Bitcoin Forum
September 26, 2016, 08:46:23 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.0 (New!) [Torrent]. Make sure you verify it.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: What type of pool payouts do you prefer?
Bitcoins - 3151 (80.4%)
Bank transfer / USD - 407 (10.4%)
Gold/silver coins and bars - 359 (9.2%)
Total Voters: 3915

Pages: « 1 ... 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] 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 ... 1104 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [40+ PH] SlushPool (slushpool.com); World's First Mining Pool  (Read 3853968 times)
gbx
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 219


View Profile
May 16, 2013, 12:38:58 AM
 #8221

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?

1474922783
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1474922783

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1474922783
Reply with quote  #2

1474922783
Report to moderator
1474922783
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1474922783

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1474922783
Reply with quote  #2

1474922783
Report to moderator
1474922783
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1474922783

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1474922783
Reply with quote  #2

1474922783
Report to moderator
"If you don't want people to know you're a scumbag then don't be a scumbag." -- margaritahuyan
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1474922783
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1474922783

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1474922783
Reply with quote  #2

1474922783
Report to moderator
vs3
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 622


View Profile WWW
May 16, 2013, 12:51:19 AM
 #8222

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
 #8223

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
 #8224

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
 #8225

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
 #8226

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
 #8227

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: 1876


Poor impulse control.


View Profile WWW
May 16, 2013, 01:38:56 AM
 #8228

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
vs3
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 622


View Profile WWW
May 16, 2013, 01:39:31 AM
 #8229

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?

I have more than one miner. The rest worked fine - the final payout reflects the amount that the rest did.

The newer the shares - the higher the score (and also the older the share - the lower the score which eventually becomes zero). The miner that died had some shares towards the beginning of the round, but by the round end they were already too old and as a result their score was almost zero.

One "feature" that I'd like to have (even if it is a paid one) would be a database dump with the timing of each of my shares and their score. Slush already has that and that's what he uses to calculate the final score. That way everyone can crosscheck and match each share against what his/her logs say. And this can also help with troubleshooting and isolating misbehaving miners (because if you have several miners you can never be sure which was the bad one).

Gamah
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 44


View Profile
May 16, 2013, 01:40:06 AM
 #8230





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

So then how do we explain my math at the bottom of the previous page?


Edit:

Oh now I see vs3.... that makes quite a bit more sense... thanks!
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1876


Poor impulse control.


View Profile WWW
May 16, 2013, 01:44:12 AM
 #8231





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

So then how do we explain my math at the bottom of the previous page?

I don't have time to explain anything right now, or even look at your problem. But I just wanted to point out that you were looking at the wrong payout method before you spent more time on it.

There's a post in this thread somewhere that out lines the payout method, or you could try these:



Bitcoin network and pool analysis 12QxPHEuxDrs7mCyGSx1iVSozTwtquDB3r
follow @oocBlog for new post notifications
vs3
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 622


View Profile WWW
May 16, 2013, 01:44:19 AM
 #8232

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

Yes, that is correct - it is NOT a PPLNS pool. That's why I said "like a PPLNS". It was a bit easier to explain it that way.

For those looking for the more-detailed definition - look at the top of this page: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Comparison_of_mining_pools. And Slush's scoring system is outlined the home page and detailed in this message: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1976.msg50002#msg50002.

organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1876


Poor impulse control.


View Profile WWW
May 16, 2013, 01:48:22 AM
 #8233

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

Yes, that is correct. That's why I said "like a PPLNS". It was a bit easier to explain it that way.

For those looking for the more-detailed definition - look at the top of this page: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Comparison_of_mining_pools. And Slush's scoring system is outlined the home page and detailed in this message: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1976.msg50002#msg50002.

OK, let me rephrase: It's not much like PPLNS at all. It's more like proportional, only exponentially scored.

The big difference between PPLNS and prop is that PPLNS breaks round boundaries and is not exploitable, and prop maintains round boundaries and is exploitable. Scored proportional is a version of proportional and is exploitable.

Bitcoin network and pool analysis 12QxPHEuxDrs7mCyGSx1iVSozTwtquDB3r
follow @oocBlog for new post notifications
vs3
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 622


View Profile WWW
May 16, 2013, 01:54:38 AM
 #8234

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

Yes, that is correct. That's why I said "like a PPLNS". It was a bit easier to explain it that way.

For those looking for the more-detailed definition - look at the top of this page: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Comparison_of_mining_pools. And Slush's scoring system is outlined the home page and detailed in this message: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1976.msg50002#msg50002.

OK, let me rephrase: It's not much like PPLNS at all. It's more like proportional, only exponentially scored.

The big difference between PPLNS and prop is that PPLNS breaks round boundaries and is not exploitable, and prop maintains round boundaries and is exploitable. Scored proportional is a version of proportional and is exploitable.

Smiley That's a very "accurate" explanation and I completely agree with you. I didn't mean to argue about semantics.

I was merely trying to provide a simplified explanation (although not perfectly accurate) which would make it easier to grasp the idea and the differences - especially for people who recently joined the bitcoin mining world.

organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1876


Poor impulse control.


View Profile WWW
May 16, 2013, 02:00:17 AM
 #8235

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

Yes, that is correct. That's why I said "like a PPLNS". It was a bit easier to explain it that way.

For those looking for the more-detailed definition - look at the top of this page: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Comparison_of_mining_pools. And Slush's scoring system is outlined the home page and detailed in this message: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1976.msg50002#msg50002.

OK, let me rephrase: It's not much like PPLNS at all. It's more like proportional, only exponentially scored.

The big difference between PPLNS and prop is that PPLNS breaks round boundaries and is not exploitable, and prop maintains round boundaries and is exploitable. Scored proportional is a version of proportional and is exploitable.

Smiley That's a very "accurate" explanation and I completely agree with you. I didn't mean to argue about semantics.

I was merely trying to provide a simplified explanation (although not perfectly accurate) which would make it easier to grasp the idea and the differences - especially for people who recently joined the bitcoin mining world.

I understood what you were attempting, and the reason for doing so. But since slush's payment is based on round results ( proportion of shares per round) and PPLNS is not, I thought it was introducing unnecessary confusion.

I applaud your attempt to help new miners understand, though. That sort of help doesn't happen enough.

Anyway, if Gamah wants to look at the posts to which I linked it should all be made clear for him. You'll be able to tell if he read all three posts because if he does he wont be back for a few hours Wink

Bitcoin network and pool analysis 12QxPHEuxDrs7mCyGSx1iVSozTwtquDB3r
follow @oocBlog for new post notifications
Gamah
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 44


View Profile
May 16, 2013, 02:18:57 AM
 #8236

I'm on board now... I hadn't realized the most crucial step of the equation..

I thought it was:
score = score + exp(round_time)


But instead it is:
score = score + exp(round_time/C)

Gives me an immense respect for slush and his systems... crunching that large of table of data 24/7 reliably is an immense undertaking! There is a significantly larger amount of data logged per worker than I had previously even begun to fathom.
gbx
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 219


View Profile
May 16, 2013, 02:27:28 AM
 #8237

Yeah, Slush is cool as hell... I also have a tremendous amount of respect for that guy...

If anything, he deserves all of our support right now.  Losing 3000 BTC in an inside hack job on his OVH account, and that DDoS attack from hell... and then people are on here bitching and making assumptions...  which I feel were corrected, is just wrong.... and I'm sure that is just the icing on the cake.

Let's all just chill the f*ck out and keep mining on Slush's pool.  We all know he's legit and he is a man of his word.  So quit bitching and keep your boxes mining.
dogie
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1288


dogiecoin.com


View Profile WWW
May 16, 2013, 02:49:29 AM
 #8238

Pool luck OP Sad
75%, 88%, 100%

gbx
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 219


View Profile
May 16, 2013, 02:58:05 AM
 #8239

Pool luck OP Sad
75%, 88%, 100%

And a few days ago, it was ~%150, %99, %100

That's why you're in a pool.  It smooths out the peaks and valleys.  Are you new here?
fourd00rgtz
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 144


View Profile
May 16, 2013, 03:35:04 AM
 #8240

We've gone through 50pages (at whatever default layout is) in about 2weeks..... most of the last couple weeks has been not worth Slush's time in my opinion.

Pages: « 1 ... 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] 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 ... 1104 »
  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!