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

[Aahzman]

dangit. that'll break my share streak.. it's over 30k now.

[digital]

dangit. that'll break my share streak.. it's over 30k now.

lol

[max in montreal]

 

[Thralen]

Woohoo!

I knew I kept that old 5670 in the BAMT rig with the faster cards for a reason. It just found my first block (after mining for well over a year), block number 204492. About time...

Thralen

[digital]

Zero namecoin rewards in the last 4 rounds?

That seems extremely odd.

[VeeMiner]

Zero namecoin rewards in the last 4 rounds?

That seems extremely odd.

namecoins are pretty useless anyway so I wouldn't make a big deal out of it

[digital]

Zero namecoin rewards in the last 4 rounds?

That seems extremely odd.

namecoins are pretty useless anyway so I wouldn't make a big deal out of it

Not helpful, but hey, at least you got your opinion out there right?

[xhoud01]

Hi Slush, I am running cluster at about 21177 Mhash/s over Stratum 24/hours a day.
I am experiencing weird results:

In rounds that take less than 10 min,  I am getting in everage aprox 25% less BTC reward than in longer rounds.
Do you have an explanation for that?

14499    2012-10-28 21:04:57    3:19:28    6225948    0.47559232    205457    99 confirmations left
14498    2012-10-28 17:45:29    0:08:20    329669    0.36785404    205435    77 confirmations left
14497    2012-10-28 17:37:04    0:24:19    861367    0.46408428    205432    74 confirmations left
14496    2012-10-28 17:12:38    1:03:37    2085276    0.44666061    205429    71 confirmations left
14495    2012-10-28 16:08:52    2:39:19    5026981    0.47298015    205422    64 confirmations left
14494    2012-10-28 13:29:33    2:09:20    4109653    0.46649767    205398    40 confirmations left
14493    2012-10-28 11:20:13    1:04:48    2102209    0.46776012    205377    19 confirmations left
14492    2012-10-28 10:15:25    0:05:52    221440    0.37440259    205368    10 confirmations left
14491    2012-10-28 10:09:33    1:32:52    2902404    0.46973427    205366    8 confirmations left
14490    2012-10-28 08:36:35    0:08:10    309157    0.38314444    205353    confirmed
14489    2012-10-28 08:28:18    0:17:34    632768    0.44944079    205351    confirmed
14488    2012-10-28 08:10:38    1:10:27    2265815    0.45915052    205350    confirmed
14487    2012-10-28 07:00:05    0:10:25    390258    0.37391746    205343    confirmed
14486    2012-10-28 06:49:35    0:50:15    1631890    0.47672695    205342    confirmed
14485    2012-10-28 05:59:20    0:19:20    660704    0.46180293    205339    confirmed
14484    2012-10-28 05:39:52    4:10:25    7779746    0.48759257    205338    confirmed
14483    2012-10-28 01:29:21    0:08:08    309159    0.39049572    205318    confirmed

Dan

[digital]

Old news man...

The short answer, is it's basically a result of pool hoppers.  they come in at the beginning of rounds hoping to capitalize on short rounds.  And on short rounds they do capitalize as you can see by the lower numbers.

Slush is currently working on a different scoring algorithm (double gemoetric or dgm) that is hopping proof.  Not sure of where he's as far as progress, he'll have to let you know on that end.

[xhoud01]

Old news man...

The short answer, is it's basically a result of pool hoppers.  they come in at the beginning of rounds hoping to capitalize on short rounds.  And on short rounds they do capitalize as you can see by the lower numbers.

Slush is currently working on a different scoring algorithm (double gemoetric or dgm) that is hopping proof.  Not sure of where he's as far as progress, he'll have to let you know on that end.

Hello Slush, do you plan to implement some hopping proof method + will you share Bitcoin fees with pool miners once the BTC reward drop to 25BTC/block?

[slush]

Hello Slush, do you plan to implement some hopping proof method + will you share Bitcoin fees with pool miners once the BTC reward drop to 25BTC/block?

Yes and yes.

[slush]

Zero namecoin rewards in the last 4 rounds?
That seems extremely odd.

Stratum pool don't have support for Namecoin (yet), so around 30% of hashpower isn't mining for Namecoin. Still you should have higher namecoin income than on other pools, because quite a lot people didn't filled NMC address...

I'm considering to drop of NMC support, because this project is basically dead and current merged mining sources are incompatible with latest bitcoin development (no support for merged mining over getblocktemplate etc). There's no project development since merged mining has been introduced in last October...

[VeeMiner]

Zero namecoin rewards in the last 4 rounds?

That seems extremely odd.

namecoins are pretty useless anyway so I wouldn't make a big deal out of it

Not helpful, but hey, at least you got your opinion out there right?

right

[DrHaribo]

I'm considering to drop of NMC support, because this project is basically dead and current merged mining sources are incompatible with latest bitcoin development (no support for merged mining over getblocktemplate etc). There's no project development since merged mining has been introduced in last October...

What's the problem with using getblocktemplate for merged mining? I think that should work.

I agree namecoin seems dead, though. I wish they would at least fix the bugs they have that were fixed in bitcoin long ago.

[eleuthria]

I'm considering to drop of NMC support, because this project is basically dead and current merged mining sources are incompatible with latest bitcoin development (no support for merged mining over getblocktemplate etc). There's no project development since merged mining has been introduced in last October...

What's the problem with using getblocktemplate for merged mining? I think that should work.

I agree namecoin seems dead, though. I wish they would at least fix the bugs they have that were fixed in bitcoin long ago.

As far as I'm aware there is no problem with doing so, you just have to implement the merged mining process into your pool software rather than some of the older (less efficient) methods that were done when merged mining was first being pushed.

Like slush, I'm considering dropping NMC support as well.  The project really does seem dead.  It was a great concept, but it feels like it should have been a fresh project rather than a fork off bitcoin.  There is simply far too little innovation compared to how much garbage has been dragged along for the ride.

[slush]

As far as I'm aware there is no problem with doing so, you just have to implement the merged mining process into your pool software rather than some of the older (less efficient) methods that were done when merged mining was first being pushed.

Yes, it is clearly possible, although there's no docs for merged mining process and existing software and patch to older bitcoind is mostly hack to "get it work" instead of "get it work properly". I'll discuss this in #namecoin anyway. If there'll be somebody willing to help me with re-implementation of MM and removing dependency to bitcoind patches, I'll try to do it...

[-ck]

I'd rather see merged mining go.

[Portnoy]

As far as I'm aware there is no problem with doing so, you just have to implement the merged mining process into your pool software rather than some of the older (less efficient) methods that were done when merged mining was first being pushed.

Yes, it is clearly possible, although there's no docs for merged mining process and existing software and patch to older bitcoind is mostly hack to "get it work" instead of "get it work properly". I'll discuss this in #namecoin anyway. If there'll be somebody willing to help me with re-implementation of MM and removing dependency to bitcoind patches, I'll try to do it...

Thanks.  I feel there is much promise there, but perhaps not much need for it... yet.
And, as they say, it is better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. 

Like slush, I'm considering dropping NMC support as well.  The project really does seem dead...

Whoever speaketh of Cthulhu shall remember that he
but seemeth dead, he sleeps, and yet he does not sleep,
he has died and yet he is not dead, asleep and dead
though he is, he shall rise again. Again it should be shown that

    That is not dead which can eternal lie,
    and with strange aeons even death may die.

 

[eleuthria]

As far as I'm aware there is no problem with doing so, you just have to implement the merged mining process into your pool software rather than some of the older (less efficient) methods that were done when merged mining was first being pushed.

Yes, it is clearly possible, although there's no docs for merged mining process and existing software and patch to older bitcoind is mostly hack to "get it work" instead of "get it work properly". I'll discuss this in #namecoin anyway. If there'll be somebody willing to help me with re-implementation of MM and removing dependency to bitcoind patches, I'll try to do it...

Thanks.  I feel there is much promise there, but perhaps not much need for it... yet.
And, as they say, it is better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. 

Honestly I think there is no need for namecoin.  It won't route around government/ISP censorship like TOR can.  The only thing I see going for it is it's a lot easier to tell somebody a .bit address than a .onion.

[slush]

I do think there's a space for some generic key->value distributed storage like namecoin, although current namecoin implementation is alpha-quality hack of original bitcoin sources and I expected some serious development when it had been obvious that there's some interest. Unfortunately nothing happen in last year. As I said, I'll try to ask somebody for help with generic NMC MM interface with GBT and without bitcoind patches and I'll decide then...