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

[scouzi]

Speaking of ' Weird Block ' ... since having to kill all the blocks my wallet had and restarting my PC ( and reloading the backup wallet ) I have yet to get more than 3 connections to the bitcoin network and re-re-re-download any blocks....

Not going to blame anyone, just thought it was weird and with the random DDoS attacks that have been reported lately kinda makes the paranoid inside me wonder if there isn't some US government conspiracy going on since it is a decentralized currency they have no influence over ( unless they started their own mining pool )......

any one else have to kill the wallet's data files and not get any blocks in the last ..... 24 hours? ( -8 GMT at 5pm Pacific time )

I had a problem with Bitcoin-QT throwing corrupted database errors. Even deleting and re-sync the block chain I had the same error. I backed up my wallet.dat file and used an online wallet since then.

[Lanidarc]

Speaking of ' Weird Block ' ... since having to kill all the blocks my wallet had and restarting my PC ( and reloading the backup wallet ) I have yet to get more than 3 connections to the bitcoin network and re-re-re-download any blocks....

Not going to blame anyone, just thought it was weird and with the random DDoS attacks that have been reported lately kinda makes the paranoid inside me wonder if there isn't some US government conspiracy going on since it is a decentralized currency they have no influence over ( unless they started their own mining pool )......

any one else have to kill the wallet's data files and not get any blocks in the last ..... 24 hours? ( -8 GMT at 5pm Pacific time )

I had a problem with Bitcoin-QT throwing corrupted database errors. Even deleting and re-sync the block chain I had the same error. I backed up my wallet.dat file and used an online wallet since then.

I just updated my wallet after a week or so with bitcoin-qt - didn't see any errors.

The DDoS attacks were anything but random - they were an ill-conceived attempt to manipulate the difficulty update. If I had more time, I'd try to calculate the effectiveness of it, but i'm certain it had very little effect coming so late in the cycle, and particularly with the fluidity of the mining public. I'm sure most miners simply think of BTC as a bit of a game to play, but we are involved in a very serious business which is coming under exceptional pressures.

[TheXev]

I resolved my wallet issues from a few pages ago.

The next question coming out of the IRC chat room is, will FAQBot return?  He's been gone since the DoSSes happened, and we miss our notifications of a new block being found.

[slush]

Uff, there're too much posts since my last visit on friday. Shortly:

a) Yes, I fixed one round yesterday, where rewards were calculated wrongly.
b) Pool works since DDoS. If you have connection issues, you've probably wrong DNS records. Never ever use direct IPs,as I'm moving Stratum backends between servers/datacenters.
c) Database crashed few minutes ago. I fixed it in ~15 minutes, mining backends worked all time so no block has been lost. Just shares were not counted for this period. Everything is working normally again, just statistics are now screwed up because of database downtime.
d) FAQbot is up again

[silicont]

Thanks for keeping a sharp eye, everyone.  I'm not currently paying such close attention to the blocks and rewards, since I'm assuming everything is working as planned.  It's nice to know there are people with their finger on the pulse, and a responsible sysop that is fixing things. 

[digital]

Uff, there're too much posts since my last visit on friday. Shortly:

a) Yes, I fixed one round yesterday, where rewards were calculated wrongly.
b) Pool works since DDoS. If you have connection issues, you've probably wrong DNS records. Never ever use direct IPs,as I'm moving Stratum backends between servers/datacenters.
c) Database crashed few minutes ago. I fixed it in ~15 minutes, mining backends worked all time so no block has been lost. Just shares were not counted for this period. Everything is working normally again, just statistics are now screwed up because of database downtime.
d) FAQbot is up again

Slush you must have the patience of a saint.  With all these repeat questions and impossible requests, I don't think I would be quite so civil.  Although, i guess it's easy to not be an ass online.  Just don't post... lol

And to all those looking for Slush to redo the algorithm to include PPS at the end of the round... It will never happen.  IF the algorithm gets changed, it will be to DGM, or some other hopping proof method.  It's a HUGE undertaking to change how the payouts are calculated, and to add in any form of PPS would be a step back in the consistency of payouts from this pool.

[Kruncha]

Uff, there're too much posts since my last visit on friday. Shortly:

a) Yes, I fixed one round yesterday, where rewards were calculated wrongly.
b) Pool works since DDoS. If you have connection issues, you've probably wrong DNS records. Never ever use direct IPs,as I'm moving Stratum backends between servers/datacenters.
c) Database crashed few minutes ago. I fixed it in ~15 minutes, mining backends worked all time so no block has been lost. Just shares were not counted for this period. Everything is working normally again, just statistics are now screwed up because of database downtime.
d) FAQbot is up again

Slush you must have the patience of a saint.  With all these repeat questions and impossible requests, I don't think I would be quite so civil.  Although, i guess it's easy to not be an ass online.  Just don't post... lol

And to all those looking for Slush to redo the algorithm to include PPS at the end of the round... It will never happen.  IF the algorithm gets changed, it will be to DGM, or some other hopping proof method.  It's a HUGE undertaking to change how the payouts are calculated, and to add in any form of PPS would be a step back in the consistency of payouts from this pool.

I like the method how it is, I sometimes loose out when the time resets because i'm a slow miner, but, sometimes I earn more because of a lucky few quick submissions before the end. I love the lottery element and still make more than doing PPS even when times are rough.

and, thanks Slush, you seem a really sound geezer

K.

[jerethdaminer]

irc chat room is that a slush specific chatroom or a bitcoin talk in general and where would i find it

[Camello_AR]

irc chat room is that a slush specific chatroom or a bitcoin talk in general and where would i find it

Is specific to slush's pool

[Kruncha]

irc chat room is that a slush specific chatroom or a bitcoin talk in general and where would i find it

If your looking for support specific to slush's site you can click on 'live support' on the left hand side of the 'my account' page on slush's website.

K.

[TiborB]

I am happy with the score based calculation as well, re-introducing PPS would not be a good idea. Supporting multiple payout plans would just add unnecessary complexity and demand a lot of effort.

Having said this, I do have some thoughts on the periodic resets:

• I could not find the periodic reset documented at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1976.msg50002#msg50002 which is the "official description" of how rewards are calculated AFAIK.
• Theoretically, the exponential nature of the scoring algorithm without the resets would do a great job against hopping.
• In practice, for long running rounds, the scores might get very large, causing an arithmetic overflow. Maybe this is the only reason for the resets, but I am just guessing. If so, a mathematically correct fade out instead of the reset might be a viable option.

I might be missing something, so just correct me in case...

Cheers,
   T

[organofcorti]

I am happy with the score based calculation as well, re-introducing PPS would not be a good idea. Supporting multiple payout plans would just add unnecessary complexity and demand a lot of effort.

Having said this, I do have some thoughts on the periodic resets:

• I could not find the periodic reset documented at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1976.msg50002#msg50002 which is the "official description" of how rewards are calculated AFAIK.
• Theoretically, the exponential nature of the scoring algorithm without the resets would do a great job against hopping.
• In practice, for long running rounds, the scores might get very large, causing an arithmetic overflow. Maybe this is the only reason for the resets, but I am just guessing. If so, a mathematically correct fade out instead of the reset might be a viable option.

I might be missing something, so just correct me in case...

Cheers,
   T

The resets make no difference to the score. Your proportion is still the same. The only difference the resets make is that they mean Slush doesn't have to deal with numbers with 100 digits.

[Kruncha]

I am happy with the score based calculation as well, re-introducing PPS would not be a good idea. Supporting multiple payout plans would just add unnecessary complexity and demand a lot of effort.

Having said this, I do have some thoughts on the periodic resets:

• I could not find the periodic reset documented at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1976.msg50002#msg50002 which is the "official description" of how rewards are calculated AFAIK.
• Theoretically, the exponential nature of the scoring algorithm without the resets would do a great job against hopping.
• In practice, for long running rounds, the scores might get very large, causing an arithmetic overflow. Maybe this is the only reason for the resets, but I am just guessing. If so, a mathematically correct fade out instead of the reset might be a viable option.

I might be missing something, so just correct me in case...

Cheers,
   T

The resets make no difference to the score. Your proportion is still the same. The only difference the resets make is that they mean Slush doesn't have to deal with numbers with 100 digits.

That's not true, if the score resets on a slow miner and they don't submit a share before the end, they loose everything.

K.

[digital]

I am happy with the score based calculation as well, re-introducing PPS would not be a good idea. Supporting multiple payout plans would just add unnecessary complexity and demand a lot of effort.

Having said this, I do have some thoughts on the periodic resets:

• I could not find the periodic reset documented at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1976.msg50002#msg50002 which is the "official description" of how rewards are calculated AFAIK.
• Theoretically, the exponential nature of the scoring algorithm without the resets would do a great job against hopping.
• In practice, for long running rounds, the scores might get very large, causing an arithmetic overflow. Maybe this is the only reason for the resets, but I am just guessing. If so, a mathematically correct fade out instead of the reset might be a viable option.

I might be missing something, so just correct me in case...

Cheers,
   T

The resets make no difference to the score. Your proportion is still the same. The only difference the resets make is that they mean Slush doesn't have to deal with numbers with 100 digits.

That's not true, if the score resets on a slow miner and they don't submit a share before the end, they loose everything.

K.

That's called variance.  That slow miner could theoretically grab another share or two between the reset and the round ending and end up with a higher score than normal too.  You never know when the shares are gonna come.  You just can't say that you always loose out, because it's simply not the case.

[Kruncha]

I am happy with the score based calculation as well, re-introducing PPS would not be a good idea. Supporting multiple payout plans would just add unnecessary complexity and demand a lot of effort.

Having said this, I do have some thoughts on the periodic resets:

• I could not find the periodic reset documented at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1976.msg50002#msg50002 which is the "official description" of how rewards are calculated AFAIK.
• Theoretically, the exponential nature of the scoring algorithm without the resets would do a great job against hopping.
• In practice, for long running rounds, the scores might get very large, causing an arithmetic overflow. Maybe this is the only reason for the resets, but I am just guessing. If so, a mathematically correct fade out instead of the reset might be a viable option.

I might be missing something, so just correct me in case...

Cheers,
   T

The resets make no difference to the score. Your proportion is still the same. The only difference the resets make is that they mean Slush doesn't have to deal with numbers with 100 digits.

That's not true, if the score resets on a slow miner and they don't submit a share before the end, they loose everything.

K.

That's called variance.  That slow miner could theoretically grab another share or two between the reset and the round ending and end up with a higher score than normal too.  You never know when the shares are gonna come.  You just can't say that you always loose out, because it's simply not the case.

If you had read my earlier post:

I like the method how it is, I sometimes loose out when the time resets because i'm a slow miner, but, sometimes I earn more because of a lucky few quick submissions before the end. I love the lottery element and still make more than doing PPS even when times are rough.

and, thanks Slush, you seem a really sound geezer

K.

I wasn't complaining, just pointing out a fact.

K.

[digital]

I am happy with the score based calculation as well, re-introducing PPS would not be a good idea. Supporting multiple payout plans would just add unnecessary complexity and demand a lot of effort.

Having said this, I do have some thoughts on the periodic resets:

• I could not find the periodic reset documented at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1976.msg50002#msg50002 which is the "official description" of how rewards are calculated AFAIK.
• Theoretically, the exponential nature of the scoring algorithm without the resets would do a great job against hopping.
• In practice, for long running rounds, the scores might get very large, causing an arithmetic overflow. Maybe this is the only reason for the resets, but I am just guessing. If so, a mathematically correct fade out instead of the reset might be a viable option.

I might be missing something, so just correct me in case...

Cheers,
   T

The resets make no difference to the score. Your proportion is still the same. The only difference the resets make is that they mean Slush doesn't have to deal with numbers with 100 digits.

That's not true, if the score resets on a slow miner and they don't submit a share before the end, they loose everything.

K.

That's called variance.  That slow miner could theoretically grab another share or two between the reset and the round ending and end up with a higher score than normal too.  You never know when the shares are gonna come.  You just can't say that you always loose out, because it's simply not the case.

If you had read my earlier post:

I like the method how it is, I sometimes loose out when the time resets because i'm a slow miner, but, sometimes I earn more because of a lucky few quick submissions before the end. I love the lottery element and still make more than doing PPS even when times are rough.

and, thanks Slush, you seem a really sound geezer

K.

I wasn't complaining, just pointing out a fact.

K.

So was I, but in the interest of fairness I take back the last sentence from my previous post... lol

[Kruncha]

I am happy with the score based calculation as well, re-introducing PPS would not be a good idea. Supporting multiple payout plans would just add unnecessary complexity and demand a lot of effort.

Having said this, I do have some thoughts on the periodic resets:

• I could not find the periodic reset documented at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1976.msg50002#msg50002 which is the "official description" of how rewards are calculated AFAIK.
• Theoretically, the exponential nature of the scoring algorithm without the resets would do a great job against hopping.
• In practice, for long running rounds, the scores might get very large, causing an arithmetic overflow. Maybe this is the only reason for the resets, but I am just guessing. If so, a mathematically correct fade out instead of the reset might be a viable option.

I might be missing something, so just correct me in case...

Cheers,
   T

The resets make no difference to the score. Your proportion is still the same. The only difference the resets make is that they mean Slush doesn't have to deal with numbers with 100 digits.

That's not true, if the score resets on a slow miner and they don't submit a share before the end, they loose everything.

K.

That's called variance.  That slow miner could theoretically grab another share or two between the reset and the round ending and end up with a higher score than normal too.  You never know when the shares are gonna come.  You just can't say that you always loose out, because it's simply not the case.

If you had read my earlier post:

I like the method how it is, I sometimes loose out when the time resets because i'm a slow miner, but, sometimes I earn more because of a lucky few quick submissions before the end. I love the lottery element and still make more than doing PPS even when times are rough.

and, thanks Slush, you seem a really sound geezer

K.

I wasn't complaining, just pointing out a fact.

K.

So was I, but in the interest of fairness I take back the last sentence from my previous post... lol

Thankyou for your understanding, that is what will make this place thrive.

K.

[TiborB]

I am happy with the score based calculation as well, re-introducing PPS would not be a good idea. Supporting multiple payout plans would just add unnecessary complexity and demand a lot of effort.

Having said this, I do have some thoughts on the periodic resets:

• I could not find the periodic reset documented at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1976.msg50002#msg50002 which is the "official description" of how rewards are calculated AFAIK.
• Theoretically, the exponential nature of the scoring algorithm without the resets would do a great job against hopping.
• In practice, for long running rounds, the scores might get very large, causing an arithmetic overflow. Maybe this is the only reason for the resets, but I am just guessing. If so, a mathematically correct fade out instead of the reset might be a viable option.

I might be missing something, so just correct me in case...

Cheers,
   T

The resets make no difference to the score. Your proportion is still the same. The only difference the resets make is that they mean Slush doesn't have to deal with numbers with 100 digits.

Well, they do make a difference, as it had been pointed out before. My initial thought was to perform the following instead of the reset:

1) Divide by a big number & round everyones score to maintain the proportions but get rid of a lot of digits.
2) Adjust the constant C (currently always 300) according to the big number used for the division - logarithmic. (so at the end, the algorithm maintains the same curve, scaled down)

I do not want to raise a flame war, and note that I was not complaining either - but am open to any discussion on the maths behind this.

Cheers,
   T

[organofcorti]

I am happy with the score based calculation as well, re-introducing PPS would not be a good idea. Supporting multiple payout plans would just add unnecessary complexity and demand a lot of effort.

Having said this, I do have some thoughts on the periodic resets:

• I could not find the periodic reset documented at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1976.msg50002#msg50002 which is the "official description" of how rewards are calculated AFAIK.
• Theoretically, the exponential nature of the scoring algorithm without the resets would do a great job against hopping.
• In practice, for long running rounds, the scores might get very large, causing an arithmetic overflow. Maybe this is the only reason for the resets, but I am just guessing. If so, a mathematically correct fade out instead of the reset might be a viable option.

I might be missing something, so just correct me in case...

Cheers,
   T

The resets make no difference to the score. Your proportion is still the same. The only difference the resets make is that they mean Slush doesn't have to deal with numbers with 100 digits.

Well, they do make a difference, as it had been pointed out before. My initial thought was to perform the following instead of the reset:

1) Divide by a big number & round everyones score to maintain the proportions but get rid of a lot of digits.
2) Adjust the constant C (currently always 300) according to the big number used for the division - logarithmic. (so at the end, the algorithm maintains the same curve, scaled down)

I do not want to raise a flame war, and note that I was not complaining either - but am open to any discussion on the maths behind this.

Cheers,
   T

I'm not quite sure what is it you think the reset does. Can you explain your thoughts on it, preferably with a link to Slush saying something similar?

[digital]

I know slush has an ongoing project related to switching over to DGM.  He has been working on it for quite a while now (in his spare time, lol), but I'm not sure how close he is to completing it.

I'm not saying that there aren't any good suggestions out there, but I'm guessing he will just finish that project before implementing any other changes to the scoring algorithm.  And in my opinion, that would probably be the best for everyone.  We could say goodbye to loosing 25% on rounds under 10 minutes...