in its entirity.
If you can confirm either way whether the roving hash-rate is from 13 rigs, that would be your time spent well.
Fair enough. Please feel free to add me to your ignore list if it will help with your disregarding.

Hey Mr. Teal, can I ask you a favour?

When you quote pekatete I get to see what he has written even though he one of a very few I have on ignore.

So would you mind not quoting him? I get sufficient stupid in my day already.


You are so full of yourself and clearly full of self importance. And yeah, the ignore button is a good option for the feeble minded, like yourself, and those that believe its only their opinion that matters. But that you get enough stupidity in your day already should sum you up nicely (and I know you are reading this ..... you just can't resist!).

Anyway, to keep on with my number crunching, I thought I'd continue my comparison but this time for only the blocks found when the pool hashing rate was above 9 Ph/s as with the 13 rigs' roving 1-2 Ph/s there was a more realistic chance of crossing that 10 Ph/s thresh-hold that seems to suck the blocks from the pool, and here goes:

November 2014 - today above 9 Ph/s: 354 blocks)
155 blocks - Less than 9.8 Ph/s
199 blocks - Above 9.8 Ph/s

bigbitmine
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


Big Bit Mine


View Profile
February 19, 2015, 12:46:05 AM
 #20579

It might seem off the current topic but my Trezor advert has disappeared from my dashboard.  Has the offer finished?

pekatete
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518



View Profile WWW
February 19, 2015, 12:56:17 AM
 #20580

Anyway, to keep on with my number crunching, I thought I'd continue my comparison but this time for only the blocks found when the pool hashing rate was above 9 Ph/s as with the 13 rigs' roving 1-2 Ph/s there was a more realistic chance of crossing that 10 Ph/s thresh-hold that seems to suck the blocks from the pool, and here goes:

November 2014 - today above 9 Ph/s: 354 blocks)
155 blocks - Less than 9.8 Ph/s
199 blocks - Above 9.8 Ph/s

Just noticed something else, 132 of the 199 blocks found (~66%) when the pool was hashing above 9.8 Ph/s (aka blocks with a difficulty of 40640955016 and 39457671307) were found between 17th Dec 2014 and 12th Jan 2015 (thats ~ a 3 week window).

Pages: « 1 ... 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 [1029] 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 ... 1133 »
  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!