Bitcoin Forum
December 06, 2016, 07:57:46 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: What type of pool payouts do you prefer?
Bitcoins - 3160 (80.5%)
Bank transfer / USD - 407 (10.4%)
Gold/silver coins and bars - 359 (9.1%)
Total Voters: 3924

Pages: « 1 ... 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 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [40+ PH] SlushPool (slushpool.com); World's First Mining Pool  (Read 3928239 times)
TheRealSteve
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686

FUN > ROI


View Profile
August 19, 2015, 06:16:10 PM
 #21081

I'd guess they just had to make sure putting that version on actually worked in a live environment before throwing it out there as an option.  Just a guess, though.  All blocks from Slush since (so far) have been version 3 (regular Core version).

1481054266
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481054266

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481054266
Reply with quote  #2

1481054266
Report to moderator
1481054266
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481054266

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481054266
Reply with quote  #2

1481054266
Report to moderator
1481054266
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481054266

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481054266
Reply with quote  #2

1481054266
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481054266
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481054266

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481054266
Reply with quote  #2

1481054266
Report to moderator
KNK
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 615


View Profile
August 19, 2015, 07:05:04 PM
 #21082

I don't want to be a part of these which mine XT blocks but I did not have a choice! Such a shame!

Me too, but please read again my full post and specifically the part you have removed from your quote.

I'd guess they just had to make sure putting that version on actually worked in a live environment before throwing it out there as an option.  Just a guess, though.  All blocks from Slush since (so far) have been version 3 (regular Core version).

That's exactly what I meant in my post - this block is just a test and we will have the option to vote pretty soon.

BTC tips: 1KNK1akhpethhtcyhKTF2d3PWTQDUWUzHE
jonnybravo0311
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008


Mine at Jonny's Pool


View Profile WWW
August 19, 2015, 07:16:08 PM
 #21083

What do you mean it was a test?  You want to perform a test, you throw it up on the test network.  What was done here was slush actively pointing miner hash rate to an XT node which constructed and solved a block.  There is no announcement on the website stating that this would occur.  Perhaps this was announced in some social media, but it isn't anywhere on the actual website.  Therefore, miners weren't given the choice - it was made for them.

Of course, if you did indeed happen to know in advance that this was going to occur, and you chose to keep your miners here, then you voted for XT by default.  If you have become aware of this, and continue to mine here, you are indeed voting for XT.  I wonder if you're going to be given the option in your worker setup or somewhere else (like a different URL/port) to choose XT or Core, or if slush will solely mine on XT nodes.

Jonny's Pool - Mine with us and help us grow!  Support a pool that supports Bitcoin, not a hardware manufacturer's pockets!  No SPV cheats.  No empty blocks.
pekatete
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518



View Profile WWW
August 19, 2015, 07:23:32 PM
 #21084

As time goes by, it seems more people are voting with their hash for XT (pool hash-rate was approx 14PH yesterday and it is now approx 16PH and growing!).
And yes, the "test" was done without informing pool users, and most likely the announcement to offer the choice to vote for XT was made after the "test", but more important is that the choice is to be offered (and pertinently that the pool hash seems to be growing as the news spreads and the importance of the "test" sinks in).

TheRealSteve
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686

FUN > ROI


View Profile
August 19, 2015, 09:22:43 PM
 #21085

Right now, every Slush Pool miner can vote for larger blocksize.
Simply use one of following mining URL to do so:

stratum+tcp://stratum.bitcoin.cz:3301
stratum+tcp://us-east.stratum.bitcoin.cz:3301
stratum+tcp://eu.stratum.bitcoin.cz:3301
( only difference is the port )

Lucko
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
August 20, 2015, 12:09:23 AM
 #21086

Right now, every Slush Pool miner can vote for larger blocksize.
Simply use one of following mining URL to do so:

stratum+tcp://stratum.bitcoin.cz:3301
stratum+tcp://us-east.stratum.bitcoin.cz:3301
stratum+tcp://eu.stratum.bitcoin.cz:3301
( only difference is the port )
Now I need to change ports on 33 miners... He didn't make it easy...
edonkey
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1003



View Profile
August 20, 2015, 02:54:26 AM
 #21087

Right now, every Slush Pool miner can vote for larger blocksize.
Simply use one of following mining URL to do so:

stratum+tcp://stratum.bitcoin.cz:3301
stratum+tcp://us-east.stratum.bitcoin.cz:3301
stratum+tcp://eu.stratum.bitcoin.cz:3301
( only difference is the port )
Now I need to change ports on 33 miners... He didn't make it easy...

Seems like an alternative set of URLs is the only way to realistically implement a voting system. If they made it account based (for example) then there would be overhead forwarding mining traffic to the appropriate stratum server.

I switched my miners over this afternoon, as soon as I heard about it.

I think the option to vote with your hash power is inspired. Well done Slush!

Was I helpful?   BTC: 18wQtEDmhur2xAd3oE8qgrZbpCDeuMsdQW   LTC: LbqLtkZ6wTSpwHHuv1tG4J7tHajGdH5QFB   DOGE: D9R5ySAP2DARpxuNKd7hN7ANmqFiGwB9G6
-ck
Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988


Ruu \o/


View Profile WWW
August 20, 2015, 03:41:12 AM
 #21088

He probably should have clarified that it's a vote for XT, not just a larger blocksize.

Primary developer/maintainer for cgminer and ckpool/ckproxy.
Pooled mine at kano.is, solo mine at solo.ckpool.org
-ck
pekatete
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518



View Profile WWW
August 20, 2015, 08:45:29 AM
 #21089

He probably should have clarified that it's a vote for XT, not just a larger blocksize.

Probably not. It is what it is, that which WE are voting on with OUR hash.
There are, I'd imagine, multiple threads discussing THAT distinction where you'd no doubt be on-topic.

-ck
Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988


Ruu \o/


View Profile WWW
August 20, 2015, 10:28:50 AM
 #21090

He probably should have clarified that it's a vote for XT, not just a larger blocksize.

Probably not. It is what it is, that which WE are voting on with OUR hash.
There are, I'd imagine, multiple threads discussing THAT distinction where you'd no doubt be on-topic.
With all due respect, I think making it clear that it's XT you're mining for by selecting the alternative ports IS on topic for miners who mine on this pool.

EDIT: Respect withdrawn based on your obviously inflammatory response ignoring what the implications of said vote are. It is NOT just a vote for bigger blocks. I'll let others judge for themselves.

Primary developer/maintainer for cgminer and ckpool/ckproxy.
Pooled mine at kano.is, solo mine at solo.ckpool.org
-ck
pekatete
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518



View Profile WWW
August 20, 2015, 10:38:01 AM
 #21091

He probably should have clarified that it's a vote for XT, not just a larger blocksize.

Probably not. It is what it is, that which WE are voting on with OUR hash.
There are, I'd imagine, multiple threads discussing THAT distinction where you'd no doubt be on-topic.
With all due respect, I think making it clear that it's XT you're mining for by selecting the alternative ports IS on topic for miners who mine on this pool.

It is what it is, and very clearly stated, and I quote: Right now, every Slush Pool miner can vote for larger blocksize..
The XT part is what is totally off-topic since it is neither mentioned in the post nor been raised as an issue to slush by any of my fellow pool users. So there, find the thread discussing the merits and demerits of XT, block sizes et al and continue that discussion there.

chiguireitor
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 860


Coins, Games & Miners


View Profile WWW
August 20, 2015, 11:02:28 AM
 #21092

It could be that if enough miners connect to port 3301 they alter the version number (without using XT) on the block itself that gets relayed, expressing support for the BIP but not using the flawed XT implementation?

Just shooting an arrow on the dark here....

TheRealSteve
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686

FUN > ROI


View Profile
August 20, 2015, 12:38:09 PM
 #21093

It could be that if enough miners connect to port 3301 they alter the version number (without using XT) on the block itself that gets relayed, expressing support for the BIP but not using the flawed XT implementation?
And with that, it's obvious that the pool operators should indeed be more specific in what exactly is on the back-end of the 3301 port.  There's at least 3 readily accessible possibilities;
1. Bitcoin-XT, which has the block vote but also already contains the additional other changes.
2. Big-block only, which has the block vote and all code to handle big blocks, but does not contain the additional other changes.
3. Not-XT, which only pretends to be XT and sets the version number (thus voting), but does not actually have the code to handle big blocks (or any of the parts that take votes into account)

While all 3 constitute a 'vote for' big blocks, the devil is in the details.  I highly doubt it's the third option as that would basically be double-crossing those who explicitly chose to mine at that port expecting either the first or second option, but that still leaves those two.  Can't hurt to clarify the particulars Smiley

pekatete
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518



View Profile WWW
August 20, 2015, 12:46:55 PM
 #21094

Its a means to an end and not the end itself (and we're not at the end either). If and when we get to THAT end, then I agree, it would be nice (just nice) to know what means a pool deploys. As it stands, it is neither here nor there (akin to dilligently applying a razor to a hair-strand!).

It is a simple vote (by hash) of whether we'd like to get to a certain end-point (not a vote on the means to get to that endpoint).

TheRealSteve
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686

FUN > ROI


View Profile
August 20, 2015, 01:07:30 PM
 #21095

I think it's great that they offer the choice at all, let people decide.  The thing some people are pointing out is that there are changes in the XT client that are completely separate from the block size voting and apply immediately.  Presenting the choice as being purely about the block size and something that only applies to the future and only if certain thresholds are met is painting an incomplete picture.  That's not a matter of splitting hairs, but one of informed choice.  It's also only a single comment/post to clarify Smiley

pekatete
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518



View Profile WWW
August 20, 2015, 01:53:13 PM
 #21096

The razor and hair-strand comment was not directed towards your comment, was just included in a response to your comment.
Saying that, I think you hit it on the head there, aka there are changes in the XT client that are completely separate from the block size, which (no surprise here) is exactly my thinking. The hash vote is for block size not the XT client (or the other means to achieving a larger block size). That there are implications to that should be the subject of another thread, of which I am sure there are plenty .... but thanks for clarifying anyway.

Gyrsur
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498


#BEL+++++


View Profile WWW
August 20, 2015, 02:00:48 PM
 #21097

did the second XT block also came from slush's pool?

TheRealSteve
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686

FUN > ROI


View Profile
August 20, 2015, 02:04:56 PM
 #21098

did the second XT block also came from slush's pool?
Yes.  For future reference, see: https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/blocks/1
They're tracking both coinbase sigScript (including BIP100) type 'votes' as well as BIP101 (Bitcoin-XT) votes and include pool attribution.

Gyrsur
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498


#BEL+++++


View Profile WWW
August 20, 2015, 02:09:07 PM
 #21099

did the second XT block also came from slush's pool?
Yes.  For future reference, see: https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/blocks/1
They're tracking both coinbase sigScript (including BIP100) type 'votes' as well as BIP101 (Bitcoin-XT) votes and include pool attribution.

thank you for the link. what are this 8MB votes from some chinese miner pools?

Lucko
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
August 20, 2015, 02:32:50 PM
 #21100

did the second XT block also came from slush's pool?
Yes.  For future reference, see: https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/blocks/1
They're tracking both coinbase sigScript (including BIP100) type 'votes' as well as BIP101 (Bitcoin-XT) votes and include pool attribution.

thank you for the link. what are this 8MB votes from some chinese miner pools?
Voting with coinbase(not exchange)... Saying we would like to see 8MB blocks. But they are not doing it with XT but QT... For now they are waiting for devs to do something...
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 »
  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!