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

[cosurgi]

5 hour bock, 6200 shares submited and score only 5900. Is this normal ?

No, 5 hour block isn't normal. But it seems to be just a bad luck.
And score 5900 is ok, it is being normalized every hour.

say hello to new difficulty

[dietwice]

5 hour bock, 6200 shares submited and score only 5900. Is this normal ?

No, 5 hour block isn't normal. But it seems to be just a bad luck.
And score 5900 is ok, it is being normalized every hour.

say hello to new difficulty

Hello, difficulty!

But a difficulty raise is just about 13% - I think it isn't a reason for a 6 hour block.

[slush]

On a 5 hour block.. Wonder if this one will be invalid too! ?

Fortunately not .

[slush]

Hello, difficulty!

But a difficulty raise is just about 13% - I think it isn't a reason for a 6 hour block.

Actually 6 hour block is still in "sane" range, with current difficulty and hashrate. It is still about probability - as far as I can tell, there's no technical problem in the pool.

[slippyrocks]

slush i think deepbit is screening the blocks somehow

probably a bailout threshold like hoppers use

can we implement this pronto

check it

http://deepbit.net/stats

[cosurgi]

slush i think deepbit is screening the blocks somehow
probably a bailout threshold like hoppers use

can we implement this pronto

we don't need this. our scoring method is designed specifically to be hopper-immune

https://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=1976.msg50002#msg50002

[Xephan]

slush i think deepbit is screening the blocks somehow
probably a bailout threshold like hoppers use

can we implement this pronto

we don't need this. our scoring method is designed specifically to be hopper-immune

https://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=1976.msg50002#msg50002

I don't he's talking about dealing with hoppers but rather he thinks deepbit is using some kind of method to screen blocks so they find blocks faster like abandoning a block once it takes longer than x% shares to solve the way hoppers abandon pools after 41%

I don't think something like that would work because if I'm not wrong, a new block depends on the Merkle root so you can't skip ahead. However, maybe it's possible to choose a different set of transactions and attempt to do a new block with them instead. Maybe slippyrocks would like to explain his theory.

[Clipse]

slush i think deepbit is screening the blocks somehow
probably a bailout threshold like hoppers use

can we implement this pronto

we don't need this. our scoring method is designed specifically to be hopper-immune

https://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=1976.msg50002#msg50002

I don't he's talking about dealing with hoppers but rather he thinks deepbit is using some kind of method to screen blocks so they find blocks faster like abandoning a block once it takes longer than x% shares to solve the way hoppers abandon pools after 41%

I don't think something like that would work because if I'm not wrong, a new block depends on the Merkle root so you can't skip ahead. However, maybe it's possible to choose a different set of transactions and attempt to do a new block with them instead. Maybe slippyrocks would like to explain his theory.

You cant bail on a block, if a block isnt found then everyone mining is still mining for that block.

Each block isnt assigned some arbitrary share value on the network, that is a pool feature to split work up and pay users their share, nothing more.

[zx9r]

slush i think deepbit is screening the blocks somehow

probably a bailout threshold like hoppers use

can we implement this pronto

check it

http://deepbit.net/stats

They have an average of 21 min per block last 24 hours. What is our avg in slush ? My feeling is that it may be hours but didnt make the numbers.

BTW, they "only" have about 2x our hashrate. Too much bad luck here and good luck there ?

[cosurgi]

... like abandoning a block once it takes longer than x% shares to solve the way hoppers abandon pools after 41% ...

heh. in fact a block is abadoned at least once per second, when nTime changes. Add to that extraNonce and block is changing hundred of times per second.

[OggerMC]

why did we got yesterday only half of the reward?

[Xephan]

They have an average of 21 min per block last 24 hours. What is our avg in slush ? My feeling is that it may be hours but didnt make the numbers.

BTW, they "only" have about 2x our hashrate. Too much bad luck here and good luck there ?

Minutes per block average in past 9 days or so
Deepbit 22.3 (Currently 5510 GH/s)
Slush 61.6 (Currently 2045 GH/s)

They've got 2.69x our hashrate, and average of 22.3 is only about 2.7% faster than expected... or we're 2.7% slower than expected

[dietwice]

They have an average of 21 min per block last 24 hours. What is our avg in slush ? My feeling is that it may be hours but didnt make the numbers.

BTW, they "only" have about 2x our hashrate. Too much bad luck here and good luck there ?

Minutes per block average in past 9 days or so
Deepbit 22.3 (Currently 5510 GH/s)
Slush 61.6 (Currently 2045 GH/s)

They've got 2.69x our hashrate, and average of 22.3 is only about 2.7% faster than expected... or we're 2.7% slower than expected

It isn't quite correct to compare the almost instant ratio with the 9-days average.
We had Slush at 19xx GH/s yesterday, and 22xx a day before with almost the same long time average - so the comparison results can differ significantly.

Anyway it would be good to raise the complete pool speed to get better stability and to aviod that multihour blocks.

[slush]

why did we got yesterday only half of the reward?

There is still no other answer than "the probability" .

[slush]

About screening blocks - at this moment there's no known algorithm to improve probability to find a block faster than is expected average. Ideas like "change block when round is extra long" does not work , every attempt (every nonce change) is almost perfectly random.

[OggerMC]

so days like these are just badluck and nothing to do about it but to increase the overall performance?

[slush]

so days like these are just badluck and nothing to do about it but to increase the overall performance?

Increasing overall performance will just make rounds shorter, but it didn't help with having rounds many times longer than expected average. Having many hours round is mostly psychological problem, it does not affect expected payout in longer timeframe (in days).

Personally I'm completely checking pool status everytime when such long round happen, but I'm perfectly calm when I found it isn't any technical problem, but just a "luck". Over a half of a year of running the pool learnt me that one round does not mean anything.

[dietwice]

Hi Guys,

I've noticed that it's taking much longer for me to get confirmed blocks now. It seems that my unconfirmed count is increasing while my confirmed count is increasing at a much slower rate.

Is anybody else having this issue, maybe i'm just missing something here.

Thanks.

Sure.
The block confirmation time is measuring in blocks so it depends on the overall speed of the bitcoin network.
For now it's about 5 blocks an hour whilst usually it's about 6-7 blocks. So the 100 blocks confirmation now takes about 20 hours instead of 14-16 as usual.
Also there's a few minutes delay between dropping the block reward from the "unconfirmed" and adding it to "confirmed".
Don't worry, it won't affect your daily average.

[bitpop]

api2.bitcoin.cz isn't letting all of my miners connect. it took me hours to figure out to try api.bitcoin.cz
you should really say why api2 exists, newer server vs second server for more connections

[Spadowsky]

I'm trying to set askrate since there's no longpolling but it fails. This is what i do:

python phoenix.py -u http://xxxx.xxxx:xxxx@api2.bitcoin.cz:8332/;askrate=10 -k phatk DEVICE=1 VECTORS AGGRESSION=12 WORKSIZE=128 BFI_INT FASTLOOP=false

Then i get this:

phoenix$ python phoenix.py -u http://XXXX.XXXX:XXXX@api2.bitcoin.cz:8332/;askrate=10 -k phatk DEVICE=1 VECTORS AGGRESSION=12 WORKSIZE=128 BFI_INT FASTLOOP=false
No device specified or device not found, use DEVICE=ID to specify one of the following

    

• AMD Athlon(tm) II X2 250 Processor
[1] Cypress                        
    [2] Cypress                        

[0 Khash/sec] [0 Accepted] [0 Rejected]-k: command not found

Anyone knows what i got wrong here?