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

[Lucko]

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.

It is a 20% difference in shares. You had some problems in 19078. And if they were on the end of the round you are on a loosing side of this. But if there were on the start you would get about the same as for 18077. This is just a way it is with Slush method. Unless you are saying that you were mining all the time and you did monitor it or log it and you didn't see any brakes in mining.

P.S.: You are not big but BTC Guild has 51% problems. Consider any other pool to help them out.

[1713521194]

1713521194

[1713521194]

1713521194

[crashoveride54902]

I don't understand the 51% problem...if the owner of btcguild can be trusted with all that btc to give out to miners and to be honest n stuff...and has great security measures...who cares how big it gets...course all the ppl will do then is just spread FUD bout btcguild gonna do a 51% attack blah blah

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.

It is a 20% difference in shares. You had some problems in 19078. And if they were on the end of the round you are on a loosing side of this. But if there were on the start you would get about the same as for 18077. This is just a way it is with Slush method. Unless you are saying that you were mining all the time and you did monitor it or log it and you didn't see any brakes in mining.

P.S.: You are not big but BTC Guild has 51% problems. Consider any other pool to help them out.

[Gamah]

I'm interested. How do you know it is seconds?

Simple - comapre https://mining.bitcoin.cz/stats/ and http://blockchain.info/ for each of them
Example for round 18050:
 we should have found 236382 if it wasn't invalid at '2013-05-16 00:59:30', but the actual 236382 ( http://blockchain.info/block/000000000000010ff86768774d6c3ea12dbbee106dcfc389e8b7bd3b64e98744 ) was found at '2013-05-16 00:57:38' (timestamp based and received from blockchain at '2013-05-16 00:59:33') from Bitminter and the next one (236383) was also found from Bitminter ... we had no chance to beat that right?

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_timestamp

Received 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

Is this why my most recent payout still has 0 conformations?

[Lucko]

I don't understand the 51% problem...if the owner of btcguild can be trusted with all that btc to give out to miners and to be honest n stuff...and has great security measures...who cares how big it gets...course all the ppl will do then is just spread FUD bout btcguild gonna do a 51% attack blah blah

Yes I do agree. But it is trust in a network. If someone is 51% then he can double spend his coins... And if the possibility exists people will be afraid. We all know there is no danger but we know he is OK. What about someone who don't. You need everyone to know there is no danger and miners are taking care of that. Even admin of BTC Guild is taking steps to decries his hasrate.

[autonomous42]

https://i.imgur.com/fBvICt8.png

Well that's something I've never seen before: two winning blocks found at the same time and the same height. At least this time we won the gravy. Side note, I just invented the phrase "to win the gravy".

[Psyrick]

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.

It is a 20% difference in shares. You had some problems in 19078. And if they were on the end of the round you are on a loosing side of this. But if there were on the start you would get about the same as for 18077. This is just a way it is with Slush method. Unless you are saying that you were mining all the time and you did monitor it or log it and you didn't see any brakes in mining.

P.S.: You are not big but BTC Guild has 51% problems. Consider any other pool to help them out.

     20% difference in shares is negligible compared to the factor of 180 between the rewards. Yes, I gave my GPUs a 5 minute cool down period near the end of the round. I don't think that deserves the loss of nearly all rewards from almost 2.5 hours of mining. I realize that is a matter of Slush's method, but that doesn't make it tolerable. I'm not a solo/pool jumper. I prevent my cards from cooking once in a while. This is not the first time I lose out due to short down periods. While I agree that giving more power and wealth to the already massive pool that charges 50% more than Slush is a bitter pill to swallow, I'm tired of being on the losing end. I know I'm not "big", but I'm certain I'm not the only one getting shafted this way.

[Trongersoll]

I don't understand the 51% problem...if the owner of btcguild can be trusted with all that btc to give out to miners and to be honest n stuff...and has great security measures...who cares how big it gets...course all the ppl will do then is just spread FUD bout btcguild gonna do a 51% attack blah blah

Yes I do agree. But it is trust in a network. If someone is 51% then he can double spend his coins... And if the possibility exists people will be afraid. We all know there is no danger but we know he is OK. What about someone who don't. You need everyone to know there is no danger and miners are taking care of that. Even admin of BTC Guild is taking steps to decries his hasrate.

the thing is, this is the Internet. when it comes to who is doing what, we actually know very little. Not accusing anyone of anything, just pointing out that anyone could run more than one pool under different names. If anyone actually wanted to control more than 51% and were well financed, there would be nothing anyone could do about it.

[GuiltySpark343]

Yes, I gave my GPUs a 5 minute cool down period near the end of the round. I don't think that deserves the loss of nearly all rewards from almost 2.5 hours of mining.

Just trying to be objective and helpful here. But I guess you could:
(a) invest in better cooling for your GPUs so you don't have to cool them down
(b) or move to a different pool with a different scoring method so your cooling periods do not adversely affect you.

For option (b), frankly most pools implement scoring methods to discourage pool hoppers. Now you may not be hopping on purpose, but you are disconnecting at various times to cool down your GPUs which will be viewed as the same thing. You might consider a strict PPS pool for that reason, but they charge high fees for a reason: it's risky for the pool and they could go out of business.

Other way to think about it, at Slush's if you "cool down" at the beginning of a round, then restart near the end, you'll submit less shares but still get full rewards as recent work is weighted more than old work. So at the end, in the LONG RUN, you even out!

[crashoveride54902]

yes i guess you have a point there too...but btc guild could solve this problem in one kick...ASICMINER off the pool bam problem solved..course then asicminer would move to different pool and then everyone would probably follow to that pool lol...something about everyone thinking...more blocks found = more reward period

I don't understand the 51% problem...if the owner of btcguild can be trusted with all that btc to give out to miners and to be honest n stuff...and has great security measures...who cares how big it gets...course all the ppl will do then is just spread FUD bout btcguild gonna do a 51% attack blah blah

Yes I do agree. But it is trust in a network. If someone is 51% then he can double spend his coins... And if the possibility exists people will be afraid. We all know there is no danger but we know he is OK. What about someone who don't. You need everyone to know there is no danger and miners are taking care of that. Even admin of BTC Guild is taking steps to decries his hasrate.

[Psyrick]

Yes, I gave my GPUs a 5 minute cool down period near the end of the round. I don't think that deserves the loss of nearly all rewards from almost 2.5 hours of mining.

Just trying to be objective and helpful here. But I guess you could...

I appreciate your helpfulness. My cooling system is about as windy as I can make it, but I like to overclock to within the limits of it's heat transfer capacity. I'm trying to avoid going the liquid cooling route. I often do seize the chance for a cool down at the end of a long round, but when they peak up to 98C and there's no telling how much longer the round is going to be, I feel I don't have a choice. Only takes a couple minutes to get them back down to 40. After a cool-down period of my own, I find myself not really liking the waters in the Guild's pool, and as mentioned, most other pools either have the same scoring system and/or higher fees. While invalid blocks and scored out rewards give me the blues, I'm still jumping right back into Slush's pool.

[crashoveride54902]

Yes, I gave my GPUs a 5 minute cool down period near the end of the round. I don't think that deserves the loss of nearly all rewards from almost 2.5 hours of mining.

Just trying to be objective and helpful here. But I guess you could...

I appreciate your helpfulness. My cooling system is about as windy as I can make it, but I like to overclock to within the limits of it's heat transfer capacity. I'm trying to avoid going the liquid cooling route. I often do seize the chance for a cool down at the end of a long round, but when they peak up to 98C and there's no telling how much longer the round is going to be, I feel I don't have a choice. Only takes a couple minutes to get them back down to 40. After a cool-down period of my own, I find myself not really liking the waters in the Guild's pool, and as mentioned, most other pools either have the same scoring system and/or higher fees. While invalid blocks and scored out rewards give me the blues, I'm still jumping right back into Slush's pool.

imho, your doing more damage to your video card heating it upto 98c n then back down to 40c do that over n over and i foresee cracked soldier joints on your gpu...just a warning...the expanding n shrinking isn't good for it

[Trongersoll]

Yes, I gave my GPUs a 5 minute cool down period near the end of the round. I don't think that deserves the loss of nearly all rewards from almost 2.5 hours of mining.

Just trying to be objective and helpful here. But I guess you could...

I appreciate your helpfulness. My cooling system is about as windy as I can make it, but I like to overclock to within the limits of it's heat transfer capacity. I'm trying to avoid going the liquid cooling route. I often do seize the chance for a cool down at the end of a long round, but when they peak up to 98C and there's no telling how much longer the round is going to be, I feel I don't have a choice. Only takes a couple minutes to get them back down to 40. After a cool-down period of my own, I find myself not really liking the waters in the Guild's pool, and as mentioned, most other pools either have the same scoring system and/or higher fees. While invalid blocks and scored out rewards give me the blues, I'm still jumping right back into Slush's pool.

imho, your doing more damage to your video card heating it upto 98c n then back down to 40c do that over n over and i foresee cracked soldier joints on your gpu...just a warning...the expanding n shrinking isn't good for it

could you use dry ice for cooling?

[kanta]

Yes, I gave my GPUs a 5 minute cool down period near the end of the round. I don't think that deserves the loss of nearly all rewards from almost 2.5 hours of mining.

Just trying to be objective and helpful here. But I guess you could...

I appreciate your helpfulness. My cooling system is about as windy as I can make it, but I like to overclock to within the limits of it's heat transfer capacity. I'm trying to avoid going the liquid cooling route. I often do seize the chance for a cool down at the end of a long round, but when they peak up to 98C and there's no telling how much longer the round is going to be, I feel I don't have a choice. Only takes a couple minutes to get them back down to 40. After a cool-down period of my own, I find myself not really liking the waters in the Guild's pool, and as mentioned, most other pools either have the same scoring system and/or higher fees. While invalid blocks and scored out rewards give me the blues, I'm still jumping right back into Slush's pool.

What GPUs are you using?  I understand water isn't for everyone, but if you want to try a better cooling method (assuming reference model cards) you can pick up an Arctic Cooling VGA cooler for between 70 and 100 bucks depending on which cooler you need.  The coolers are more or less like the vapor-x coolers on the sapphire cards, only many of them have 3 fans instead of 2

[GuiltySpark343]

Yep, and consider disassembling the GPU's heatsink/fan, cleaning everything, and reapplying thermal paste (TIM) on it. I've read lots of instances when the manufacturer does a crappy job making these interfaces, and temps drop after end users reapply the TIM.

Note: usually this will void your warranty!

[ewitte]

98c is too hot it's right at the point where it will start to throttle.  I moved a 7950 to another pc because it would do so with 2 cards installed.  Btw got one of bitvps' cases and pcie extensions for resolving the issue.

[ewitte]

Asicminer doesn't need a pool he hashes more than slush pool on his own lol

[crashoveride54902]

Asicminer doesn't need a pool he hashes more than slush pool on his own lol

yer right doesn't need...then why are they on btcguild?

[PookieB]

Is this why my most recent payout still has 0 conformations?

I'm seeing the same issue.  It took several hours for it to show up in my Bitcoin-qt wallet.  It's now been in my wallet for an hour and still has 0 confirmations.

PB

EDIT: After two hours I finally have one confirmation.  I've never seen it take that long before.

[Psyrick]

2 x Powercolor Radeon 7970 mounted in a CoolerMaster HAF 925 case with extra 120mm fans inside. 2 for push-pull CPU radiator and 2 blowing on the video card stack from the side. Don't know if an Accelero cooler would perform a great deal better, since the stock ones seem pretty well designed. I may remount the stock ones though. I work at a precision optical manufacturing company and I can use the lapping wheel to grind flat the contact surface to within microns. Could even polish it to within a quarter of a red photon, but I think that would be waste of time, as the thermal paste layer is never close to that thin, and the mirror surface might actually do a good job of reflecting thermal infrared back at the chip. Does anyone here have any experience with diluting silicone based heatsink compound with silicone lubricant or other liquid to reduce viscosity and drastically thin-out the layer? I once did this with GPU heatsink on my Nvidia GTX 570. I got it so well contacted, that you could lift and swing the thing from the bond with no movement. Unfortunately, I forgot to reinstall the aluminum mounting frame before the heatsink, so I had to take it back apart, and the next time around I didn't dilute the compound. So no results to compare.

[autonomous42]

2 x Powercolor Radeon 7970 mounted in a CoolerMaster HAF 925 case with extra 120mm fans inside. 2 for push-pull CPU radiator and 2 blowing on the video card stack from the side. Don't know if an Accelero cooler would perform a great deal better, since the stock ones seem pretty well designed. I may remount the stock ones though. I work at a precision optical manufacturing company and I can use the lapping wheel to grind flat the contact surface to within microns. Could even polish it to within a quarter of a red photon, but I think that would be waste of time, as the thermal paste layer is never close to that thin, and the mirror surface might actually do a good job of reflecting thermal infrared back at the chip. Does anyone here have any experience with diluting silicone based heatsink compound with silicone lubricant or other liquid to reduce viscosity and drastically thin-out the layer? I once did this with GPU heatsink on my Nvidia GTX 570. I got it so well contacted, that you could lift and swing the thing from the bond with no movement. Unfortunately, I forgot to reinstall the aluminum mounting frame before the heatsink, so I had to take it back apart, and the next time around I didn't dilute the compound. So no results to compare.

PROTIP: Ditch the case. I had a CoolerMaster HAF 912 and it wasn't as high-airflow as I'd hoped. Then I replaced it with this: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811353001.

Pros:
Air is free to flow around all components, moreso with an external fan.
Ability to add as many cards as your motherboard has slots.
Looks pretty cool.

Cons:
Dust, possibly.
Should be kept in a safe place free from foreign objects, water, and drop hazards