Bitcoin Forum
December 04, 2016, 12:09:22 AM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   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 ... 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 [209] 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 ... 1105 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [40+ PH] SlushPool (slushpool.com); World's First Mining Pool  (Read 3926671 times)
slush
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile WWW
October 24, 2011, 12:45:58 AM
 #4161

Downside: (prolexic) costs a lot of money (in the 4-5 figures) per month.

So it's something like 1-2 figures more than earnings from the pool at current price. Why are we considering this? :-)

Quote
If you persuade 'attacker' to voluntarily stop in exchange for a smaller sum than charged by Prolexic, both sides win.

There's nobody to bribe. May I trust somebody who send me a PM like "I'm an attacker, pay me xxx USD monthly and I will stop attacks"? Surely not.

1480810162
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480810162

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480810162
Reply with quote  #2

1480810162
Report to moderator
1480810162
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480810162

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480810162
Reply with quote  #2

1480810162
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480810162
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480810162

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480810162
Reply with quote  #2

1480810162
Report to moderator
1480810162
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480810162

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480810162
Reply with quote  #2

1480810162
Report to moderator
1480810162
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480810162

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480810162
Reply with quote  #2

1480810162
Report to moderator
DutchBrat
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868


View Profile
October 24, 2011, 01:19:01 AM
 #4162

If you send me 500 BTC a month, I promise I will never ever START attacking you !

I don't have much hashing power so my price is low  Grin
Tartarus
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 47


View Profile
October 24, 2011, 01:28:46 AM
 #4163

So I guess for now we throw torify in front of the miner and if this takes off wait for (or help with) patching miners to try and proxy .onion domains?  Or maybe I should say, adding a new user, turning off LP and doing torify python phoenix.py ... Just Works.  And cgminer uses curl which supports SOCKS (and of course see the Tor FAQ about SOCKS and potential privacy issues) so it should Just Work too, but I haven't fiddled with that yet.

Yes, both torify or SOCKS5 proxy in miners should work. Actually it would be really amazing if somebody write short howto for running miners over Tor (maybe to bitcoin.it wiki?). Unfortunately torify works only in Linux, so Windows users need miner with SOCKS5 support.

I'm game for some of the contents at least (no Windows here).  There's already a Tor page on the bitcoin.it wiki, but it's for bitcoind/IRC usage rather than mining, but the basic setup stuff is there.  Perhaps adding a Mining section, covering Linux and OS X (which I assume has torify too, but checking now) and hoping someone with Windows can confirm what I see googling about setting http_proxy in Windows and hoping cgminer+libcurl for Windows obeys?

EDIT: Page edited, OS X doesn't have torify so I just put Windows and OS X in the same section about "try setting http_proxy".  I don't know if more client specific information should go on the client pages (which are kinda sparse at times) or here.

Find the above useful?  Send tips to 1KjoJihf7GWHWeQFhDmaw4g7xorkmD13u
anthony.selby
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 43



View Profile
October 24, 2011, 01:31:49 AM
 #4164

So I have two sites ... and one of them is working perfect ... the other :-/ ... connection problems

do I need to let you know the ips or is that something that will work itself out
slush
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile WWW
October 24, 2011, 01:49:21 AM
 #4165

do I need to let you know the ips or is that something that will work itself out

Tell me IP, I'll watch logs.

slush
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile WWW
October 24, 2011, 02:58:36 AM
 #4166

I'm playing with SOCKS5 support for poclbm, looks like very simple patch, unfortunately with external dependency to socksipy library. If it will work, I'll ask m0mchil to accept it to upstream. Worse thing is that poclbm is pretty sensitive to timeouts (default is 5sec, which sometimes isn't enough for Tor).

Tartarus
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 47


View Profile
October 24, 2011, 03:03:30 AM
 #4167

I'm playing with SOCKS5 support for poclbm, looks like very simple patch, unfortunately with external dependency to socksipy library. If it will work, I'll ask m0mchil to accept it to upstream. Worse thing is that poclbm is pretty sensitive to timeouts (default is 5sec, which sometimes isn't enough for Tor).

What's poclbm using for url parsing?  I was poking phoenix earlier (and hoping to have time today, but didn't end up with) to try and add a proxy option since there's examples for twisted (which phoenix uses) and urllib (which I hope others use, heh) for proxy.

Find the above useful?  Send tips to 1KjoJihf7GWHWeQFhDmaw4g7xorkmD13u
Iyeman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 189


View Profile
October 24, 2011, 12:43:26 PM
 #4168

just an fyi, looks like anonymous was able to ddos a site hosted through tor. Granted a child porn site deserved to be ddos'd but with the talks about using tor to avoid the pool going down from ddos may not be as good as it is in theory.

Quote
Anonymous’ hackers were able to exploit the PHP site with a SQL injection attack and extract the user database before launching a denial of service attack

http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2011/10/anonymous-takes-down-darknet-child-porn-site-on-tor-network.ars

BTC: 1aombYbEyggW4uKuX2VgYBjPMu8yxcYCX
sadpandatech
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504



View Profile
October 24, 2011, 12:56:33 PM
 #4169

just an fyi, looks like anonymous was able to ddos a site hosted through tor. Granted a child porn site deserved to be ddos'd but with the talks about using tor to avoid the pool going down from ddos may not be as good as it is in theory.

Quote
Anonymous’ hackers were able to exploit the PHP site with a SQL injection attack and extract the user database before launching a denial of service attack

http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2011/10/anonymous-takes-down-darknet-child-porn-site-on-tor-network.ars

 OT; OT; I love this part,  “The server was using hardened PHP with escaping,” Anonymous said in its statement. “We were able to bypass it with with UTF-16 ASCII encoding.”

  What good is escaping if the parser will accept arbitrary commands in a differnt encoding? *facepalm* Why would php even parse a UTF-16 command if it was strictly a UTF-8 setup?


   There are a few things left out here; numbers! Anon has access to a huge magnitude greater ddos capacity than anyone attacking here thus far, one would assume.  Yes, it has been shown you can cripple nodes. But this report fails to reveal just how much zombie power was used to cripple the site. They have the capability to fingerprint sites and likely also the capability to make there node attacks much more focused than what your average botnet OP could. We also don't know if this Lolita site was setup with some sort of static route out of freedom hosting that would have made it much more vulnerable to ddos..

If you're not excited by the idea of being an early adopter 'now', then you should come back in three or four years and either tell us "Told you it'd never work!" or join what should, by then, be a much more stable and easier-to-use system. - GA
It is being worked on by smart people. -DamienBlack
slush
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile WWW
October 24, 2011, 09:35:41 PM
 #4170

TheGECK, sadpandatech: Thanks for text corrections (back on page 186 and 187), I finally found some time and updated homepage :-).

Edit: :-P

sadpandatech
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504



View Profile
October 24, 2011, 09:55:47 PM
 #4171

TheGECK, sadpandatech: Thanks for text corrections (back on page 186 and 187), I finally found some time and updated homepage :-).

  That's all TheGeck's edits there. I did not quote him properly but thank you for pointing out that I did try to contribute. ;p

If you're not excited by the idea of being an early adopter 'now', then you should come back in three or four years and either tell us "Told you it'd never work!" or join what should, by then, be a much more stable and easier-to-use system. - GA
It is being worked on by smart people. -DamienBlack
melted349
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 12


View Profile
October 25, 2011, 07:22:51 PM
 #4172

I have all kinds of questions for the NMC mining portion of this site.  I think I'll answer some of my own questions as I write this post so I'll try to keep this organized so others can follow.

Questions
  • Why is it I seem to get payed the same amount of NMCs during different periods of time waiting for a BTC block to be found?
  • Why isn't the NMC stats separate from the BTC stats?
  • If a BTC block was found to be invalid, do I loose the NMC I earned? (Example below)
  • Its said on the site that users that don't setup an NMC wallet are giving their NMC to other members.  How do I know I'm getting part of that and that you're not just keeping the extra NMC?
  • Added: Why is it a NMC block seems to be found everytime a BTC block is found?

Example: Date:2011-10-23 17:16:46   Time:1:41:25   TotalShares:1772244   BitcoinEarned:0.03231212   NamecoinEarned:0.93021449    -    invalid

This bitcoin black was invalid.  But the combined NMC block I participated in mining were not.  So did I loose that .9 NMC? 

Also, seeing how quickly the NMC blocks are found, and just assuming there's generally an average time that NMC blocks are found.  I would expect that the longer a bitcoin block takes to find, the larger amount of NMC payout I will have with that bitcoin payout.  (The longer the bitcoin block takes to find, the more NMC blocks that are found, the higher my proportional payout will be).  Yet, I've seen bitcoin blocks take 1 hour to find, and I get the same amount of NMC as I do when it takes 2 hours for a bitcoin block to be found.

Examples:

1 Date/Time: 2011-10-25 18:05:08   TimeToFind:2:00:13   TotShares:1934180   BTCEarned:0.03839732   NMCEarned:0.69285054
2 Date/Time: 2011-10-25 16:04:55   TimeToFind:1:08:01   TotShares:1113569   BTCEarned:0.03039822   NMCEarned:0.72321182
3 Date/Time: 2011-10-25 14:56:54   TimeToFind:2:20:50   TotShares:2290272   BTCEarned:0.03190931   NMCEarned:0.75832297

Here's all the NMC blocks that were found during the time period of the 3 BTC blocks above:

1 - 2767   2011-10-25 18:05:09   0:09:11   24386    92 confirmations left
1 - 2766   2011-10-25 17:55:58   0:09:02   24385    91 confirmations left
1 - 2765   2011-10-25 17:46:56   0:25:14   24384    90 confirmations left
1 - 2764   2011-10-25 17:21:42   0:04:48   24382    88 confirmations left
1 - 2763   2011-10-25 17:16:54   0:04:56   24381    87 confirmations left
1 - 2762   2011-10-25 17:11:58   0:03:49   24380    86 confirmations left
1 - 2761   2011-10-25 17:08:09   0:30:44   24379    85 confirmations left
1 - 2760   2011-10-25 16:37:25   0:04:15   24375    81 confirmations left
1 - 2759   2011-10-25 16:33:10   0:02:22   24373    79 confirmations left
1 - 2758   2011-10-25 16:30:48   0:17:31   24372    78 confirmations left
1 - 2757   2011-10-25 16:13:17   0:08:22   24370    76 confirmations left
2 - 2756   2011-10-25 16:04:55   0:04:55   24368    74 confirmations left
2 - 2755   2011-10-25 16:00:00   0:06:35   24367    73 confirmations left
2 - 2754   2011-10-25 15:53:25   0:10:56   24366    72 confirmations left
2 - 2753   2011-10-25 15:42:29   0:00:06   24363    69 confirmations left
2 - 2752   2011-10-25 15:42:23   0:04:13   24362    68 confirmations left
2 - 2751   2011-10-25 15:38:10   0:06:01   24361    67 confirmations left
2 - 2750   2011-10-25 15:32:09   0:09:58   24360    66 confirmations left
2 - 2749   2011-10-25 15:22:11   0:05:08   24359    65 confirmations left
2 - 2748   2011-10-25 15:17:03   0:09:29   24358    64 confirmations left
2 - 2747   2011-10-25 15:07:34   0:01:12   24357    63 confirmations left
2 - 2746   2011-10-25 15:06:22   0:08:14   24356    62 confirmations left
2 - 2745   2011-10-25 14:58:08   0:00:48   24355    61 confirmations left
2 - 2744   2011-10-25 14:57:20   0:00:26   24354    60 confirmations left
3 - 2743   2011-10-25 14:56:54   0:06:56   24353    59 confirmations left
3 - 2742   2011-10-25 14:49:58   0:17:04   24351    57 confirmations left
3 - 2741   2011-10-25 14:32:54   0:31:13   24347    53 confirmations left
3 - 2740   2011-10-25 14:01:41   0:07:51   24344    50 confirmations left
3 - 2739   2011-10-25 13:53:50   0:07:39   24343    49 confirmations left
3 - 2738   2011-10-25 13:46:11   0:21:37   24342    48 confirmations left
3 - 2737   2011-10-25 13:24:35   0:05:53   24340    46 confirmations left
3 - 2736   2011-10-25 13:18:42   0:06:08   24337    43 confirmations left
3 - 2735   2011-10-25 13:12:34   0:14:26   24336    42 confirmations left
3 - 2734   2011-10-25 12:58:08   0:11:30   24334    40 confirmations left
3 - 2733   2011-10-25 12:46:38   0:03:58   24332    38 confirmations left
3 - 2732   2011-10-25 12:42:40   0:06:26   24331    37 confirmations left
3 - 2731   2011-10-25 12:36:14   0:00:10   24330    36 confirmations left
3 - 2730   2011-10-25 12:36:04   0:06:30   24329    35 confirmations left
3 - 2729   2011-10-25 12:29:34   0:10:11   24328    34 confirmations left

39 NMC blocks found in this time period.  That's 1950 NMCs.   Example 1 period: 10 NMC blocks, 550 NMCs  -  Example 2 period: 13 NMC blocks, 650 NMCs  -  Example 3 period: 15 NMC blocks, 750 NMCs

Alright so in my example, I think I answered my own question about why I'm getting payed the same amount of NMC when the BTC block takes longer to solve.  Its just the way the blocks were found.  But, this also raised another question for me at least.  Why is it that a NMC block seems to be found every time a BTC block is found?  Is there something I'm missing there?    I'll add this to my questions up top. 

Honestly I feel if there were a few more stats available to me, I'd be more satisfied.  If I could see my current hash rate, If I could see how many blocks I've contributed to each BTC block and to each NMC block, so I can verify I'm getting paid properly.  It just feels like the way it's setup now, it's all about putting faith into the "scoring" system, which I don't fully understand.  And with the few stats that are shown to us, it's near impossible to verify our earnings.  For all I know, you could be taking a 10% fee, I can't verify it.  So I guess I'm looking for some clarification here.  Any help would be greatly appreciated.   Roll Eyes
slush
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile WWW
October 25, 2011, 08:34:44 PM
 #4173

Why is it I seem to get payed the same amount of NMCs during different periods of time waiting for a BTC block to be found?

You answered this by yourself. It's not "the same", but it is proportional to number of found NMC blocks in the meantime of BTC block.

Quote
Why isn't the NMC stats separate from the BTC stats?

I explained this when I was introducing Merged mining; My pool was first one programmed back in December 2010. Back at this time, I didn't have an idea about alternative chains, so pool natively support only one blockchain. It is all about performance and scalability, I simply calculate shares and other stats once instead of twice (separate for BTC and NMC). Because of this, I decided to pick solution described above; Pool is collecting Namecoins and split collected NMCs between users using score from bitcoin rounds. It is perfectly fair mechanism, however I'm unable to provide fancy stats and detailed graphs about mining of namecoins. I'm planning to rewrite pool core for full support of more blockchains, but (as you will see in few days) there're more important stuff coming, so please be patient.

Quote
If a BTC block was found to be invalid, do I loose the NMC I earned? (Example below)

No. This is just side effect of merged stats - it *looks like* your NMC reward is also "invalid", but this state is related only for bitcoin block. As far as Namecoin blocks are valid, you'll get it.

Quote
Its said on the site that users that don't setup an NMC wallet are giving their NMC to other members.  How do I know I'm getting part of that and that you're not just keeping the extra NMC?

It's same as with bitcoin mining - you need to trust me. Pools aren't cheat proof from side of operators and every operator can cheat pool members easily.

You cannot recalculate if your NMC reward is correct, because you don't know who subscribed for mining namecoins and who does not. However if I'll show on site "60.3% of hashpower are NMC miners" (or something like this), you still need to trust this number. Also in pool in completely open stats (where people can list who submitted how many shares when), cheating is still possible, because you need to trust the operator that those members are real.

Quote
Added: Why is it a NMC block seems to be found everytime a BTC block is found?

This is a little technical, but: every time single share is submitted, it is compared not only against Bitcoin target, but also against Namecoin target. When submitted share has difficulty above Bitcoin difficulty, it leads to valid Bitcoin block. When share has difficulty above Namecoin difficulty, it leads to valid Namecoin block. And because NMC difficulty is currently lower than Bitcoin difficulty, everytime some miner find a valid Bitcoin block, it is automatically also Namecoin block.



Quote
This bitcoin black was invalid.  But the combined NMC block I participated in mining were not.  So did I loose that .9 NMC?  

No.

Quote
Also, seeing how quickly the NMC blocks are found, and just assuming there's generally an average time that NMC blocks are found.

Yes, current Namecoin difficulty is around 156000, Bitcoin difficulty is 1460000. So there should be (1460k / 156k) ~ 9 Namecoins block inside one Bitcoin block in average.

Quote
Honestly I feel if there were a few more stats available to me, I'd be more satisfied.

Rome wasn't built in a day. I introduced merged mining as a first large pool, so I don't think it's so bad Smiley. As I explained above, collecting detailed stats need major rewrite of pool accounting internals which wasn't in a scope of recent merged mining project. And now I'm working on another important stuff for the pool.

Quote
If I could see my current hash rate

Your hashrate is still the same, merged mining didn't affect it at all.

Quote
it's all about putting faith into the "scoring" system, which I don't fully understand.

Actually score system is still pretty easy, I'm thinking about geometric system, which is hell more complicated. Score system is basically normal proportional method, only weight of every share is rising in time. For basic math you still can use share count instead of score and it will +/- fit expectations.

Quote
And with the few stats that are shown to us, it's near impossible to verify our earnings.  For all I know, you could be taking a 10% fee, I can't verify it.

Actually you can. Those calculations are done on all pool history and it fits expectations. All calculations based on earnings of a single person (if you're comparing 'expected earnings' with 'real earnings') are subject of local pool luck, but that math done in linked thread shows that pool is as lucky as it should be.

P.S. Sorry for my crappy english, I'm really tired and this stuff is hard to explain for me Smiley. I hope that everything is much clearer for you now.

slush
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile WWW
October 25, 2011, 11:46:00 PM
 #4174

User bars - finally! Thanks twmz for hell fast support. Please visit btcstats.net to pick yours. I'll integrate userbars to website soon.

melted349
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 12


View Profile
October 26, 2011, 12:08:19 AM
 #4175

You've explained a lot, and I appreciate that.  I still don't see why you can't show a user's submitted shares for a found block on the stats page.  That part doesn't seem like it'd be that hard to do.  Somewhere you have to have that data because you use that date to calculate the score to determine the payout.  So why can't you add a column to the stats next to total shares and call it your shares so you can see how many shares you submitted for that block. 

The only reason I bring this up and question the scoring system btw is because I should have a steady payout when mining.  For the most part I should mine at around 900Mhash/s, and currently the pool's rate has been around 1100Ghash/s - 1200Ghash/s, so for each found block my payout should be roughly around the same amount.  Sometimes I'm making 0.030 BTC per block found, and sometimes I'm making as low as 0.006 per block found.  That's a large variance in payout.  And I can't help but look at the scoring system and question it.  Also, sometimes I view my account page and see my score will say something like 100000.00 + of a score.  And then a few hours later it'll be 200.00 or some number in the hundreds.  Which is why I really do not understand your scoring system.  And I am unaware of anywhere on the site where I can see my hash rate from the site's side, which could explain some of this.  Or even a stale share ratio, so I know how many stale shares I'm submitting. 

I'm not trying to criticize your work or your site.  You've done something I could never do on my own.  I use your site because it is the largest merged mining pool I have found.  But I see so many other sites that have merged mining all having the same basic stats available to the users.  I just don't see how some of these basic stats would be so difficult to display.  Just in my thinking, it would seem that you would need to have these stats anyway to calculate proper payout, so displaying these stats to the users would be as simple as storing them in another table to on database and re-writing some of the stat pages to display them. 
slush
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile WWW
October 26, 2011, 12:27:06 AM
 #4176

I still don't see why you can't show a user's submitted shares for a found block on the stats page.  That part doesn't seem like it'd be that hard to do.  

Actually I can do it. However people then start asking "when I get a round payout 0.03123 when I should get 0.03122?". I can show submitted shares, but it isn't used for calculating rewards, so it's mostly pointless. I'm always saying "one round does not matter". There is proof that it will average out after few thousands of shares (link taken from News on website). Everything what you need to follow is 7-day average on Graphs page.

Quote
Sometimes I'm making 0.030 BTC per block found, and sometimes I'm making as low as 0.006 per block found.

Now you understand what I'm talking two lines above, right? :-).

Quote
That's a large variance in payout.

If you're mining all time and don't have any connection issues which is lowering your round reward, then it's only tax for score method. Actually - nobody who understand how it works care about single round reward.

Quote
Also, sometimes I view my account page and see my score will say something like 100000.00 + of a score.  And then a few hours later it'll be 200.00 or some number in the hundreds.  Which is why I really do not understand your scoring system.

Everything is described in link above. This 'weird stuff' with score is calling 'renormalization'. Renormalization is running every hour to avoid calculations with huge numbers (you know that score is rising exponentially in time). But everytime you calculate (your score)/(pool total score), you'll get the same ratio reflecting your part on final round reward. No black magic here.

Quote
Or even a stale share ratio, so I know how many stale shares I'm submitting.  

Profile will display stale share ratio soon, it's in ongoing pool update. However only your miner shows you stale ratio and connection issues with 100% accuracy.

Quote
I just don't see how some of these basic stats would be so difficult to display.

About nmc stats - I simply don't have such precisious stats to display, as I explained before.

Quote
would be as simple as storing them in another table to on database

... which double database writes... World is pretty hard place to live :-). I understand your questions, but I have some limited resources (mostly time) and I'm choosing what can I done with them. However I agree that sometimes my choice don't fit preferences of pool users. I'll try to make stats better soon.

Iyeman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 189


View Profile
October 26, 2011, 01:53:53 AM
 #4177

I really do not understand your scoring system. 

30 seconds on google would explain the scoring system and all the other payout systems

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Comparison_of_mining_pools

Score - Score based system: a proportional reward, but weighed by time submitted. Each submitted share is worth more in the function of time t since start of current round. For each share score is updated by: score += exp(t/C). This makes later shares worth much more than earlier shares, thus the miner's score quickly diminishes when they stop mining on the pool. Rewards are calculated proportionally to scores (and not to shares). (at slush's pool C=300 seconds, and every hour scores are normalized)


so when you see it drop back to 200 or whatever its because the scores were normalized...

BTC: 1aombYbEyggW4uKuX2VgYBjPMu8yxcYCX
mb300sd
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232

Drunk Posts


View Profile WWW
October 26, 2011, 02:45:38 AM
 #4178

Does the score system mean that the pool is vulnerable to reverse pool hopping? Like only joining in on a block towards the end?

1D7FJWRzeKa4SLmTznd3JpeNU13L1ErEco
slush
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile WWW
October 26, 2011, 09:31:36 AM
 #4179

Does the score system mean that the pool is vulnerable to reverse pool hopping? Like only joining in on a block towards the end?

Yes, of course. Everything you need is to be the God :-).

I'm kidding. "Reverse pool hopping" does not work, because nobody knows when round will finish (in the oposite everybody knows when round begin, which is the problem with standard proportional method).

digital
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 490


View Profile
October 26, 2011, 02:34:20 PM
 #4180

User bars - finally! Thanks twmz for hell fast support. Please visit btcstats.net to pick yours. I'll integrate userbars to website soon.

YES!  50 posts at the same time User Bars are available.   Grin

If I help you out: 17QatvSdciyv2zsdAbphDEUzST1S6x46c3
References (bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=): 50051.20  50051.100  53668.0  53788.0  53571.0  53571.0  52212.0  50729.0  114804.0  115468  78106  69061  58572  54747
Pages: « 1 ... 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 [209] 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 ... 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!