PostMixer
Newbie
 Offline
Activity: 53
Merit: 0
|
 |
February 12, 2014, 07:26:00 PM |
|
bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch
Seriously, if you people think that Slush's pool is so bad, why do you stick around?
LEAVE
Find another pool.
But have you ever heard the quote that starts out with "the grass is always greener...."
Me? I started here and I'm staying here.
Can't we all just, get along?
The grass is always greener where you water it! |
|
|
|
|
Benjy_Bronk
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 37
Merit: 0
|
|
February 12, 2014, 07:30:54 PM |
|
bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch
Seriously, if you people think that Slush's pool is so bad, why do you stick around?
LEAVE
Find another pool.
But have you ever heard the quote that starts out with "the grass is always greener...."
Me? I started here and I'm staying here.
Can't we all just, get along?
The grass is always greener where you water it!And not so green where our dog decides to pee. |
|
|
|
|
PostMixer
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 53
Merit: 0
|
|
February 12, 2014, 07:45:20 PM |
|
I don't think it can be stressed enough to remind some people here:
The website that you are checking your stats on is a COMPLETELY different system than the actual pool hashing system. I have never lost any hashing when the website goes down. If the hashing servers go down, thats different, but that's not happened since I've been at this pool. There was a stratum server issue/interruption back on JAN 17th that affected a lot of people but not everyone. I never lost any connection but many others did. So yes, there are tech issues, and as mentioned earlier Slush has a great track record of rectifying these issues quickly. But IMO these issues play a very small part of the pool's "luck" as defined by CDF. In fact that day was rolling thru the blocks when that happened.
And I could not agree more with this statement :
"Seriously, if you people think that Slush's pool is so bad, why do you stick around? "
|
|
|
|
|
|
KNK
|
|
February 12, 2014, 07:56:33 PM |
|
Seriously, if you people think that Slush's pool is so bad, why do you stick around? This is the same for every pool and for Bitcoin as a whole - there are always people who are not happy with this or that, but I get enough assignments in grad school where I don't come here for additional formulas to compute. and they don't want to understand 'how it works', but then why are you in bitcoin and what do you expect from it i'll ask ?! The latest 'technical problem' with bitcoin is also a great example - it 'dropped the trust' and it's price because ... someone wrote so ... and no one wants to 'compute' what it means. In the last week i have explained to more than a dozen of friends that instead of depending on the txid one could simply check the receiving address transactions and the one from it's own address for the same value and at the same time to confirm it - it is just an ease to have it, but you don't need it. J_DubbsSomeone writes that 'pool problems' are causing 'the bad luck', then because no one wants to 'come here for additional formulas to compute' and accepts that as 'the sacred truth' moves away ... = Someone writes that there is a bug in bitcoin 'causing problems' ... are the problems real or imaginary no one wants to understand before 'jumping ship' My suggestion to those who don't want to 'compute' - get some one who want and can, someone you trust, ask him before you act ... but better still try to understand it yourself |
|
|
|
PostMixer
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 53
Merit: 0
|
|
February 12, 2014, 08:00:41 PM |
|
Seriously, if you people think that Slush's pool is so bad, why do you stick around? This is the same for every pool and for Bitcoin as a whole - there are always people who are not happy with this or that, but I get enough assignments in grad school where I don't come here for additional formulas to compute. and they don't want to understand 'how it works', but then why are you in bitcoin and what do you expect from it i'll ask ?! The latest 'technical problem' with bitcoin is also a great example - it 'dropped the trust' and it's price because ... someone wrote so ... and no one wants to 'compute' what it means. In the last week i have explained to more than a dozen of friends that instead of depending on the txid one could simply check the receiving address transactions and the one from it's own address for the same value and at the same time to confirm it - it is just an ease to have it, but you don't need it. J_DubbsSomeone writes that 'pool problems' are causing 'the bad luck', then because no one wants to 'come here for additional formulas to compute' and accepts that as 'the sacred truth' moves away ... = Someone writes that there is a bug in bitcoin 'causing problems' ... are the problems real or imaginary no one wants to understand before 'jumping ship' My suggestion to those who don't want to 'compute' - get some one who want and can, someone you trust, ask him before you act ... but better still try to understand it yourself AMEN! |
|
|
|
|
binja9
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 27
Merit: 0
|
|
February 12, 2014, 08:04:53 PM |
|
The problem with folk leaving and joining other pools is that Slush then becomes "the other side" which we know is always greener. oh dilema dilema.. There would be the sound of tiny brain cells exploding all over the world... Which to be fair would be slightly less annoying than the constant moaning. Just to define A Hobby is a pastime in which you sink your money and spare time for the enjoyment. An investment is a risk that the investor has weighed up and is happy to take in order to grow the original money. Easy money - well that is just left of the leprechaun at the end of the rainbow, sitting in the fountain of youth, sipping the elixir of life from the holy grail... ................................................... bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch
Seriously, if you people think that Slush's pool is so bad, why do you stick around?
LEAVE
Find another pool.
But have you ever heard the quote that starts out with "the grass is always greener...."
Me? I started here and I'm staying here.
Can't we all just, get along?
The grass is always greener where you water it! |
|
|
|
|
|
KNK
|
|
February 12, 2014, 08:20:42 PM |
|
Just to define
A Hobby is a pastime in which you sink your money and spare time for the enjoyment.
An investment is a risk that the investor has weighed up and is happy to take in order to grow the original money.
Easy money - well that is just left of the leprechaun at the end of the rainbow, sitting in the fountain of youth, sipping the elixir of life from the holy grail...
Agree ... and the thing is that many accept it as 'investment' but have not 'weighted it up' ... many expect easy money and are frustrated that it's not the case. Pick your own: 'Hobby' without torturing your brain or 'Investment' for which you must do your homework. |
|
|
|
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1007
Poor impulse control.
|
|
February 12, 2014, 09:17:41 PM
Last edit: February 13, 2014, 12:31:02 AM by organofcorti |
|
I get enough assignments in grad school where I don't come here for additional formulas to compute. My reason is not to bitch about it; I'm pointing out the flaw where people act as if they know for a fact that "luck" is "pure". If something technical on the website that we don't know about results in longer rounds then "luck" is contaminated by the special cause event. I've had people tell me on this thread to look up the definition of "luck", but my point is the term definition assumes an uncorrupt system of chance. When I use the word corruption this does not mean wrongdoing or theft, it simply means a force other than pure luck is at play. Everytime we have a terrible run there is a technical problem, sometimes it is announced after, and everytime it is resolved we get restored to normal state that is perceived as "good" luck, which is really just nothing more than "normal"- it's perception.
Your statement is, on the face of it, pretty reasonable, and when I first started mining I often wondered the same thing. That's why knowing the exact probability distribution to which shares (edit: submitted shares/ expected shares) belong is so important - you can easily find out exactly how probable a certain group of results should be, and it's how I discovered Bitclockers were not paying their miners appropriately and reporting fallacious data. A few pages back I provided a method to do exactly that, without any need for formulae (yay!). Why don't you check the results yourself? There might actually be a problem, and if you can prove it you'll save a lot of people (including yourself) a lot of heartbreak. If not, you'll be much more comfortable dealing with variance since you can prove to yourself it's within acceptable limits. |
|
|
|
|
ZephramC
|
|
February 12, 2014, 10:55:06 PM |
|
The grass is always greener where you water it!
The problem of greener grass and faster progressing queue is also a statistical one.  Imagine you finish your shopping at supermarket and arrive to cash. There are several queues. Let's say N queues. (Alternatively you have N mining pools with various levels of momentary luck.) One and only 1 of those N possibilities is the best one, the fastest one, the greenest, the luckiest. You choose one variant randomly. Your chance of hitting the best one is 1/N. In all other cases (more probable for N>2) it is always "it is better somewhere else" or "that queue over there is advancing faster". |
|
|
|
|
zjonathan
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 1
Merit: 0
|
|
February 13, 2014, 12:17:16 AM |
|
I am a newbie here, and to mining (man I wish I would have started a long time ago). That being said, I have done a lot of reading and research on the subject.
So first, I agree that people need to quit whining, especially when they don't understand the math and statistics involved. But second, if there ARE technical issues, it would be beneficial to be transparent about it. If there are NOT technical issues, then, when things appear to not be going well, an occasional post to confirm that everything is working fine on the back-end and the pool is indeed experiencing bad "luck" would at least show that the owner of the pool is taking care of things.
As for me, I understand what I got into, and Slush has had a good reputation for quite some time.
But in the end, there will always be whiners...
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmmers
|
|
February 13, 2014, 03:25:21 AM |
|
Some irrelevent crap here lately, Slush is small now, hence the stats. Easy as that. Telling people to bugger off and being a dick doesn't help anyone, it makes it worse.
Variance has evened out the bad times in the past, but that's not happening so much recently maybe because it's a smaller pool after the bad times with less chance of making up the average. IF it stayed the same size then it would probably even out but if it reduces to any noticable extent that can't happen logically because Slush won't have the same hashpower to do it.
Larger pools have more stable average results, there is no grass, only logic.
|
|
|
|
|
Trongersoll
|
|
February 13, 2014, 03:43:22 AM |
|
Ok, since everyone is looking for something to blame, here is something to think about. The Pool's adjusted difficulty seems to be adjusted in steps. A certain hashrate range gets a certain difficulty. Cross the border by even one hash and you get then next difficulty. Does a hashrate at the low end of the range for a given difficulty receive fewer shares than the hashrate at the high end of the range because it has fewer finds to submit? An example, becuase i think i stated this awkwardly.
I have a miner that shows 36 Gh/s on CGminer and shows about 31 - 33 Gh/s on the Pool. This is about a 10% difference which i think is acceptable. But, all my other miners which are in the 10 - 12 Gh/s range show exactly the expected hashrate.
I'm thinking that perhaps if my 36 Gh/s miner were on the high side of the range for it's difficulty, it's hashrate would be more accurate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
eoakland
|
|
February 13, 2014, 03:57:34 AM |
|
Ok, since everyone is looking for something to blame, here is something to think about. The Pool's adjusted difficulty seems to be adjusted in steps. A certain hashrate range gets a certain difficulty. Cross the border by even one hash and you get then next difficulty. Does a hashrate at the low end of the range for a given difficulty receive fewer shares than the hashrate at the high end of the range because it has fewer finds to submit? An example, becuase i think i stated this awkwardly.
I have a miner that shows 36 Gh/s on CGminer and shows about 31 - 33 Gh/s on the Pool. This is about a 10% difference which i think is acceptable. But, all my other miners which are in the 10 - 12 Gh/s range show exactly the expected hashrate.
I'm thinking that perhaps if my 36 Gh/s miner were on the high side of the range for it's difficulty, it's hashrate would be more accurate.
factor in the HW error rate if your hashing is off. so even if your 36 says it's going 36 it still loses on hw failure. FYI, since i bailed, i have more than doubled what i would have made if i stayed with slush. i think there are other technical behind the scene issues at work other than "bad luck". but that is just my opinion. |
|
|
|
|
PostMixer
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 53
Merit: 0
|
|
February 13, 2014, 04:02:11 AM |
|
If this: http://blockorigin.pfoe.be/chart.php is to be believed then I think if you knew the hash power at GHash.IO which has 31.3% and Slush's which is 3.5% you could easily see if the "luck" is across the board. Does GHash.IO have roughly 10x the Ghash/s as we have here? |
|
|
|
|
Scyntech
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 349
Merit: 250
“Blockchain Just Entered The Real World”
|
|
February 13, 2014, 04:04:24 AM |
|
Ok, since everyone is looking for something to blame, here is something to think about. The Pool's adjusted difficulty seems to be adjusted in steps. A certain hashrate range gets a certain difficulty. Cross the border by even one hash and you get then next difficulty. Does a hashrate at the low end of the range for a given difficulty receive fewer shares than the hashrate at the high end of the range because it has fewer finds to submit? An example, becuase i think i stated this awkwardly.
I have a miner that shows 36 Gh/s on CGminer and shows about 31 - 33 Gh/s on the Pool. This is about a 10% difference which i think is acceptable. But, all my other miners which are in the 10 - 12 Gh/s range show exactly the expected hashrate.
I'm thinking that perhaps if my 36 Gh/s miner were on the high side of the range for it's difficulty, it's hashrate would be more accurate.
factor in the HW error rate if your hashing is off. so even if your 36 says it's going 36 it still loses on hw failure. FYI, since i bailed, i have more than doubled what i would have made if i stayed with slush. i think there are other technical behind the scene issues at work other than "bad luck". but that is just my opinion. Have to agree with eoakland on this one. I've been watching Slush's pool for over 3 months. I've never seen it like this. Granted The pool has been around much longer. I have never noticed the number drop like this, then again I'm still very new to the scene. |
|
|
|
PostMixer
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 53
Merit: 0
|
|
February 13, 2014, 04:05:32 AM |
|
Ok, since everyone is looking for something to blame, here is something to think about. The Pool's adjusted difficulty seems to be adjusted in steps. A certain hashrate range gets a certain difficulty. Cross the border by even one hash and you get then next difficulty. Does a hashrate at the low end of the range for a given difficulty receive fewer shares than the hashrate at the high end of the range because it has fewer finds to submit? An example, becuase i think i stated this awkwardly.
I have a miner that shows 36 Gh/s on CGminer and shows about 31 - 33 Gh/s on the Pool. This is about a 10% difference which i think is acceptable. But, all my other miners which are in the 10 - 12 Gh/s range show exactly the expected hashrate.
I'm thinking that perhaps if my 36 Gh/s miner were on the high side of the range for it's difficulty, it's hashrate would be more accurate.
factor in the HW error rate if your hashing is off. so even if your 36 says it's going 36 it still loses on hw failure. FYI, since i bailed, i have more than doubled what i would have made if i stayed with slush. i think there are other technical behind the scene issues at work other than "bad luck". but that is just my opinion. Where did you bail too that had this wondrous fortune that you speak of?  |
|
|
|
|
|
eoakland
|
|
February 13, 2014, 04:26:51 AM |
|
Ok, since everyone is looking for something to blame, here is something to think about. The Pool's adjusted difficulty seems to be adjusted in steps. A certain hashrate range gets a certain difficulty. Cross the border by even one hash and you get then next difficulty. Does a hashrate at the low end of the range for a given difficulty receive fewer shares than the hashrate at the high end of the range because it has fewer finds to submit? An example, becuase i think i stated this awkwardly.
I have a miner that shows 36 Gh/s on CGminer and shows about 31 - 33 Gh/s on the Pool. This is about a 10% difference which i think is acceptable. But, all my other miners which are in the 10 - 12 Gh/s range show exactly the expected hashrate.
I'm thinking that perhaps if my 36 Gh/s miner were on the high side of the range for it's difficulty, it's hashrate would be more accurate.
factor in the HW error rate if your hashing is off. so even if your 36 says it's going 36 it still loses on hw failure. FYI, since i bailed, i have more than doubled what i would have made if i stayed with slush. i think there are other technical behind the scene issues at work other than "bad luck". but that is just my opinion. Where did you bail too that had this wondrous fortune that you speak of? i split time with ghash and btc guild (by fluke, as i have it as my failover) |
|
|
|
|
anthem
Member
Offline
Activity: 72
Merit: 10
|
|
February 13, 2014, 05:17:36 AM |
|
something just reset on the pool. estimated payout just went to 1/4 of what is usual. . its slowly recovering again so won't be an issue if the round doesn't end in the next 5-10 minutes. . but something does appear to be up with stability as this happened a couple days ago as well. . generally not an issue unless the round ends when all the numbers are off. . .
And yes, I imagine if you were in another pool the last few days, you probably would have made 3x more than here because the pool luck has really hammered that this week. . I'm off about 60% over previous expected results mainly due to these long blocks. .
Whats also crazy is that I think the pool looks to be down about 710Th - thats almost 200TH loss in the last few days. . .so payouts are probably edging up, but times are going to be longer. . that still doesn't offset the run of bad luck this week though.
|
|
|
|
|
shazo
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 23
Merit: 0
|
|
February 13, 2014, 03:08:34 PM |
|
I have been running 5 antminer u1's for 2 or 3 weeks now and I have a USB fan to cool them. When I started using them I noticed based on the site for the pool I was getting about 7 to 8 Mhash/s. Now I'm getting just over 6. Is this due to difficulty going up or do I have a miner about to fail?
|
|
|
|
|
cyberm
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 47
Merit: 0
|
|
February 13, 2014, 03:29:14 PM |
|
I have been running 5 antminer u1's for 2 or 3 weeks now and I have a USB fan to cool them. When I started using them I noticed based on the site for the pool I was getting about 7 to 8 Mhash/s. Now I'm getting just over 6. Is this due to difficulty going up or do I have a miner about to fail?
if you are only getting 7 or 8 MH there is something really wrong. you should getting GH |
|
|
|
|
|
