|
KNK
|
 |
February 18, 2015, 01:31:48 PM |
|
Wouldn't like to change that many miners one at a time. No need to. Big setups should use a local proxy, then you just change the pool in the proxy |
|
|
|
bigbitmine
Full Member
 Offline
Activity: 196
Merit: 100
Big Bit Mine
|
|
February 18, 2015, 01:39:10 PM |
|
And it's followed up by a 22 minute block. Whoever this monster pool hopper is please sod off. And if my conspiracy theory is right please also sod off because it's not funny.
|
|
|
|
bigbitmine
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 196
Merit: 100
Big Bit Mine
|
|
February 18, 2015, 01:41:08 PM |
|
haha S1's those are dirt cheap on ebay I seen a few go with power supplies for like $75 worth it just for the PSU but I dont think I would mine with the S1 unless your getting free electricity they are going to burn more than they make. S3+'s are going for around $100-$150 even seen a few of those go for like $90 at ebay The S5's are ridiculous at ebay people selling them for $430-450 which is nuts because you can get them direct from bitmain for $370 Gawminers is selling used S4's for $475 I just bought 2 on sunday they will be here tomorrow got my fingers crossed hoping they are in good shape. I dont trust gawminers after their whole paycoin mess. Have a suspiscion they are liquidating there S4's to cover the loss. Or they are upgrading to S5's there are a cpl used SP20's on ebay for like $400-$450 I am considering buying one but man those things are power hungry figure 1.7 THS at 1100w where as the S4 puts out 2.2 THS at 1400w so a used SP20 for $450 + a $200 PSU for 1.7 or a used S4 for $475 built in PSU until gaw miners runs out of them ofcourse. Also hoping they are batch 2 and not the batch 1 with the PSU meltdown issue  I bought them on my credit card so i have some protection from the CC company I will do a follow up tomorrow when fedex drops them off and i figure out what batch they are. If all is well will probably order a couple more. Let me know what they're like on noise. I recently got an SP10 and it's really noisy. I can understand why they don't call it a home miner. |
|
|
|
MrTeal
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1274
Merit: 1004
|
|
February 18, 2015, 02:27:51 PM |
|
Downclocked to 140GH/s or 130GH/s, the S1s are basically silent if you replace the fan. I've actually run on passive and vertical at those speed and it worked fine with cool ambient.
|
|
|
|
|
HPmuirt
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
|
|
February 18, 2015, 02:42:42 PM |
|
And it's followed up by a 22 minute block. Whoever this monster pool hopper is please sod off. And if my conspiracy theory is right please also sod off because it's not funny.
Whilst I am not against the possibility that there could be a bug in the code that caused the pool to find less blocks when the hash rate breaches a particular level, let's look at the facts as they stand and then decide: - From what I can see, the first time the pool went over 10PH was on the 5th December 2014, although it only stayed over 10PH for a few hours. On that day we found 6 blocks, all valid. On 8th December, the pool passed 10PH (in fact it did it late the previous evening) and found 7 blocks that day. The pool remained above 10PH for pretty much the rest of the month and in that time it found a total of 125 blocks, of which 123 were valid. This is an average of 5.1 blocks per day. The average blocks per day for the last few months are as follows: - 4.6 in October - (est. average pool hash rate = 7.8PH) 5.1 in November (est. average pool hash rate = 8.6PH) 5.2 in December (est. average pool hash rate = 10.3PH) 4.0 in January (est. average pool hash rate < 10.3PH) 5.2 so far for February (est. average pool hash rate < 9.3PH) Looking at January as the worst month in recent times, we see that it started the month at 11.6PH and remained above 10PH until the 15th Jan (finding 65 valid blocks in 14.5 days). For the remaining 16.5 days of the month, the pool never went over 10PH (and was on average closer to 9PH) and found 57 blocks. I personally would therefore call it luck (both good and bad) rather than being a bug in the code. Cheers n beers HP P.S. In the same 2 periods in January, the BTC guild found 108 blocks and 89 blocks respectively, so our poor run in January if anything other than luck, was caused by something that effected other pools as well. |
|
|
|
|
bigbitmine
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 196
Merit: 100
Big Bit Mine
|
|
February 18, 2015, 03:01:50 PM |
|
Also that extra 1PH hits my rewards. I'm happy with 0.083 per block.
|
|
|
|
|
pekatete
|
|
February 18, 2015, 03:16:54 PM |
|
And it's followed up by a 22 minute block. Whoever this monster pool hopper is please sod off. And if my conspiracy theory is right please also sod off because it's not funny.
... The average blocks per day for the last few months are as follows: - 4.6 in October - (est. average pool hash rate = 7.8PH) 5.1 in November (est. average pool hash rate = 8.6PH) 5.2 in December (est. average pool hash rate = 10.3PH) 4.0 in January (est. average pool hash rate < 10.3PH) 5.2 so far for February (est. average pool hash rate < 9.3PH) Looking at January as the worst month in recent times, we see that it started the month at 11.6PH and remained above 10PH until the 15th Jan (finding 65 valid blocks in 14.5 days). For the remaining 16.5 days of the month, the pool never went over 10PH (and was on average closer to 9PH) and found 57 blocks. I personally would therefore call it luck (both good and bad) rather than being a bug in the code. 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 So there .... there may be some mileage in the conspiracy theory but we do not go without! |
|
|
|
bigbitmine
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 196
Merit: 100
Big Bit Mine
|
|
February 18, 2015, 03:21:59 PM |
|
And it's followed up by a 22 minute block. Whoever this monster pool hopper is please sod off. And if my conspiracy theory is right please also sod off because it's not funny.
... The average blocks per day for the last few months are as follows: - 4.6 in October - (est. average pool hash rate = 7.8PH) 5.1 in November (est. average pool hash rate = 8.6PH) 5.2 in December (est. average pool hash rate = 10.3PH) 4.0 in January (est. average pool hash rate < 10.3PH) 5.2 so far for February (est. average pool hash rate < 9.3PH) Looking at January as the worst month in recent times, we see that it started the month at 11.6PH and remained above 10PH until the 15th Jan (finding 65 valid blocks in 14.5 days). For the remaining 16.5 days of the month, the pool never went over 10PH (and was on average closer to 9PH) and found 57 blocks. I personally would therefore call it luck (both good and bad) rather than being a bug in the code. 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. |
|
|
|
MrTeal
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1274
Merit: 1004
|
|
February 18, 2015, 03:24:54 PM |
|
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? |
|
|
|
|
bigbitmine
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 196
Merit: 100
Big Bit Mine
|
|
February 18, 2015, 04:31:49 PM |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
pekatete
|
|
February 18, 2015, 04:45:34 PM |
|
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
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 196
Merit: 100
Big Bit Mine
|
|
February 18, 2015, 04:58:32 PM |
|
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
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
|
|
February 18, 2015, 05:00:25 PM |
|
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
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 196
Merit: 100
Big Bit Mine
|
|
February 18, 2015, 05:06:55 PM |
|
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
|
|
February 18, 2015, 05:09:09 PM |
|
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
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
|
|
February 18, 2015, 06:14:53 PM |
|
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
|
|
February 18, 2015, 06:23:14 PM |
|
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
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 196
Merit: 100
Big Bit Mine
|
|
February 18, 2015, 06:33:31 PM |
|
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
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1274
Merit: 1004
|
|
February 18, 2015, 06:34:20 PM |
|
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
|
|
February 18, 2015, 06:37:38 PM |
|
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!) |
|
|
|
|
