Bitcoin Forum
December 11, 2016, 02:18:57 AM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: What type of pool payouts do you prefer?
Bitcoins - 3160 (80.5%)
Bank transfer / USD - 407 (10.4%)
Gold/silver coins and bars - 359 (9.1%)
Total Voters: 3924

Pages: « 1 ... 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] 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 ... 1105 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [40+ PH] SlushPool (slushpool.com); World's First Mining Pool  (Read 3933747 times)
rsbriggs
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 183


Russian:: UID 0


View Profile
May 15, 2013, 05:59:12 PM
 #8201

Не за то во́лка бьют, что сер, а за то, что овцу́ съел.

This is english forum.

OK - I going away.  Bye.

Це́рковь бли́зко, да идти́ скли́зко, каба́к далеко́, да идти́ легко́.
1481422737
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481422737

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481422737
Reply with quote  #2

1481422737
Report to moderator
Visit and contribute to reddit.com/r/Bitcoin
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481422737
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481422737

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481422737
Reply with quote  #2

1481422737
Report to moderator
1481422737
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481422737

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481422737
Reply with quote  #2

1481422737
Report to moderator
Xanthon
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 26



View Profile
May 15, 2013, 05:59:25 PM
 #8202

Not sure if I need Slush's permission to call the API but I have limited the refresh to 10 seconds minimum for now.

As a pool operator, I would recommend making the auto refresh interval measured in minutes, with 1 being the minimum.  Most people will run this in the background and rarely look at it, so having constantly up to date information is just adding load to the web server+database without much benefit.  It's one of the reason most pools removed/never added live refreshes on their websites:  Most people will just leave a tab open and forget about it.

Would be nice if slush added a anti-refresh measures. And maybe some other api for "vip" clients, if they so want. If you want to constantly spam refresh - consider a little donation.

Or even funnier method - your current round reward diminishes with every refresh by 0.005%

Perks activation like the way Bitminter is doing it should suffice.

Here's what Bitminter is doing.

1.5% donation to activate instant payout.
0.5% donation to activate API.

Tips and Donations
12qmc4RwNTgneLjUDzvR3NWZTZ441gtwBw
sunriselad
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 63


View Profile
May 15, 2013, 06:44:07 PM
 #8203

Just realized I cocked up the size of the stats window on the last compile. Shocked
Just resize the form and it should snap to where it's meant to be.  Roll Eyes
dishwara
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386

Truth may get delay, but NEVER fails


View Profile
May 15, 2013, 07:03:39 PM
 #8204

Strange, both tycho & slush not posting for the past some days, but coming online daily.
digital
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 490


View Profile
May 15, 2013, 07:32:17 PM
 #8205

Strange, both tycho & slush not posting for the past some days, but coming online daily.

I wouldn't post if I were slush either.  From my point of view, all the issues are fairly insignificant, and if he were to try to respond to each one it would likely make the clutter grow.  As soon as he started responding then it would be open season for every little non-issue out there...

If I help you out: 17QatvSdciyv2zsdAbphDEUzST1S6x46c3
References (bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=): 50051.20  50051.100  53668.0  53788.0  53571.0  53571.0  52212.0  50729.0  114804.0  115468  78106  69061  58572  54747
KNK
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 615


View Profile
May 15, 2013, 08:11:29 PM
 #8206

I wouldn't post if I were slush either.  From my point of view, all the issues are fairly insignificant, and if he were to try to respond to each one it would likely make the clutter grow.  As soon as he started responding then it would be open season for every little non-issue out there...
+1

BTC tips: 1KNK1akhpethhtcyhKTF2d3PWTQDUWUzHE
Camello_AR
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 43


A Miner Guy


View Profile
May 15, 2013, 08:16:11 PM
 #8207

Не за то во́лка бьют, что сер, а за то, что овцу́ съел.

This is english forum.

OK - I going away.  Bye.

Nobody bans or kick off you. Only suggestd use of english, to be understanded by all of us. I´m not a english speaker, but , in fact I write here in english. Imagine how mess could be if I post in spanish, others in french, german, etc

Donations
1GWHKbwGvAEAzgjHa1nRCrAGWPLeY3ot3r
Sorry for my english. I'm native Spanish speaker
Lucko
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
May 15, 2013, 08:18:25 PM
 #8208

I disagree, there hasn't been a block miscalculation since the one everybody went berserk about exactly one week ago.

block=start_time,duration,reward,hashes,luck,difficulty,confirmations
235160=2013-05-08 15:13:44,1:27:14,0.00000096,9167,1.34,10076292,100

Since then people have been reporting the slightest variations as problems - when it's perfectly normal to have some variation - based on your own luck and the pool's luck as a whole.

Where people are reporting zero payouts, they are showing that they have submitted no shares - meaning connectivity issue - not block calculation issues.

I think Slush is monitoring from afar (I don't blame him for not coming on here with all the bitching going on) and long may it continue. Connectivity issues should be kept separate from the block miscalculation issues (which seem to have disappeared as I say).
User was looking at screen as he reports(and he is not the only one). I had logs that prove that shares are missing(unfortunately log is deleted when you restart CGminer and I deleted the copy from my computer since there were no way to report it to Slush and the block got confirmed). CGminer reported accepted shares(meaning that cgminer sanded the share and pool confirmed it valid) and pool didn't record them. Nobody is saying it is a calculation issue. It is database issue when you see this.

And I don't think Slush is monitoring this. Unfortunately I starting to think that something happened to him about 10 days ago and he can't control the pool and it is having bigger and bigger problems.

I still use Slush as a backup pool and I did see in time of maintenance of my new pool one miner connecting on Slush(stratum) and the other with same configuration going over all stratum server and api to old backup. So tell me that this is normal for a normal working pool. After loosing on 13 blocks I have given up on Slush since it cost me about 0.05BTC
not.you
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1266


View Profile
May 15, 2013, 11:00:30 PM
 #8209

Well as dishwara already pointed out, Slush's forum account is showing that he (or someone) is logging in to it.  But I agree with Lucko in that I have seen way too many anomalous payouts and missing shares in the past week or more to just think all is normal.  I already moved more than 20 of my miners elsewhere and only have one miner left on Slush.  Organofcorti posted a link a few pages back to a post about spreading your hashing power over several pools so I went that route.  I get less per found block on each pool but I get some kind of payout for a lot more blocks each day.  Plus since I put miners on both bitparking and bitminter I am also getting some alt coins.  I've got a pile of devcoins already whatever those are, woot!
TomKeddie
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 176


View Profile
May 15, 2013, 11:40:00 PM
 #8210

Code:
18048 2013-05-15 23:00:36 0:00:22 43608 24        0.01353690 none 236367 25.00000000 96 confirmations left
18047 2013-05-15 23:00:07 0:01:27 165492     94        0.01394973 none 236366 25.14505001 95 confirmations left
18046 2013-05-15 22:58:40 4:06:17 32543599 25921 0.01909319 none 236365 25.28750600 94 confirmations left

Woot!   Quick blocks, quick bucks!

I re-engineered my FPGAs to flush stale jobs faster sometime back, makes a difference on this pool for sure.  Payout is below average but the BTC per hour is superb!
goatmonkey
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 26



View Profile
May 15, 2013, 11:52:05 PM
 #8211


Fantastic! Thanks!

Will tip when I get more BTC. Only been mining a couple weeks.


Donations: 13HvCR6KpDBacpXRN1gwEYUnHJrsdYiXwK
TObject
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 75


View Profile
May 16, 2013, 12:13:06 AM
 #8212


Woot!   Quick blocks, quick bucks!

Awesome blocks. Unfortunately with over 900 MH/s I still have not managed to sneak a single share in ether one, according to my stats. Luck is not on my side today. LOL
gbx
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 219


View Profile
May 16, 2013, 12:38:58 AM
 #8213

I disagree, there hasn't been a block miscalculation since the one everybody went berserk about exactly one week ago.

block=start_time,duration,reward,hashes,luck,difficulty,confirmations
235160=2013-05-08 15:13:44,1:27:14,0.00000096,9167,1.34,10076292,100

Since then people have been reporting the slightest variations as problems - when it's perfectly normal to have some variation - based on your own luck and the pool's luck as a whole.

Where people are reporting zero payouts, they are showing that they have submitted no shares - meaning connectivity issue - not block calculation issues.

I think Slush is monitoring from afar (I don't blame him for not coming on here with all the bitching going on) and long may it continue. Connectivity issues should be kept separate from the block miscalculation issues (which seem to have disappeared as I say).
User was looking at screen as he reports(and he is not the only one). I had logs that prove that shares are missing(unfortunately log is deleted when you restart CGminer and I deleted the copy from my computer since there were no way to report it to Slush and the block got confirmed). CGminer reported accepted shares(meaning that cgminer sanded the share and pool confirmed it valid) and pool didn't record them. Nobody is saying it is a calculation issue. It is database issue when you see this.

And I don't think Slush is monitoring this. Unfortunately I starting to think that something happened to him about 10 days ago and he can't control the pool and it is having bigger and bigger problems.

I still use Slush as a backup pool and I did see in time of maintenance of my new pool one miner connecting on Slush(stratum) and the other with same configuration going over all stratum server and api to old backup. So tell me that this is normal for a normal working pool. After loosing on 13 blocks I have given up on Slush since it cost me about 0.05BTC

Man, all the Fear/Uncertainty/Doubt you can dish up.

All the blocks I've seen with incorrect payouts were eventually corrected.  I see some people freak out just after "Processing..." is completed.  It's clear there are multiple calculations on different boxes to get the final number.  I suspect on some of the blocks with "short" payouts, one of the boxes is missing from that calc.  You can refresh and watch it grow in 3rds...

I think the pool is better than ever.  He moved to a more stable host (and faster IMHO)....  I think he's tired of having 5000 employees and having a handful of those who work the least complain the most.

He's recalculating "short" blocks... it seems correct...   but I tell you what.  Log your next block session, don't lose the logs, and come back and complain with some REAL evidence you're being shorted.  Coming on here and bitching about what you suspect doesn't do anyone any favors.'

There are logging options in cgminer.  Use them, do the math, and then come back with real evidence and make some real accusations.  The pool has never been stronger....  He reacted to a theft, and a DDoS attack, and it's still going strong.  All the while, maintaining a good attitude and helping people.  Give the guy a break...  and we'll see you back next block with some real evidence, right?

vs3
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 622


View Profile WWW
May 16, 2013, 12:51:19 AM
 #8214

I disagree, there hasn't been a block miscalculation since the one everybody went berserk about exactly one week ago.

block=start_time,duration,reward,hashes,luck,difficulty,confirmations
235160=2013-05-08 15:13:44,1:27:14,0.00000096,9167,1.34,10076292,100

Since then people have been reporting the slightest variations as problems - when it's perfectly normal to have some variation - based on your own luck and the pool's luck as a whole.

Where people are reporting zero payouts, they are showing that they have submitted no shares - meaning connectivity issue - not block calculation issues.

I think Slush is monitoring from afar (I don't blame him for not coming on here with all the bitching going on) and long may it continue. Connectivity issues should be kept separate from the block miscalculation issues (which seem to have disappeared as I say).
User was looking at screen as he reports(and he is not the only one). I had logs that prove that shares are missing(unfortunately log is deleted when you restart CGminer and I deleted the copy from my computer since there were no way to report it to Slush and the block got confirmed). CGminer reported accepted shares(meaning that cgminer sanded the share and pool confirmed it valid) and pool didn't record them. Nobody is saying it is a calculation issue. It is database issue when you see this.

And I don't think Slush is monitoring this. Unfortunately I starting to think that something happened to him about 10 days ago and he can't control the pool and it is having bigger and bigger problems.

I still use Slush as a backup pool and I did see in time of maintenance of my new pool one miner connecting on Slush(stratum) and the other with same configuration going over all stratum server and api to old backup. So tell me that this is normal for a normal working pool. After loosing on 13 blocks I have given up on Slush since it cost me about 0.05BTC

Man, all the Fear/Uncertainty/Doubt you can dish up.

All the blocks I've seen with incorrect payouts were eventually corrected.  I see some people freak out just after "Processing..." is completed.  It's clear there are multiple calculations on different boxes to get the final number.  I suspect on some of the blocks with "short" payouts, one of the boxes is missing from that calc.  You can refresh and watch it grow in 3rds...

I think the pool is better than ever.  He moved to a more stable host (and faster IMHO)....  I think he's tired of having 5000 employees and having a handful of those who work the least complain the most.

He's recalculating "short" blocks... it seems correct...   but I tell you what.  Log your next block session, don't lose the logs, and come back and complain with some REAL evidence you're being shorted.  Coming on here and bitching about what you suspect doesn't do anyone any favors.'

There are logging options in cgminer.  Use them, do the math, and then come back with real evidence and make some real accusations.  The pool has never been stronger....  He reacted to a theft, and a DDoS attack, and it's still going strong.  All the while, maintaining a good attitude and helping people.  Give the guy a break...  and we'll see you back next block with some real evidence, right?

Thank you gbx! I concur that Slush's pool is among the best options available (and in my opinion The Best).

Yes, stuff happens - just see that one:
Code:
18029 2013-05-14 10:22:39 1:18:11 10929435 1271 0.00194877 none 236148 25.61227001 confirmed
18028 2013-05-14 09:04:28 1:04:00 8890231 1261 0.00358784 none 236145 25.34600000 confirmed

Almost exact same length, almost exact number of shares submitted, half the payout ... Why? Because one of my miners had crashed (unfortunately) 20-30min before the end. So at the round end I was doing just about that much work and thus got the correct payout.

And I've seen a lot of other strange things happening with the miners - sometimes laggy internet (while me watching a movie), a switch misbehaving, etc - you name it. So - before blaming the pool check your end first. Don't rush to see the straw in the eyes of others and not see the beam in yours.

Gamah
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 44


View Profile
May 16, 2013, 01:12:13 AM
 #8215

I'm curious as to your reasoning to why you think you deserved 54% payout in the 2nd round when you submitted 82% as many shares/minute as the round before... aka... did 82% as much work per X time.

Or if we look at total contribution per pool shares...
You got .00016% total pool shares for the lesser paid round, and .00014% total shares for the better paid round. You actually contributed 14% more of the total shares on the round where you received 46% less reward.
autonomous42
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
May 16, 2013, 01:14:44 AM
 #8216

Yeah let's not fearmonger here. If I were to put money on it, I'd say he's doing something related to the hack at OVH. Perhaps seeing legal counsel. I'm also sure he's heard our complaints and will have or has ironed things out but hasn't the time to write in detail. In the last day, however, I've seen my reward go up due to fewer miners at the pool. An interesting side effect.

1LoLTipsbSPgkeBEMvSx2WRe5A6SRHdymb
vs3
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 622


View Profile WWW
May 16, 2013, 01:23:42 AM
 #8217

I'm curious as to your reasoning to why you think you deserved 54% payout in the 2nd round when you submitted 82% as many shares/minute as the round before... aka... did 82% as much work per X time.

The reason is - this is not a PPS (pay-per-share) pool, but more like a PPLNS (pay-per-last-N-shares). In Slush's case "last" is about an hour, but when you add exponentially lower score to the older shares - it's really about the last 15-20min.

Many people get confused in this exact way - the number of shares DOES NOT mean a proportional payout. It would be proportional in a PPS pool, which this one IS NOT.

It is the TIME of those shares that matters (and by time I'm referring to how old the shares are, or in other words - how closely before the end of the round did you submit them).

So, back to your question - I learned (although too late) that one of my miners stopped submitting shares, and unfortunately it stopped closer to the beginning than to the end of that round. Hence the payout. I know how Slush's scoring works and that's why I'm not surprised by the result.

gbx
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 219


View Profile
May 16, 2013, 01:24:24 AM
 #8218

Yeah let's not fearmonger here. If I were to put money on it, I'd say he's doing something related to the hack at OVH. Perhaps seeing legal counsel. I'm also sure he's heard our complaints and will have or has ironed things out but hasn't the time to write in detail. In the last day, however, I've seen my reward go up due to fewer miners at the pool. An interesting side effect.

Don't forget, Slush is a miner too..  So he's looking at it from our perspective also.

I'm sure that OVH hack was no laughing matter.  ~3000 BTC is significant!!!!  If you've ever been robbed, had your car broken into, or been taken advantage of, you know what psychological impact that can have on you.  He's probably lurking, and taking care of things.  He's just not active on the forum is all.  Let's all just relax a bit and assume the best.... and avoid inaccurate or incorrect assumptions based on "feelings".
Gamah
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 44


View Profile
May 16, 2013, 01:31:18 AM
 #8219

I'm curious as to your reasoning to why you think you deserved 54% payout in the 2nd round when you submitted 82% as many shares/minute as the round before... aka... did 82% as much work per X time.

The reason is - this is not a PPS (pay-per-share) pool, but more like a PPLNS (pay-per-last-N-shares). In Slush's case "last" is about an hour, but when you add exponentially lower score to the older shares - it's really about the last 15-20min.

Many people get confused in this exact way - the number of shares DOES NOT mean a proportional payout. It would be proportional in a PPS pool, which this one IS NOT.

It is the TIME of those shares that matters (and by time I'm referring to how old the shares are, or in other words - how closely before the end of the round did you submit them).

So, back to your question - I learned (although too late) that one of my miners stopped submitting shares, and unfortunately it stopped closer to the beginning than to the end of that round. Hence the payout. I know how Slush's scoring works and that's why I'm not surprised by the result.


I see... I'll have to look more into this, I thought the N in PPLNS was in relation to the round as a whole... In that N being a variable was fixed to the duration of the round.

If you miner stopped near the beginning of the round, how can you be expected to have pulled a higher total pool percentage?
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1960


Poor impulse control.


View Profile WWW
May 16, 2013, 01:38:56 AM
 #8220

I'm curious as to your reasoning to why you think you deserved 54% payout in the 2nd round when you submitted 82% as many shares/minute as the round before... aka... did 82% as much work per X time.

The reason is - this is not a PPS (pay-per-share) pool, but more like a PPLNS (pay-per-last-N-shares). In Slush's case "last" is about an hour, but when you add exponentially lower score to the older shares - it's really about the last 15-20min.

Many people get confused in this exact way - the number of shares DOES NOT mean a proportional payout. It would be proportional in a PPS pool, which this one IS NOT.

It is the TIME of those shares that matters (and by time I'm referring to how old the shares are, or in other words - how closely before the end of the round did you submit them).

So, back to your question - I learned (although too late) that one of my miners stopped submitting shares, and unfortunately it stopped closer to the beginning than to the end of that round. Hence the payout. I know how Slush's scoring works and that's why I'm not surprised by the result.

I see... I'll have to look more into this, I thought the N in PPLNS was in relation to the round as a whole... In that N being a variable was fixed to the duration of the round.

If you miner stopped near the beginning of the round, how can you be expected to have pulled a higher total pool percentage?



Slush's pool is scored proportional and so is not much like PPLNS either.

Bitcoin network and pool analysis 12QxPHEuxDrs7mCyGSx1iVSozTwtquDB3r
follow @oocBlog for new post notifications
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 ... 1105 »
  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!