[2.5+ EH] Slush Pool (slushpool.com); World's First Mining Pool

[bigbitmine]

I'd rather look at it on the face of it rather than compartmentalise this based on months .... aside from the difficulty mined in certain periods, there is nothing to make a month's period any special to the bitcoin network. So here goes ...

I was only able to get data for the period 2015-01-08 18:50:01 to 2015-02-18 13:15:21 (i.e the last block) and we have:

53 Blocks where the Pool Scoring Hash Rate was below 9 Ph/s
66 Blocks where the Pool Scoring Hash Rate was above 9 Ph/s BUT below 9.5 Ph/s
23 Blocks where the Pool Scoring Hash Rate was above 9.5  BUT less than 10 Ph/sPh/s
23 Blocks where the Pool Scoring Hash Rate was above 10 Ph/s

True, When it hits the 10PH mark the blocks stop for regular users and the clock keeps running.  However, behind the scenes a select VIP elite group are actually getting the same regular block times the rest of us were enjoying and splitting the rewards between them.  Once they've creamed enough they then drop the hash rate below 10PH which synchronizes the system and the extra long block ends and normal service resumes.

Yes, I am crazy and I am aware I have opened the floodgates.

If you actually believe that drivel and think the pool op is actively screwing you, why don't you move elsewhere?

Because I don't ACTUALLY believe that you bellend.

[1524710245]

1524710245

[1524710245]

1524710245

[1524710245]

1524710245

[1524710245]

1524710245

[1524710245]

1524710245

[pekatete]

I'd rather look at it on the face of it rather than compartmentalise this based on months .... aside from the difficulty mined in certain periods, there is nothing to make a month's period any special to the bitcoin network. So here goes ...

I was only able to get data for the period 2015-01-08 18:50:01 to 2015-02-18 13:15:21 (i.e the last block) and we have:

53 Blocks where the Pool Scoring Hash Rate was below 9 Ph/s
66 Blocks where the Pool Scoring Hash Rate was above 9 Ph/s BUT below 9.5 Ph/s
23 Blocks where the Pool Scoring Hash Rate was above 9.5  BUT less than 10 Ph/sPh/s
23 Blocks where the Pool Scoring Hash Rate was above 10 Ph/s

True, When it hits the 10PH mark the blocks stop for regular users and the clock keeps running.  However, behind the scenes a select VIP elite group are actually getting the same regular block times the rest of us were enjoying and splitting the rewards between them.  Once they've creamed enough they then drop the hash rate below 10PH which synchronizes the system and the extra long block ends and normal service resumes.

Yes, I am crazy and I am aware I have opened the floodgates.

If you actually believe that drivel and think the pool op is actively screwing you, why don't you move elsewhere?

Because I don't ACTUALLY believe that you bellend.

But then again, you might be onto something ..... if you look at the numbers from your assertion, they tell us:

142 Blocks where the Pool Scoring Hash Rate was below 10 Ph/s
23 Blocks where the Pool Scoring Hash Rate was above 10 Ph/s

That is, during the period 8th Jan 2015 - 18th Feb 2015, the pool found ~86% of the blocks when the pool was hashing below 10 Ph/s and only 13% when the pool was hashing above 10 Ph/s.
Now, I am not usually a supersticious person, but that 13 in the above 10 Ph/s does put the conspiracy theories on the back burner ..... what do you think? And if it turns out that the 1-2 Ph/s roving hashpower that seems to affect our block solving capacity is made up of 13 rigs, that would be something!

[bigbitmine]

Well if anything it's keeping this thread alive.  Been dead since  people have been switching off.  Imagine what it's going to be like at the next block halving.  It'll be a ghost town.

[HPmuirt]

But then again, you might be onto something ..... if you look at the numbers from your assertion, they tell us:

142 Blocks where the Pool Scoring Hash Rate was below 10 Ph/s
23 Blocks where the Pool Scoring Hash Rate was above 10 Ph/s

Statistics and numbers can always be used or misused to prove or disprove a point, so here are some more numbers for you...

In December, 107 blocks were found above 10PH and only 55 found whilst below 10PH, which is a little different to the 142:23 ratio claimed in the posts above.

Cheers n beers

HP

[bigbitmine]

Wow there were some mega transactions in that last block.  Wish some of that was heading my way.  1000 BTC and the address has received 1,063,884.27764275 BTC.  That's amazing!  Give me that wallet.

[pekatete]

But then again, you might be onto something ..... if you look at the numbers from your assertion, they tell us:

142 Blocks where the Pool Scoring Hash Rate was below 10 Ph/s
23 Blocks where the Pool Scoring Hash Rate was above 10 Ph/s

Statistics and numbers can always be used or misused to prove or disprove a point, so here are some more numbers for you...

In December, 107 blocks were found above 10PH and only 55 found whilst below 10PH, which is a little different to the 142:23 ratio claimed in the posts above.

Cheers n beers

HP

Now, I am not usually a supersticious person, but that 13 in the above 10 Ph/s does put the conspiracy theories on the back burner ..... what do you think? And if it turns out that the 1-2 Ph/s roving hashpower that seems to affect our block solving capacity is made up of 13 rigs, that would be something!

That you failed read the entire post in context and thus also failed to decipher the sacarsm in that is only testament to you being new here ...!

I was only able to get data for the period 2015-01-08 18:50:01 to 2015-02-18 13:15:21 (i.e the last block) and we have:

I could not get the December numbers, but that is neither here nor there as my numbers are NOT claims, but I can honestly say yours are just that ... because I could not get hold of them when I tried!

[HPmuirt]

That you failed read the entire post in context and thus also failed to decipher the sacarsm in that is only testament to you being new here ...!

I was only able to get data for the period 2015-01-08 18:50:01 to 2015-02-18 13:15:21 (i.e the last block) and we have:

I could not get the December numbers, but that is neither here nor there as my numbers are NOT claims, but I can honestly say yours are just that ... because I could not get hold of them when I tried!

I have numbers from October onwards from Slush, BTC Guild and Eligius, which I have copied from the pools and pasted into a spread sheet, so my numbers are not claims, just facts that you did not have to hand 

Been mining on Slush for a couple of years, I just don't post much so rather than newbie I would say I am just quiet - and sick of conspiracy theories based on no hard evidence, so I broke silence to add some facts to the equation.

However I have no argument with anyone and since I did indeed fail to spot your sarcasm, I will slink back into the shadows and let the usual contributors continue the song and dance show.

Cheers n beers

HP

[pekatete]

That you failed read the entire post in context and thus also failed to decipher the sacarsm in that is only testament to you being new here ...!

I was only able to get data for the period 2015-01-08 18:50:01 to 2015-02-18 13:15:21 (i.e the last block) and we have:

I could not get the December numbers, but that is neither here nor there as my numbers are NOT claims, but I can honestly say yours are just that ... because I could not get hold of them when I tried!

I have numbers from October onwards from Slush, BTC Guild and Eligius, which I have copied from the pools and pasted into a spread sheet, so my numbers are not claims, just facts that you did not have to hand 

Been mining on Slush for a couple of years, I just don't post much so rather than newbie I would say I am just quiet - and sick of conspiracy theories based on no hard evidence, so I broke silence to add some facts to the equation.

However I have no argument with anyone and since I did indeed fail to spot your sarcasm, I will slink back into the shadows and let the usual contributors continue the song and dance show.

Cheers n beers

HP

Fair enough if you are the quiet one ... (there must be a reason why but thats for another day).
So, if you have the numbers from Slush dating back from October (I assume that is last year), then you'd know without any doubt that my numbers are NOT claims at all, rather facts. That, of course, is on the premise that you engaged your brain before posting to rubbish my numbers, which in this case you certainly did not (and may explain why you'd chosen to be quiet previously!).
Honestly, get off your perch!

[bigbitmine]

Happy Chinese New Year all you Chinese peeps.  Now turn off your farms and take some time off to party!  Don't worry, we've got it covered.

[MrTeal]

If you really want to analyze it, please at least do so in a way that makes sense. Saying there were X number of blocks at >10PH/s vs Y blocks at <10PH/s in a given period is a relatively useless measurement.
Take the numbers from whatever period you want (say everything from the start of December onward), calculate the luck for each block solved, then group them along whatever cutoff you want. Then it's just a matter of looking at the data and pulling trends out that support your preconceived bias.

[pekatete]

If you really want to analyze it, please at least do so in a way that makes sense. Saying there were X number of blocks at >10PH/s vs Y blocks at <10PH/s in a given period is a relatively useless measurement.
Take the numbers from whatever period you want (say everything from the start of December onward), calculate the luck for each block solved, then group them along whatever cutoff you want. Then it's just a matter of looking at the data and pulling trends out that support your preconceived bias.

Your legendary status precedes you!
While you are still basking in it, pull your finger out and post your own numbers that, apparently, make sense (you patronising so and so!)

[MrTeal]

If you really want to analyze it, please at least do so in a way that makes sense. Saying there were X number of blocks at >10PH/s vs Y blocks at <10PH/s in a given period is a relatively useless measurement.
Take the numbers from whatever period you want (say everything from the start of December onward), calculate the luck for each block solved, then group them along whatever cutoff you want. Then it's just a matter of looking at the data and pulling trends out that support your preconceived bias.

Your legendary status precedes you!
While you are still basking in it, pull your finger out and post your own numbers that, apparently, make sense (you patronising so and so!)

I don't really care enough to bother, I've never seen anything at Slush that suggests a problem. If, like our good friends bigbitmine and rpandassociates, you want assert that there is a fundamental problem with the pool that keeps it from scaling over 10PH/s it's on you to show that the problem isn't just an invention of your imagination.

[pekatete]

If you really want to analyze it, please at least do so in a way that makes sense. Saying there were X number of blocks at >10PH/s vs Y blocks at <10PH/s in a given period is a relatively useless measurement.
Take the numbers from whatever period you want (say everything from the start of December onward), calculate the luck for each block solved, then group them along whatever cutoff you want. Then it's just a matter of looking at the data and pulling trends out that support your preconceived bias.

Your legendary status precedes you!
While you are still basking in it, pull your finger out and post your own numbers that, apparently, make sense (you patronising so and so!)

I don't really care enough to bother, I've never seen anything at Slush that suggests a problem. If, like our good friends bigbitmine and rpandassociates, you want assert that there is a fundamental problem with the pool that keeps it from scaling over 10PH/s it's on you to show that the problem isn't just an invention of your imagination.

If you do not care enough to bother, then what use would it serve for me (or anyone) to prove your percieved lack of a fundamental problem or otherwise, as the case may be? Or is it the case that you really believe that your opinion matters?

[KNK]

I don't really care enough to bother, I've never seen anything at Slush that suggests a problem. If, like our good friends bigbitmine and rpandassociates, you want assert that there is a fundamental problem with the pool that keeps it from scaling over 10PH/s it's on you to show that the problem isn't just an invention of your imagination.

+1
It's very simple on my opinion - people join when there is an increased luck, which should even out latter, so ...

[MrTeal]

If you really want to analyze it, please at least do so in a way that makes sense. Saying there were X number of blocks at >10PH/s vs Y blocks at <10PH/s in a given period is a relatively useless measurement.
Take the numbers from whatever period you want (say everything from the start of December onward), calculate the luck for each block solved, then group them along whatever cutoff you want. Then it's just a matter of looking at the data and pulling trends out that support your preconceived bias.

Your legendary status precedes you!
While you are still basking in it, pull your finger out and post your own numbers that, apparently, make sense (you patronising so and so!)

I don't really care enough to bother, I've never seen anything at Slush that suggests a problem. If, like our good friends bigbitmine and rpandassociates, you want assert that there is a fundamental problem with the pool that keeps it from scaling over 10PH/s it's on you to show that the problem isn't just an invention of your imagination.

If you do not care enough to bother, then what use would it serve for me (or anyone) to prove your percieved lack of a fundamental problem or otherwise, as the case may be? Or is it the case that you really believe that your opinion matters?

It doesn't, but then I really don't expect it to. Neither does yours. However if I were to set about about to show that the pool was having issues scaling, I would try and do so in a way that actually shed some light on the issue. Feel free to do so however you want, but I will point out that the numbers you posted are useless just so they don't confuse anyone else.

PS - Did you know that this pool found zero blocks in the first half of 2014 when the pool hashrate was above 10TH/s? Seems pretty clearcut to me there's a scaling issue somewhere.

[pekatete]

It doesn't, but then I really don't expect it to. Neither does yours. However if I were to set about about to show that the pool was having issues scaling, I would try and do so in a way that actually shed some light on the issue. Feel free to do so however you want, but I will point out that the numbers you posted are useless just so they don't confuse anyone else.

PS - Did you know that this pool found zero blocks in the first half of 2014 when the pool hashrate was above 10TH/s? Seems pretty clearcut to me there's a scaling issue somewhere.

You are not a legend for nothing .... you truly are pushing your point on the pretext that I (even bigtime) do believe there is an issue here (be that with / without scaling or something else sinister) ... seriously? You even have the time to context this in the first half of 2014 (be it the 10Th/s rate)?
So tell me then, what does it take to be a 4 star general on bitcointalk?

[pekatete]

Seeing I have not yet been able to confirm that the roving 1-2Ph/s is generated from 13 rigs, I took another delve into the stats. Rather than analyse the data without considering the two factors that I have been led to believe are important, i.e hash power and difficulty (I discarded luck as un-important), here's what I have based on difficulty.

Diff: 44455415962 (total: 42 blocks)
16 - Less than 9.5 Ph/s
20 - Between 9.5 Ph/s AND 10 Ph/s
7 - Above 10 Ph/s

 ----------------------

Diff: 41272873894 (total: 61 blocks)
58 - Less than 9.5 Ph/s
2 - Between 9.5 Ph/s AND 10 Ph/s
1 - Above 10 Ph/s

 ----------------------

Diff: 43971662056 (total: 48 blocks)
46 - Less than 9.5 Ph/s
0 - Between 9.5 Ph/s AND 10 Ph/s
2 - Above 10 Ph/s

 ----------------------

Diff: 40640955016 (total: 69 blocks)
0 - Less than 9.5 Ph/s
1 - Between 9.5 Ph/s AND 10 Ph/s
68 - Above 10 Ph/s

 ----------------------

Diff: 39457671307 (total: 73 blocks)
4 - Less than 9.5 Ph/s
5 - Between 9.5 Ph/s AND 10 Ph/s
64 - Above 10 Ph/s

 ----------------------

Diff: 40007470271 (total: 69 blocks)
17 - Less than 9.5 Ph/s
16 - Between 9.5 Ph/s AND 10 Ph/s
36 - Above 10 Ph/s

 ----------------------

Diff: 40300030327 (total: 68 blocks)
63 - Less than 9.5 Ph/s
4 - Between 9.5 Ph/s AND 10 Ph/s
1 - Above 10 Ph/s

 ----------------------

Diff: 39603666252 (total: 77 blocks)
76 - Less than 9.5 Ph/s
1 - Between 9.5 Ph/s AND 10 Ph/s
0 - Above 10 Ph/s

 ----------------------

Diff: 35985640265 (total: 18 blocks)
18 - Less than 9.5 Ph/s
0 - Between 9.5 Ph/s AND 10 Ph/s
0 - Above 10 Ph/s

Finally a dicotomous comparison of the data from November 2014 to today total: 526 blocks.

298 - Less than 9.5 Ph/s
228 - Above 9.5 Ph/s

EDIT: looks like we had our time with the 10 Ph/s threshhold when the difficulty was 40640955016 and 39457671307. Since then, our luck has depleted at that rate ..... there must be a pattern to it, but seeing I only have a sample size of 526 (not enough to be relied on ... I think minimum should be 2000), I'll have to concentrate on establishing whether that roving hash-rate is from 13 rigs!

[MrTeal]

Seeing I have not yet been able to confirm that the roving 1-2Ph/s is generated from 13 rigs, I took another delve into the stats. Rather than analyse the data without considering the two factors that I have been led to believe are important, i.e hash power and difficulty (I discarded luck as un-important), here's what I have based on difficulty.

Ok, but how much time was spent at each hash rate tier within those difficulty levels?

Diff: 44455415962 (total: 42 blocks)
1. 16 - Less than 9.5 Ph/s
2. 20 - Between 9.5 Ph/s AND 10 Ph/s
4. 7 - Above 10 Ph/s

If 50% of the hashes are submitted while the pool is over 10PH/s but only 1/6 of the blocks are found in that period, something might be wrong. If the pool only spent 1/6th of the time at that level, then the numbers your seeing are what you'd expect.

[pekatete]

Seeing I have not yet been able to confirm that the roving 1-2Ph/s is generated from 13 rigs, I took another delve into the stats. Rather than analyse the data without considering the two factors that I have been led to believe are important, i.e hash power and difficulty (I discarded luck as un-important), here's what I have based on difficulty.

Ok, but how much time was spent at each hash rate tier within those difficulty levels?

Diff: 44455415962 (total: 42 blocks)
1. 16 - Less than 9.5 Ph/s
2. 20 - Between 9.5 Ph/s AND 10 Ph/s
4. 7 - Above 10 Ph/s

If 50% of the hashes are submitted while the pool is over 10PH/s but only 1/6 of the blocks are found in that period, something might be wrong. If the pool only spent 1/6th of the time at that level, then the numbers your seeing are what you'd expect.

At this point, I do not care what you think or know, even whether you might have a point. You've adequately demonstrated to me (thus far today), that your opinion is worth disregarding in its entirity.
If you can confirm either way whether the roving hash-rate is from 13 rigs, that would be your time spent well.

[MrTeal]

At this point, I do not care what you think or know, even whether you might have a point. You've adequately demonstrated to me (thus far today), that your opinion is worth disregarding in its entirity.
If you can confirm either way whether the roving hash-rate is from 13 rigs, that would be your time spent well.

Fair enough. Please feel free to add me to your ignore list if it will help with your disregarding.