PuertoLibre
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1890
Merit: 1003
|
 |
April 30, 2013, 06:02:49 PM |
|
Ok, I am surprised that the scoring system works that way....
It means even if I am an ASIC miner if I have an outage of 90minutes due to a storm then I lose all my shares value. Everyone else profited from my shares. So down time is my enemy.
How does the score system work? (I am sorry for my ignorance!)
There are some resets of the scores also so after a reset you don't get any... 90 minutes is more then enough for reset to accrue... Probably more then once. So even 1000 ASIC wouldn't help... That way I was asking for pool to have a maintenance mode and that way I'm using backup PPS pool in time of maintenance... And also why backup pool is PPS. So I get something out... If the backup pool would use Slush method for short outage I would get close to 0. But then again I could be lucky... For some time I used PPLNS method but I got out about 10% of what I lost so PPS is probably much better... But then again I might be wrong... Not how the "reset" works. It's more of a "renormalisation". OK then way my scores goes to 0? If it was renormalisation it would be some small number... And since I have a lot of problems with my miner right now I see score 0 toooooo many times right now... If you are having problems with your miner, you should probably get those resolved first before complaining about what slush is doing. Seriously, when my miners are stable, which is almost all the time, my payouts are constant and regular. I've never had to worry about the score normalizing. "Re-normalizing" is seen pretty often within the span of a round when you are an ASIC miner. I had no idea that was happening until it was mentioned. (again due to my ignorance of the method) Any clue if the delay in high difficulty shares affects the score severely? |
|
|
|
|
|
Lucko
|
|
April 30, 2013, 06:06:36 PM |
|
"Re-normalizing" is seen pretty often within the span of a round when you are an ASIC miner. I had no idea that was happening until it was mentioned. (again due to my ignorance of the method)
Any clue if the delay in high difficulty shares affects the score severely?
Depends on a difficulty... How many shares are you sending per minute? |
|
|
|
|
PuertoLibre
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1890
Merit: 1003
|
|
April 30, 2013, 06:12:23 PM |
|
I think the point is...
You may be able to make a little more by mining @ a pps pool during the beginning of slush's rounds, then coming on at the back end of a round on slush to get your reward for that block.
BUT, you won't be taking extra profits from everyone else @ slush. You will still be getting your fair share. As opposed to mining only right at the beginning of rounds, when you find a very short round, you actually make more than you normally would, and take a percentage of the share from the other miners on slush.
I could be way off base here, but that's how I interpreted it...
So you are saying a miner working for an hour before a block is found is not actually doing anything towards finding the block? You are contributing little work but getting a big share from the block. The block has the same value no matter how many miners are involved, so those who have been mining continually with slush have to lose out! That's one way of looking at it. the other way is... No one knows how long it's gonna be before we find a block. So I'm going to set my miners and forget them for the best average payout on all blocks. Because you can say that miners aren't contributing for the first hour of a block, or you could say they are helping to find the block in less than a hour. It's all relative, math, averages, etc. Play the averages, it's your best bet. You can use Automation and basic math strategies to employ that hypothetical exploit. It wouldn't be hard to implement that. Doing complex tasks based on stats is pretty easy with automation. |
|
|
|
|
|
KNK
|
|
April 30, 2013, 06:14:55 PM |
|
"Re-normalizing" is seen pretty often within the span of a round when you are an ASIC miner. I had no idea that was happening until it was mentioned. (again due to my ignorance of the method)
Any clue if the delay in high difficulty shares affects the score severely? I guess re-normalization is affecting all, not just the fastest miners, but you may need some time to find a share after that or after a new block and higher the diff - longer the time and a block found during that time leaves you with lower income. My hashrate is too low to mess with that, but i would target 10-20 sec per share on average |
|
|
|
slush (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1386
Merit: 1097
|
|
April 30, 2013, 06:23:46 PM |
|
Nobody from OVH contacted me with any official statement, they even cannot blame for "not giving them enough information". Actually I called them many times and provided them many useful information for "debugging" the issue. So far the official statement from OVH is "not our problems, secure your email better". However, I'll call them tomorrow (again).
|
|
|
|
|
Lucko
|
|
April 30, 2013, 06:37:26 PM |
|
Well at lest it wasn't a inside job... Unless it is a cover up... I love conspiracy theory...
|
|
|
|
|
5120-01-518-6126
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 174
Merit: 100
< My mining rig >
|
|
April 30, 2013, 06:37:42 PM |
|
Nobody from OVH contacted me with any official statement, they even cannot blame for "not giving them enough information". Actually I called them many times and provided them many useful information for "debugging" the issue. So far the official statement from OVH is "not our problems, secure your email better". However, I'll call them tomorrow (again).
There is probably something in the fine print of their hosting contract that says if they do anything wrong, it's your fault. |
|
|
|
|
|
rsbriggs
|
|
April 30, 2013, 07:15:02 PM |
|
Darn - unlucky enough to have missed getting even a single share of that 35 second block....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lucko
|
|
April 30, 2013, 07:18:07 PM |
|
If anyone is interested about a solution to my problem...
I removed phatk*.bin from folder - no change
I search for phatk*.bin on a disk found it only in that folder
Removed the folder installed it in a diffident location - no change
Installed last version - no change
Added -k poclbm - did the work... I got 468 out... Better then it was...
And the bed news. The last card that I put into computer... It is not working... I will kill the idiot...
|
|
|
|
|
|
KNK
|
|
April 30, 2013, 07:26:20 PM |
|
I will kill the idiot... Don't say that in public - if he falls on the way home, you'll be held responsible.  Good to hear you got it working. 3MH/s is not much and may well be because of some short time luck. |
|
|
|
|
Lucko
|
|
April 30, 2013, 07:38:37 PM |
|
Don't say that in public - if he falls on the way home, you'll be held responsible. Good to hear you got it working. 3MH/s is not much and may well be because of some short time luck. Yes it could be but it is still going up and it is almost 4 now... And it was long enough... I think... Luckily I got that card for only 50€ and it was the cheapest of them all. And "only" 223 mhesh... So there is some luck... And it is still under warranty and you can't see anything wrong with it. But it was overclocked. Can they see that? |
|
|
|
|
|
wtfvanity
|
|
April 30, 2013, 08:34:17 PM |
|
Nobody from OVH contacted me with any official statement, they even cannot blame for "not giving them enough information". Actually I called them many times and provided them many useful information for "debugging" the issue. So far the official statement from OVH is "not our problems, secure your email better". However, I'll call them tomorrow (again).
Slush, you respond to other peoples posts, but not mine, and not my PM? I'd love to switch back to your pool but you're making it pretty hard. If the password database is compromised, I would like to change my email and my password. Do I just need to make a new account and lose all of my stats and found block info? |
WTF! Don't Click Here
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
|
|
PuertoLibre
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1890
Merit: 1003
|
|
April 30, 2013, 08:47:46 PM |
|
Darn - unlucky enough to have missed getting even a single share of that 35 second block....
 I got 369 shares into the tiny window thanks to low difficulty shares. Had I used high difficulty, I would have missed it too! 17771 2013-04-30 17:34:45 0:00:35 51130 369 0.17625050 233934 25.21561000 78 confirmations left |
|
|
|
|
|
Lucko
|
|
April 30, 2013, 08:54:58 PM |
|
Darn - unlucky enough to have missed getting even a single share of that 35 second block....
I got 369 shares into the tiny window thanks to low difficulty shares. Had I used high difficulty, I would have missed it too! 17771 2013-04-30 17:34:45 0:00:35 51130 369 0.17625050 233934 25.21561000 78 confirmations left Yes but you might changed difficulty just a bit up to reduce Slush stratum load... If you got 369 shares in you are sending 10 per second. Way to much... 10 to 100 times too many... And it is a number game. Sometimes you loose sometime you win... And I must say I would love to have your ASIC just for one block... Two days of work for me... |
|
|
|
|
genpayne
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
|
|
April 30, 2013, 08:56:57 PM |
|
Darn - unlucky enough to have missed getting even a single share of that 35 second block....
I got 369 shares into the tiny window thanks to low difficulty shares. Had I used high difficulty, I would have missed it too! 17771 2013-04-30 17:34:45 0:00:35 51130 369 0.17625050 233934 25.21561000 78 confirmations left Yes but you might changed difficulty just a bit up to reduce Slush stratum load... If you got 369 shares in you are sending 10 per second. Way to much... 10 to 100 times too many... And it is a number game. Sometimes you loose sometime you win... Id guess it'd be sensible to change it to 10. Make it one per second, then he's unlikely to lose out! And reduces the load considerably |
|
|
|
|
|
Lucko
|
|
April 30, 2013, 09:02:17 PM |
|
Id guess it'd be sensible to change it to 10. Make it one per second, then he's unlikely to lose out! And reduces the load considerably
Yes but it is a numbers game. I lost out on last short block but got double out of this one... But it is demoralising see 0.00000000 I agree... |
|
|
|
|
genpayne
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
|
|
April 30, 2013, 09:06:49 PM |
|
Id guess it'd be sensible to change it to 10. Make it one per second, then he's unlikely to lose out! And reduces the load considerably
Yes but it is a numbers game. I lost out on last short block but got double out of this one... But it is demoralising see 0.00000000 I agree... On 369 changing it to 10 would mean one hes still updating every second. So on the 35 second at most he would lost 10 shares. On the value of a block that high surely its not a massive issue? End of the day its his choice but i dont think 10 would really cost anything. |
|
|
|
|
|
nottm28
|
|
April 30, 2013, 09:36:03 PM
Last edit: April 30, 2013, 09:52:25 PM by nottm28 |
|
Darn - unlucky enough to have missed getting even a single share of that 35 second block....
I got 369 shares into the tiny window thanks to low difficulty shares. Had I used high difficulty, I would have missed it too! 17771 2013-04-30 17:34:45 0:00:35 51130 369 0.17625050 233934 25.21561000 78 confirmations left That's a real bummer for you man I got 0.5 BTC for the 35 second round - if I were you I'd bin your avalon and get a decent asic (I'll take it off your hands for a few btc if you are desparate for the coins)... [EDIT] Did I say 0.5 BTC - meant 0.005... Warning: Avalon 60Gh will only give you 0.176BTC for a 35 second block. It could be a scam! |
donations not accepted
|
|
|
killingtime
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 25
Merit: 0
|
|
April 30, 2013, 10:24:20 PM |
|
Huh, my lowly 1.6 GH/s was able to submit 13 shares. That means you are only doing a measly 45 GH/s, and you call yourself an ASIC user?
|
|
|
|
|
|
rsbriggs
|
|
April 30, 2013, 11:24:13 PM |
|
OK - I'm really not getting how these blocks are being scored.
For two similar blocks - on this block, I got in 115 shares in 2:18 and got .00032359 for it.
17770 2013-04-30 17:34:10 2:18:03 15697265 115 0.00032359
But on this block, I got in more shares (132) in less time (2:03) and there were fewer total shares, but I got 0.000 ??
17774 2013-04-30 20:25:35 2:03:23 14233698 132 0.00000000
|
|
|
|
|
|
