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

[ColdHardMetal]

The sense of entitlement of some of the people posting in this thread is pretty appalling.

[1714988832]

1714988832

[1714988832]

1714988832

[1714988832]

1714988832

[FairUser]

Am I just unlucky, or is something screwy going on here?

A lot of people seem to be getting unlucky here.

[OneFixt]

Am I just unlucky, or is something screwy going on here?

A lot of people seem to be getting unlucky here.

The lucky ones just don't speak up.

With all due respect to everyone who believes that their mining efficiency is suboptimal: you may look for problems in your mining setups, in the network load, in the protocol, in bitcoin bugs, or in the state of the moon and the tide, but please don't question Slush's integrity or his intentions.  Baselessly accusing a long-standing and productive member of the bitcoin community only reflects badly upon the accuser.  If you have a comment or a real issue, please state it respectfully and it will be addressed.

[M4v3R]

Hi,

I've started the minerd on by Ubuntu box, which is severly underpowered, but running all the time, so it's not a big deal for me. I only wonder if it will gain anything. It is working for 10 hours now, and I only see these messages:

Code:

HashMeter(0): 1097151 hashes, 195.05 khash/sec
HashMeter(0): 1097151 hashes, 196.67 khash/sec
HashMeter(0): 1097151 hashes, 195.52 khash/sec
HashMeter(0): 1097151 hashes, 196.55 khash/sec
HashMeter(0): 1097151 hashes, 196.77 khash/sec
HashMeter(0): 1097151 hashes, 196.66 khash/sec
HashMeter(0): 1097151 hashes, 196.27 khash/sec
HashMeter(0): 1097151 hashes, 196.17 khash/sec
HashMeter(0): 1097151 hashes, 196.61 khash/sec
HashMeter(0): 1097151 hashes, 196.68 khash/sec

Is this normal? My stats on the page also show nothing (no shares done). I know that 195 khash/sec is laughable, but it's better than nothing, and my other box is OSX and I didn't find any miners that can run on OSX's CPU (only GPU ones).

[BitterTea]

Based on this formula, you should receive one share every 6 hours on average.

time = difficulty * 2**32 / hashrate

Shares are "blocks" with a difficulty of one, and your hash rate is ~190000 hashes/second. 1 * 4294967296 / 190000 / 3600 =~ 6.25

So 10 hours without receiving a share is not crazy. Additionally, Slush's stats are delayed by a couple of hours, to prevent pool abuse.

[[Tycho]]

It seems like you took the option to change passwords away too. 
How do I delete my account, or change my password?

Use "forgot my password" to change it.

[slush]

It seems like you took the option to change passwords away too. 

No, it is still here, "Forgot password?" on login page.

How do I delete my account, or change my password?

No "delete account" feature. Don't use it or write me and I'll delete it manually.

Why not show the Hall of Fame anymore?  How can that screw anyone?

Anti cheating. 60% of blocks were generated by top20 users.

Seriously, what's your deal dude? 

Provide fair pool for everyone.

Why are you taking away all the features/information people want? 
Every week something else is going away...

Read previous posts and also thread about cheating on the pool. And I removed those stats at once, there is nothing as "less info every day".

It's always pleasure to read you.

[FairUser]

Why not show the Hall of Fame anymore?  How can that screw anyone?

Anti cheating. 60% of blocks were generated by top20 users.

What?!  If anything it provided a means for the top20 users to make sure we weren't being cheated!!

"Anti cheating" is totally a straw-man's argument.  How can the Hall of Fame can be used to cheat the pool?
If I'm wrong then please explain how can the Hall of Fame be used by me or anyone else to cheat the pool?

[Raulo]

"Anti cheating" is totally a straw-man's argument.  How can the Hall of Fame can be used to cheat the pool?
If I'm wrong then please explain how can the Hall of Fame be used by me or anyone else to cheat the pool?

Cheating requires knowing when the current round started. Somebody can monitor Hall of Fame and notice incrementation of the scores which with 60% probability suggests a new round.

But why not delay the Hall of Fame by 2 hours?

[FairUser]

"Anti cheating" is totally a straw-man's argument.  How can the Hall of Fame can be used to cheat the pool?
If I'm wrong then please explain how can the Hall of Fame be used by me or anyone else to cheat the pool?

Cheating requires knowing when the current round started.

Negative.  Because slush implemented the "if the answer for your getwork didn't come from the current bitcoin block, then it's going to be treated as invalid" rule, letting people see when the round begins or ends doesn't magically enable them to "spend" their getwork answer's on the next round...and it's  *BECAUSE* of that new rule the fraud stopped (which is good). 

Stripping all the extra stats from accounts was not required to stop fraud, it was excessive, and taking down the hall of fame was not required, it was overkill.  His one fix was sufficient, while still enabling the users to know the operator was being honest.  Now that's not the case.

But why not delay the Hall of Fame by 2 hours?

That would be a viable option for the extra paranoid server operator.

[geebus]

Because slush implemented the "if the answer for your getwork didn't come from the current bitcoin block, then it's going to be treated as invalid" rule, letting people see when the round begins or ends doesn't magically enable them to "spend" their getwork answer's on the next round...and it's  *BECAUSE* of that new rule the fraud stopped (which is good).

Exactly. No reason to remove everything else if you're only accepting shares for the current block. Not round. Block.

[slush]

But why not delay the Hall of Fame by 2 hours?

Raulo, it is because current implementation - when worker find a block, I simply do +1 in its database record. There are no timestamps, which I can filter on those 2 hours, like in block history. There is even no database relation between worker and block record, because workers can disappear if user want it, so I cannot even filter this using joins on worker and block tables.

[slush]

Exactly. No reason to remove everything else if you're only accepting shares for the current block. Not round. Block.

I'm kindly asking you, geebus and FairUser, to stop trolling here again, as you did in m0mchil thread few days ago. I discussed those things many HOURS via PMs and on public forum and I'm really bored with you, guys, because you don't _want_ to understand.

Only short response to your misunderstoods: Solution as you are proposing isn't working right. Please read discussion about pool abusing.

[slush]

That would be a viable option for the extra paranoid server operator.

Which I'm and I'm proud on it. Again, again, again. All stats will be back. So what's your point? If I did not do anything to stop possible cheating, YOU will be the first person complaining I don't care enough.

And please STOP DISCUSSUON about this. Everything was written here, please read it before asking again.

[FairUser]

That would be a viable option for the extra paranoid server operator.

If I did not do anything to stop possible cheating, YOU will be the first person complaining I don't care enough.

Bullshit.  You and I discussed in PM about how to stop this.. I even told you how to modify your bitcoind to prevent an attacker from taking advantage of the 8 connection max hardcoded limit (then it got fixed officially)....so don't give me that shit.

[geebus]

I'm kindly asking you, geebus and FairUser, to stop trolling here again, as you did in m0mchil thread few days ago. I discussed those things many HOURS via PMs and on public forum and I'm really bored with you, guys, because you don't _want_ to understand.

Only short response to your misunderstoods: Solution as you are proposing isn't working right. Please read discussion about pool abusing.

I don't understand why you take my comments as "trolling" in either your thread or m0mchill's when the intent of our fork of his code was to reduce the load on your server.

It's been said multiple times that it's all a matter of "luck" or completely random that one of those hashes could be the resolution to the block, so what harm is there in submitting multiple results for the same getwork and cutting the overhead down by not having to ask for new work every 5 seconds?

Wouldn't that eliminate your need for forced donations?

Also, you've said that you were only accepting shares for the current block, and unless you meant round, I don't see how any of those proposed "pool exploits" are viable anymore. All I asked was why they were needed in this case and you attack me for trolling.

Are you taking personal offense to this or something?

[FairUser]

Exactly. No reason to remove everything else if you're only accepting shares for the current block. Not round. Block.

I'm kindly asking you, geebus and FairUser, to stop trolling here again, as you did in m0mchil thread few days ago.

Dude, our modifications to momchill's miner would seriously reduced the load on your server......yet we're trolling?  WTF Ever.
Diablo's miner does this already, but momchills doesn't. That's the point we were making on m0mchill's thread.

[JA37]

A whole day and not a single share found for me. I think this pool is not for us small miners anymore. 4khash is obviously not worth anything.
Shame, but fun while it lasted.

[slush]

A whole day and not a single share found for me. I think this pool is not for us small miners anymore. 4khash is obviously not worth anything.
Shame, but fun while it lasted.

Pool does not change anything against small members. Workers still solve blocks for difficulty 1. But your hashrate is _extremely_ low. Can I ask you which hardware are you using? I'm guessing some Javascript miner or mobile phone... :-) Reasonable minimum for CPU mining is 1000 khash/s, it can be done even with old laptops.

With yours 4 khash/s, your average time to find one share is 1 week, 5 days, 10 hours and average time to find full block (50 BTC) is 323095 days, 8 hours, 2 minutes.

[JA37]

Right, it's not 4khash, its 4000khash.