|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remember that Bitcoin is still beta software. Don't put all of your money into BTC!
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ewitte
Member
 Offline
Activity: 98
Merit: 10
|
 |
May 17, 2013, 08:09:55 PM |
|
So do you think that almost 50% drop for good few days in a row is normal? I know that luck is important, our hashing power is not increasing compare to other pools and we get smaller chunk of the pie, and difficulty is increasing but would that factor for such a difference? I was expecting drop in reward but not so quick and so much.
Measuring just a few days of earnings is not enough data to make any reasonable conclusions, especially at these difficulty levels and slush's pool speed. "Luck" takes a significantly longer amount of time to "even out" than what most people think it does. One thing is for sure if you have 2-3 times the hashing power it should theoretically blow through the unlucky blocks 2-3 times faster. |
Donations
BTC - 13Lgy6fb4d3nSYEf2nkgBgyBkkhPw8zkPd
LTC - LegzRwyc2Xhu8cqvaW2jwRrqSnhyaYU6gZ
|
|
|
|
Lucko
|
|
May 17, 2013, 08:10:49 PM |
|
There is a problem with the pool and not sure why slush is not here to correct any issues.
What makes you say that? (Besides the chance that you may be Lucko's alter ego  ) Well from 8th of May my daily reward dropped from 0.101 to 0.052 and no I'm not anyones alter ego. Ahh I see, yeah pool must be broke So do you think that almost 50% drop for good few days in a row is normal? I know that luck is important, our hashing power is not increasing compare to other pools and we get smaller chunk of the pie, and difficulty is increasing but would that factor for such a difference? I was expecting drop in reward but not so quick and so much. Yes his answer was stupid... I answer you also. Read my. Or you can read eleuthria, but then I have to add that difficulty also increased. |
|
|
|
|
|
KNK
|
|
May 17, 2013, 08:12:56 PM |
|
Lets say it is connection problem, but even if the pool is directly connected to BTCguild will not have an invalid, as we will simply not have found a block in this case = no end of the round.
Unless the next round is shorter than 30-40min it doesn't matter for the score method if the block is invalid or we just didn't found it at all.
Thanks to ASICminer - BTCguild and Bitminter together are ~50% of the network = if the pool is not connected to them directly, it is not connected to half of the network - yes it is a connection problem (the last 3 invalid blocks where after they have found a block first just a few seconds before us), but not because of the pool connection, but because of ASICminer
|
|
|
|
|
Lucko
|
|
May 17, 2013, 08:15:05 PM |
|
Lets say it is connection problem, but even if the pool is directly connected to BTCguild will not have an invalid, as we will simply not have found a block in this case = no end of the round.
Unless the next round is shorter than 30-40min it doesn't matter for the score method if the block is invalid or we just didn't found it at all.
Thanks to ASICminer - BTCguild and Bitminter together are ~50% of the network = if the pool is not connected to them directly, it is not connected to half of the network - yes it is a connection problem (the last 3 invalid blocks where after they have found a block first just a few seconds before us), but not because of the pool connection, but because of ASICminer
I'm interested. How do you know it is seconds? |
|
|
|
|
|
nottm28
|
|
May 17, 2013, 08:19:34 PM |
|
I refuse to quote that lucko character any more - I think he just loves the conflict - every time he's quoted he has 5 more idiot things to say.
He says he's left the pool but he insists on posting here to troll slush.
The best thing we can do as a group is to ignore his posts and don't quote him. Eventually he'll get bored and maybe move to the BFL thread where he can troll all he likes.
|
donations not accepted
|
|
|
ewitte
Member
Offline
Activity: 98
Merit: 10
|
|
May 17, 2013, 08:24:14 PM |
|
I feel better I've now got cg monitor running on all 3 machines with 3 different pool settings on BTCGuild/Slush
|
Donations
BTC - 13Lgy6fb4d3nSYEf2nkgBgyBkkhPw8zkPd
LTC - LegzRwyc2Xhu8cqvaW2jwRrqSnhyaYU6gZ
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lucko
|
|
May 17, 2013, 08:28:39 PM |
|
I refuse to quote that lucko character any more - I think he just loves the conflict - every time he's quoted he has 5 more idiot things to say.
He says he's left the pool but he insists on posting here to troll slush.
The best thing we can do as a group is to ignore his posts and don't quote him. Eventually he'll get bored and maybe move to the BFL thread where he can troll all he likes.
If you can't look truth in a face they yes I'm trolling. But if you look at my posts. They are fair. If there is a reason and way how something can happen without saying it is pool problem I did. If you can't accept simple facts then I can't help you. When you say you are stupid thinking there is a problem even if you see it this doesn't help and you are making more damage as you think. |
|
|
|
|
|
Lucko
|
|
May 17, 2013, 08:40:59 PM
Last edit: May 17, 2013, 10:12:47 PM by Lucko |
|
OK but if I click on invalid block I get "Block Not Found" so I can't see timestamp to compare them. I'm interested in time when it was send to network not the time it was fond by the pool because nobody is saying the time is synchronised... EDIT: just figure it out. It took 2 minutes not 2 seconds(if time is synchronised). This is too long not to detect a new block. For blockchain it doesn't matter but for a pool this it too long... If you have cgminer you can see new block detected msg before you see that info on blockchain... Sometime it is a big difference up to a minute or more. EDIT2: Look at differences in time for last block. 18078 2013-05-17 21:59:35 2:25:00 Timestamp 2013-05-17 21:59:18 |
|
|
|
|
sunriselad
Member
Offline
Activity: 63
Merit: 10
|
|
May 17, 2013, 10:10:34 PM |
|
I refuse to quote that lucko character any more - I think he just loves the conflict - every time he's quoted he has 5 more idiot things to say.
He says he's left the pool but he insists on posting here to troll slush.
The best thing we can do as a group is to ignore his posts and don't quote him. Eventually he'll get bored and maybe move to the BFL thread where he can troll all he likes.
I think most people know, they humour him. Surely everyone has noticed it is BTCGuild that he promotes in his signature. |
|
|
|
|
|
Trongersoll
|
|
May 17, 2013, 10:22:11 PM |
|
heh, can't we kick our clock ahead a minute or two?  |
|
|
|
|
|
Lucko
|
|
May 17, 2013, 10:26:29 PM |
|
I think most people know, they humour him.
Surely everyone has noticed it is BTCGuild that he promotes in his signature.
It is a simple reason. It is PPS. If you have Slush on a long run and someone starts mining it resets your score for all miners if you have any shares on a worker that started mining again with more then 30 minutes pause. That is why I relay wouldn't like that to happen. I'm sure you didn't know that... |
|
|
|
|
|
nottm28
|
|
May 17, 2013, 10:38:04 PM |
|
I feel better I've now got cg monitor running on all 3 machines with 3 different pool settings on BTCGuild/Slush
cgminer is not a gui - so more difficult to set up for new starters - but it's infinitely better than guiminer imo - good news |
donations not accepted
|
|
|
|
Lucko
|
|
May 17, 2013, 10:39:47 PM |
|
heh, can't we kick our clock ahead a minute or two? It doesn't work that way. Clock is synchronised with network. And you were probably thinking punting it back  |
|
|
|
|
haveagr8day
Member
Offline
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
|
|
May 17, 2013, 10:43:33 PM |
|
OK but if I click on invalid block I get "Block Not Found" so I can't see timestamp to compare them. I'm interested in time when it was send to network not the time it was fond by the pool because nobody is saying the time is synchronised... EDIT: just figure it out. It took 2 minutes not 2 seconds(if time is synchronised). This is too long not to detect a new block. For blockchain it doesn't matter but for a pool this it too long... If you have cgminer you can see new block detected msg before you see that info on blockchain... Sometime it is a big difference up to a minute or more. EDIT2: Look at differences in time for last block. 18078 2013-05-17 21:59:35 2:25:00 Timestamp 2013-05-17 21:59:18 The time received by the network will be the more accurate time, which is only a 2 second difference. The timestamp can be off by up to 2 hours ahead, and the median time of the last 11 blocks behind. Because of this, miners will sometimes fudge the timestamp as somewhat of an extra nonce value. See: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_timestampReceived time BitMinter: 00:59:33 vs. Slush's Block: 00:59:30 |
|
|
|
|
Lucko
|
|
May 17, 2013, 10:52:17 PM |
|
OK but if I click on invalid block I get "Block Not Found" so I can't see timestamp to compare them. I'm interested in time when it was send to network not the time it was fond by the pool because nobody is saying the time is synchronised... EDIT: just figure it out. It took 2 minutes not 2 seconds(if time is synchronised). This is too long not to detect a new block. For blockchain it doesn't matter but for a pool this it too long... If you have cgminer you can see new block detected msg before you see that info on blockchain... Sometime it is a big difference up to a minute or more. EDIT2: Look at differences in time for last block. 18078 2013-05-17 21:59:35 2:25:00 Timestamp 2013-05-17 21:59:18 The time received by the network will be the more accurate time, which is only a 2 second difference. The timestamp can be off by up to 2 hours ahead, and the median time of the last 11 blocks behind. Because of this, miners will sometimes fudge the timestamp as somewhat of an extra nonce value. See: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_timestampReceived time BitMinter: 00:59:33 vs. Slush's Block: 00:59:30 Isn't receive time diffident for anyone on the network? And if this would be a case Slush should get this one... |
|
|
|
|
Psyrick
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 30
Merit: 0
|
|
May 17, 2013, 11:10:12 PM |
|
18078 2013-05-17 21:59:35 2:25:00 20411945 1951 0.00001476 236670 25.11154300
18077 2013-05-17 19:34:35 2:27:43 20693673 2462 0.00268799 236657 25.12165813
Nearly identical round time. Nearly identical shares. 5.49% reward. I don't care how much cheating is being prevented by the score system, you can't convince me this isn't pure bull.
I'm going to BTCGuild.
Later Slush.
|
|
|
|
|
Geez
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 53
Merit: 0
|
|
May 17, 2013, 11:17:06 PM |
|
18078 2013-05-17 21:59:35 2:25:00 20411945 1951 0.00001476 236670 25.11154300
18077 2013-05-17 19:34:35 2:27:43 20693673 2462 0.00268799 236657 25.12165813
Nearly identical round time. Nearly identical shares. 5.49% reward. I don't care how much cheating is being prevented by the score system, you can't convince me this isn't pure bull.
I'm going to BTCGuild.
Later Slush.
I experienced similar things. |
|
|
|
|
haveagr8day
Member
Offline
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
|
|
May 17, 2013, 11:19:18 PM |
|
OK but if I click on invalid block I get "Block Not Found" so I can't see timestamp to compare them. I'm interested in time when it was send to network not the time it was fond by the pool because nobody is saying the time is synchronised... EDIT: just figure it out. It took 2 minutes not 2 seconds(if time is synchronised). This is too long not to detect a new block. For blockchain it doesn't matter but for a pool this it too long... If you have cgminer you can see new block detected msg before you see that info on blockchain... Sometime it is a big difference up to a minute or more. EDIT2: Look at differences in time for last block. 18078 2013-05-17 21:59:35 2:25:00 Timestamp 2013-05-17 21:59:18 The time received by the network will be the more accurate time, which is only a 2 second difference. The timestamp can be off by up to 2 hours ahead, and the median time of the last 11 blocks behind. Because of this, miners will sometimes fudge the timestamp as somewhat of an extra nonce value. See: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_timestampReceived time BitMinter: 00:59:33 vs. Slush's Block: 00:59:30 Isn't receive time diffident for anyone on the network? And if this would be a case Slush should get this one... Since BitMinter doesn't show their generation time to the second, it would be hard to compare. Blockchain.info received theirs 3 seconds after Slush's was generated. But based on our most recent one, 236670, the time for it to propagate from generation on Slush to the time Blockchain.info sees it is about a minute. By that, BitMinter may still have generated it before Slush. Block 236670 Found at (Slush's Pool): 21:59:35 Block 236670 Received Time (Blockchain.info): 22:00:24 |
|
|
|
|
