[150+ PH] SlushPool (slushpool.com); World's First Mining Pool

[SargeR33]

I used to get random beeping and very slow cpanel access with particular firmwares on the S3. I can't recall which I'm using now but I found it is the best of the lot.

[1498171479]

1498171479

[1498171479]

1498171479

[1498171479]

1498171479

[1498171479]

1498171479

[1498171479]

1498171479

[alh]

Looks like the "0% luck for a day" has finally come to a close at 27+ hours. That was BRUTAL!!!!

[MrTeal]

Looks like the "0% luck for a day" has finally come to a close at 27+ hours. That was BRUTAL!!!!

I don't think it's luck. There's a pretty consistent pattern there where we have bad luck for that block if the pool hashrate is (10 + n*0.23-n)PH/s, where n is any positive integer. The block at 10.23PH/s was 20.5 hours, and the one at 10.45PH/s was over a full day. Lord knows what would happen if we actually hit 10.67PH/s, it could be a couple day long block.

I hope slush looks into this and can find the error in his code. These long blocks need to stop.

[musicmaker613]

Looks like the "0% luck for a day" has finally come to a close at 27+ hours. That was BRUTAL!!!!

I don't think it's luck. There's a pretty consistent pattern there where we have bad luck for that block if the pool hashrate is (10 + n*0.23-n)PH/s, where n is any positive integer. The block at 10.23PH/s was 20.5 hours, and the one at 10.45PH/s was over a full day. Lord knows what would happen if we actually hit 10.67PH/s, it could be a couple day long block.

I hope slush looks into this and can find the error in his code. These long blocks need to stop.

I know others had postulated that the pool was has having trouble "handling" over 10 PH, but you're suggesting there could be an error related to or caused by the formula you provided?  Seems unlikely to me, as there is nothing obviously significant about the formula or the resulting numbers AND the fact that the pool hashrate is just an estimate of the total scoring hashrate (representing a rather wide range of numbers in terms of even GH (10^9 hashes per second) and rounded to the nearest 10^10).  I guess my point would be the pool's scoring hashrate is too arbitrary of a number to likely be responsible for a glitch in the pool, if that makes sense.

My guess is just coincidence and occasional long blocks due to bad luck.  Recent days have done a lot to disprove the original hypothesis of the pool being unable to handle hashrates above 10 PH, as the last couple of days have seen several blocks found over 10 PH AND 100% luck.  Here's hoping the same will continue to happen.

My question is, where did 1 entire petahash suddenly appear from...?  ~10.45 to 11.45!

[bigbitmine]

Looks like the "0% luck for a day" has finally come to a close at 27+ hours. That was BRUTAL!!!!

I don't think it's luck. There's a pretty consistent pattern there where we have bad luck for that block if the pool hashrate is (10 + n*0.23-n)PH/s, where n is any positive integer. The block at 10.23PH/s was 20.5 hours, and the one at 10.45PH/s was over a full day. Lord knows what would happen if we actually hit 10.67PH/s, it could be a couple day long block.

I hope slush looks into this and can find the error in his code. These long blocks need to stop.

I know others had postulated that the pool was has having trouble "handling" over 10 PH, but you're suggesting there could be an error related to or caused by the formula you provided?  Seems unlikely to me, as there is nothing obviously significant about the formula or the resulting numbers AND the fact that the pool hashrate is just an estimate of the total scoring hashrate (representing a rather wide range of numbers in terms of even GH (10^9 hashes per second) and rounded to the nearest 10^10).  I guess my point would be the pool's scoring hashrate is too arbitrary of a number to likely be responsible for a glitch in the pool, if that makes sense.

My guess is just coincidence and occasional long blocks due to bad luck.  Recent days have done a lot to disprove the original hypothesis of the pool being unable to handle hashrates above 10 PH, as the last couple of days have seen several blocks found over 10 PH AND 100% luck.  Here's hoping the same will continue to happen.

My question is, where did 1 entire petahash suddenly appear from...?  ~10.45 to 11.45!

Please!!!  Not the 10PH argument again.

[kano]

Looks like the "0% luck for a day" has finally come to a close at 27+ hours. That was BRUTAL!!!!

I don't think it's luck. There's a pretty consistent pattern there where we have bad luck for that block if the pool hashrate is (10 + n*0.23-n)PH/s, where n is any positive integer. The block at 10.23PH/s was 20.5 hours, and the one at 10.45PH/s was over a full day. Lord knows what would happen if we actually hit 10.67PH/s, it could be a couple day long block.

I hope slush looks into this and can find the error in his code. These long blocks need to stop.

I get the feeling people took your comment seriously

[organofcorti]

Looks like the "0% luck for a day" has finally come to a close at 27+ hours. That was BRUTAL!!!!

I don't think it's luck. There's a pretty consistent pattern there where we have bad luck for that block if the pool hashrate is (10 + n*0.23-n)PH/s, where n is any positive integer. The block at 10.23PH/s was 20.5 hours, and the one at 10.45PH/s was over a full day. Lord knows what would happen if we actually hit 10.67PH/s, it could be a couple day long block.

I hope slush looks into this and can find the error in his code. These long blocks need to stop.

I get the feeling people took your comment seriously

The devil made him do it.

[musicmaker613]

Looks like the "0% luck for a day" has finally come to a close at 27+ hours. That was BRUTAL!!!!

I don't think it's luck. There's a pretty consistent pattern there where we have bad luck for that block if the pool hashrate is (10 + n*0.23-n)PH/s, where n is any positive integer. The block at 10.23PH/s was 20.5 hours, and the one at 10.45PH/s was over a full day. Lord knows what would happen if we actually hit 10.67PH/s, it could be a couple day long block.

I hope slush looks into this and can find the error in his code. These long blocks need to stop.

I get the feeling people took your comment seriously

I know MrTeal's been around on the block for a while.  I trusted it was "tongue-in-cheek".  Doesn't change the fact that I'm a sucker for talking about formulas and numbers  

But I honestly am quite curious about the recent jump in pool hashrate.  10% in roughly a day?  That's a pretty good jump for Slush, which has been bouncing between 9.5 and 10.5 PH for weeks now.  Yet according to blockchain's distribution chart, Slush has dropped to only 2% of the network hashrate.  Just looking at those two numbers, you would think total net hashrate (and difficulty) were shooting up again, but we appear to be due for another semi-marginal difficulty increase.  Just my observations.

[rupy]

CEX is down, and antpool dropped 15 PH at the same time... My miners are not going to their backup pool (slush), something is fishy. I will go out to the remote location and switch back slush to primary, I'd rather have 24 hour blocks than 8 hours full blast lost mining.

[SargeR33]

CEX is down, and antpool dropped 15 PH at the same time... My miners are not going to their backup pool (slush), something is fishy. I will go out to the remote location and switch back slush to primary, I'd rather have 24 hour blocks than 8 hours full blast lost mining.

If your miner is not mining, does it still consume power? Surely there is some code there to stop power consumption on idle...

[bigbitmine]

CEX is down, and antpool dropped 15 PH at the same time... My miners are not going to their backup pool (slush), something is fishy. I will go out to the remote location and switch back slush to primary, I'd rather have 24 hour blocks than 8 hours full blast lost mining.

If your miner is not mining, does it still consume power? Surely there is some code there to stop power consumption on idle...

Yes, they should go idle.  All mine do.  Some of them beep as well to tell me they're not mining.

[kano]

CEX is down, and antpool dropped 15 PH at the same time... My miners are not going to their backup pool (slush), something is fishy. I will go out to the remote location and switch back slush to primary, I'd rather have 24 hour blocks than 8 hours full blast lost mining.

If your miner is not mining, does it still consume power? Surely there is some code there to stop power consumption on idle...

Yes, they should go idle.  All mine do.  Some of them beep as well to tell me they're not mining.

No they still use too much power when idle

[MrTeal]

Looks like the "0% luck for a day" has finally come to a close at 27+ hours. That was BRUTAL!!!!

I don't think it's luck. There's a pretty consistent pattern there where we have bad luck for that block if the pool hashrate is (10 + n*0.23-n)PH/s, where n is any positive integer. The block at 10.23PH/s was 20.5 hours, and the one at 10.45PH/s was over a full day. Lord knows what would happen if we actually hit 10.67PH/s, it could be a couple day long block.

I hope slush looks into this and can find the error in his code. These long blocks need to stop.

I get the feeling people took your comment seriously

The devil made him do it.

That guy's always whispering in my ear.

[dmwardjr]

My Kill A Watt meter was defective when determining power consumption of my rigs.  In fact, it has burned out completely now and will not work.  I got information from another buddy who has a working watt meter and came up with the following results:

I HAVE DRAWN THE CONCLUSION IT IS NOT WORTH UNDER-CLOCKING THE S3 or S3+ [At least at present price of bitcoin].  I don't know that it would ever be worth under clocking it?  I can see under-clocking to make more power available to add more rigs with a higher hash rate and better power efficiency to your present set up.  That's about the only advantage.  As well as having a faster interface with the new firmware upgrade.

I have tuned my S3's back to .725 volts and default frequency instead of slightly over clocked frequency of 237.5 MHz.


S3 @ 270 watts [under-clocked at 175 MHz @ 0.68 volts (0680) and 340 to 360 GH/s (I chose 350 GH/s for the math)]

$0.106 (10.6 cents) per kWH power costs for 270 watts:

Cost Per Hour:   $0.028620
Cost Per Day:   $0.686880
Cost Per Week:   $4.808
Cost Per Month:   $19.23
Cost Per Year:   $250.02

Power costs at $0.106 (10.6 cents) per kWH for 380 watts:

Cost Per Hour:   $0.040280
Cost Per Day:   $0.966720
Cost Per Week:   $6.767
Cost Per Month:   $27.07
Cost Per Year:   $351.89

With BTC @ $273.471 & Difficulty at 46,684,376,316 and S3 tuned to 175 MHz @ 0.68 volts for 350 GH/s @ 270 watts:

Mined Per Hour:    0.0001571  BTC   $0.04296  USD - $0.028620 pwr. costs = $0.01434 per hour
Mined Per Day:     0.00377  BTC       $1.031  USD - $0.686880 pwr. costs = $0.34412 per day
Mined Per Week:   0.02639  BTC       $7.217  USD - $4.808 pwr. costs = $2.409 per week
Mined Per Month:  0.1131  BTC         $30.93  USD - $19.23 pwr. costs = $11.70 per month

With BTC @ $273.471 & Difficulty at 46,684,376,316 and S3 tuned to 237.5MHz @ 0.725 volts for 480 GH/s @ 380 watts:

Mined Per Hour:    0.0002155  BTC   $0.05893   USD - $0.040280 pwr. costs = $0.01865 per hour
Mined Per Day:     0.005171  BTC     $1.414       USD - $0.966720 pwr. costs = $0.44728 per day
Mined Per Week:   0.03619  BTC      $9.897       USD - $6.767 pwr. costs = $3.13 per week
Mined Per Month:  0.1551  BTC       $42.42       USD - $27.07 pwr. costs = $15.35 per month

The following screen shot shows what is mined in BTC with 350 GH/s:



The following screen shot shows what is mined in BTC with 480 GH/s:

[bigbitmine]

When I get a miner I just plug it in and leave it alone.  Works out well that way.

[alliebtcpup]

When you set back to default settings on the S3 is that by putting 0725 in the voltage?

[dmwardjr]

When you set back to default settings on the S3 is that by putting 0725 in the voltage?

I'm assuming it is the default.  I really don't know for certain on the older S3's before the S3+ came out.  I do know that is the default on the S3+ models.  I know this because I got two S3's of the last batch (batch 11) with the January, 2015 firmware and they were default at 0725.  I went ahead and put my old S3's at 0725 volts.  Then shut it down and turn it back on.

EDIT:  I've been up all night doing taxes.  It is 10:20am and I have not had sleep since 2:30pm yesterday.  It's night night for me (bed time).

[rupy]

@kkurtmann Well, it's just simpler to have everything synchronize over on port, now you need two solutions: 1 webserver and then 1 socketserver with memory leaks, file descriptor leaks, thread management, etc. Basically it's the way we should all go; microservices HTTP-only is a good standard so firewalls and scaling works the same way everywhere, language agnostic, so we can focus on the product with different tools; because developers want them, not because some guy with a suit & tie had a bad morning and needed complexity to keep his job.

Also if you wan't mining to work on port 80 you need it to be HTTP.

[Rudler]

Bloody hell.....1 day, 4:50:16 again and again.....?!

And Poolluck at 0%!!

Whats up? Too much pooljumpers?

This sucks all the time!

[SargeR33]

HUGE block for 11PH. Where did this pool BW.COM come from? They appeared over night and have some big power. Oh and its a Chinese pool and google translate doesn't translate the page.