[4+ EH] Slush Pool (slushpool.com); Overt AsicBoost; World First Mining Pool

[bitcoinbelieve]

I am with BigBitMine on this one, yes a 10PH issue is a mathmatic opposite, but I noticed this a month ago, queried it in the forum and everyone thought i was nuts or a conspiracy theorist.  Its not a conspiracy its a observation. Lats round about 10PH the block time was  19:34:00 
the next one was began with 10PH and ended up being 5:35:34 probably because at some point it dropped below 10PH
Now we are 9.4PH and the blocks are returning to normal times

I think the pool owners really need to look into this one.
If its a script limitation then fire up a second pool so users can fill that pool once the main pool hits oh say 9PH the best block times happen between 8-9PH thats when we see those wonderful 30 minute or less blocks

I agree with you

[bigbitmine]

I am with BigBitMine on this one, yes a 10PH issue is a mathmatic opposite, but I noticed this a month ago, queried it in the forum and everyone thought i was nuts or a conspiracy theorist.  Its not a conspiracy its a observation. Lats round about 10PH the block time was  19:34:00 
the next one was began with 10PH and ended up being 5:35:34 probably because at some point it dropped below 10PH
Now we are 9.4PH and the blocks are returning to normal times

I think the pool owners really need to look into this one.
If its a script limitation then fire up a second pool so users can fill that pool once the main pool hits oh say 9PH the best block times happen between 8-9PH thats when we see those wonderful 30 minute or less blocks

I agree with you

I think a fire has been lit that will never be extinguished.  We should be hearing from the opposition shortly.

[pekatete]

Right, I cleared up the issue as to whether the roving 1-2 Ph/s was comprised of 13 rigs, aka the 10Ph/s thresh-hold being the major weight responsible for the measly 13% .... I hope you follow. Anyway, here are my interim conclusions.
1. I am not sure I can refer to the roving 1-2 Ph/s as such anymore, seeing th pool's natural rate has shifted to around 9.5 Ph/s (-+5%), else the pool would then be at 10.5-11.5 Ph/s, which it has not breached consistently.... still following ...?
2. I am convinced that the 10 Ph/s thresh-hold is not material in itself, rather that the offending (seemingly pool hopping) hash rate is strategically deployed using load balancing, resulting in work being discarded / omitted when it most possibly have the golden nonce. (I am actually not sure about the logic in this one, but hey, that's my thinking!)
3. Finally, I am also convinced, having monitored kano.is during our last long barren spell, that their luck drastically improved during that time. I have never seen them be so lucky (which they might have been), that I nearly pointed my rigs there again. The punchline to all this is that this roving hash-rate seems to be load-balancing between slush and kano.is and sucking all the luck from here.
Having said that, I can confirm that I had to come to terms with the fact that I had no chance of solving the immensly cryptic task of establishing with utter certainity whether the previously aptly named 1-2 Ph/s roving hash rate was being pumped out by 13 rigs. Having weighed all options up, I decided one conspiracy theory was enough to deal with than adding another on top.

[KNK]

We should be hearing from the opposition shortly.

1...2...3 ... 1...2...3 ... Can you hear me? Ah OK!

Check few (~20 or are they 50 now?) pages pack - there was a similar 'problem' when the pool was trying to cross the 9PH line. There was no such 'problem' while the pool had long rounds in the middle between 9 and 10 Ph, just because it was not a round number.

There are always long and short rounds, the question is who will notice and how he/she will interpret them. Believe me, if there is a problem with the pool the admins will know much sooner and as I have explained few (same numbers) pages back it is easy to fix.

[KNK]

Right, I cleared up the issue as to whether the roving 1-2 Ph/s was comprised of 13 rigs

1Ph from 13 rigs is 78TH per rig - let me know if you find the manufacturer of such rig

[pekatete]

Right, I cleared up the issue as to whether the roving 1-2 Ph/s was comprised of 13 rigs

1Ph from 13 rigs is 78TH per rig - let me know if you find the manufacturer of such rig

Seeing you are the clever one, tell me if it is achievable if you point rigs and rentals via proxy ... (smart ass!)?

[bigbitmine]

Right, I cleared up the issue as to whether the roving 1-2 Ph/s was comprised of 13 rigs

1Ph from 13 rigs is 78TH per rig - let me know if you find the manufacturer of such rig

Not referring to individual miners you plonker.  I have 2 rigs.  One is 3TH and the other is 278TH.

[pekatete]

Not referring to individual miners you plonker.  I have 2 rigs.  One is 3TH and the other is 278TH.

Hear that! Anyways, anotherone dropped in ...

[rpandassociates]

Oh my what a 10PH can of worms got opened here hahaha
Sitting at 9942414 Ghash/s as of right now
And as of right now I am writing a JS based program to monitor the hashrate and when the pool crosses 10PH to repoint my miners to other pools. I cannot have these 19hour blocks not with my power cost. I have to get at least 6 Blocks (24hrs) here to equal my minimum payout standards. 7 blocks a day would be the ultimate standard as that makes it more profitable than other pools.

And yes we have had a few good days recently all those days were 8-9PH days
But 1 or 2 bad days with a 1-2 block ad day totally strips away the good days and actually cost me money. As where if i was mining at the other lower paying but stable payout pools I am atleast turning a steady profit.

Therefore this is a high risk, high reward pool

So Gamblers mentality is required

Low risk - standard payout or high risk high payout

Sound like the stock market ?

OL Kenny wrote a song for this pool.
"You've gots to know when to hold them, know when to fold them, know when to walk away and know when to run"

Well at 10PH 2 blocks in 24hrs its time to run.

I find that song applies to all things crypto, and well hell most things inlife

pools , pool luck

hardware, Butterfly Labs 60ghs miners yes people still buy these things sold the last of mine late last month shut them down 6 months ago - and when buying hardware never by the latest and greatest or first batch, just acquired 2 used S4's (batch 2) from gawminers this week for $475 a piece half tempted to sell them on ebay for $700+ and order more haha now thats turning a profit, okay maybe not they sold out damn I should of done that yesterday

alt coins, where to start hahaha  PAYCOIN comes to mine, mined them dumped them 2 days later they were worthless

BTC value, when to hold and when to sell - i tend to only sell them at a premium like at wallofcoins.com localbitcoins.com and campbx on ocassioin always for alot more than current rate. Sold 2 BTC today at $320 on wallofcoins.

 

 

[kabopar]

Antpool jumped to 56.30 PH/s  (https://www.antpool.com/home.htm), which could be one of the reasons for poor performance at the smaller pools.

Cheers

Why would that make any difference in the short term?

It's not 'short term', but a long term trend.  Right now Antpool reports 57.77 PH/s.  Your chart at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=104664.0 shows that DiscusFish and Antpool found about 27% of blocks between Feb 8 and Feb 14. Isn't this simply a case of smaller pools like Slush having a smaller fraction of the overall hash rate?

Cheers

[organofcorti]

It's not 'short term', but a long term trend.  Right now Antpool reports 57.77 PH/s.  Your chart at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=104664.0 shows that DiscusFish and Antpool found about 27% of blocks between Feb 8 and Feb 14. Isn't this simply a case of smaller pools like Slush having a smaller fraction of the overall hash rate?

Cheers

Oh, I see. No, the amount of blocks a block maker solves is related to the block maker's hashrate and the network difficulty, nothing else. In the long term of course difficulty will rise, and what you expect will happen. But in the short term it just means a larger number of blocks solved per day overall. Does that make sense? I know it's a bit anti-intuitive.

[kkurtmann]

How much blocks could a block maker make if a block maker could make blocks?

[jackbox]

How much blocks could a block maker make if a block maker could make blocks?

Depends on the skill of the blockmaker. 

[kkurtmann]

How much blocks could a block maker make if a block maker could make blocks?

Depends on the skill of the blockmaker. 

And luck according to the white paper.

[kabopar]

Oh, I see. No, the amount of blocks a block maker solves is related to the block maker's hashrate and the network difficulty, nothing else. In the long term of course difficulty will rise, and what you expect will happen. But in the short term it just means a larger number of blocks solved per day overall. Does that make sense? I know it's a bit anti-intuitive.

If there is a significant rise by hashrate of some pool, wouldn't that have also some short-term impact on the relative number of blocks that this pool solves?  The difficulty drives the complexity of finding a solution, and if there was only a single miner, this would dictate the rate of blocks solved by that miner.  If there are 2 miners, there is some competition between them, as each block can be solved only once, so some of the work expended by one of the miners would be lost if the other miner solves that particular block.  Intuitively it is expected that the instantaneous relative hash rate would have some impact on the rate of individual solutions - why is that incorrect?

Cheers

[organofcorti]

If there is a significant rise by hashrate of some pool, wouldn't that have also some short-term impact on the relative number of blocks that this pool solves?  The difficulty drives the complexity of finding a solution, and if there was only a single miner, this would dictate the rate of blocks solved by that miner.  If there are 2 miners, there is some competition between them, as each block can be solved only once, so some of the work expended by one of the miners would be lost if the other miner solves that particular block.  Intuitively it is expected that the instantaneous relative hash rate would have some impact on the rate of individual solutions - why is that incorrect?

Cheers

Because there is no competition to find a block in the way you think. Every (diff 1) share has the same chance of finding a block. An increase in hashrate by some pool just means that that pool - and the network - makes more blocks.

[kabopar]

Because there is no competition to find a block in the way you think. Every (diff 1) share has the same chance of finding a block. An increase in hashrate by some pool just means that that pool - and the network - makes more blocks.

Thanks for the explanation.

[organofcorti]

Thanks for the explanation.

Np. I think this was a good conversation to have in the thread, won't be the last time this sort of question is asked.

[pekatete]

I think its about time we re-visited the thresh-hold that seems to drain all the luck out of slush. up to now, we've had it at 10 Ph/s, but seeing we've been hovering at or around 9.9 Ph/s for the last 17 hours or so  may be a case to in point.
It may seem like splitting hairs (and if you believe so please feel free to abstain from pointing out the obvious), but I think it is critical we nail down the exact thresh-hold if we are going to have any chance of proving (or otherwise) the conspiracy theory.

[leowonderful]

I can't wait till the bitcoin network reaches 1 billion Petahashes, then small rigs will die