Bitcoin Forum
October 01, 2016, 08:36:09 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 - 3152 (80.4%)
Bank transfer / USD - 407 (10.4%)
Gold/silver coins and bars - 359 (9.2%)
Total Voters: 3916

Pages: « 1 ... 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] 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 ... 1104 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [40+ PH] SlushPool (slushpool.com); World's First Mining Pool  (Read 3860206 times)
Trongersoll
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 448


Retired Software Engineer


View Profile
May 17, 2013, 10:22:11 PM
 #8361

heh, can't we kick our clock ahead a minute or two?  Grin

*insert appropriate begging line here* 
BTC: 1CS6AV7VnjcPLxaTFoUhTjXK4mQCTzfSxE
Doge: DB22tiynvXKg7SyPpnH9jyfitKLTZb6ejc
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Lucko
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
May 17, 2013, 10:26:29 PM
 #8362

I think most people know, they humour him.
Surely everyone has noticed it is BTCGuild that he promotes in his signature.
It is a simple reason. It is PPS. If you have Slush on a long run and someone starts mining it resets your score for all miners if you have any shares on a worker that started mining again with more then 30 minutes pause. That is why I relay wouldn't like that to happen. I'm sure you didn't know that...
nottm28
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574



View Profile
May 17, 2013, 10:38:04 PM
 #8363

I feel better I've now got cg monitor running on all 3 machines with 3 different pool settings on BTCGuild/Slush

cgminer is not a gui - so more difficult to set up for new starters - but it's infinitely better than guiminer imo - good news

donations not accepted
Lucko
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
May 17, 2013, 10:39:47 PM
 #8364

heh, can't we kick our clock ahead a minute or two?  Grin
It doesn't work that way. Clock is synchronised with network. And you were probably thinking punting it back  Smiley
haveagr8day
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112


View Profile
May 17, 2013, 10:43:33 PM
 #8365

I'm interested. How do you know it is seconds?

Simple - comapre https://mining.bitcoin.cz/stats/ and http://blockchain.info/ for each of them
Example for round 18050:
 we should have found 236382 if it wasn't invalid at '2013-05-16 00:59:30', but the actual 236382 ( http://blockchain.info/block/000000000000010ff86768774d6c3ea12dbbee106dcfc389e8b7bd3b64e98744 ) was found at '2013-05-16 00:57:38' (timestamp based and received from blockchain at '2013-05-16 00:59:33') from Bitminter and the next one (236383) was also found from Bitminter ... we had no chance to beat that right?
OK but if I click on invalid block I get "Block Not Found" so I can't see timestamp to compare them. I'm interested in time when it was send to network not the time it was fond by the pool because nobody is saying the time is synchronised...

EDIT: just figure it out. It took 2 minutes not 2 seconds(if time is synchronised). This is too long not to detect a new block. For blockchain it doesn't matter but for a pool this it too long... If you have cgminer you can see new block detected msg before you see that info on blockchain... Sometime it is a big difference up to a minute or more.

EDIT2: Look at differences in time for last block.

18078   2013-05-17 21:59:35   2:25:00
Timestamp   2013-05-17 21:59:18

The time received by the network will be the more accurate time, which is only a 2 second difference. The timestamp can be off by up to 2 hours ahead, and the median time of the last 11 blocks behind. Because of this, miners will sometimes fudge the timestamp as somewhat of an extra nonce value.

See: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_timestamp

Received time BitMinter: 00:59:33
vs.
Slush's Block: 00:59:30

░▒▓█ Coinroll.it - 1% House Edge Dice Game █▓▒░ • Coinroll Thread • *FREE* 100 BTC Raffle
Tips: 14pw9gn35ueAWHvdkesQV298QLPWGBESjs
Lucko
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
May 17, 2013, 10:52:17 PM
 #8366

I'm interested. How do you know it is seconds?

Simple - comapre https://mining.bitcoin.cz/stats/ and http://blockchain.info/ for each of them
Example for round 18050:
 we should have found 236382 if it wasn't invalid at '2013-05-16 00:59:30', but the actual 236382 ( http://blockchain.info/block/000000000000010ff86768774d6c3ea12dbbee106dcfc389e8b7bd3b64e98744 ) was found at '2013-05-16 00:57:38' (timestamp based and received from blockchain at '2013-05-16 00:59:33') from Bitminter and the next one (236383) was also found from Bitminter ... we had no chance to beat that right?
OK but if I click on invalid block I get "Block Not Found" so I can't see timestamp to compare them. I'm interested in time when it was send to network not the time it was fond by the pool because nobody is saying the time is synchronised...

EDIT: just figure it out. It took 2 minutes not 2 seconds(if time is synchronised). This is too long not to detect a new block. For blockchain it doesn't matter but for a pool this it too long... If you have cgminer you can see new block detected msg before you see that info on blockchain... Sometime it is a big difference up to a minute or more.

EDIT2: Look at differences in time for last block.

18078   2013-05-17 21:59:35   2:25:00
Timestamp   2013-05-17 21:59:18

The time received by the network will be the more accurate time, which is only a 2 second difference. The timestamp can be off by up to 2 hours ahead, and the median time of the last 11 blocks behind. Because of this, miners will sometimes fudge the timestamp as somewhat of an extra nonce value.

See: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_timestamp

Received time BitMinter: 00:59:33
vs.
Slush's Block: 00:59:30
Isn't receive time diffident for anyone on the network? And if this would be a case Slush should get this one...
Psyrick
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 30



View Profile
May 17, 2013, 11:10:12 PM
 #8367

18078    2013-05-17 21:59:35    2:25:00    20411945    1951    0.00001476    236670    25.11154300
18077    2013-05-17 19:34:35    2:27:43    20693673    2462    0.00268799    236657    25.12165813

Nearly identical round time. Nearly identical shares. 5.49% reward. I don't care how much cheating is being prevented by the score system, you can't convince me this isn't pure bull.
I'm going to BTCGuild.
Later Slush.

BORG 1TA3CQfApBtHafdCRkXAUj2XiaHipPgVA
Geez
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 54



View Profile
May 17, 2013, 11:17:06 PM
 #8368

18078    2013-05-17 21:59:35    2:25:00    20411945    1951    0.00001476    236670    25.11154300
18077    2013-05-17 19:34:35    2:27:43    20693673    2462    0.00268799    236657    25.12165813

Nearly identical round time. Nearly identical shares. 5.49% reward. I don't care how much cheating is being prevented by the score system, you can't convince me this isn't pure bull.
I'm going to BTCGuild.
Later Slush.
I experienced similar things.
haveagr8day
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112


View Profile
May 17, 2013, 11:19:18 PM
 #8369

I'm interested. How do you know it is seconds?

Simple - comapre https://mining.bitcoin.cz/stats/ and http://blockchain.info/ for each of them
Example for round 18050:
 we should have found 236382 if it wasn't invalid at '2013-05-16 00:59:30', but the actual 236382 ( http://blockchain.info/block/000000000000010ff86768774d6c3ea12dbbee106dcfc389e8b7bd3b64e98744 ) was found at '2013-05-16 00:57:38' (timestamp based and received from blockchain at '2013-05-16 00:59:33') from Bitminter and the next one (236383) was also found from Bitminter ... we had no chance to beat that right?
OK but if I click on invalid block I get "Block Not Found" so I can't see timestamp to compare them. I'm interested in time when it was send to network not the time it was fond by the pool because nobody is saying the time is synchronised...

EDIT: just figure it out. It took 2 minutes not 2 seconds(if time is synchronised). This is too long not to detect a new block. For blockchain it doesn't matter but for a pool this it too long... If you have cgminer you can see new block detected msg before you see that info on blockchain... Sometime it is a big difference up to a minute or more.

EDIT2: Look at differences in time for last block.

18078   2013-05-17 21:59:35   2:25:00
Timestamp   2013-05-17 21:59:18

The time received by the network will be the more accurate time, which is only a 2 second difference. The timestamp can be off by up to 2 hours ahead, and the median time of the last 11 blocks behind. Because of this, miners will sometimes fudge the timestamp as somewhat of an extra nonce value.

See: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_timestamp

Received time BitMinter: 00:59:33
vs.
Slush's Block: 00:59:30
Isn't receive time diffident for anyone on the network? And if this would be a case Slush should get this one...

Since BitMinter doesn't show their generation time to the second, it would be hard to compare. Blockchain.info received theirs 3 seconds after Slush's was generated. But based on our most recent one, 236670, the time for it to propagate from generation on Slush to the time Blockchain.info sees it is about a minute. By that, BitMinter may still have generated it before Slush.

Block 236670 Found at (Slush's Pool): 21:59:35
Block 236670 Received Time (Blockchain.info): 22:00:24

░▒▓█ Coinroll.it - 1% House Edge Dice Game █▓▒░ • Coinroll Thread • *FREE* 100 BTC Raffle
Tips: 14pw9gn35ueAWHvdkesQV298QLPWGBESjs
Lucko
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
May 17, 2013, 11:23:28 PM
 #8370

18078    2013-05-17 21:59:35    2:25:00    20411945    1951    0.00001476    236670    25.11154300
18077    2013-05-17 19:34:35    2:27:43    20693673    2462    0.00268799    236657    25.12165813

Nearly identical round time. Nearly identical shares. 5.49% reward. I don't care how much cheating is being prevented by the score system, you can't convince me this isn't pure bull.
I'm going to BTCGuild.
Later Slush.
It is a 20% difference in shares. You had some problems in 19078. And if they were on the end of the round you are on a loosing side of this. But if there were on the start you would get about the same as for 18077. This is just a way it is with Slush method. Unless you are saying that you were mining all the time and you did monitor it or log it and you didn't see any brakes in mining.

P.S.: You are not big but BTC Guild has 51% problems. Consider any other pool to help them out.
crashoveride54902
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


Dream become broken often


View Profile
May 17, 2013, 11:56:30 PM
 #8371

I don't understand the 51% problem...if the owner of btcguild can be trusted with all that btc to give out to miners and to be honest n stuff...and has great security measures...who cares how big it gets...course all the ppl will do then is just spread FUD bout btcguild gonna do a 51% attack blah blah

18078    2013-05-17 21:59:35    2:25:00    20411945    1951    0.00001476    236670    25.11154300
18077    2013-05-17 19:34:35    2:27:43    20693673    2462    0.00268799    236657    25.12165813

Nearly identical round time. Nearly identical shares. 5.49% reward. I don't care how much cheating is being prevented by the score system, you can't convince me this isn't pure bull.
I'm going to BTCGuild.
Later Slush.
It is a 20% difference in shares. You had some problems in 19078. And if they were on the end of the round you are on a loosing side of this. But if there were on the start you would get about the same as for 18077. This is just a way it is with Slush method. Unless you are saying that you were mining all the time and you did monitor it or log it and you didn't see any brakes in mining.

P.S.: You are not big but BTC Guild has 51% problems. Consider any other pool to help them out.

Dreams of cyprto solving everything is slowly slipping away...Replaced by scams/hacks Sad
Gamah
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 44


View Profile
May 17, 2013, 11:58:22 PM
 #8372

I'm interested. How do you know it is seconds?

Simple - comapre https://mining.bitcoin.cz/stats/ and http://blockchain.info/ for each of them
Example for round 18050:
 we should have found 236382 if it wasn't invalid at '2013-05-16 00:59:30', but the actual 236382 ( http://blockchain.info/block/000000000000010ff86768774d6c3ea12dbbee106dcfc389e8b7bd3b64e98744 ) was found at '2013-05-16 00:57:38' (timestamp based and received from blockchain at '2013-05-16 00:59:33') from Bitminter and the next one (236383) was also found from Bitminter ... we had no chance to beat that right?
OK but if I click on invalid block I get "Block Not Found" so I can't see timestamp to compare them. I'm interested in time when it was send to network not the time it was fond by the pool because nobody is saying the time is synchronised...

EDIT: just figure it out. It took 2 minutes not 2 seconds(if time is synchronised). This is too long not to detect a new block. For blockchain it doesn't matter but for a pool this it too long... If you have cgminer you can see new block detected msg before you see that info on blockchain... Sometime it is a big difference up to a minute or more.

EDIT2: Look at differences in time for last block.

18078   2013-05-17 21:59:35   2:25:00
Timestamp   2013-05-17 21:59:18

The time received by the network will be the more accurate time, which is only a 2 second difference. The timestamp can be off by up to 2 hours ahead, and the median time of the last 11 blocks behind. Because of this, miners will sometimes fudge the timestamp as somewhat of an extra nonce value.

See: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_timestamp

Received time BitMinter: 00:59:33
vs.
Slush's Block: 00:59:30
Isn't receive time diffident for anyone on the network? And if this would be a case Slush should get this one...

Since BitMinter doesn't show their generation time to the second, it would be hard to compare. Blockchain.info received theirs 3 seconds after Slush's was generated. But based on our most recent one, 236670, the time for it to propagate from generation on Slush to the time Blockchain.info sees it is about a minute. By that, BitMinter may still have generated it before Slush.

Block 236670 Found at (Slush's Pool): 21:59:35
Block 236670 Received Time (Blockchain.info): 22:00:24

Is this why my most recent payout still has 0 conformations?
Lucko
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
May 18, 2013, 12:05:50 AM
 #8373

I don't understand the 51% problem...if the owner of btcguild can be trusted with all that btc to give out to miners and to be honest n stuff...and has great security measures...who cares how big it gets...course all the ppl will do then is just spread FUD bout btcguild gonna do a 51% attack blah blah
Yes I do agree. But it is trust in a network. If someone is 51% then he can double spend his coins... And if the possibility exists people will be afraid. We all know there is no danger but we know he is OK. What about someone who don't. You need everyone to know there is no danger and miners are taking care of that. Even admin of BTC Guild is taking steps to decries his hasrate.
autonomous42
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
May 18, 2013, 12:13:54 AM
 #8374



Well that's something I've never seen before: two winning blocks found at the same time and the same height. At least this time we won the gravy. Side note, I just invented the phrase "to win the gravy".

1LoLTipsbSPgkeBEMvSx2WRe5A6SRHdymb
Psyrick
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 30



View Profile
May 18, 2013, 12:21:52 AM
 #8375

18078    2013-05-17 21:59:35    2:25:00    20411945    1951    0.00001476    236670    25.11154300
18077    2013-05-17 19:34:35    2:27:43    20693673    2462    0.00268799    236657    25.12165813

Nearly identical round time. Nearly identical shares. 5.49% reward. I don't care how much cheating is being prevented by the score system, you can't convince me this isn't pure bull.
I'm going to BTCGuild.
Later Slush.
It is a 20% difference in shares. You had some problems in 19078. And if they were on the end of the round you are on a loosing side of this. But if there were on the start you would get about the same as for 18077. This is just a way it is with Slush method. Unless you are saying that you were mining all the time and you did monitor it or log it and you didn't see any brakes in mining.

P.S.: You are not big but BTC Guild has 51% problems. Consider any other pool to help them out.

     20% difference in shares is negligible compared to the factor of 180 between the rewards. Yes, I gave my GPUs a 5 minute cool down period near the end of the round. I don't think that deserves the loss of nearly all rewards from almost 2.5 hours of mining. I realize that is a matter of Slush's method, but that doesn't make it tolerable. I'm not a solo/pool jumper. I prevent my cards from cooking once in a while. This is not the first time I lose out due to short down periods. While I agree that giving more power and wealth to the already massive pool that charges 50% more than Slush is a bitter pill to swallow, I'm tired of being on the losing end. I know I'm not "big", but I'm certain I'm not the only one getting shafted this way.

BORG 1TA3CQfApBtHafdCRkXAUj2XiaHipPgVA
Trongersoll
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 448


Retired Software Engineer


View Profile
May 18, 2013, 12:26:04 AM
 #8376

I don't understand the 51% problem...if the owner of btcguild can be trusted with all that btc to give out to miners and to be honest n stuff...and has great security measures...who cares how big it gets...course all the ppl will do then is just spread FUD bout btcguild gonna do a 51% attack blah blah
Yes I do agree. But it is trust in a network. If someone is 51% then he can double spend his coins... And if the possibility exists people will be afraid. We all know there is no danger but we know he is OK. What about someone who don't. You need everyone to know there is no danger and miners are taking care of that. Even admin of BTC Guild is taking steps to decries his hasrate.

the thing is, this is the Internet. when it comes to who is doing what, we actually know very little. Not accusing anyone of anything, just pointing out that anyone could run more than one pool under different names. If anyone actually wanted to control more than 51% and were well financed, there would be nothing anyone could do about it.

*insert appropriate begging line here* 
BTC: 1CS6AV7VnjcPLxaTFoUhTjXK4mQCTzfSxE
Doge: DB22tiynvXKg7SyPpnH9jyfitKLTZb6ejc
GuiltySpark343
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98



View Profile
May 18, 2013, 12:41:27 AM
 #8377

Yes, I gave my GPUs a 5 minute cool down period near the end of the round. I don't think that deserves the loss of nearly all rewards from almost 2.5 hours of mining.


Just trying to be objective and helpful here. But I guess you could:
(a) invest in better cooling for your GPUs so you don't have to cool them down
(b) or move to a different pool with a different scoring method so your cooling periods do not adversely affect you.

For option (b), frankly most pools implement scoring methods to discourage pool hoppers. Now you may not be hopping on purpose, but you are disconnecting at various times to cool down your GPUs which will be viewed as the same thing. You might consider a strict PPS pool for that reason, but they charge high fees for a reason: it's risky for the pool and they could go out of business.

Other way to think about it, at Slush's if you "cool down" at the beginning of a round, then restart near the end, you'll submit less shares but still get full rewards as recent work is weighted more than old work. So at the end, in the LONG RUN, you even out!

I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.
Ƀ:17wbDetEw2aESM5oWXbm5ih9NSdDruyWNT
crashoveride54902
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


Dream become broken often


View Profile
May 18, 2013, 01:10:53 AM
 #8378

yes i guess you have a point there too...but btc guild could solve this problem in one kick...ASICMINER off the pool bam problem solved..course then asicminer would move to different pool and then everyone would probably follow to that pool lol...something about everyone thinking...more blocks found = more reward period Cheesy

I don't understand the 51% problem...if the owner of btcguild can be trusted with all that btc to give out to miners and to be honest n stuff...and has great security measures...who cares how big it gets...course all the ppl will do then is just spread FUD bout btcguild gonna do a 51% attack blah blah
Yes I do agree. But it is trust in a network. If someone is 51% then he can double spend his coins... And if the possibility exists people will be afraid. We all know there is no danger but we know he is OK. What about someone who don't. You need everyone to know there is no danger and miners are taking care of that. Even admin of BTC Guild is taking steps to decries his hasrate.

Dreams of cyprto solving everything is slowly slipping away...Replaced by scams/hacks Sad
Psyrick
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 30



View Profile
May 18, 2013, 01:19:28 AM
 #8379

Yes, I gave my GPUs a 5 minute cool down period near the end of the round. I don't think that deserves the loss of nearly all rewards from almost 2.5 hours of mining.

Just trying to be objective and helpful here. But I guess you could...


I appreciate your helpfulness. My cooling system is about as windy as I can make it, but I like to overclock to within the limits of it's heat transfer capacity. I'm trying to avoid going the liquid cooling route. I often do seize the chance for a cool down at the end of a long round, but when they peak up to 98C and there's no telling how much longer the round is going to be, I feel I don't have a choice. Only takes a couple minutes to get them back down to 40. After a cool-down period of my own, I find myself not really liking the waters in the Guild's pool, and as mentioned, most other pools either have the same scoring system and/or higher fees. While invalid blocks and scored out rewards give me the blues, I'm still jumping right back into Slush's pool.

BORG 1TA3CQfApBtHafdCRkXAUj2XiaHipPgVA
crashoveride54902
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


Dream become broken often


View Profile
May 18, 2013, 01:38:41 AM
 #8380

Yes, I gave my GPUs a 5 minute cool down period near the end of the round. I don't think that deserves the loss of nearly all rewards from almost 2.5 hours of mining.

Just trying to be objective and helpful here. But I guess you could...


I appreciate your helpfulness. My cooling system is about as windy as I can make it, but I like to overclock to within the limits of it's heat transfer capacity. I'm trying to avoid going the liquid cooling route. I often do seize the chance for a cool down at the end of a long round, but when they peak up to 98C and there's no telling how much longer the round is going to be, I feel I don't have a choice. Only takes a couple minutes to get them back down to 40. After a cool-down period of my own, I find myself not really liking the waters in the Guild's pool, and as mentioned, most other pools either have the same scoring system and/or higher fees. While invalid blocks and scored out rewards give me the blues, I'm still jumping right back into Slush's pool.

imho, your doing more damage to your video card heating it upto 98c n then back down to 40c do that over n over and i foresee cracked soldier joints on your gpu...just a warning...the expanding n shrinking isn't good for it Smiley

Dreams of cyprto solving everything is slowly slipping away...Replaced by scams/hacks Sad
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 ... 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!