Bitcoin Forum
December 10, 2016, 05:20:39 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 [149] 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 ... 376 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [1050 TH] BitMinter.com [1% PPLNS,Pays TxFees +MergedMining,Stratum,GBT,vardiff]  (Read 776056 times)
philipma1957
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1582


I charge NOTHING for current signature.


View Profile
May 06, 2013, 10:10:04 PM
 #2961

I am about 8 hours and 35 minutes into my test.   start time was 1:34

██     Please support sidehack with his new miner project Send to :

1BURGERAXHH6Yi6LRybRJK7ybEm5m5HwTr

 
 ██
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481347239
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481347239

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481347239
Reply with quote  #2

1481347239
Report to moderator
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1960


Poor impulse control.


View Profile WWW
May 07, 2013, 02:49:06 AM
 #2962

[....]
where did these come from?  while they look nice where  did the data come from to show this.    the problem is you need to show your sampling of how you get the pools hash rate. if you take your data from when a block is made it leaves out all down time and can be very misleading. remember no blocks are made when a pool goes down.  so any true hash rate must account for down time.

 by the way I have figured out a very good way to test the idea out that coins are too low for luck to be accountable.       I have a method that solves the problem of hash rate calculation. the pools hash rate is not important for my method .  in fact all that matters is If I run at least one worker 24/7 .  I can give 1 day result  a 2 day result a 3 day result a 4 day result and a 5 day result.

Not quite. Unless you derive confidence interval for the data, you're only showing the variance.


Bitcoin network and pool analysis 12QxPHEuxDrs7mCyGSx1iVSozTwtquDB3r
follow @oocBlog for new post notifications
luffy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 606



View Profile
May 07, 2013, 04:56:34 AM
 #2963

bad luck will not last forever! just enjoy this great pool  Wink
i would like to see also all the other merging capable coins, i wish PPC would be amongst them  Tongue
philipma1957
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1582


I charge NOTHING for current signature.


View Profile
May 07, 2013, 12:50:05 PM
 #2964

[....]
where did these come from?  while they look nice where  did the data come from to show this.    the problem is you need to show your sampling of how you get the pools hash rate. if you take your data from when a block is made it leaves out all down time and can be very misleading. remember no blocks are made when a pool goes down.  so any true hash rate must account for down time.

 by the way I have figured out a very good way to test the idea out that coins are too low for luck to be accountable.       I have a method that solves the problem of hash rate calculation. the pools hash rate is not important for my method .  in fact all that matters is If I run at least one worker 24/7 .  I can give 1 day result  a 2 day result a 3 day result a 4 day result and a 5 day result.

Not quite. Unless you derive confidence interval for the data, you're only showing the variance.


true . but my method is not about btc real earnings vs btc projected earnings. 

my method has constants that do not vary but rather show a parallel ratio that should be consistent.

 if not consistent it would indicate a flaw and or a bug or a very clever manipulation of the pool.

 frankly  I have done this method a few times and never had any large problem (ie variance) 


 which is why I feel that this pool is run well and that the so called bad luck is not 10%.

██     Please support sidehack with his new miner project Send to :

1BURGERAXHH6Yi6LRybRJK7ybEm5m5HwTr

 
 ██
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1960


Poor impulse control.


View Profile WWW
May 07, 2013, 01:10:06 PM
 #2965

[....]
where did these come from?  while they look nice where  did the data come from to show this.    the problem is you need to show your sampling of how you get the pools hash rate. if you take your data from when a block is made it leaves out all down time and can be very misleading. remember no blocks are made when a pool goes down.  so any true hash rate must account for down time.

 by the way I have figured out a very good way to test the idea out that coins are too low for luck to be accountable.       I have a method that solves the problem of hash rate calculation. the pools hash rate is not important for my method .  in fact all that matters is If I run at least one worker 24/7 .  I can give 1 day result  a 2 day result a 3 day result a 4 day result and a 5 day result.

Not quite. Unless you derive confidence interval for the data, you're only showing the variance.


true . but my method is not about btc real earnings vs btc projected earnings. 

my method has constants that do not vary but rather show a parallel ratio that should be consistent.

 if not consistent it would indicate a flaw and or a bug or a very clever manipulation of the pool.

 frankly  I have done this method a few times and never had any large problem (ie variance) 


 which is why I feel that this pool is run well and that the so called bad luck is not 10%.


You're a mysterious one!

When you're done, can you post your method and the reason for it along with the results?

Bitcoin network and pool analysis 12QxPHEuxDrs7mCyGSx1iVSozTwtquDB3r
follow @oocBlog for new post notifications
philipma1957
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1582


I charge NOTHING for current signature.


View Profile
May 07, 2013, 01:20:38 PM
 #2966

[....]
where did these come from?  while they look nice where  did the data come from to show this.    the problem is you need to show your sampling of how you get the pools hash rate. if you take your data from when a block is made it leaves out all down time and can be very misleading. remember no blocks are made when a pool goes down.  so any true hash rate must account for down time.

 by the way I have figured out a very good way to test the idea out that coins are too low for luck to be accountable.       I have a method that solves the problem of hash rate calculation. the pools hash rate is not important for my method .  in fact all that matters is If I run at least one worker 24/7 .  I can give 1 day result  a 2 day result a 3 day result a 4 day result and a 5 day result.

Not quite. Unless you derive confidence interval for the data, you're only showing the variance.


true . but my method is not about btc real earnings vs btc projected earnings. 

my method has constants that do not vary but rather show a parallel ratio that should be consistent.

 if not consistent it would indicate a flaw and or a bug or a very clever manipulation of the pool.

 frankly  I have done this method a few times and never had any large problem (ie variance) 


 which is why I feel that this pool is run well and that the so called bad luck is not 10%.


You're a mysterious one!

When you're done, can you post your method and the reason for it along with the results?


yes I will.

 It is quite simple but I want to post it after 5 days showing the 1 day the 2 day 3 day 4 day 5 day results.

After I post the first 5 days I will continue to track the pool. Frankly I do not expect to have a  large 10% issue that has been mentioned.

More like plus or minus 1 or 2 %.

██     Please support sidehack with his new miner project Send to :

1BURGERAXHH6Yi6LRybRJK7ybEm5m5HwTr

 
 ██
Jcw188
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532

Carpe Diem


View Profile
May 07, 2013, 04:48:32 PM
 #2967

How many rigs does realasicminer have?  He is now at 4.3 Thps.  Anyone know who this is?  Or could it be BFL mining with the gear they're supposed to be shipping to customers? :-)
PCMiner
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 123


View Profile
May 07, 2013, 04:55:22 PM
 #2968

How many rigs does realasicminer have?  He is now at 4.3 Thps.  Anyone know who this is?  Or could it be BFL mining with the gear they're supposed to be shipping to customers? :-)

Its ASICMiner.  They have some of their machines on bitminter for awhile while they are getting them setup.  The plan I believe is to eventually move them to solo mining.  So enjoy it while it lasts on Bitminter.
DrHaribo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974


Bitminter.com Operator


View Profile WWW
May 08, 2013, 06:05:06 AM
 #2969

There is some confusion lately that having big miners in the pool means the smaller miners get paid less. That's not how it works. Your average payout is determined by your hashrate, the difficulty, and fees/donations. Other people's hashrate does not influence this at all.

If someone joins the pool with 10% of the hashrate, then the pool will be pulling in 10% more bitcoins, the new user will be doing 10% of the work, and the new user will get 10% of the payouts. You don't make more coins by mining in a big/small pool, and you don't make less money mining in a big/small pool.

But a higher pool hashrate reduces variance for everyone in the pool. That means you will have smaller variations than before in your daily payouts.

▶▶▶ Bitminter.com - Your trusted mining pool since 2011.
kano
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1932


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
May 08, 2013, 07:09:00 AM
 #2970

There is some confusion lately that having big miners in the pool means the smaller miners get paid less. That's not how it works. Your average payout is determined by your hashrate, the difficulty, and fees/donations. Other people's hashrate does not influence this at all.

If someone joins the pool with 10% of the hashrate, then the pool will be pulling in 10% more bitcoins, the new user will be doing 10% of the work, and the new user will get 10% of the payouts. You don't make more coins by mining in a big/small pool, and you don't make less money mining in a big/small pool.

But a higher pool hashrate reduces variance for everyone in the pool. That means you will have smaller variations than before in your daily payouts.

However, that depends on the order you send LP messages.
If you order them higher hash rate first (like slush does) then those with a lower hash rate will get their LP that tiny bit later, if there are more higher hashing people on the pool. Of course this only means a small drop if it is the case.

Also of course without the source code one can't verify how the pool prioritises responses to miners.
But since you have to pay for the miner (it isn't free), I'd guess no one else has the source code Smiley

Pool: https://kano.is BTC: 1KanoiBupPiZfkwqB7rfLXAzPnoTshAVmb
CKPool and CGMiner developer, IRC FreeNode #ckpool and #cgminer kanoi
Help keep Bitcoin secure by mining on pools with Stratum, the best protocol to mine Bitcoins with ASIC hardware
DrHaribo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974


Bitminter.com Operator


View Profile WWW
May 08, 2013, 02:17:19 PM
 #2971

However, that depends on the order you send LP messages.
If you order them higher hash rate first (like slush does) then those with a lower hash rate will get their LP that tiny bit later, if there are more higher hashing people on the pool. Of course this only means a small drop if it is the case.

Ok, true, more users in the pool affects your work reject ratio, but the difference will be tiny.

The BitMinter server orders long pollers by hashrate for getwork and getblocktemplate (GBT). For Stratum there is no ordering when pushing work (at least not yet).

Currently at each block change work is pushed to 7000-8000 Stratum connections in 0.01-0.03 seconds. 8000-9000 long pollers (getwork/GBT) are notified in 1.5-1.8 seconds. A few more ASICs running Stratum won't really make any difference.

Also of course without the source code one can't verify how the pool prioritises responses to miners.
But since you have to pay for the miner (it isn't free), I'd guess no one else has the source code Smiley

Yes, the server software is closed source. And it wouldn't make much difference if it was open source, because you would never know if the source code I gave you is what I was running on the server.

Not sure what you mean having to pay for the miner. There's no extra fee for using BitMinter client over other mining clients.

▶▶▶ Bitminter.com - Your trusted mining pool since 2011.
alexKKK
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 82


View Profile
May 08, 2013, 07:49:56 PM
 #2972

Wow, 6 and half hours without block ?

Imho
Looks strange with pool speed more than 11 000 ghs !


DrHaribo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974


Bitminter.com Operator


View Profile WWW
May 08, 2013, 07:59:29 PM
 #2973

Wow, 6 and half hours without block ?

Imho
Looks strange with pool speed more than 11 000 ghs !

Why is bad luck strange? Wouldn't it be more strange if we only had good luck all the time?

▶▶▶ Bitminter.com - Your trusted mining pool since 2011.
philipma1957
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1582


I charge NOTHING for current signature.


View Profile
May 08, 2013, 08:36:45 PM
 #2974

Wow, 6 and half hours without block ?

Imho
Looks strange with pool speed more than 11 000 ghs !



 how about the 2 blocks right before it  6m and 33m   and the block after it took 11m.

 btw my 3 large samples dating from april 5 to now show no oddness.

 1 ratio of btc blocks to nmc blocks earned was high one was low and one was close to perfect.

██     Please support sidehack with his new miner project Send to :

1BURGERAXHH6Yi6LRybRJK7ybEm5m5HwTr

 
 ██
matt4054
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134


BitcoinQueue.com


View Profile WWW
May 08, 2013, 11:23:46 PM
 #2975

DrHaribo, may I ask this question without sounding accusing or implying anything because I'm honestly wondering:

How unlucky and for how long should it last before you would start to suspect anything? I don't have many months of experience but for the last 2-3 weeks I've only seen bad luck. Weeks are not a long time you will say, and bad luck can be just that, granted. But if the block/hashrate stayed like the past 2 weeks for, say, 2 more years, should we still not worry at all?

So basically because I'm biased and the pool has lived long before I joined, I was wondering when someone like you would start to worry.

★ ⏳ BitcoinQueue.com β ★ 📈 Real-time Bitcoin Unconfirmed Transaction Queue Charts ⏳ ★ Forum Topic
willphase
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770


View Profile
May 08, 2013, 11:51:22 PM
 #2976

notice how nobody complains when bitminter mines three blocks in a row... Smiley

Will

organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1960


Poor impulse control.


View Profile WWW
May 09, 2013, 12:04:57 AM
 #2977

DrHaribo, may I ask this question without sounding accusing or implying anything because I'm honestly wondering:

How unlucky and for how long should it last before you would start to suspect anything? I don't have many months of experience but for the last 2-3 weeks I've only seen bad luck. Weeks are not a long time you will say, and bad luck can be just that, granted. But if the block/hashrate stayed like the past 2 weeks for, say, 2 more years, should we still not worry at all?

So basically because I'm biased and the pool has lived long before I joined, I was wondering when someone like you would start to worry.

The "luck" is best thought of as number of shares per round / difficulty. The average number of shares per round / difficulty for a number of rounds is Erlang distributed. So you can work this out for your self.

1. Get the following data from either the API or website: Accepted shares and difficulty
2. copy paste, and divide shares per round by difficulty for example (using last 20 rounds):
Code:
Shares       Difficulty            shares/difficulty
723399.00 10076292.00 0.07179
106555.00 10076292.00 0.01057
13835959.00 10076292.00 1.37312
15105311.00 10076292.00 1.49909
1776241.00 10076292.00 0.17628
65975009.00 10076292.00 6.54755
5344984.00 10076292.00 0.53045
1070699.00 10076292.00 0.10626
18113727.00 10076292.00 1.79766
15491485.00 10076292.00 1.53742
34830739.00 10076292.00 3.45670
6035422.00 10076292.00 0.59897
10154632.00 10076292.00 1.00777
773437.00 10076292.00 0.07676
1857852.00 10076292.00 0.18438
7037050.00 10076292.00 0.69838
9280851.00 10076292.00 0.92106
20104601.00 10076292.00 1.99524
9749255.00 10076292.00 0.96754
9389599.00 10076292.00 0.93185

                Average shares per round / difficulty = 1.22444

3. Once you have the average, you can use wolfram alpha to figure out how likely that result is. The command is:
Code:
CDF[ErlangDistribution[numRounds, numRounds], average (sharesPerRound/D)]

So for example, the data above would be:

CDF[ErlangDistribution[20, 20], 1.22444]


4. If the result is less than 0.975 or greater than 0.025, then you can consider the result within a 95% confidence interval and not very unusual. The result for the last two days is about 0.844, so the "luck" has not been unusual at all.


If you want to find out the same result for any number of rounds, then just follow the steps above and you can work it out for yourself.

Enjoy!



Bitcoin network and pool analysis 12QxPHEuxDrs7mCyGSx1iVSozTwtquDB3r
follow @oocBlog for new post notifications
philipma1957
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1582


I charge NOTHING for current signature.


View Profile
May 09, 2013, 02:02:38 AM
 #2978

DrHaribo, may I ask this question without sounding accusing or implying anything because I'm honestly wondering:

How unlucky and for how long should it last before you would start to suspect anything? I don't have many months of experience but for the last 2-3 weeks I've only seen bad luck. Weeks are not a long time you will say, and bad luck can be just that, granted. But if the block/hashrate stayed like the past 2 weeks for, say, 2 more years, should we still not worry at all?

So basically because I'm biased and the pool has lived long before I joined, I was wondering when someone like you would start to worry.




dude that is just wrong I can pick 5 good days out of the last 14.  edit only 4 good days.  maybe the server needs more balls/power.. but this is 14 days  and I ballparked some math as I am tired



  april 25 17 blocks   13.6  would have been normal for 6.1Th hash and 8.97 mill diff.    very good luck
  apr 26th 12 blocks   13.7  would have been normal for 6.2 Th hash and 8.97 mill diff .. slightly bad luck
   apr 27th  8 blocks   13  would have been normal    for 5.8Th   and 8.97  mill diff      bad luck   for this 3 day period we mined 37 blocks should have mined 40.3      about 91.8 percent  or normal add in the nmc  you push against most any other pool.  

 apr 28th 10 blocks  hash is 5.5th        12.32 normal   below
apr  29th  15 blocks  hash is 5.5th        12.32 normal     above
apr 30th     6 blocks  hash is 5.7th        11.36 normal     way below   difficulty changed to 10.07 mill

31 total for 3                                          36.08 normal  

for 6 days 68 mined                        76.38 normal


may 1 13 blocks hash is 5.9          11.76 is normal   above
may 2 10 blocks   hash is 6.1        12.16 is normal  below
may3   7  blocks    hash is 6.2       12.36 is normal below

for 9 days 98        113.08 is normal

may 4 10 blocks      15.5   under
 may 5 20 blocks     16.5    over
may 6 11 blocks      16.6        under
 may 7 21 blocks     20.96    just over
 may 8 18 blocks    22          under      

4 out of 14 good 2 close 7 bad

178 block mined  out of  204.56    

 this is roughly 87 percent of normal   .

 if the trend continues I would guess that the server struggles to keep up with the load.   remember there is down time and this number ignores all down time.   it also does not reflect the factor of 1.08 for name coins. so 1.08 x 178 = 192.24 divide by 204.56 =  93.9 percent and it still does not reflect any down time.   so it is not as bad as it seems.   but maybe more power is needed to handle higher volumes.

██     Please support sidehack with his new miner project Send to :

1BURGERAXHH6Yi6LRybRJK7ybEm5m5HwTr

 
 ██
iopq
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644


View Profile
May 09, 2013, 07:40:15 AM
 #2979

Yep, emails will go out. It's on the website in the lower right corner under "news", but I will add something that is easier to notice.

Not sure if I should spam 40 000 people with it. Maybe I should limit it to users who were active in the last months.

So far the message has gone out on twitter, facebook, google+ and bitcointalk. It's the twitter message that is on the bitminter.com website.

I'm one of the "set and forget" miners and I'm kind of disappointed. I knew this day would come... I guess it's time for me to run p2pool

matt4054
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134


BitcoinQueue.com


View Profile WWW
May 09, 2013, 08:59:23 AM
 #2980

Yep, emails will go out. It's on the website in the lower right corner under "news", but I will add something that is easier to notice.

Not sure if I should spam 40 000 people with it. Maybe I should limit it to users who were active in the last months.

So far the message has gone out on twitter, facebook, google+ and bitcointalk. It's the twitter message that is on the bitminter.com website.

I'm one of the "set and forget" miners and I'm kind of disappointed. I knew this day would come... I guess it's time for me to run p2pool

I don't understand what you imply here (given your quote). If it's Re: the 1% fee, I think it was long time due, given the added value of BitMinter, the excellent uptime and reliability of the pool, etc. If it's Re: the notification method, I see nothing wrong in using the website to communicate (it has been pinned as a very visible banner for weeks), e-mail would only have been a plus IMHO.

We just want some luck now Smiley

PS @organofcorti @philipma1957 thanks for you comments and analysis.

I guess it would be very useful if there was some way to separate analysis for getwork, stratum and GBT. A statistical anomaly for one of the 3 protocols would be a great hint in case there was indeed a problem.

★ ⏳ BitcoinQueue.com β ★ 📈 Real-time Bitcoin Unconfirmed Transaction Queue Charts ⏳ ★ Forum Topic
Pages: « 1 ... 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 [149] 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 ... 376 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!