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

[dmwardjr]

It seems quite odd to me when I look at the hash rate on Slush's Pool and BTCGuild, the hash rate has gone down considerably.  However, if you look at the overall network hash rate, it has gone up considerably.  Any thoughts?

[eleuthria]

It seems quite odd to me when I look at the hash rate on Slush's Pool and BTCGuild, the hash rate has gone down considerably.  However, if you look at the overall network hash rate, it has gone up considerably.  Any thoughts?

Home miners continuing to leave while giant farms (especially in China) continue to come online.  Now that it's getting hot in the northern hemisphere (which is where most home miners are located), it's becoming even more of a loss to keep miners running due to the extra cooling needed if you have them in your home.  They also perform worse at higher ambient temperatures, so home miners are literally just losing some of their hashrate in the warmer weather.


EDIT:  Also the fact that there's not a single pool outside of China that even has 5% of the network anymore makes it a self-fulfilling prophecy that the pools continue to shrink because people can't stand variance.

[dmwardjr]

It seems quite odd to me when I look at the hash rate on Slush's Pool and BTCGuild, the hash rate has gone down considerably.  However, if you look at the overall network hash rate, it has gone up considerably.  Any thoughts?

Home miners continuing to leave while giant farms (especially in China) continue to come online.  Now that it's getting hot in the northern hemisphere (which is where most home miners are located), it's becoming even more of a loss to keep miners running due to the extra cooling needed if you have them in your home.  They also perform worse at higher ambient temperatures, so home miners are literally just losing some of their hashrate in the warmer weather.


EDIT:  Also the fact that there's not a single pool outside of China that even has 5% of the network anymore makes it a self-fulfilling prophecy that the pools continue to shrink because people can't stand variance.

Sounds logical...

Thanks!

[edonkey]

Another possible explanation for the recent hash rate downturn might be that rental prices have been up for the past few days. Maybe some miners are chasing higher profits and will return when the rental market goes back down.

[ajas]

There is an ongoing discussion to increase the block size limit.

To my understanding the decision to use lager block sizes has
to be made by the miners. So what is the oppinion of the miners
at shush's pool and of the pool operator ?

If this topic is discussed somethere else and I missed it please
direct me to that post.

A

[dmwardjr]

There is an ongoing discussion to increase the block size limit.

To my understanding the decision to use lager block sizes has
to be made by the miners. So what is the oppinion of the miners
at shush's pool and of the pool operator ?

If this topic is discussed somethere else and I missed it please
direct me to that post.

A

If you wish to try to get that answer from Slush, it needs to be on FaceBook.

[KNK]

There is an ongoing discussion to increase the block size limit.

To my understanding the decision to use lager block sizes has
to be made by the miners. So what is the oppinion of the miners
at shush's pool and of the pool operator ?

As a miner and a full node owner - I would vote against that
Why?
Because it takes more space:
 Yes, the hard drive space gets cheaper, but this assumes you constantly upgrade your drive space = constant expenses
 It takes longer to scan the blockchain, JUST to confirm a transaction is valid and not double spend
 It needs more CPU power to confirm each and every transaction = more expenses

Also Satoshi stated (and it is stored in the bitcoin logic), that at some point the transaction fees will be more than the reward, but if there is no concurrency for the place in the block - there is no stimulus to add bigger fee, so larger block size will actually open another/different can of worms or simply put - hurt bitcoin more than help it

[chiguireitor]

[...] To my understanding the decision to use lager block sizes has
to be made by the miners [...]

No, the decision must come from consensus on the Bitcoin Foundation and coders, probably derived from consensus with full node owners. Miners (pool miners, specifically) play little or no role regarding block size.

[GenTarkin]

Summer is heating up all over the northern hemisphere, most pools are seeing a drop in hash rate, and thus the back-to-back negative diff adjustments we just saw recently.

Except that doesnt explain the 3% incoming increase =P
So, wishful thinking
...

Anything less than +/= 4.5% per retarget is indistinguishable from variance. That is, if difficulty moves up or down by less than ~ 4.5%, you can't prove that the underlying hashrate has changed significantly.

Yeah, check it now dude, steady increase the last 5 days or so from -% to almost 5% .... theres definitely a surge in hashrate. This really sucks.

[kano]

[...] To my understanding the decision to use lager block sizes has
to be made by the miners [...]

No, the decision must come from consensus on the Bitcoin Foundation and coders, probably derived from consensus with full node owners. Miners (pool miners, specifically) play little or no role regarding block size.

No, the consensus is simply the people who mine and use the blockchain.
Yes a pool can ignore their miners, but a pool is still a miner
If pools/miners decide to not want the change, and there is a high enough % that decide this, then that will answer it.
If exchanges decide to go with the change then that may influence pools/miners who want to be able to use their mined BTC.
But the reverse is also true that the exchanges may decide that they don't want to risk very low transaction confirmation if most pools/miners go against it.

My only confusion in it is that ... I don't see an overnight sudden increase in transactions because of the change.
The change would simply mean that future growth wouldn't be stifled by hitting the limit as quickly.

Anyway - there's threads on the subject, to look at elsewhere ... ...

[chiguireitor]

[...] To my understanding the decision to use lager block sizes has
to be made by the miners [...]

No, the decision must come from consensus on the Bitcoin Foundation and coders, probably derived from consensus with full node owners. Miners (pool miners, specifically) play little or no role regarding block size.

No, the consensus is simply the people who mine and use the blockchain.
Yes a pool can ignore their miners, but a pool is still a miner
If pools/miners decide to not want the change, and there is a high enough % that decide this, then that will answer it.
If exchanges decide to go with the change then that may influence pools/miners who want to be able to use their mined BTC.
But the reverse is also true that the exchanges may decide that they don't want to risk very low transaction confirmation if most pools/miners go against it.

My only confusion in it is that ... I don't see an overnight sudden increase in transactions because of the change.
The change would simply mean that future growth wouldn't be stifled by hitting the limit as quickly.

Anyway - there's threads on the subject, to look at elsewhere ... ...

Ooh my... being quoted by THE Kano, i can delete that from my bucket list. Anyways, what you say is true, there's countless threads regarding this matter for us to dabble in it.

Anywas, payments on slush have been steady enough that we can disregard the drop in hashrate. A little variance adds spice to life.

[ajas]

[...] To my understanding the decision to use lager block sizes has
to be made by the miners [...]

No, the decision must come from consensus on the Bitcoin Foundation and coders, probably derived from consensus with full node owners. Miners (pool miners, specifically) play little or no role regarding block size.

No, the consensus is simply the people who mine and use the blockchain.
Yes a pool can ignore their miners, but a pool is still a miner

I think a pool should not ignore its miners. If a topic is really controversial the pool operator should state what
rules he intends to follow and miners could base their decision which pool to use also on that. If we take
it serious that bitcoin is a decentralised system people should be aware of their 'power'. (OK maybe the power
of small miners is limited).

I don't want to turn mining into a highly political affair. But I think everybody using and contributing to
bitcoin should make up his mind. Finally this kind of decisions can influence the future development of
bitcoin (centralisation/decentralisation). In the end it is best to find some consensus based on good
arguments.

If pools/miners decide to not want the change, and there is a high enough % that decide this, then that will answer it.
If exchanges decide to go with the change then that may influence pools/miners who want to be able to use their mined BTC.
But the reverse is also true that the exchanges may decide that they don't want to risk very low transaction confirmation if most pools/miners go against it.

My only confusion in it is that ... I don't see an overnight sudden increase in transactions because of the change.
The change would simply mean that future growth wouldn't be stifled by hitting the limit as quickly.

Anyway - there's threads on the subject, to look at elsewhere ... ...

If I look at the average blocksize we have a slow exponential groth over the last 3 years. If we extrapolate it, the 1Mb
limit will be hit in 2 years from now on and it will take about 8 years to reach 20Mb. So I personally do not see an urgent
need for a large change of the limit with may have unforeseeable effects.

But right -  there are threads on the subject, to look at elsewhere ...

[GenTarkin]

WTF is wrong w/ the pool?! where are the blocks, its been almost 24hrs.....!!! grrrrrrr =(

[paczcz]

WTF is wrong w/ the pool?! where are the blocks, its been almost 24hrs.....!!! grrrrrrr =(

Piece off here too. This week we are about 140000 Million shares far away from 100% luck

[man114]

Almost 24hrs again... Luck has been bad.

[GenTarkin]

We better a huge burst of blocks soon ... my god! this is insane, now its been 26hrs!

[needmoney]

30 hours

[Cray-1]

Finally, We got the Block!!

[Nikethemutt]

WTF is wrong w/ the pool?! where are the blocks, its been almost 24hrs.....!!! grrrrrrr =(

Piece off here too. This week we are about 140000 Million shares far away from 100% luck

This seems like more than bad luck.

3 blocks in 3 days and only 1 7-block in the past week.   

10 hour blocks are becoming the norm.

Has something changed?

[man114]

I'm about 2 blocks from my set payout after that I'm taking a break too.