Altoidnerd
|
|
July 14, 2013, 06:32:15 AM |
|
Man has anyone seen block 19090? Just wondering.
|
|
|
|
bspurloc
|
|
July 14, 2013, 08:22:19 AM |
|
I want to make it official too:
19090 2013-07-14 00:12:53 4:20:53 65593477 5706 0.00000105
Yeah not likely it will be fixed with how fast confirms are lately! 19091 2013-07-14 04:32:07 4:19:14 65727074 13270 0.00485211 246473 25.08121000 76 confirmations left 19090 2013-07-14 00:12:53 4:20:53 65593477 13439 0.00000225 246435 25.41995000 38 confirmations left 19089 2013-07-13 19:52:00 0:11:51 3012117 590 0.00462108 246406 25.15460000 9 confirmations left
|
|
|
|
KNK
|
|
July 14, 2013, 08:26:53 AM |
|
You guys are lucky. I have whole 6 Satoshi on that block 19090 2013-07-14 00:12:53 4:20:53 65593477 513 0.00000006 246435 25.41995000 39 confirmations left and it's close to be confirmed, but i am not worried too much
|
|
|
|
cosurgi
|
|
July 14, 2013, 08:44:45 AM |
|
Man has anyone seen block 19090? Just wondering.
I confirm, round 19090 looks problematic.
|
|
|
|
TiborB
Member
Offline
Activity: 83
Merit: 10
|
|
July 14, 2013, 09:11:29 AM |
|
Man has anyone seen block 19090? Just wondering.
I confirm, round 19090 looks problematic. +1
|
|
|
|
tw2501
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 41
Merit: 0
|
|
July 14, 2013, 09:22:16 AM |
|
If this is not changed, I will leave the pool - over 4 hours and nothing??? Next block 1 min shorter and normal ...
19091 2013-07-14 04:32:07 4:19:14 65727074 10815 0.00429166 246473 25.08121000 19090 2013-07-14 00:12:53 4:20:53 65593477 10782 0.00000172 246435 25.41995000
And this is not the only one in the last days:
19080 (3:38) and 19068 (the nearly 12 hour block) I get only half of normal!
|
|
|
|
Beastlymac
|
|
July 14, 2013, 09:29:37 AM |
|
19090 2013-07-14 00:12:53 4:20:53 65593477 735 0.00000014
|
Message me if you have any problems
|
|
|
Altoidnerd
|
|
July 14, 2013, 09:36:14 AM |
|
Round 19090 eh...mere coincidence that it is 06061 upside down? hmm?
|
|
|
|
bitdude
|
|
July 14, 2013, 09:44:27 AM |
|
Obviously, if some ppl do not get points on quick blocks, some other will do. This is, however, another unpleasant factor that you can hardly affect.
Umm... no offense bitdude, but if your hardware isn't submitting shares quickly enough in short rounds... maybe its your hardware. Up until recently I was only running GPUs and the VAST majority of short blocks were well within the acceptable variability one should expect in a short round. Short rounds are unpredictable. If your miner(s) happen to be working on a higher diff share(s) during the short round you may not submit those in time to get in the round. Its the nature of mining. If you've changed your diff on your workers, maybe consider lowering it. All in all, the scoring system has some flaws that usually get fixed by Slush, but for the most part it works. If you don't like the variations in pay, thats ok, there are plenty of pools with very consistent pay (PPS or PPLNS). But don't go bashing Slush's system just cause you don't like it. Feel free to share concerns or ask questions, but bashing a system you don't seem to understand or like is kind of pointless. None taken Well my setup is as recommended - i.e. I have picked up the expected hash rate, which I did deliver in fact and the difficulty was selected. Hence if the difficulty setting is a problem here then the recommendation is poor in the combination with the scoring system. I'm not really saying that Slush's system is useless, it just does not handle these situations fairly - in my opinion. The scoring system itself should not, in my opinion again, force people to submit large number of low difficulty shares instead of working normal. I really think the suggested difficulty is correct here and it is the flaw of the scoring system. I think the problem is that it starts from the scratch with every new round. I do not really want to offend anyone here, just explaining why I left this pool - i.e. it might be the case that more people did not leave just because of poor luck ...
|
|
|
|
TiborB
Member
Offline
Activity: 83
Merit: 10
|
|
July 14, 2013, 10:06:34 AM |
|
19090 2013-07-14 00:12:53 4:20:53 65593477 735 0.00000014
No worries, magic happening right now - it looks like it will be fixed in a minute. T
|
|
|
|
bspurloc
|
|
July 14, 2013, 10:09:25 AM |
|
19090 2013-07-14 00:12:53 4:20:53 65593477 735 0.00000014
No worries, magic happening right now - it looks like it will be fixed in a minute. T rah 19090 fixed for me now
|
|
|
|
tw2501
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 41
Merit: 0
|
|
July 14, 2013, 10:13:28 AM |
|
19090 fixed for me.
|
|
|
|
Altoidnerd
|
|
July 14, 2013, 10:17:11 AM |
|
19090 is fixed for me SLUSH YOU DA MANG
|
|
|
|
Beastlymac
|
|
July 14, 2013, 10:26:31 AM |
|
19090 2013-07-14 00:12:53 4:20:53 65591273 735 0.00027915 Fixed thank you slush
|
Message me if you have any problems
|
|
|
paraipan
In memoriam
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 924
Merit: 1004
Firstbits: 1pirata
|
|
July 14, 2013, 10:31:13 AM Last edit: July 14, 2013, 11:18:23 AM by paraipan |
|
How is it possible to mine a bit more and be paid less? block time shares payout | | | 19080 2013-07-13 04:55:43 3:38:04 55146734 216320 0.06683271 246305 25.18400164 confirmado 19079 2013-07-13 01:17:39 3:28:34 53289059 206720 0.10828800 246282 25.48430000 confirmado Please explain slush! I don't see rounds under 0.08btc in my stats.
|
BTCitcoin: An Idea Worth Saving - Q&A with bitcoins on rugatu.com - Check my rep
|
|
|
STT
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4060
Merit: 1448
|
|
July 14, 2013, 11:10:16 AM |
|
I don't see rounds under 0.08btc in my stats.
Difficulty rose and others are hooking up asic which means anyone standing still appears to be going backwards, hence you recorded a new low payout. BTC is a hard road seems to me, I only hope its worth it and the world uses it more; so price rises
|
| CHIPS.GG | | | ▄▄███████▄▄ ▄████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀████▄ ▄███▀░▄░▀▀▀▀▀░▄░▀███▄ ▄███░▄▀░░░░░░░░░▀▄░███▄ ▄███░▄░░░▄█████▄░░░▄░███▄ ███░▄▀░░░███████░░░▀▄░███ ███░█░░░▀▀▀▀▀░░░▀░░░█░███ ███░▀▄░▄▀░▄██▄▄░▀▄░▄▀░███ ▀███░▀░▀▄██▀░▀██▄▀░▀░███▀ ▀███░▀▄░░░░░░░░░▄▀░███▀ ▀███▄░▀░▄▄▄▄▄░▀░▄███▀ ▀████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄████▀ █████████████████████████ | | ▄▄███████▄▄ ▄███████████████▄ ▄█▀▀▀▄█████████▄▀▀▀█▄ ▄██████▀▄█▄▄▄█▄▀██████▄ ▄████████▄█████▄████████▄ ████████▄███████▄████████ ███████▄█████████▄███████ ███▄▄▀▀█▀▀█████▀▀█▀▀▄▄███ ▀█████████▀▀██▀█████████▀ ▀█████████████████████▀ ▀███████████████████▀ ▀████▄▄███▄▄████▀ ████████████████████████ | | 3000+ UNIQUE GAMES | | | 12+ CURRENCIES ACCEPTED | | | VIP REWARD PROGRAM | | ◥ | Play Now |
|
|
|
paraipan
In memoriam
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 924
Merit: 1004
Firstbits: 1pirata
|
|
July 14, 2013, 11:19:49 AM Last edit: July 14, 2013, 11:40:18 AM by paraipan |
|
I don't see rounds under 0.08btc in my stats.
Difficulty rose and others are hooking up asic which means anyone standing still appears to be going backwards, hence you recorded a new low payout. BTC is a hard road seems to me, I only hope its worth it and the world uses it more; so price rises And what are you talking about? I only ask about 2 similar pool rounds that happen to be one next to other.
|
BTCitcoin: An Idea Worth Saving - Q&A with bitcoins on rugatu.com - Check my rep
|
|
|
angryrob
|
|
July 14, 2013, 11:20:06 AM |
|
all that stuff has to do with the scoring method that Slush's pool uses. note that in the explanation you aren't rewarded based only on the number of shares contributed, but based on your score. click on the "what is pooled mining?" on slush's site, and then click on "score-based reward system" that leads you here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1976.msg50002#msg50002the end result is that two seemingly identical rounds can have variance in their rewards, but over a 1-day and 7-day average all the variances average out. the score based reward system is designed to be a deterrent to pool-hoppers. (i'm not saying you were pool hopping, i'm saying the variance you see is a result of this anti-pool-hopping system) I think that this link has a pretty in-depth look at this whole process: http://organofcorti.blogspot.com/2012/09/43-slushs-score-method-and-miner.htmlit's from 2012 tho so i dunno if all that information is still exactly 100% correct. STT is also correct: if the hashrate of Slush's network rose between the two rounds, but your hashrate remains constant, then you will notice an increased variance between those two rounds. you end up with a smaller piece of the pie, because relative to the entire pool, you contributed slightly less. this goes back to the SCORING system: you are rewarded for your score relative to the rest of the pool, you arn't rewarded per share. obviously more shares = more score, so in a very basic sense you are rewarded per share, but as the links above describe, it's more complicated than that.
|
|
|
|
paraipan
In memoriam
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 924
Merit: 1004
Firstbits: 1pirata
|
|
July 14, 2013, 11:33:36 AM |
|
...
I know all about it, and the scoring system too. I was poolhopping 2 years ago but not the case here. The scoring method is designed to reward miners that stay until the block is found and pay only the last half of the shares used to find the block, basically inverse prop. payout. When organof started writing I was experiencing with it imo. As you probably can see I submitted more shares in the second round even though it lasted only 10 minutes more. My miner didn't disconnect from pool or anything, shares prove that. Btw, I hate the scoring system like everyone else because it penalizes miners for every possible failure, but what we're going to do if poolohoppers are far more dangerous yeah. I will hate Meni Rosenfeld for this one my whole life.
|
BTCitcoin: An Idea Worth Saving - Q&A with bitcoins on rugatu.com - Check my rep
|
|
|
angryrob
|
|
July 14, 2013, 11:42:18 AM |
|
well, you can claim to know about the scoring system, and then complain about it, but that is the reason you got less of a reward for one round vs another. you got paid for the % of your score vs the rest of the pool. you keep pointing back to your shares, but shares are not the full story. they don't reveal if you were scoring higher than average or scoring lower than average, and they also don't reveal how the rest of the pool was scoring.
|
|
|
|
|