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

[-ck]

I never liked PPLNS pools as you have to wait forever to get confirmations, so I'll stick to Slush for now, thank you.

Slush's payment scheme is simply a variant of PPLNS so that doesn't make a lot of sense. The difference is you don't get paid your entire balance with each and every block as it's solved here, you have to set a threshold and the pool holds all your rewards till it hits the threshold. Either way, you're not really getting it any faster here.

[adyb]

I thought that those that mine here might want to read this.> Sums it up quite nicely.. I honestly think this pool cant handle 40 ph.. 15 ph pool ok.   40 ph and the server or network cant keep up .. causing a whole heap of issues..  Kano put it really well here..  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=789369.msg13658516#msg13658516

Then take a look at this. Now take out all the super small pools as variance is what has killed some of those pools. Not to mention 20 % diff increases for a small pool would just about kill it if you didnt find a block every diff change!  http://organofcorti.blogspot.com/2016/01/january-17th-2016-mining-pool-statistics.html

The fact that slush hasnt really responded to fb or here at all tells me a lot!!!

Best Regards
d57heinz

I was thinking the same to be honest. I'm a network manager for an ISP and to me it's looking like there is an issue with the pool servers or connectivity that is failing or reaching capacity at about the 40ph/s level. I sincerely hope this is the case. We've had a few good days at just below the 40 level. So hopefully slush is aware, I'd just love to see more frequent updates in here from him or his team...

[leowonderful]

rip my 3ths mining rental
looks like slush fell into another 100% cdf streak.. damn :/

[disclaimer201]

I thought that those that mine here might want to read this.> Sums it up quite nicely.. I honestly think this pool cant handle 40 ph.. 15 ph pool ok.   40 ph and the server or network cant keep up .. causing a whole heap of issues..  Kano put it really well here..  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=789369.msg13658516#msg13658516

Then take a look at this. Now take out all the super small pools as variance is what has killed some of those pools. Not to mention 20 % diff increases for a small pool would just about kill it if you didnt find a block every diff change!  http://organofcorti.blogspot.com/2016/01/january-17th-2016-mining-pool-statistics.html

The fact that slush hasnt really responded to fb or here at all tells me a lot!!!

Best Regards
d57heinz

I was thinking the same to be honest. I'm a network manager for an ISP and to me it's looking like there is an issue with the pool servers or connectivity that is failing or reaching capacity at about the 40ph/s level. I sincerely hope this is the case. We've had a few good days at just below the 40 level. So hopefully slush is aware, I'd just love to see more frequent updates in here from him or his team...

If there is some issue at 40ph/s the pool could have a serious problem with variance in the future. I also used to mine at MMpool.org until they couldn't solve one block per difficulty change. But unless the hashrate at kano explodes, the pool will have this problem much earlier than Slush. We also do not know if Kano wouldn't have a similar server/connectivity issue unless it hits such hashrate levels.

As to PPLNS... I know Slush has a similar system and I still don't know why he never implemented double geometric method like mmpool. He wanted to do this years ago to fight pool hopping. Of course as a miner one would prefer PPS but meh.

[kano]

...
As to PPLNS... I know Slush has a similar system and I still don't know why he never implemented double geometric method like mmpool. He wanted to do this years ago to fight pool hopping. Of course as a miner one would prefer PPS but meh.

None of the payout systems (PPLNS, DGM, PPS) 'fight' hopping.
Any perceived affect on hopping is due to not understanding statistics and incorrectly assuming a small sample defines the expected result of a full population.

[squall1066]

This is going to sound noobish, but on the vdiff settings, I can either tick the box so it uses the pre set minimum in my user profile which is 8
or untick it and it will set it manually for independent miners which is also 8
so is this just the starting point and the pool still auto adjust per miner, or is it set at 8 untill I change it?

[KNK]

This is going to sound noobish, but on the vdiff settings, I can either tick the box so it uses the pre set minimum in my user profile which is 8
or untick it and it will set it manually for independent miners which is also 8
so is this just the starting point and the pool still auto adjust per miner, or is it set at 8 untill I change it?

The pool is still auto-adjusting your diff, but will not go below your minimum (that's why it says minimum right?)
You don't need to set that your self - some miners have a problem if the diff is too low and it takes longer until they reach their hashrate, hence the setting for a minimum, which in such cases (if you have problem) should be set to about the half of your normal diff or at 2/3 max to 'jump-start' you miner's diff

[wikkidtt]

Love how this pool hits 40ph and stops hitting blocks. Can we say withholding!

[krisgt30]

Love how this pool hits 40ph and stops hitting blocks. Can we say withholding!

Exactly why I stopped mining on here. Took me only a couple of weeks to realize it by doing the simple math.

[wikkidtt]

Love how this pool hits 40ph and stops hitting blocks. Can we say withholding!

Exactly why I stopped mining on here. Took me only a couple of weeks to realize it by doing the simple math.

Now under 40ph and hit a ton of blocks. I have a remote miner pointed here because it's a pita to get changed. All my other miners are on Kano and couldn't be happier

[joaogti36]

the pool operator should fix that 40PH+ bug that is killing block found....

[organofcorti]

Love how this pool hits 40ph and stops hitting blocks. Can we say withholding!

Exactly why I stopped mining on here. Took me only a couple of weeks to realize it by doing the simple math.

Can you explain how you did that? I wouldn't have thought simple maths is enough to prove your point in this case, so I'm keen to find out how you determined the correlation.

[krisgt30]

Love how this pool hits 40ph and stops hitting blocks. Can we say withholding!

Exactly why I stopped mining on here. Took me only a couple of weeks to realize it by doing the simple math.

Can you explain how you did that? I wouldn't have thought simple maths is enough to prove your point in this case, so I'm keen to find out how you determined the correlation.

I know you're trying to belittle me since im a noobie, but I'll bite anyway, after some time mining slush, eligius, bitminter, kano.is, I took my speed, time mining, number of blocks found, and final payout for each block. Averaged it out, and found that slush was by far the worst for me.

[organofcorti]

Love how this pool hits 40ph and stops hitting blocks. Can we say withholding!

Exactly why I stopped mining on here. Took me only a couple of weeks to realize it by doing the simple math.

Can you explain how you did that? I wouldn't have thought simple maths is enough to prove your point in this case, so I'm keen to find out how you determined the correlation.

I know you're trying to belittle me since im a noobie, but I'll bite anyway, after some time mining slush, eligius, bitminter, kano.is, I took my speed, time mining, number of blocks found, and final payout for each block. Averaged it out, and found that slush was by far the worst for me.

Not trying to belittle you at all and I apologise if I came across that way. I've been working on this problem of Slush's luck for a while -- it's not an easy one to analyse -- and I wanted to know if I'd stupidly missed something simple.

Your maths is fine as far as it goes (EDIT: I was hoping for something that showed how the pool's hashrate affected the pool's luck), but you might also want to consider ways to make the comparisons between pools more valid. For example (assuming your hashrate is constant) compare just payouts over a similar number of blocks rather than similar time period, and I would use a large number of blocks.

Even over a hundred blocks, you're still going to see variance of about +/- 20% of expected. If one pool has a not unusually unlucky hundred blocks and another has a not unusually lucky hundred blocks, there could be a 40% difference between them - just due to variance.


EDIT: Also, if you're just considering time periods rather than blocks, then difference in variance could be exponentially greater.

[krisgt30]

Love how this pool hits 40ph and stops hitting blocks. Can we say withholding!

Exactly why I stopped mining on here. Took me only a couple of weeks to realize it by doing the simple math.

Can you explain how you did that? I wouldn't have thought simple maths is enough to prove your point in this case, so I'm keen to find out how you determined the correlation.

I know you're trying to belittle me since im a noobie, but I'll bite anyway, after some time mining slush, eligius, bitminter, kano.is, I took my speed, time mining, number of blocks found, and final payout for each block. Averaged it out, and found that slush was by far the worst for me.

Not trying to belittle you at all and I apologise if I came across that way. I've been working on this problem of Slush's luck for a while -- it's not an easy one to analyse -- and I wanted to know if I'd stupidly missed something simple.

Your maths is fine as far as it goes, but you might also want to consider ways to make the comparisons between pools more valid. For example (assuming your hashrate is constant) compare just payouts over a similar number of blocks rather than similar time period, and I would use a large number of blocks.

Even over a hundred blocks, you're still going to see variance of about +/- 20% of expected. If one pool has a not unusually unlucky hundred blocks and another has a not unusually lucky hundred blocks, there could be a 40% difference between them - just due to variance.

I understand the luck aspect, and the possibility of one pool getting extremely lucky and one not being lucky at all, but when I noticed that what it took me to make in 1 month in BTC at slush, I was able to make in another pool in one week (despite not having a ton of luck the week I mined it), I knew something was up.

[welshy82]

just noticed it had 2 stale blocked verry close to each other

[ohmygod21]

many blocks solved today

[welshy82]

Yea they fixed it now and adding something extra I seen on his Facebook

[welshy82]

he posted this

Dear miners,
we would like to inform you that we have detected and resolved an unintentional block withholding attack.

The issue has been discovered a week ago and we have immediately taken an action by contacting the particular miner. The cause turned out to be a bug in a custom mining firmware, which has been promptly fixed by the miner. We have no indication that there was any bad intention. The fixed firmware solved two blocks since then so we can consider this issue as resolved.

A recent time period of worse luck can be at least partly attributed to this incident.

Block withholding attack is a well-known weakness of the whole pool mining principle and no public pool is immune against it.

As a by-product of the bad luck investigation, we have implemented a new method how to mathematically prove that the pool does not cheat on miners. This feature will be released after the public interface has been tweaked. The release is planned towards the end of next week.

[ohmygod21]

Good job sir . lets go slush pool