cardgenius
Newbie
 Offline
Activity: 2
Merit: 0
|
 |
February 26, 2014, 06:24:41 PM |
|
I've made more on the current difficulty with BTC Guild than I did with Slush at the last difficulty. And that's with 2 days left till the next increase.
For me, the last 30 days on Slush have been the worst in almost 12 months of mining.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin addresses contain a checksum, so it is very unlikely that mistyping an address will cause you to lose money.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
ccynthia
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 52
Merit: 0
|
|
February 26, 2014, 07:14:11 PM |
|
I've made more on the current difficulty with BTC Guild than I did with Slush at the last difficulty. And that's with 2 days left till the next increase.
For me, the last 30 days on Slush have been the worst in almost 12 months of mining.
Hey there everone. How's it going. Sure seems like a lot of people like coming to this forum to complain yet say they are on other pools. Ok good for you - go back to your other pool and leave us alone. Most of us have tried and are still on other pools to some extent but we remain here, why. Better payouts over time. Right now my BTC is better than Slush but on average can't compare the two since BTC has a very low payout. And for those a little bigger why stay here, because you are a big boy here and when blocks are found get a good reward but on other pools you are just a little guy with little payouts. My opinion. Gets so old all the complaining going on here - who cares! |
|
|
|
|
Benjy_Bronk
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 37
Merit: 0
|
|
February 26, 2014, 07:21:12 PM |
|
I've made more on the current difficulty with BTC Guild than I did with Slush at the last difficulty. And that's with 2 days left till the next increase.
For me, the last 30 days on Slush have been the worst in almost 12 months of mining.
Hey there everone. How's it going. Sure seems like a lot of people like coming to this forum to complain yet say they are on other pools. Ok good for you - go back to your other pool and leave us alone. Most of us have tried and are still on other pools to some extent but we remain here, why. Better payouts over time. Right now my BTC is better than Slush but on average can't compare the two since BTC has a very low payout. And for those a little bigger why stay here, because you are a big boy here and when blocks are found get a good reward but on other pools you are just a little guy with little payouts. My opinion. Gets so old all the complaining going on here - who cares! +1 |
|
|
|
|
binja9
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 27
Merit: 0
|
|
February 26, 2014, 08:01:27 PM |
|
I've made more on the current difficulty with BTC Guild than I did with Slush at the last difficulty. And that's with 2 days left till the next increase.
For me, the last 30 days on Slush have been the worst in almost 12 months of mining.
Hey there everone. How's it going. Sure seems like a lot of people like coming to this forum to complain yet say they are on other pools. Ok good for you - go back to your other pool and leave us alone. Most of us have tried and are still on other pools to some extent but we remain here, why. Better payouts over time. Right now my BTC is better than Slush but on average can't compare the two since BTC has a very low payout. And for those a little bigger why stay here, because you are a big boy here and when blocks are found get a good reward but on other pools you are just a little guy with little payouts. My opinion. Gets so old all the complaining going on here - who cares! +1 Agree wholeheartedly - please take your Bitcoin moaning hardware elsewhere. That'll take the pool down to a managable level of around 8-825TH and we can watch the 'luck' go up. Adios, dont hurry back - luv ya.... |
|
|
|
|
|
KNK
|
|
February 26, 2014, 08:18:00 PM |
|
Unfortunately there is no relation between the pool size and the luck in the direction you want. It's the opposite ...
When the luck increases - more people are joining, but then it should go down to compensate it and it look like the higher hashrate is causing the bad luck, but it is not. If no new miners join the pool a 12h block will actually take 13h
Why 'unfortunately'? Because if it was true, then a solo miner with CPU, would have much more luck and much bigger reward, then no one would need to join a pool at all.
|
|
|
|
anthem
Member
Offline
Activity: 72
Merit: 10
|
|
February 26, 2014, 08:40:18 PM |
|
Unfortunately there is no relation between the pool size and the luck in the direction you want. It's the opposite ...
When the luck increases - more people are joining, but then it should go down to compensate it and it look like the higher hashrate is causing the bad luck, but it is not. If no new miners join the pool a 12h block will actually take 13h
Why 'unfortunately'? Because if it was true, then a solo miner with CPU, would have much more luck and much bigger reward, then no one would need to join a pool at all.
actually not totally true. . luck will change regardless of whether people are joining or leaving. . . agree that higher hash rate is not causing bad luck (or good luck). . . over time "luck" should be 100 over time. . However, when you're talking 6 or so samples per day, its possible to have luck be good or bad and not come back to the average for long periods of time. . . Its not unheard of to have good luck for 25 days or bad luck for 25 days because the sample sizes are too small. .. |
|
|
|
|
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1007
Poor impulse control.
|
|
February 26, 2014, 09:07:02 PM |
|
Unfortunately there is no relation between the pool size and the luck in the direction you want. It's the opposite ...
When the luck increases - more people are joining, but then it should go down to compensate it and it look like the higher hashrate is causing the bad luck, but it is not. If no new miners join the pool a 12h block will actually take 13h
Why 'unfortunately'? Because if it was true, then a solo miner with CPU, would have much more luck and much bigger reward, then no one would need to join a pool at all.
actually not totally true. . luck will change regardless of whether people are joining or leaving. . . agree that higher hash rate is not causing bad luck (or good luck). . . over time "luck" should be 100 over time. . However, when you're talking 6 or so samples per day, its possible to have luck be good or bad and not come back to the average for long periods of time. . . Its not unheard of to have good luck for 25 days or bad luck for 25 days because the sample sizes are too small. .. Here's how you should calculate and interpret luck: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1976.msg5071405#msg5071405 |
|
|
|
dlefevre
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 20
Merit: 0
|
|
February 26, 2014, 11:00:18 PM |
|
oh what the fuck.
|
|
|
|
|
divinesnail01
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 19
Merit: 0
|
|
February 26, 2014, 11:38:14 PM |
|
... I kind of like the roller coaster myself. Brings out the good and bad in everyone like a Bitcoin mining soap opera. Over time it's all the same IMHO. There's no magic pool or else everyone would be there.
+1 |
|
|
|
|
MrTeal
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1274
Merit: 1004
|
|
February 27, 2014, 12:59:49 AM |
|
Or you could all just go look at organofcorti's excellent weekly blog post, which lists the luck for most of the major pools.  |
|
|
|
|
PostMixer
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 53
Merit: 0
|
|
February 27, 2014, 04:40:46 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
necro_nemesis
|
|
February 27, 2014, 05:12:30 AM |
|
Trying to chase luck makes about as much sense as granny tiltin' her chair on the slot she's been dropping nickels in because someone else might cash in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
bspurloc
|
|
February 27, 2014, 06:47:08 AM |
|
at least we got 2nd place in orphaned blocks. |
|
|
|
|
binja9
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 27
Merit: 0
|
|
February 27, 2014, 07:30:41 AM |
|
Unfortunately there is no relation between the pool size and the luck in the direction you want. It's the opposite ...
When the luck increases - more people are joining, but then it should go down to compensate it and it look like the higher hashrate is causing the bad luck, but it is not. If no new miners join the pool a 12h block will actually take 13h
Why 'unfortunately'? Because if it was true, then a solo miner with CPU, would have much more luck and much bigger reward, then no one would need to join a pool at all.
I'm also afraid to tell you that 'luck' does not exist - you can calculate probability but not luck (unless someone could post the calculation for the likelihood of luck existing)... One certainty is that as the pool grows then so does the traffic into servers and it doesn't matter how much hashing goes on, it has to get to a server and 800-825TH seems to be the current 'lucky' number range. |
|
|
|
|
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1007
Poor impulse control.
|
|
February 27, 2014, 08:06:55 AM |
|
I'm also afraid to tell you that 'luck' does not exist - you can calculate probability but not luck (unless someone could post the calculation for the likelihood of luck existing)...
'Luck' exists, silly! If you earned more than expected, you've had good 'luck'. If you earned less than expected, you had bad 'luck'. One certainty is that as the pool grows then so does the traffic into servers and it doesn't matter how much hashing goes on, it has to get to a server and 800-825TH seems to be the current 'lucky' number range.
No, the traffic problem is what vardiff solves. |
|
|
|
|
KNK
|
|
February 27, 2014, 09:06:04 AM |
|
One certainty is that as the pool grows then so does the traffic into servers and it doesn't matter how much hashing goes on, it has to get to a server and 800-825TH seems to be the current 'lucky' number range.
No, the traffic problem is what vardiff solves. True, but binja9 is also right - vardiff solves the problem for a single miner and his hashrate, but more miners means more traffic. If a single miner points more of his equipment at Slush, the pool will change his vardiff and the traffic and server load will remain the same. If 1000 miners point 1Gh at the pool they will increase the traffic and the server load for just 1Th increase. Still the pool hashrate is not related to the load it takes to serve it. I am sure in such cases Slush just starts an additional stratum back-end (or adds a CPU to the virtual server instance) to take the load. With getwork the load was many times more than with stratum, so we are far from the limit. I also have a reason to believe that most of the processing is done in the startum back end servers, so adding another one scales almost linearly. |
|
|
|
binja9
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 27
Merit: 0
|
|
February 27, 2014, 10:05:34 AM |
|
I'm also afraid to tell you that 'luck' does not exist - you can calculate probability but not luck (unless someone could post the calculation for the likelihood of luck existing)...
'Luck' exists, silly! If you earned more than expected, you've had good 'luck'. If you earned less than expected, you had bad 'luck'. One certainty is that as the pool grows then so does the traffic into servers and it doesn't matter how much hashing goes on, it has to get to a server and 800-825TH seems to be the current 'lucky' number range.
No, the traffic problem is what vardiff solves. Of course luck doesn't exist it is a convenient word to cover bad judgement, calculations or events we choose not to understand or have control of. If you expect to earn X and you earn Y then a force has acted upon X to move its value to Y - an event, not luck. Either way your expectation/calculation was wrong. |
|
|
|
|
binja9
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 27
Merit: 0
|
|
February 27, 2014, 10:14:40 AM |
|
One certainty is that as the pool grows then so does the traffic into servers and it doesn't matter how much hashing goes on, it has to get to a server and 800-825TH seems to be the current 'lucky' number range.
No, the traffic problem is what vardiff solves. True, but binja9 is also right - vardiff solves the problem for a single miner and his hashrate, but more miners means more traffic. If a single miner points more of his equipment at Slush, the pool will change his vardiff and the traffic and server load will remain the same. If 1000 miners point 1Gh at the pool they will increase the traffic and the server load for just 1Th increase. Still the pool hashrate is not related to the load it takes to serve it. I am sure in such cases Slush just starts an additional stratum back-end (or adds a CPU to the virtual server instance) to take the load. With getwork the load was many times more than with stratum, so we are far from the limit. I also have a reason to believe that most of the processing is done in the startum back end servers, so adding another one scales almost linearly. Thanks for that clarity - well put |
|
|
|
|
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1007
Poor impulse control.
|
|
February 27, 2014, 10:45:13 AM |
|
I'm also afraid to tell you that 'luck' does not exist - you can calculate probability but not luck (unless someone could post the calculation for the likelihood of luck existing)...
'Luck' exists, silly! If you earned more than expected, you've had good 'luck'. If you earned less than expected, you had bad 'luck'. Of course luck doesn't exist it is a convenient word to cover bad judgement, calculations or events we choose not to understand or have control of. If you expect to earn X and you earn Y then a force has acted upon X to move its value to Y - an event, not luck. Either way your expectation/calculation was wrong. That calls for an "Argh". You seem to have some math knowledge, but then you confound "expectation" in a mathematical sense, with "expectation" in some other sense. Your expected income per difficulty 1 share is (Bitcoin reward per block) / (network difficulty). If you earn more than this per share, you've had good luck. Less than this is bad luck. |
|
|
|
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1007
Poor impulse control.
|
|
February 27, 2014, 11:01:17 AM |
|
One certainty is that as the pool grows then so does the traffic into servers and it doesn't matter how much hashing goes on, it has to get to a server and 800-825TH seems to be the current 'lucky' number range.
No, the traffic problem is what vardiff solves. True, but binja9 is also right - vardiff solves the problem for a single miner and his hashrate, but more miners means more traffic. If a single miner points more of his equipment at Slush, the pool will change his vardiff and the traffic and server load will remain the same. If 1000 miners point 1Gh at the pool they will increase the traffic and the server load for just 1Th increase. Still the pool hashrate is not related to the load it takes to serve it. I am sure in such cases Slush just starts an additional stratum back-end (or adds a CPU to the virtual server instance) to take the load. With getwork the load was many times more than with stratum, so we are far from the limit. I also have a reason to believe that most of the processing is done in the startum back end servers, so adding another one scales almost linearly. If the load got too high, then Slush could simply increase the minimum variable difficulty. I don't think that will be a problem though - the pool isn't attracting as many new miners as other pools. |
|
|
|
|
