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

[dlefevre]

30 day luck as I write this is still at 97%.

That's low, but that's still normal.  If it gets closer to 90% then maybe it is time to worry, but +-3 or 4% is normal. 

Short term luck means more to human psychology, but we aren't outside of statistics just yet.

[organofcorti]

I use "expected" in the mathematical sense, to mean "average". If it's not working out like that, then either you're not allowing enough time for variance to reduce, or you're not taking into account network difficulty changes, or there's a problem at Slush's pool. It's shouldn't be too hard to figure out which if you have enough time and enough data.

Ya... I'm not dumb, I understand your usage of the terms, but academics and statistical modeling take a backseat occasionally during a discussion like this. Problem is no one is plotting the data, much less collecting it to quantify later for analysis; but I bet if you throw avg daily round times on a Pareto chart that this week and last show a major breakpoint in round length compared to a month ago. I feel like the reported "luck" is way off from what it actually is. We would get one 12 hour round per week before, now we almost get one per day.

I have been charting data for the network and for many pools for almost two years. The data is not pareto distributed, rather the average "luck" per n rounds is erlang distributed. PM me of you want more details, otherwise check out http://organofcorti.blogspot.com.au/search/label/weeklypoolstatistics.

[eleuthria]

Ya... I'm not dumb, I understand your usage of the terms, but academics and statistical modeling take a backseat occasionally during a discussion like this. Problem is no one is plotting the data, much less collecting it to quantify later for analysis; but I bet if you throw avg daily round times on a Pareto chart that this week and last show a major breakpoint in round length compared to a month ago. I feel like the reported "luck" is way off from what it actually is. We would get one 12 hour round per week before, now we almost get one per day.

While the pool speed at slush has been increasing, it has been decreasing as a percentage of the overall network steadily for quite a few months.  Compared to July, it is half the % of the network it used to be.  If a pool shrinks in its share of the network, the average round length will go up.  Looking at the *time* a round takes is a meaningless number compared to the Shares rounds take in comparison to difficulty.

Additionally, smaller share of the network means you will have more variance.  While your expected reward is the same, it will be made up of higher highs and lower lows when looked at over reasonable time frames (such as 30-days).

[newguy05]

another 10 hour block last night! Pool luck at (1 day, 7 days, 30 days):   78%, 88%, 96%

this is nuts, if it doesn't improve in the next 48 hours i am switching pools.  Understand this may just be all luck, but still it doesn't seem right, we are running at minimum 1-2 hrs per block which should be the average not min, while many blocks are 4 and above.

[KNK]

we are running at minimum 1-2 hrs per block which should be the average not min, while many blocks are 4 and above.

Not quite. The pool is just 5% of the network which makes 3h per round on average or 7-8 rounds per day - just count them for the last few days and you'll see they are 7 on average even with our bad luck

[morrisford]

Does anyone have information about payout comparisons between pools? For instance Slush has about 500 terahash and btcguild has about 2500 terahash. What would be the payout from each pool for the same amount of hashing?
Any comparison of the same type between pools would be of interest, not just btcguild.
Also, at the moment slush has found 3 blocks for today (24 Dec) and btcguild has found 22. That seems out of balance but maybe just because of short timeframes.

Morris

[dietrich67]

I have been charting data for the network and for many pools for almost two years. The data is not pareto distributed, rather the average "luck" per n rounds is erlang distributed. PM me of you want more details, otherwise check out http://organofcorti.blogspot.com.au/search/label/weeklypoolstatistics.

Do you have data showing luck by week? The more I watch these data, the more I don't think luck reverts to a mean.

[MrTeal]

I have been charting data for the network and for many pools for almost two years. The data is not pareto distributed, rather the average "luck" per n rounds is erlang distributed. PM me of you want more details, otherwise check out http://organofcorti.blogspot.com.au/search/label/weeklypoolstatistics.

Do you have data showing luck by week? The more I watch these data, the more I don't think luck reverts to a mean.

Just by virtue of big numbers and that old weeks drop off the 30 day average eventually. If you have a week of bad (or good) luck you're not any more or less likely have the same or different luck the next week.

[BuhTuglia]

we are running at minimum 1-2 hrs per block which should be the average not min, while many blocks are 4 and above.

Not quite. The pool is just 5% of the network which makes 3h per round on average or 7-8 rounds per day - just count them for the last few days and you'll see they are 7 on average even with our bad luck

I just find it stupendous to realize that at 500 terahashes, we are only 5% of the network. When did so many people get into this? Good grief. I am modifying my plan for every other person to voluntarily quit mining to every 2nd and 3rd person to quit, to make it more lucrative for those of us that remain. That's a joke, BTW.

[Matumaru]

The funny thing is not just the reward % that you lose every round due to the difficulty increase, but the number of solved blocks also went down for slush.

This means a 20% less than other pools. I can tell because I have 3 exact miners pointing to 3 different pools, and when the difficulty rise loss is more or less accurate in other pools, this time waqs cathastrophic for Slush.

For example, with 40GH i was making more or less 500K satoshi per solved block, about 0.05BTC per day before the last jump. Now is about 410K satoshi (which seems legit) but a 24h reward of 0.03BTC!!

Gentlemen... I don´t know if the pool can support 500TH, or whatever, but the difference is HUGE.

[BuhTuglia]

The funny thing is not just the reward % that you lose every round due to the difficulty increase, but the number of solved blocks also went down for slush.

<STUFF DELETED>

Gentlemen... I don´t know if the pool can support 500TH, or whatever, but the difference is HUGE.

Can support 500TH? What do you mean? Do you think the pool is having trouble keeping up with 500TH? Wouldn't that just result in a lot of invalid blocks? Or no blocks being found? Sorry; this is getting pretty arcane to me... After all this time I still don't understand the real nuts and bolts of what goes on...

[newguy05]

we are running at minimum 1-2 hrs per block which should be the average not min, while many blocks are 4 and above.

Not quite. The pool is just 5% of the network which makes 3h per round on average or 7-8 rounds per day - just count them for the last few days and you'll see they are 7 on average even with our bad luck

I just find it stupendous to realize that at 500 terahashes, we are only 5% of the network. When did so many people get into this? Good grief. I am modifying my plan for every other person to voluntarily quit mining to every 2nd and 3rd person to quit, to make it more lucrative for those of us that remain. That's a joke, BTW.

why is 500 TH stupendous to realize at 5%? we are closing in on 1 TH boxes, and very soon 2-3TH per box.  500TH is only <500 mining boxes,  they will be shipping thousands of them next year.  Once the asic and pcb design is finalized/stable, there is nothing left for those companies to do but pump out boxes assembly line style.  And there won't be kid gloves like what those scammers avalon/bfl did back then when they had monopoly, it will be a no hold barrel who can pump out the most 2-3TH boxes the fastest before profit=hardware manufacturing cost, antminer is already doing that using 180GH boxes. 

Like the saying goes, during the gold rush the ones making the most money are those selling the shovels.

[J_Dubbs]

I use "expected" in the mathematical sense, to mean "average". If it's not working out like that, then either you're not allowing enough time for variance to reduce, or you're not taking into account network difficulty changes, or there's a problem at Slush's pool. It's shouldn't be too hard to figure out which if you have enough time and enough data.

Ya... I'm not dumb, I understand your usage of the terms, but academics and statistical modeling take a backseat occasionally during a discussion like this. Problem is no one is plotting the data, much less collecting it to quantify later for analysis; but I bet if you throw avg daily round times on a Pareto chart that this week and last show a major breakpoint in round length compared to a month ago. I feel like the reported "luck" is way off from what it actually is. We would get one 12 hour round per week before, now we almost get one per day.

I have been charting data for the network and for many pools for almost two years. The data is not pareto distributed, rather the average "luck" per n rounds is erlang distributed. PM me of you want more details, otherwise check out http://organofcorti.blogspot.com.au/search/label/weeklypoolstatistics.

Wow, kudos for taking action, to be honest I've been looking for something like this. I'll dig in and let you know if I have questions, thanks!

[InfiniteGrim]

Can someone explain something to me...

My  ASIC blade #7 is saying its hashing at 10800 , yet Blade #1 is saying 10700. Now on the my account tab it says Blade #7 only has 1992 shares and is hashing at 6700, and Blade #1 has 3006 shares and is at 10500

What Gives?

[cenicsoft]

Can someone explain something to me...

My  ASIC blade #7 is saying its hashing at 10800 , yet Blade #1 is saying 10700. Now on the my account tab it says Blade #7 only has 1992 shares and is hashing at 6700, and Blade #1 has 3006 shares and is at 10500

What Gives?

Could be hardware errors or variance if you haven't been mining consistently for a long period of time.  Plus, there have been a few quick rounds which increases variance across workers.

[cenicsoft]

Did someone say something about bad luck?  What bad luck?  Maybe we can keep up the pace of 3 blocks an hour for a few days.  Wouldn't that be nice?

In the end, it's all about averages...

[timmmers]

we are running at minimum 1-2 hrs per block which should be the average not min, while many blocks are 4 and above.

Not quite. The pool is just 5% of the network which makes 3h per round on average or 7-8 rounds per day - just count them for the last few days and you'll see they are 7 on average even with our bad luck

I just find it stupendous to realize that at 500 terahashes, we are only 5% of the network. When did so many people get into this? Good grief. I am modifying my plan for every other person to voluntarily quit mining to every 2nd and 3rd person to quit, to make it more lucrative for those of us that remain. That's a joke, BTW.

why is 500 TH stupendous to realize at 5%? we are closing in on 1 TH boxes, and very soon 2-3TH per box.  500TH is only <500 mining boxes,  they will be shipping thousands of them next year.  Once the asic and pcb design is finalized/stable, there is nothing left for those companies to do but pump out boxes assembly line style.  And there won't be kid gloves like what those scammers avalon/bfl did back then when they had monopoly, it will be a no hold barrel who can pump out the most 2-3TH boxes the fastest before profit=hardware manufacturing cost, antminer is already doing that using 180GH boxes. 

Like the saying goes, during the gold rush the ones making the most money are those selling the shovels.

Spot on there. Dunno about Cointerra and the other half decent companies with big ASICs imminent but I do know that KNC sold 1200 3TH minimum rigs (in a day or so) due in about April and another batch the same size a week later, and if past performance is a measure they'll be faster by some margin and earlier than they say cautiously after the last run...so 2400 rigs @ 4TH each from just one manufacturer.
Those are 20nm boxes, next gen. I don't think they'll ever be available off the shelf from any manufacturer though...once it gets to that stage they won't be worth running. 2KW rigs costing 10k plus won't break even...in fact if I had paid for my KNC rig in BTC that would be a long way from break even now too..there may not be a rise in exchange rates to save future miners like the recent one.

[omegaflare]

I am getting my rig set up. Currently I have 0.2 BTC in my account, how do I forward it to my bitcoin address as of right now? I mean, the thresold is 1.0 so how long will it take to get into my account? Thanks.

[timmmers]

I am getting my rig set up. Currently I have 0.2 BTC in my account, how do I forward it to my bitcoin address as of right now? I mean, the thresold is 1.0 so how long will it take to get into my account? Thanks.

The threshold you can set to anything you like above the bottom limit , it takes a while to pay out to your wallet ...mine is set to 0.1 and usually I'm at 0.13 or so before it pays. OFC it's got to be confirmed

[omegaflare]

Thanks! I understand now!!!!!!

MERRY CHRISTMAS!