Bitcoin Forum
December 11, 2016, 08:28:34 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 ... 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] 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 ... 1105 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [40+ PH] SlushPool (slushpool.com); World's First Mining Pool  (Read 3934195 times)
slider1978
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 180



View Profile
July 22, 2012, 01:47:05 AM
 #5281

Slush, the pool page is nice for checking if all miners we have are working without logging to their hosts. But it would be much better to have also the current hash rate displayed [calculated based on the current round not the last 10 rounds, which can take a day], especially if the mining farm is unstable. I know that this estimation will be very poor at the beginning of the round so maybe at least the last round only could be used for this. I can calculate it myself by taking my shares/score and the pools shares/score form the other page and divide and multiply but this is time consuming :-) can we have this displayed on the MyAccount page in the Workers section maybe in parentheses after the 10-round based estimation ? I would greatly appreciate this :-)

The hashrate updates have been asked over a year go already. Except for the nice translations, I'm sorry to say but this pool is pretty much dead. I wouldn't say it if I didn't cared about it. The pool is still hoppable, and very much hopped every day, DGM is probably never going to appear because one programmer may just be not enough for such a project, the pool has been underperforming for the longest time (you see next to never that 30day average is 99%+ or more), and namecoins (not Slush's fault) are about dead because its purpose is undermined: 3-5 people have "squatted" all the domains, and namecoin price is just plummeting, even though we mine them less and less due to rising diff.

Slush, if you still want to be in the game when Asics hit, you should get your act together and update some more things than just a fanboy page (Facebook). I'm still mining here with three cards, but when my internet connection fails, as it does sometimes, it will be much better for me to be on a PPS pool like BTCGuild for the occasional mining. The rest of my cards have moved over to LTC mining. Much higher profit.

I always wondered why while Slush's pool and Oz's pool always had similar hash rates Oz always had much better luck, usually twice the luck or more. Not as easy to compare right now as Oz has consistently high hash rates now, I asssume because of the better luck.
1481444914
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481444914

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481444914
Reply with quote  #2

1481444914
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481444914
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481444914

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481444914
Reply with quote  #2

1481444914
Report to moderator
1481444914
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481444914

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481444914
Reply with quote  #2

1481444914
Report to moderator
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1960


Poor impulse control.


View Profile WWW
July 22, 2012, 09:41:14 AM
 #5282

I always wondered why while Slush's pool and Oz's pool always had similar hash rates Oz always had much better luck, usually twice the luck or more. Not as easy to compare right now as Oz has consistently high hash rates now, I asssume because of the better luck.

That's not even close to the truth: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=77000.msg855078#msg855078 . Luck hasn't been significantly better for either pool compared to the other for any length of time.

Anyway, how are you defining luck? Unless you mean round length / D? In which case you mean Ozcoin had half the round length on average. Or do you mean number of blocks mined compared to number of blocks expected?

Bitcoin network and pool analysis 12QxPHEuxDrs7mCyGSx1iVSozTwtquDB3r
follow @oocBlog for new post notifications
slider1978
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 180



View Profile
July 22, 2012, 07:43:33 PM
 #5283

I always wondered why while Slush's pool and Oz's pool always had similar hash rates Oz always had much better luck, usually twice the luck or more. Not as easy to compare right now as Oz has consistently high hash rates now, I asssume because of the better luck.

That's not even close to the truth: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=77000.msg855078#msg855078 . Luck hasn't been significantly better for either pool compared to the other for any length of time.

Anyway, how are you defining luck? Unless you mean round length / D? In which case you mean Ozcoin had half the round length on average. Or do you mean number of blocks mined compared to number of blocks expected?

Thats an interesting chart, especially the % of orphans when looking at Oz compared to Slush...or many other pools.

My statement of opinion above is based on the number of blocks waiting to be confirmed at any given time. For example as of now Oz has 9 blocks on confirmation while Slush has 6. And as I said in my previous post, current stats aren't accurate as Oz has a consistently higher hash. This is just my observations from mining at both for awhile.
Thralen
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 123


View Profile
July 23, 2012, 01:22:48 AM
 #5284


My statement of opinion above is based on the number of blocks waiting to be confirmed at any given time. For example as of now Oz has 9 blocks on confirmation while Slush has 6. And as I said in my previous post, current stats aren't accurate as Oz has a consistently higher hash. This is just my observations from mining at both for awhile.

You don't suppose the fact that Ozcoin requires 120 confirmations and Slush requires only 100 confirmations might account for perhaps 1/6 of the difference there? Which narrows the difference between 9 confirming and 6 confirming a fair bit, or were you simply unaware of that difference?

Thralen

Supporting bitcoin as best I can with 1. mining, 2. buying with bitcoin, 3. selling (or trying to) for bitcoin. If you make a donation to:  1MahzUUEYJrZ4VbPRm2h5itGZKEguGVZK1  I'll get it into circulation.
slider1978
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 180



View Profile
July 23, 2012, 04:33:43 AM
 #5285


My statement of opinion above is based on the number of blocks waiting to be confirmed at any given time. For example as of now Oz has 9 blocks on confirmation while Slush has 6. And as I said in my previous post, current stats aren't accurate as Oz has a consistently higher hash. This is just my observations from mining at both for awhile.

You don't suppose the fact that Ozcoin requires 120 confirmations and Slush requires only 100 confirmations might account for perhaps 1/6 of the difference there? Which narrows the difference between 9 confirming and 6 confirming a fair bit, or were you simply unaware of that difference?

Thralen

It does, but as the current difference is 6 to 16 even the 20 extra confirms doesn't make me feel better about Slush. This is all relative as Oz has a higher hash rate right now.
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1960


Poor impulse control.


View Profile WWW
July 23, 2012, 06:25:29 AM
 #5286



My statement of opinion above is based on the number of blocks waiting to be confirmed at any given time. For example as of now Oz has 9 blocks on confirmation while Slush has 6. And as I said in my previous post, current stats aren't accurate as Oz has a consistently higher hash. This is just my observations from mining at both for awhile.

I see. Unfortunately you're looking at a short term difference there. I'd only be confortable saying there's a significant difference between pools if I had a significant number of observations which I could compare. A second problem is defining the luck. This can be done by comparing the pool's hashrate and blocks found to the networks' hashrate and blocks found. If it is greater than expected, you're lucky. Or you can compare total round shares / Difficulty. Once you've determined how you define you're luck, you can figure out how many observations you need to compare the pools. Or compare results for each pool to the expected population results.

See the last two sets of charts at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=77000.msg855078#msg855078 for these two types of luck measurement.

You don't suppose the fact that Ozcoin requires 120 confirmations and Slush requires only 100 confirmations might account for perhaps 1/6 of the difference there? Which narrows the difference between 9 confirming and 6 confirming a fair bit, or were you simply unaware of that difference?

Thralen

It does, but as the current difference is 6 to 16 even the 20 extra confirms doesn't make me feel better about Slush. This is all relative as Oz has a higher hash rate right now.

Using confirming blocks is not a robust measurement of luck. But if you want to do this, you'll need to take into account the pools' % of network hashrate as well as the number of confirms until valid.

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

Activity: 12


View Profile
July 24, 2012, 07:11:41 AM
 #5287

Some short term unluckiness might take forever to recover. Today the pool had back to back 9hr and 8h45m rounds. Both of these are 99.3+ on the CDF.

What are the chances of that? 1/20,000?
The only good news was the next 2 rounds were short making the average about 4.5hrs for 4 rounds.
slush
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile WWW
July 24, 2012, 09:34:25 PM
 #5288

Three invalids in one day? Is this another problem with the database as has happened in the past?

No, it's just unbelievable luck. You can see that all broadcasted blocks are valid, we just lose the fight in bitcoin network, unfortunately.

Trance104
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 199


View Profile WWW
July 25, 2012, 05:43:32 AM
 #5289

Hello, I'm having trouble connecting to the pool using my current .bat on cgminer.

cgminer -o http://api2.bitcoin.cz:8332 -u myworker.namehere -p MyWorkerPass

Am I doing something wrong? I was using GUIminer, but upgraded to two 7970s today and GUIminer doesn't support those. Can anyone point me to a guide on how to connect to this pool?

Can't stop the Trance! Dance!! DANCE!!!
www.youtube.com/pixelfixgaming
slush
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile WWW
July 31, 2012, 01:00:15 PM
 #5290

AFAIK cgminer needs / on the end of URL. So try http://api.bitcoin.cz:8332/.

Hello, I'm having trouble connecting to the pool using my current .bat on cgminer.

cgminer -o http://api2.bitcoin.cz:8332 -u myworker.namehere -p MyWorkerPass

Am I doing something wrong? I was using GUIminer, but upgraded to two 7970s today and GUIminer doesn't support those. Can anyone point me to a guide on how to connect to this pool?

emcg
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 12


View Profile
August 07, 2012, 12:17:16 AM
 #5291

Do we know if the pool is functioning properly?

11hr round and a 10.5+ blocks today (didnt finish yet).. we only have 24hrs in a day.
NaXxow
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 318



View Profile
August 07, 2012, 12:49:42 AM
 #5292

We are not going through a bump of bad luck in pool... we just
felt into the deepest pit of misery and despair Undecided

Two rounds of 10 hours each in less than 24 hours, I don't know
how "organofcorti" even dares to offer an insurance...
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1960


Poor impulse control.


View Profile WWW
August 07, 2012, 01:11:04 AM
 #5293

Two rounds of 10 hours each in less than 24 hours, I don't know
how "organofcorti" even dares to offer an insurance...

I dare because I take the long view. Feel free to take me up on the offer - I will provide insurance privately if you don't want to use GLBSE.

Edit: Another reason I'm happy to offer insurance is that I'm confident that Slush's pool stats are accurate.

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

Activity: 1358



View Profile WWW
August 07, 2012, 02:08:01 AM
 #5294

Do we know if the pool is functioning properly?

Yes, everything is working fine.

deeplink
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602


In cryptography we trust


View Profile
August 07, 2012, 12:49:14 PM
 #5295

Do we know if the pool is functioning properly?

11hr round and a 10.5+ blocks today (didnt finish yet).. we only have 24hrs in a day.

It gets even worse: two 11h blocks within 24 hours and a third one is well on its way at 9:21+

Short term pool luck is down to 37% damnit

But I spoke to the men in charge and demanded to get some 1-10 minute blocks next to get back on track.
dishwara
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386

Truth may get delay, but NEVER fails


View Profile
August 07, 2012, 03:04:16 PM
 #5296

10+, 11+, 9+ seems not in order( 9,10,11)
digital
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 490


View Profile
August 07, 2012, 04:18:45 PM
 #5297



But I spoke to the men in charge and demanded to get some 1-10 minute blocks next to get back on track.


Doesn't look like they were listening....

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
TurboK
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 137



View Profile
August 10, 2012, 06:34:59 PM
 #5298

Is there a way to force payout? I have some 0.11 btc on this pool, but I haven't been using the place since over a year. I don't mind if my account is deleted due to inactivity, but only after I retrieved the remaining bitcoins.

12zJNWtM2HknS2EPLkT9QPSuSq1576aKx7

Tradehill viral bullshit code: TH-R114411
MrTeal
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
August 10, 2012, 06:51:02 PM
 #5299

Is there a way to force payout? I have some 0.11 btc on this pool, but I haven't been using the place since over a year. I don't mind if my account is deleted due to inactivity, but only after I retrieved the remaining bitcoins.
Change your minimum payout to 0.1 and wait 5 minutes.
TurboK
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 137



View Profile
August 10, 2012, 10:04:07 PM
 #5300

Yup, that's what I did, though it took until now for the payout. Problem resolved either way.

12zJNWtM2HknS2EPLkT9QPSuSq1576aKx7

Tradehill viral bullshit code: TH-R114411
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 ... 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!