Bitcoin Forum
January 21, 2018, 03:38:56 AM *
News: Electrum users must upgrade to 3.0.5 if they haven't already. More info.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: What type of pool payouts do you prefer?
Bitcoins - 3210 (80.4%)
Bank transfer / USD - 410 (10.3%)
Gold/silver coins and bars - 371 (9.3%)
Total Voters: 3989

Pages: « 1 ... 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] 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 ... 1132 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [150+ PH] SlushPool (slushpool.com); World's First Mining Pool  (Read 4322211 times)
BinoX
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140



View Profile
January 23, 2012, 07:59:46 PM
 #4821

Hi Slush! I am having a problem with rejected shares. With some of my cards rejected shares reach 15%. I tried all possible changes in the settings, without success. Then I tried disabling LP. I waited for an hour before restarting the rigs but didn't notice a significant improvement.

I'm using:
2 rigs with 3 6970 each one
Phoenix 1.7
aoclbf 1.75

¿Am I doing something wrong?

Thanks in advance for your help.

You sure your cards aren't clocked a bit too high and occasionally give invalid results? When I took my 5830s up to 980MHz my invalid share rate went up, so I clocked them down to 950MHz and get basically the same amount of accepted shares and rarely any invalids.

It's also possible that it's just one card that's not working properly (6 same spec cards = 16.66666% of your hashing power per card)
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1516505936
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1516505936

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1516505936
Reply with quote  #2

1516505936
Report to moderator
1516505936
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1516505936

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1516505936
Reply with quote  #2

1516505936
Report to moderator
slush
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile WWW
January 23, 2012, 08:17:05 PM
 #4822

Binox, thanks for the response to majamalu, I sent him PM and forgot to mention it here.

majamalu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652



View Profile WWW
January 23, 2012, 09:07:40 PM
 #4823

Hi Slush! I am having a problem with rejected shares. With some of my cards rejected shares reach 15%. I tried all possible changes in the settings, without success. Then I tried disabling LP. I waited for an hour before restarting the rigs but didn't notice a significant improvement.

I'm using:
2 rigs with 3 6970 each one
Phoenix 1.7
aoclbf 1.75

¿Am I doing something wrong?

Thanks in advance for your help.

You sure your cards aren't clocked a bit too high and occasionally give invalid results? When I took my 5830s up to 980MHz my invalid share rate went up, so I clocked them down to 950MHz and get basically the same amount of accepted shares and rarely any invalids.

It's also possible that it's just one card that's not working properly (6 same spec cards = 16.66666% of your hashing power per card)

Thank you very much. Slush already contacted me. Let me tell you anyway that most of my cards are not overclocked, and now they are all approaching 7% rejected shares.

http://elbitcoin.org - Bitcoin en español
http://mercadobitcoin.com - MercadoBitcoin
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2044


Poor impulse control.


View Profile WWW
January 25, 2012, 01:30:17 PM
 #4824

Slush

just want to voice my opinion here, I mined my very first Bitcoin on your pool (and sold it for 0.85 cents! ) and mined probably in total 200 coins with you.

I personally think DGM sucks and will become less popular as the difficulty continues to go up.
Yes it's pool hop proof and "fair" but only really fair to a person if they want to dedicate themselves to mining with that pool and that pool only 24/7

I like your modified proportional score system - a lot of people do and I think you should stay with it , and if you really have to change, change it to a pure PPS like BTCGuild is doing.


thank you for listening Smiley

+1

There are many reasons miners can't be connected 24/7 to one pool. If I lose out everytime I have to do some maintenance or upgrade my miners that's no good. It's good to be loyal, in certain limits. If there really is even a 2% loss due to pool hoppers or invalid blocks/stales, pps with 4% fee may have an advantage due to predicatable income, payout times/0 variance/0% pool hopping loss.


-1

You realise that there is no significant loss of earnings for intermittent miners on PPLNS or DGM? They are provably fair, and in this context fair doesn't mean just hopper proof, it means that each share's expected reward is the same. You're confusing variance with mean reward, and DGM can be adjusted to reduce variance.

Going with pure PPS is fine, except that in order to eliminate variance you get a significant decrease in payout because of a fee, which needs to be at least 7% for the pool to remain viable through bad luck periods.

So your choice is: learn to live with variance on DGM, or earn less on pure PPS with no variance. If you've mined on slush at a low hashrate, you've already experienced more variance than you'll get under DGM.

I hope this helps clear up this "score systems penalise part time miners". I ran some simulations on intermittent mining at slush, and didn't see any significant difference in payout from intermittent mining at a proportional pool.

Bitcoin network and pool analysis 12QxPHEuxDrs7mCyGSx1iVSozTwtquDB3r
follow @oocBlog for new post notifications
Meni Rosenfeld
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2030



View Profile WWW
January 25, 2012, 02:46:57 PM
 #4825

Eclipse I think is different?
Eclipse uses c=0.01, o=0.99, f = -0.0101...

Slush

just want to voice my opinion here, I mined my very first Bitcoin on your pool (and sold it for 0.85 cents! ) and mined probably in total 200 coins with you.

I personally think DGM sucks and will become less popular as the difficulty continues to go up.
Yes it's pool hop proof and "fair" but only really fair to a person if they want to dedicate themselves to mining with that pool and that pool only 24/7

I like your modified proportional score system - a lot of people do and I think you should stay with it , and if you really have to change, change it to a pure PPS like BTCGuild is doing.

thank you for listening Smiley
Did you take the time to understand how DGM works and then judged it based on its merits, or did you just arbitrarily decide that it penalizes intermittent miners? It does no such thing. Mining with multiple pools will not reduce your rewards (and could be a good way to reduce your variance), and if you're disconnected you will only lose the worth of the work you could have done during that time. For every share you submit you get on average (Block Reward / Difficulty), that's all there is to it.

For a long time slush's method has been falsely accused of penalizing intermittent miners, so in a way it's kind of refreshing to hear you acquit it of this crime. But it looks like you've just found a new scapegoat in DGM.

slush's method is high variance, less hoppable than proportional, but still significantly hoppable.
Geometric method is similar to slush's method, also high variance, but completely hopping-proof.
DGM is also hopping-proof, but much lower variance.

In fact with DGM you can have the variance as low as you want, much lower than in proportional for example - it's all in the parameters. The easy way to reduce the variance is by increasing maturity time, which I think slush can pull off because it's a big pool, so even the increased maturity time will be pretty short.

PPLNS, when properly implemented, is also hopping-proof and almost as low-variance as DGM. It can be used if DGM is too complicated. In particular, I think shift-PPLNS could work better with slush's parallel architecture than DGM.

PPS is definitely a possibility, and I think PPS proxy pools are the way of the future. But until the substrate for it is developed, slush would have to take great risks, which he may not want to do without significantly raising the fees, reducing the long-term gains of miners.

1EofoZNBhWQ3kxfKnvWkhtMns4AivZArhr   |   Who am I?   |   bitcoin-otc WoT
Bitcoil - Exchange bitcoins for ILS (thread)   |   Israel Bitcoin community homepage (thread)
Analysis of Bitcoin Pooled Mining Reward Systems (thread, summary)  |   PureMining - Infinite-term, deterministic mining bond
slush
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile WWW
January 26, 2012, 01:27:38 PM
 #4826

I found that a lot of people started p2sh war on this forum and for some unknown reason they're "fighting" about my pool because of this.

I want to tell that I'm *supporting* p2sh and Gavin's initiative, as I stated here and here.

The only reason that I'm not in the blockchain.info/p2sh stats is that patching of pool's bitcoind takes some time, but I'm working on it with Gavin and other supporters intensively.

So all you with signatures and forum threads "boycott slush", please stop spreading FUD.

BinoX
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140



View Profile
January 26, 2012, 05:22:03 PM
 #4827

To be honest, as long as my payments come in at about the same rate it doesn't really bother me too much what happens

You've been a trustworthy pool operator, so I feel I can trust that whatever decision you make in this matter

I've gotten my hands on a 5970, so hopefully I'll be throwing another 600+MHash into the mix as well Smiley
slush
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile WWW
January 26, 2012, 05:24:04 PM
 #4828

BinoX, you're right that this is change which should not affect miners at all. I'm just writing it for people who are interested in recent fights about bitcoin protocol improvements.

slush
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile WWW
January 26, 2012, 08:43:20 PM
 #4829

FYI, pool is supporting p2sh now (see /P2SH/ in coinbase):
http://blockchain.info/tx-index/14771803/e88e3339e636ae1764c78043c295105141d56e01c4086cca92b6593660c6786d

slush
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile WWW
January 29, 2012, 04:49:07 PM
 #4830

Few days ago I found http://btcrelay.com/, service which allow splitting incoming coins to many different bitcoin addresses. I see many useful use cases for such service. You can, for example, split pool payout, one part forward directly to the exchange and let it automatically trade for USD and second part forward to savings wallet. It is pretty nice way how to automate something what I did manually once per week before launch of btcrelay service.

conspirosphere.tk
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268


Revolution will be decentralized


View Profile
January 29, 2012, 06:17:55 PM
 #4831

Just a question: I am mining on this pool from a couple of weeks hashing at 1 Ghs 24/7 with 4 cards.
In my statistics I notice huge differences in my BTC reward between the blocks: I got between 0.01 and 0.04 BTC per block in the latest 10 rounds and I wonder why, since I doubt that hoppers can explain a so big variance, and the pool speed do not seem to change so much.
Any idea?

"Those who would give up essential Decentralization to purchase a little temporary Scaling deserve neither."
slush
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile WWW
January 29, 2012, 06:44:34 PM
 #4832

In my statistics I notice huge differences in my BTC reward between the blocks.

It is combination of some natural variance coming from score method as described and simulated here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1976.msg50002#msg50002 and the effect of added hashpower on the beginning of the round from pool hoppers. I recommend you to check daily rewards more than round rewards, because round rewards are influenced by many factors, not only your own hashrate.

phelix
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708


nmc:id/phelix


View Profile
January 29, 2012, 08:26:35 PM
 #4833


and here comes chaos..... great Satoshi give us a sign

blockchained.com ■ bitcointalk top posts
slush
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile WWW
January 29, 2012, 10:03:24 PM
 #4834

and here comes chaos..... great Satoshi give us a sign

? I'm just voting for p2sh, it does not mean that pool will split blockchain when there won't be a consensus. Please don't start any FUD...

djinfected
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 24


View Profile
January 31, 2012, 06:08:57 PM
 #4835

Lately your pool has been rejecting all of my CPU work and it is timing out constantly in my GPU miner. What gives?
Epoch
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 888



View Profile
February 02, 2012, 04:14:22 AM
 #4836

The last 3 blocks (10416, 10417, 10418) have been marked as invalid ... is something wrong?  Shocked

BTC: 1DJVUnLuPA2bERTkyeir8bKn1eSoRCrYvx
NMC: NFcfHSBBnq622pAr1Xoh9KtnBPA5CUn6id
Littleshop
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316



View Profile WWW
February 02, 2012, 04:18:03 AM
 #4837

Almost all short blocks my payout is 20% less.  I am not quite sure why, am I doing anything wrong or is this something to do with pool hoppers?

Epoch
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 888



View Profile
February 02, 2012, 04:34:45 AM
 #4838

Almost all short blocks my payout is 20% less.  I am not quite sure why, am I doing anything wrong or is this something to do with pool hoppers?

I've noticed the same thing. On short rounds (say, less than 5 or 10 minutes) my payout is consistently 10%-20% less than my average. I understand that the variance is expected to be high on short rounds, but then I would expect half of the short rounds to payout MORE than my average and the other half to pay out LESS.

But what I have been consistently seeing is that on short rounds, my payout is invariably less than average. Never do I get more than my average (or even my average). I'm not sure what the issue is. It might be pool hoppers (Slush isn't completely immune to hopping) ... I'm not sure what else it could be.

BTC: 1DJVUnLuPA2bERTkyeir8bKn1eSoRCrYvx
NMC: NFcfHSBBnq622pAr1Xoh9KtnBPA5CUn6id
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2044


Poor impulse control.


View Profile WWW
February 02, 2012, 06:08:38 AM
 #4839

Almost all short blocks my payout is 20% less.  I am not quite sure why, am I doing anything wrong or is this something to do with pool hoppers?

I've noticed the same thing. On short rounds (say, less than 5 or 10 minutes) my payout is consistently 10%-20% less than my average. I understand that the variance is expected to be high on short rounds, but then I would expect half of the short rounds to payout MORE than my average and the other half to pay out LESS.

But what I have been consistently seeing is that on short rounds, my payout is invariably less than average. Never do I get more than my average (or even my average). I'm not sure what the issue is. It might be pool hoppers (Slush isn't completely immune to hopping) ... I'm not sure what else it could be.

Unlikely to be hoppers. If this was a standard prop pool, hoppers would have to double the pool hashrate in order for full time miners to lose 20%.

Since hopping is much less lucrative here at Slush's pool, the hashrate increase for the first say 10-15% of the round would have to be higher. I don't see the pool hashrate even doubling for the first 10-15% of the round, so I'd say the decline in pay you're seeing can't be attributed (at least not most of it) to pool hopping.

Bitcoin network and pool analysis 12QxPHEuxDrs7mCyGSx1iVSozTwtquDB3r
follow @oocBlog for new post notifications
simc
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14


View Profile
February 02, 2012, 08:36:47 AM
 #4840

Could the dip at the beginning of the round be due to Slush's long polling optimisation, are slower miners loosing out to quicker ones?
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 ... 1132 »
  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!