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

[Slave2school]

Considering wtih just 2 cards going that I've had lately I've been getting .00029ish I think that's a bit high.  I'd be happy to danate mine back to the pool if slush needs to make a correction.

[ewitte]

I'm going ot be honest I think I got paid too much on the block that you guys are all talking about unless I did indeed earn what I did because a bunch of other shares didn't make it in mine seems to be a bit high.  help us Obiwan (slush).

17925  2013-05-08 14:13:44 1:27:14   11634278  1107    0.06159829    235160    25.21733124  74 confirmations left

SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.  I'm sitting her crossing my fingers it goes to confirmed.

[PrintMule]

I'm going ot be honest I think I got paid too much on the block that you guys are all talking about unless I did indeed earn what I did because a bunch of other shares didn't make it in mine seems to be a bit high.  help us Obiwan (slush).

17925  2013-05-08 14:13:44 1:27:14   11634278  1107    0.06159829    235160    25.21733124  74 confirmations left

SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.  I'm sitting her crossing my fingers it goes to confirmed.

17925    2013-05-08 14:13:44    1:27:14    11634278    684    0.00000021

[sunriselad]

Regarding that block #17925 I suspect what's the problem .

From what I can see it appears that majority of the folks didn't submit any shares in the last X minutes while others did continue to submit shares.

The most reasonable explanation to this is that there was some network issue (routing or clogged traffic) and something happened to **some** of the pool's endpoints but not to **all** of them.

In other words - a few of the IPs listed below may have been DDoS-ed, and those that were connected to them suffered as they were unable to submit their shares, while the unaffected IPs worked just fine and those people connected to them did get their (at that point) fair share:

that's from a few days ago:

C:\Users\me>nslookup stratum.bitcoin.cz
Server:  rdns-lb-01.orange.rr.com
Address:  66.75.160.63

Non-authoritative answer:
Name:    stratum.bitcoin.cz
Addresses:  54.225.117.74
          54.215.3.100
          54.215.3.101
          54.215.3.102
          54.215.3.103
          54.225.68.97
          54.225.116.40
          54.225.116.174
          54.225.116.221

and looking at my currently connected worker - I am currently connected to one of those:
TCP   192.168.0.70:54312   54.215.3.103:3333   ESTABLISHED   


Unfortunately I don't think slush would have any (easy) means to find out which IPs of the pool worked at that time and which didn't. If that's the case then I guess all I have to say to the winning folks - congrats for the bonus!

(that's unless slush wishes to manually recalculate the payout for that block, but the time for this is running out rather quickly too)

Thats totally not the case! The submitted shares figure from most people is correct.

[vs3]

Regarding that block #17925 I suspect what's the problem .

From what I can see it appears that majority of the folks didn't submit any shares in the last X minutes while others did continue to submit shares.

The most reasonable explanation to this is that there was some network issue (routing or clogged traffic) and something happened to **some** of the pool's endpoints but not to **all** of them.

In other words - a few of the IPs listed below may have been DDoS-ed, and those that were connected to them suffered as they were unable to submit their shares, while the unaffected IPs worked just fine and those people connected to them did get their (at that point) fair share:
(...)

Thats totally not the case! The submitted shares figure from most people is correct.

Ah! You're right!

Code:

#	Block found at	Duration	Total shares	Your shares	Your BTC reward	Block #	Block value	seconds	sec/share	avg	% over
17932	5/8/2013 19:27	0:03:47	520220	43	0.00213450	235189	25.10867232	227	5.279069767	4.759650555	10.91 
17931	5/8/2013 19:23	0:56:33	7593341	732	0.00287402	235188	25.17550029	3393	4.635245902	4.759650555	(2.61)
17930	5/8/2013 18:26	1:07:22	9111565	823	0.00204239	235181	25.64309495	4042	4.911300122	4.759650555	3.19 
17929	5/8/2013 17:19	0:17:22	2373359	212	0.00188620	235175	25.31410000	1042	4.915094340	4.759650555	3.27 
17928	5/8/2013 17:01	0:19:56	2712768	251	0.00201770	235172	25.05070000	1196	4.764940239	4.759650555	0.11 
17927	5/8/2013 16:42	0:36:19	4889155	480	0.00243818	235169	25.60799814	2179	4.539583333	4.759650555	(4.62)
17926	5/8/2013 16:05	1:52:00	15071549	1405	0.00242470	235165	25.59585000	6720	4.782918149	4.759650555	0.49 
17925	5/8/2013 14:13	1:27:14	11634278	1072	0.00000028	235160	25.21733124	5234	4.882462687	4.759650555	2.58 
17924	5/8/2013 12:46	0:01:55	251435	28	0.00266089	235151	25.08370000	115	4.107142857	4.759650555	(13.71)
17923	5/8/2013 12:44	0:36:37	4874601	506	0.00225230	235150	25.09740000	2197	4.341897233	4.759650555	(8.78)
17922	5/8/2013 12:07	0:18:52	2558082	251	0.00299940	235145	25.37765000	1132	4.509960159	4.759650555	(5.25)
17921	5/8/2013 11:49	2:07:14	16872453	1577	0.00195180	235143	25.10440000	7634	4.840837032	4.759650555	1.71 
17920	5/8/2013 09:41	0:58:30	7744110	725	0.00250888	235130	25.06880000	3510	4.841379310	4.759650555	1.72 
17919	5/8/2013 08:43	2:46:21	21253005	2110	0.00230024	235121	25.11913275	9981	4.730331754	4.759650555	(0.62)
17918	5/8/2013 05:57	4:17:12	33736475	3341	0.00260102	235100	25.23225000	15432	4.618976354	4.759650555	(2.96)
17917	5/8/2013 01:39	1:22:43	10660585	1064	0.00208142	235062	25.15620961	4963	4.664473684	4.759650555	(2.00)
17916	5/8/2013 00:17	0:52:40	6822905	677	0.00303857	235056	25.32145000	3160	4.667651403	4.759650555	(1.93)
17915	5/7/2013 23:24	0:49:44	6461791	620	0.00254768	235051	25.39097044	2984	4.812903226	4.759650555	1.12 
17914	5/7/2013 22:34	1:49:03	14141721	1422	0.00278995	235044	25.14840000	6543	4.601265823	4.759650555	(3.33)
17913	5/7/2013 20:45	0:07:02	910924	94	0.00257889	235030	25.23400000	422	4.489361702	4.759650555	(5.68)
17912	5/7/2013 20:38	0:29:26	3991722	384	0.00215801	235029	25.33353963	1766	4.598958333	4.759650555	(3.38)
17911	5/7/2013 20:09	1:51:51	15267535	1399	0.00212787	235026	25.48937375	6711	4.796997856	4.759650555	0.78 
17910	5/7/2013 18:17	0:55:35	7594804	737	0.00281889	235018	25.45195000	3335	4.525101764	4.759650555	(4.93)
17909	5/7/2013 17:21	0:12:16	1688709	148	0.00186998	235012	25.17640000	736	4.972972973	4.759650555	4.48 
17908	5/7/2013 17:09	0:10:21	1407149	144	0.00264592	235010	25.23936000	621	4.3125	4.759650555	(9.39)
17907	5/7/2013 16:59	0:58:33	8088721	743	0.00227422	235007	25.49475000	3513	4.728129206	4.759650555	(0.66)
17906	5/7/2013 16:00	0:40:42	5623582	522	0.00232520	235004	26.76468680	2442	4.67816092	4.759650555	(1.71)
17905	5/7/2013 15:19	0:01:12	152445	10	0.00166705	234998	25.09425280	72	7.2	4.759650555	51.27 
17904	5/7/2013 15:18	0:06:39	891284	86	0.00268507	234997	25.45588506	399	4.639534884	4.759650555	(2.52)
17903	5/7/2013 15:12	0:40:07	5477742	547	0.00246473	234995	25.41442000	2407	4.400365631	4.759650555	(7.55)

So the number of my shares for that round was about right - just 2% over average (that's in seconds/share or how many seconds it takes me to submit one share).

I wonder if there was something wrong with the timestamps of those shares (as recorded by the server). The result is almost the same as if I didn't submit any shares during the last 5 minutes, and what could be a coincidence - the round ended at 16:05:44 (e.g. 5min after 4pm). I'd be curious to find out if due to some glitch (time zone adjustment?) those shares got timestamped with +/- 1hr.

[OlgaA524]

I'm going ot be honest I think I got paid too much on the block that you guys are all talking about unless I did indeed earn what I did because a bunch of other shares didn't make it in mine seems to be a bit high.  help us Obiwan (slush).

17925  2013-05-08 14:13:44 1:27:14   11634278  1107    0.06159829    235160    25.21733124  74 confirmations left

SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.  I'm sitting her crossing my fingers it goes to confirmed.

Well let's hope the next time this kind of glitch (or twist of luck) happens it will be in the favor of those who lost on this block

[psxboy]

Why is everyone only looking at the number of shares they submitted to a particular round and deciding they got screwed? Not all shares are equal - you have to divide your score by the total score for the round to determine your reward, as Slush clearly points out here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1976.msg50002#msg50002

Code:

reward = user score / total score * 25

The scores for round 17925 probably got reset (normalized) right before it ended, resulting in many people with very low scores and only the few that managed to squeeze in a share or two right at the very end getting most of the reward.

[TomKeddie]

The scores for round 17925 probably got reset (normalized) right before it ended, resulting in many people with very low scores and only the few that managed to squeeze in a share or two right at the very end getting most of the reward.

There's been quite a lot of talk about the reset being busted before.  Seems to me dividing by a factor would be fairer (and still prevent overflow).

[crashoveride54902]

Why is everyone only looking at the number of shares they submitted to a particular round and deciding they got screwed? Not all shares are equal - you have to divide your score by the total score for the round to determine your reward, as Slush clearly points out here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1976.msg50002#msg50002

Code:

reward = user score / total score * 25

The scores for round 17925 probably got reset (normalized) right before it ended, resulting in many people with very low scores and only the few that managed to squeeze in a share or two right at the very end getting most of the reward.

that system is old...On the website it is:

This 25 BTC is divided among all of the users that contributed to that round, weighted by the number of shares that they earned. Therefore, the reward earned by a given user is given by the following formula:

(25 BTC + block fees - 2% fee) * (shares found by user's workers) / (total shares in current round)

which is what is being used now

[visdude]

Slush, can you please look into the following?  The reward is unusually very low and it never corrected itself; the blocks before and after this are pretty normal:

17925    2013-05-08 14:13:44    1:27:14    11634278    1167    0.00000029    235160    25.21733124    59 confirmations left

My user name is "panner" (no quotes).

Thank you.

[psxboy]

that system is old...On the website it is:

This 25 BTC is divided among all of the users that contributed to that round, weighted by the number of shares that they earned. Therefore, the reward earned by a given user is given by the following formula:

(25 BTC + block fees - 2% fee) * (shares found by user's workers) / (total shares in current round)

which is what is being used now

That's not right. If you do the math on any of your rounds in the statistic page you'll see it doesn't match your formula. And in fact, right beneath the paragraph on the website that describes the formula you posted, he says "In fact the formula above is simplified. The real math behind the payout system is described here" and points to the same forum post I linked to.

[sunriselad]

Why is everyone only looking at the number of shares they submitted to a particular round and deciding they got screwed? Not all shares are equal - you have to divide your score by the total score for the round to determine your reward, as Slush clearly points out here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1976.msg50002#msg50002

Code:

reward = user score / total score * 25

The scores for round 17925 probably got reset (normalized) right before it ended, resulting in many people with very low scores and only the few that managed to squeeze in a share or two right at the very end getting most of the reward.

If you bothered reading any of the posts you will see that they're not.
Using the correct calculations peoples scores are off by a degree of an extra 0.0000 ... thats more than the normal "shares near the block discovery are worth more" debate.

[joolzg]

Slush, can you please look into the following?  The reward is unusually very low and it never corrected itself; the blocks before and after this are pretty normal:

17925    2013-05-08 14:13:44    1:27:14    11634278    1167    0.00000029    235160    25.21733124    59 confirmations left

My user name is "panner" (no quotes).

Thank you.

same here

17925    2013-05-08 14:13:44    1:27:14    11634278    3268    0.00000079    235160    25.21733124    54 confirmations left

joolz

[tg23]

17925   2013-05-08 14:13:44   1:27:14   11634278   87   0.00000002   235160   25.21733124    54 confirmations left

+1 shorted on block 17925

[psxboy]

If you bothered reading any of the posts you will see that they're not.
Using the correct calculations peoples scores are off by a degree of an extra 0.0000 ... thats more than the normal "shares near the block discovery are worth more" debate.

Actually, I did read the posts. Like this one:

https://i.imgur.com/VElQt3V.png

Seems to be an issue here.  From my calculations, 1784 / 11634278 * 25.21733124 = 0.003866825163724, not .00000048

What's the deal?

And this one:

wow one day of mining in one block ^^
I'll have to say goodbye to them soon i guess...

17925    2013-05-08 14:13:44    1:27:14    11634278    1325    0.05446139    235160    25.21733124    94 confirmations left

should have got 0.98*(1325/11634278)*25.21733124 ~0,0028719413351649 (this valid only because i did not stop any of my miner so good approx)

They're all calculating rewards from shares, not scores (weighted shares).

And then there was this:

Many of us face the same situation with this block. This has happen quite a few times, most of the cases when the score reset is immediately before / very close to the end of the round.

And as a corollary:

I'm going ot be honest I think I got paid too much on the block that you guys are all talking about unless I did indeed earn what I did because a bunch of other shares didn't make it in mine seems to be a bit high.  help us Obiwan (slush).

17925  2013-05-08 14:13:44 1:27:14   11634278  1107    0.06159829    235160    25.21733124  74 confirmations left

[jerethdaminer]

my miner wasnt on during xxx25 but the last 2 rounds seem kind of low unless difficulty has gone up today or something i seem about 15% less then averge on them


#   Block found at   Duration   Total shares   Your shares   Your BTC reward   Block #   Block value   Validity
17933   2013-05-08 21:16:34   1:49:24   14626922   796   0.00093501   235201   25.73276072    93 confirmations left
17932   2013-05-08 19:27:10   0:03:47   520220   22   0.00089461   235189   25.10867232    81 confirmations left

[crashoveride54902]

that system is old...On the website it is:

This 25 BTC is divided among all of the users that contributed to that round, weighted by the number of shares that they earned. Therefore, the reward earned by a given user is given by the following formula:

(25 BTC + block fees - 2% fee) * (shares found by user's workers) / (total shares in current round)

which is what is being used now

That's not right. If you do the math on any of your rounds in the statistic page you'll see it doesn't match your formula. And in fact, right beneath the paragraph on the website that describes the formula you posted, he says "In fact the formula above is simplified. The real math behind the payout system is described here" and points to the same forum post I linked to.

ah yes i didn't read that part...i stand corrected...but i have done the cal. using the simple one and it is pretty darn close

also i am one to get screwed on that block...

17925   2013-05-08 14:13:44   1:27:14   11634278   4758   0.00000118   235160   25.21733124    50 confirmations left

[vs3]

my miner wasnt on during xxx25 but the last 2 rounds seem kind of low unless difficulty has gone up today or something i seem about 15% less then averge on them

The pool got a lot more horse power lately - last week it was around 8-8.5TH, over the last day it's been around 9.5. That's roughly 10% more people getting paid, thus everyone roughly making 10% less per block. On the good side we make more blocks per day which should more than compensate.

[vs3]

also i am one to get screwed on that block...
17925   2013-05-08 14:13:44   1:27:14   11634278   4758   0.00000118   235160   25.21733124    50 confirmations left

Guys and gals - let's stop complaining about that 17925 block. It's more than abundantly clear that something went wrong (or at least doesn't meet our expectations).

For good or bad - Slush is the only one that can tell what exactly happened and fix it.

And after all - for majority of us the lost amount is rather insignificant - the daily income would be affected by a single-digit percentage. So - let's stop whining about it.

Slush hasn't posted for over a week, so he might be on vacation and therefore won't be able to fix it. If that's the case - we'll have to live with it.

[Kruncha]

I'm happy to let one slide, well, not quite happy, but willing

Slush isn't on holiday, he just needs a 7-9 day sleep after recent attacks.

K.