[150+ PH] SlushPool (slushpool.com); World's First Mining Pool

[crashoveride54902]

Btw round #16099, block value over 50 BTC. Say wow!

did you look into it on blockchain to see why it was 50? i guess we could get used to it.

It was because someone payed/goofed on tx fee of 25btc

[1505829839]

1505829839

[1505829839]

1505829839

[1505829839]

1505829839

[1505829839]

1505829839

[crashoveride54902]

16112 n 16114 invaild guess that makes up for our 50btc block...

[hmmmstrange]

Btw round #16099, block value over 50 BTC. Say wow!

I vote to return the 25BTC, as it was clearly a mistake.

[enkidu]

Is there anywhere in the pool's web interface (or elsewhere) for one's account to determine how much of the pool's rewarded btc is coming from 'minted' bitcoins versus transaction fees?  If not, this visibility would be nice to have.

Thanks!
Enk

[deeplink]

Is there anywhere in the pool's web interface (or elsewhere) for one's account to determine how much of the pool's rewarded btc is coming from 'minted' bitcoins versus transaction fees?  If not, this visibility would be nice to have.

In the table on the statistics page.

Column "Block value"
subtract 25 (minted bitcoins)
Remainder is transaction fees

You can also download the Greasemonkey script Pimped mining which among other things shows you some nice totals and averages.
http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/98553

Spoiler: current avg block value is 26 BTC (25 minted + 1 BTC fees) obviously the 50 BTC block has increased the avg block value because it used to be below 25.5 BTC

[enkidu]

Thanks deeplink - that is good enough for my purposes!

[slush]

Round 16156 has been marked as invalid by mistake, it is fixed now and block rewards are paid already.

[JayPhizzt]

Just switched to this pool and trying to get things going, but for some reason when I try to start mining I get "errno 10061", what's that about?

I'm using the latest version of guiminer and I've installed the stratum proxy. Also, I'm mining on a dual-GPU card if that matters(5970).

[kkurtmann]

im using GUIMiner v2012-11-18 and it connects fine for me and you dont need the proxy

[cosurgi]

guys, I was away quite long, and sorry for not checking if this question has already been answered I only want to make sure, this is just a simple check

slush, you of course did lower your pool fee from 1 BTC to 0.5 BTC after block reward went down from 50 to 25, right?

and sorry again for asking such stupid questions

[hmmmstrange]

guys, I was away quite long, and sorry for not checking if this question has already been answered I only want to make sure, this is just a simple check

slush, you of course did lower your pool fee from 1 BTC to 0.5 BTC after block reward went down from 50 to 25, right?

and sorry again for asking such stupid questions

(25 BTC + block fees - 2% fee) * (shares found by user's workers) / (total shares in current round)

So yes he's taking ~0.506 BTC per block.

[slush]

slush, you of course did lower your pool fee from 1 BTC to 0.5 BTC after block reward went down from 50 to 25, right?

yep

[slush]

Plan of removing the getwork support

I'm very excited by the adoption of the Stratum protocol and Stratum-based miners. During the last months, Stratum infrastructure improved to the production state.

Stratum hashrate on the pool is growing every day and I expect that with ASIC miners it will jump near to 100% pretty soon. Getwork protocol is simply impractical and I expect that all people who're serious with mining already updated their mining rigs with Stratum-enabled software.

Just for curiosity, Getwork-based backend currently handles around 20% of the hashrate, but produces almost 2x higher traffic and server load than the Stratum-based backend.

Currently the Stratum protocol is seamlessly implemented in cgminer, bfgminer, poclbm and GUIminer (for OpenCL cards). There's also Stratum proxy for all other miners who don't have native support of Stratum. HOWTO and Windows binaries for Stratum proxy are here: http://mining.bitcoin.cz/mining-proxy-howto

Because there's no obvious reason for supporting obsolete Getwork protocol anymore, I decided to release the plan for removing the getwork backend. Currently the fee on both getwork and stratum backend is the same - 2%. Once the hashrate of stratum backend reaches 90% of total pool hashrate, the fee for getwork miners will rise to 10%. Once the hashrate on stratum backend reaches 99% of total pool hashrate, the getwork backend will be turned off permanently.

You can check current Stratum adoption on Statistics page (item "Hashrate on Stratum interface (30 min average)"). The change of getwork fees will be done manually and I'll announce it on the website.

This change will NOT affect people using Stratum miners in any way. I believe the most people will understand that supporting obsolete pool backend simply cost too much for no benefit and that I want to remove getwork support to have more time for other development.

[tnkflx]

I guess by witching to stratum, mining Namecoins will also be obsolete?

They've been obsolete for a while now

[slush]

I guess by witching to stratum, mining Namecoins will also be obsolete?

Current Stratum backend has no namecoin support, so - yes. From my view the Namecoin project is dead. Although there was some buzz, press coverage and support from Bitcoin community, Namecoin developers were unable to finalize DNS infrastructure and they also didn't solve major architectural weaknesses.

I'd like to see some alt-chain for storing timestamped, key-value data like Namecoin, but in current state the Namecoin project is unmaintained and I have no plans with adding NMC support back to the pool.

[Epoch]

... and I expect that all people who're serious with mining already updated their mining rigs with Stratum-enabled software.

If Stratum was all roses and rainbows I'd be happy to use Stratum. Unfortunately, it hasn't been that way for me. I may be in the minority, but I've had a lot of trouble trying to get Stratum working on my setup (currently bfgminer 2.10.5, win7/64, bfl fpga's only). The pools in my rotation include bitminter, ozcoin, and slush.

I'll investigate further, and this is probably best posted in the bfgminer/cgminer threads, but if I use the "--no-stratum" flag in my command line mining works fine for days/weeks. If I remove it (and mining defaults to Stratum), mining will work for a few hours but eventually all of my FPGAs will get into a 'WAIT' state from which they never recover until restarting the mining software. I don't know what triggers this condition, or if it is a problem with bfgminer or the pools' Stratum implementation.

The reality is that, for whatever reason, I've had better success with getwork/vardiff than with Stratum; ozcoin and bitminter, for example, ask for difficulty-8 shares from me which reduces pool traffic to them by a factor of 8 ... doesn't this serve to accomplish a similar result (in terms of load/traffic to the pool) as Stratum does?

[eleuthria]

Congratulations on the plan to eliminate getwork slush.  I've been waiting for the day I can implement a similar plan to phase it out entirely.

[slush]

I'll investigate further, and this is probably best posted in the bfgminer/cgminer threads, but if I use the "--no-stratum" flag in my command line mining works fine for days/weeks. If I remove it (and mining defaults to Stratum), mining will work for a few hours but eventually all of my FPGAs will get into a 'WAIT' state from which they never recover until restarting the mining software. I don't know what triggers this condition, or if it is a problem with bfgminer or the pools' Stratum implementation.

Hm, this sounds like a bug in the miner. Can you report it to bfgminer/cgminer developers, please? I've been playing with the pool core for long time and as I can say, it is rock solid. My connection between proxy and the pool wasn't interrupted for weeks.

... I've had better success with getwork/vardiff than with Stratum; ozcoin and bitminter, for example, ask for difficulty-8 shares from me which reduces pool traffic to them by a factor of 8 ...

If there's some bug in miner in validating shares, then 8x lower probability of hitting the bug obviously lead to higher stability. Actually there was a bug in cgminer/bfgminer in submitting corrupted shares, which leaded to reconnecting to the pool time to time, but I though it has been fixed in recent version...

[jkminkov]

Plan of removing the getwork support

Once the hashrate of stratum backend reaches 90% of total pool hashrate, the fee for getwork miners will rise to 10%.

nice plan, pickpocketing clueless miners.

[tnkflx]

Plan of removing the getwork support

Once the hashrate of stratum backend reaches 90% of total pool hashrate, the fee for getwork miners will rise to 10%.

nice plan, pickpocketing clueless miners.

You shouldn't be clueless if you mine...