Bitcoin Forum
July 16, 2018, 07:35:19 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.16.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: What type of pool payouts do you prefer?
Bitcoins - 3235 (80.5%)
Bank transfer / USD - 415 (10.3%)
Gold/silver coins and bars - 371 (9.2%)
Total Voters: 4019

Pages: « 1 ... 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 [380] 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 ... 1144 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [4+ EH] Slush Pool (slushpool.com); Overt AsicBoost; World First Mining Pool  (Read 4328318 times)
ewitte
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 10


View Profile
May 04, 2013, 10:49:16 PM
 #7581

A bit but I also have one that drops a little when its used. 

TH - 0.05285543 BTC
Fr - 0.04494487 BTC
So far today - 0.13436445   !

Donations
BTC - 13Lgy6fb4d3nSYEf2nkgBgyBkkhPw8zkPd
LTC - LegzRwyc2Xhu8cqvaW2jwRrqSnhyaYU6gZ
1531726519
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1531726519

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1531726519
Reply with quote  #2

1531726519
Report to moderator
Automated Bitcoin Fork Extraction Tool WE DO TOUGH WALLETS: BCH | BTG | BCD | SBTC | UBTC | B2X | BCX | BTF Electrum 2FA, Trezor, Ledger, SegWit, Bech32
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1531726519
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1531726519

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1531726519
Reply with quote  #2

1531726519
Report to moderator
1531726519
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1531726519

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1531726519
Reply with quote  #2

1531726519
Report to moderator
Slave2school
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 52
Merit: 0


View Profile
May 04, 2013, 11:11:34 PM
 #7582

im currently clocked at 925mhz and ram at 1375mhz voltage is stock
temps 73deg c
its an xfx double d

All 4 of the xfx 7950 double d's I have here are voltage locked turds that won't go past 1050 reliably.  If I knew what I knew now I'd have just saved myself 50$ a card and got more of the tahiti 7870's that I have.

1Mr8ivRoEdUnXBSqSs8Ru5bCyk2CzUc418
ewitte
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 10


View Profile
May 04, 2013, 11:25:44 PM
 #7583

Thats bad.  You know though even my normal 7870's are giving 90% of what I'm getting off the two 7950's.  I think those XT cards may be my next upgrade.  Much easier to keep from overheating.

Donations
BTC - 13Lgy6fb4d3nSYEf2nkgBgyBkkhPw8zkPd
LTC - LegzRwyc2Xhu8cqvaW2jwRrqSnhyaYU6gZ
Slave2school
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 52
Merit: 0


View Profile
May 04, 2013, 11:29:54 PM
 #7584

They are a good value that's for sure.  My 2 7870 @1100 give me 950mh/s and the 3x 7950's in one machine only give 1.53gh/s :S at 1200 and still under stock voltage the 7870's can match two of the 7950's.  The only saving grace is that in the end I'm fairly certain the 7950's will all have a higher resale value.

1Mr8ivRoEdUnXBSqSs8Ru5bCyk2CzUc418
ewitte
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 10


View Profile
May 05, 2013, 12:20:49 AM
 #7585

Better LTC mining

Donations
BTC - 13Lgy6fb4d3nSYEf2nkgBgyBkkhPw8zkPd
LTC - LegzRwyc2Xhu8cqvaW2jwRrqSnhyaYU6gZ
sampson1971
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 8
Merit: 0


Founder of the "Montreal Bitcoin Club" on FB


View Profile
May 05, 2013, 01:22:13 AM
 #7586


Hmm.. my 7950 tops out at around 602 mh/s.  How can I get YOUR extra 18 mh/s? What flags are you using in GUIminer?

I'm using AMD's Overdrive...GPU max, voltage max.

Samps

...
Lucko
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 826
Merit: 1000



View Profile
May 05, 2013, 06:56:46 AM
 #7587

my 2 cents....



Hmm.. my 7950 tops out at around 602 mh/s.  How can I get YOUR extra 18 mh/s? What flags are you using in GUIminer?

I'm using AMD's Overdrive...GPU max, voltage max.

Samps

You can go higher then max in AMD Overdrive with Afterburner but you need to edit ini file. I can't remember exactly but it is something like unofficial EULA that you need to change from 1 to 0 or other way around...

So my guess is higher core speed. You might get 5-10% extra just running cgminer also...
Lucko
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 826
Merit: 1000



View Profile
May 05, 2013, 07:07:54 AM
 #7588

Notice that I'm missing about 10 to 20% of the reword for blocks 17846 and 17845, 17842 and 17841, 17837 and 17836. Unlucky or a problem? Some are over hour so luck shouldn't be a problem...
TObject
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 91
Merit: 10


View Profile
May 05, 2013, 08:33:06 AM
 #7589

Notice that I'm missing about 10 to 20% of the reword for blocks 17846 and 17845, 17842 and 17841, 17837 and 17836. Unlucky or a problem? Some are over hour so luck shouldn't be a problem...

I just noticed one of the workers happily submitting shares while the account page says I submitted nothing for over an hour. I reconnected and normal operation resumed.

I wonder if a hacker figured out how to redirect mining streams.
joolzg
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 76
Merit: 10


View Profile
May 05, 2013, 11:45:23 AM
 #7590

lower payouts on 17826, 17827, 17829, 17844 and 17845.

The last 2 are about 30% lower than my normal?

joolz
ewitte
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 10


View Profile
May 05, 2013, 12:14:49 PM
 #7591

Sometimes my shares show up low but when I check 5-10 minutes later it goes up.  Not sure if thats what your noticing.  If not it could have been some kind of connection issue near the end of the block.  Even a few shares dropped will mess with the numbers.

Donations
BTC - 13Lgy6fb4d3nSYEf2nkgBgyBkkhPw8zkPd
LTC - LegzRwyc2Xhu8cqvaW2jwRrqSnhyaYU6gZ
psipower
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 15
Merit: 0


View Profile
May 05, 2013, 12:20:40 PM
 #7592

lower payouts on 17826, 17827, 17829, 17844 and 17845.

The last 2 are about 30% lower than my normal?

joolz

The first 3 were a bit lower for me, the last two a bit higher. May just be normal variability with c=210 (as per those maths links posted a few pages ago... Smiley )

Also I see pool hash rate now over 9100G - so I'm expecting lower payouts but more frequent payouts compared to a day or so ago when we were on low 8- something Ghash... (same daily payout on average until next diff change, of course).
Lucko
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 826
Merit: 1000



View Profile
May 05, 2013, 12:21:03 PM
 #7593

17852 is off by 25% again... Are we having troubles?
Lucko
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 826
Merit: 1000



View Profile
May 05, 2013, 12:22:50 PM
 #7594

The first 3 were a bit lower for me, the last two a bit higher. May just be normal variability with c=210 (as per those maths links posted a few pages ago... Smiley )

Also I see pool hash rate now over 9100G - so I'm expecting lower payouts but more frequent payouts compared to a day or so ago when we were on low 8- something Ghash... (same daily payout on average until next diff change, of course).

Yes but change is less then 10%... This can't be the reason... And c at my heshrate isn't issue.
ksijur
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 7
Merit: 0


View Profile
May 05, 2013, 12:29:37 PM
 #7595

my 2 cents....



Hmm.. my 7950 tops out at around 602 mh/s.  How can I get YOUR extra 18 mh/s? What flags are you using in GUIminer?

I'm using AMD's Overdrive...GPU max, voltage max.

Samps

You can go higher then max in AMD Overdrive with Afterburner but you need to edit ini file. I can't remember exactly but it is something like unofficial EULA that you need to change from 1 to 0 or other way around...

So my guess is higher core speed. You might get 5-10% extra just running cgminer also...

My flags are your typical -w 128 -v -f 30

EDIT: I also noticed that I can get ~620 Mhash/s only with 13.1 catalyst. Anything else and it is only ~560

Any higher core speed and card becomes unstable, however I suppose if I Overvolted it would be fine... Don't want to do that after reading horror stories on this forum thou Smiley
joolzg
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 76
Merit: 10


View Profile
May 05, 2013, 12:31:44 PM
 #7596

lower payouts on 17826, 17827, 17829, 17844 and 17845.

The last 2 are about 30% lower than my normal?

joolz

The first 3 were a bit lower for me, the last two a bit higher. May just be normal variability with c=210 (as per those maths links posted a few pages ago... Smiley )

Also I see pool hash rate now over 9100G - so I'm expecting lower payouts but more frequent payouts compared to a day or so ago when we were on low 8- something Ghash... (same daily payout on average until next diff change, of course).

Well if you saying a variance of over 30% is normal then im lost, maybe a few % not 30%

joolz


Lucko
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 826
Merit: 1000



View Profile
May 05, 2013, 12:40:57 PM
 #7597

Shares are missing in my last blocks too. Is something wrong with stratum again?
psipower
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 15
Merit: 0


View Profile
May 05, 2013, 12:46:52 PM
 #7598


Well if you saying a variance of over 30% is normal then im lost, maybe a few % not 30%

joolz

Hi joolz,

just speculating, of course! To get a real handle on it we'd probably need to find the standard deviation of the distribution, then we could comment on how likely it is for any particular result to be  a particular percentage out, and indeed any particular *random* sample of results (rather than a selected group that catch our eye)...

Looking at my 7-day moving average from the stats page, however, it's followed quite closely my increase in hash rate and the difficulty change of 30.04, although the last couple of days aren't there yet, so I'm not concerned (at the moment...)

Doesn't preclude a temporary loss, of course. I did notice my cgminer report a missing connection briefly a few hours ago...
adam3us
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 401
Merit: 254


in bitcoin we trust


View Profile WWW
May 05, 2013, 01:06:38 PM
 #7599

The pool has been hacked. Fortunately I noticed it fast enough, so I made database snapshot seconds before attackers overtake the database machine. I lost some amount of bitcoins, but I'll be able to recover it from my pocket.

Dont you keep the slush reward address private key offline, & airgapped?

Then payouts can be batch calculated from a USB key transfer of a share work tally db report, and usb key transfer of the payout transactions to the pool miner addresses say once per week or whatever.

Then the worst that the attacker can do is delete some of the share work tally db records, or change the reward addresses in the db to themselves.  And if you notice an attack, even the miners could resubmit the shares.

And in fact the pooled miner reward addresses should be included in an additional merkle tree in the coinbase itself, and the pooled miners should be presented a verifiable log2 path showing their presence and number of contributions within the coinbase, so that if they can see their contribution is missing, either due to pool skimming, or pool share work db compromise they can switch to another pool.  In this way reward can not be reassigned, without redoing the work, and other than the pre-mining attack, you could basically operate with zero-trust (give out the ssh root private key to the serer without loss of security.)

The proof of contribution merkle tree could even be published to the full network, and included as part of the reward verification, then the pool wouldnt need to be trusted at all in terms of provable no skimming.  Of course the pool is still trusted with validation (by those pool miners who dont build their own blocks nor independently validate the pool constructuced blocks).

Adam

hashcash, committed transactions, homomorphic values, blind kdf; researching decentralization, scalability and fungibility/anonymity
adam3us
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 401
Merit: 254


in bitcoin we trust


View Profile WWW
May 05, 2013, 02:18:48 PM
 #7600

In this way reward can not be reassigned, without redoing the work, and other than the pre-mining attack, you could basically operate with zero-trust (give out the ssh root private key to the serer without loss of security.)

The proof of contribution merkle tree could even be published to the full network, and included as part of the reward verification, then the pool wouldnt need to be trusted at all in terms of provable no skimming.  Of course the pool is still trusted with validation (by those pool miners who dont build their own blocks nor independently validate the pool constructed blocks).

Actually I think something a bit more is needed or a dishonest pool could still skim by handing out different merkle trees to different miners.  (Miner A would see his past contributions in the merkle tree path he receives, Miner B similarly, but A's contributions could be missing from B's tree path and vice-versa.  The dishonest pool could then plausibly deny the tree path as a fabrication.  Probably an ECDSA signature from the pool could fix that (from the reward private key, or separate "fairness" key pair).  Miners can audit the blocks, and in the unlikely event of a pool skimming can prove it, which could create reputation problems for the pool.  Or as before more directly publish the proof of skimming to be validated by the network with some outcome - eg block declared invalid, or pool fees reassigned to first skim prover (a kind of multisig).  I think a signature is not quite as desirable as the verification is higher than for hashes, but I dont so far see a network efficient way to avoid it.  Anyway the signature does not have to be published nor verified unless the pool cheats so that is probably acceptable.  If the punishment for cheating is that the block gets invalidated, there is no reward possible from any form of hacking of the pool server including obtaining its fairness private key.

It would be possible to have a fair exchange protocol as part of the mining share submission (as the signed proof of past work is delayed until after the work is submitted, a dishonest pool could accept a mining share work proof, and then not respond, claiming network error).  However fair exchange is a tricky somewhat computationally inefficient area of cryptography involving an arbitrator in event of dispute, and fair exchange doesnt seem that necessary - the pool doesnt want to lose miners, is probably deterrence enough.

Adam

hashcash, committed transactions, homomorphic values, blind kdf; researching decentralization, scalability and fungibility/anonymity
Pages: « 1 ... 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 [380] 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 ... 1144 »
  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!