[1050 TH] BitMinter.com [1% PPLNS,Pays TxFees +MergedMining,Stratum,GBT,vardiff]

[Walter Rothbard]

Besides, if you normally average $50-100 per day and suddenly you only averaged $20 without any explicable reason, wouldn't you question it too?

That's the thing though.

The reason is quite explicable if you had cared to do even 5 minutes of research.

Instead, armed with zero knowledge, you opted to make a petulant post, informing us all that you wouldn't be sticking around because "you've never had it this bad at Slush."  

Virus In Numeris => do the math!

Figure out how many shares you are submitting (you can verify this).
Figure out the hash rate of your pool (you can't really verify this, but you can check if it seems consistent and believable).
Figure out how many blocks your pool is generating, and which ones.  (You can verify this with sites like blockchain.info)
Figure out how PPLNS works (I am betting this is where most people fall over.)

This is how you can verify your mining income is what you are supposed to be getting.

I am sorry if you don't want to do the math.  You will forever be at the mercy of others in your life, financially speaking, whether you use Bitcoin or not.  I'm thinking of the old Cosby Show episode where Bill Cosby claims his son will be broke since he doesn't know math -> the son explains he'll be fine because he'll have an accountant; the father asks if the son will be able to verify the accountant's math, and when then son answers know, he says "Then you'll be broke."

Bitcoin is all about math.  It is not a crime to choose to remain ignorant of math, but in the Bitcoin world it comes off looking as very out of place.

[MoreBloodWine]

Hey Doc, I don' remember if it was on your site or somewhere else but it was linked in this post once. Anyone got thaat link to the difficulty page that shows when the next increase is due ?

Speaking of which, just how accurae is it in relatio to the next beincrease ?

Ty.

[Walter Rothbard]

If you really want to understand it then look through Organofcorti's analysis: http://organofcorti.blogspot.com/2013/05/131-bitminter-and-luck.html

And there's where the rest of us fall over on the math!   Seriously, organofcorti is absolutely the man when it comes to statistical analysis.

[Walter Rothbard]

Blockchain.info has wrongly identified a block at height 269542 as coming from Bitminter. Some miners are already asking about this. It does not go to an address we control and there is no "BitMinter" text in the coinbase.

The block is not from Bitminter and I have no idea what makes blockchain.info think so. Perhaps it was relayed through one of our bitcoin nodes. Note that blockchain.info is very unreliable for identifying who made a block, and as a result their estimates of the hashrates of each pool is also very unreliable.

I stand corrected (I just posted to the contrary, before reading this).

[Walter Rothbard]

I wanted to come back to bitminter. But after mining for 20~ hours with 200 GH/s I'm only seeing 0.05BTC. Was it just a bad few rounds? Even with bad rounds, I never had it this bad at slush.

I like how people like you think omg this sucks when your averaging what, $20 a day and people like me with small ops are doin what, $0.50 - $1 a day.

??
So I'm not supposed to wonder why I'm under performing just because of other people didn't put out for the hardware?

That doesn't make a lot of sense.

...

When I see people with KNC Jupiters who are having issues, I don't sit there and go "wow, why aren't you just happy with what you have?"

I didn't read him as saying that - just that he was marveling at the difference in scope.

"I like how people like you think..."
Read as a pretty negative connotation to me.
Besides, if you normally average $50-100 per day and suddenly you only averaged $20 without any explicable reason, wouldn't you question it too?

Noticing that people with a lot of hashing power are in much better shape than us little guys doesn't look inherently disrespectful to me.  I like how you guys are fortunate enough to have these problems, too, and I hope I can join you some day!  YES I'd question it if I was in your position, and I'd want to find the answer.

BloodWine is new to this (as am I) and to me it looks like he was just chatting - not faulting you for questioning the numbers.

[Walter Rothbard]

I don't want to switch back, and was looking for support. But it looks like I have no choice but to switch back unless I want to purposely be loosing out on BTC.

Have you actually done the PPLNS computations to verify that you are getting paid honestly based on your shares submitted and the blocks the pool has found?

[TheQuin]

Hey Doc, I don' remember if it was on your site or somewhere else but it was linked in this post once. Anyone got thaat link to the difficulty page that shows when the next increase is due ?

Speaking of which, just how accurae is it in relatio to the next beincrease ?

Ty.

That was this one http://bitcoinclock.com/

This one has the historical increases and charts as well. It is usually pretty close at estimating the next difficulty, just check back every few days to see if it has changed.

http://bitcoinwisdom.com/bitcoin/difficulty

[t3c]

Never used a different pool. never will in all probability unless Bitminter ceases to exist. Just wanted to say a big thanks to Doc and happy mining everyone..

[DrHaribo]

Seriously, organofcorti is absolutely the man when it comes to statistical analysis.

Both Organofcorti and Meni Rosenfeld are very good with the math, statistics and perhaps most importantly: probability theory.

I think it is human nature to fail horribly at understanding probability.

It's OK to not be as good as these guys. I think it is more important to understand the limitations of our own knowledge and skills. Read and use the stuff they write.

Never used a different pool. never will in all probability unless Bitminter ceases to exist. Just wanted to say a big thanks to Doc and happy mining everyone..

Just wanna say, I never had it "so good when I could mine on Bitminter".

Thank you, sirs Much appreciated.

[MoreBloodWine]

Hey Doc, I don' remember if it was on your site or somewhere else but it was linked in this post once. Anyone got thaat link to the difficulty page that shows when the next increase is due ?

Speaking of which, just how accurae is it in relatio to the next beincrease ?

Ty.

That was this one http://bitcoinclock.com/

This one has the historical increases and charts as well. It is usually pretty close at estimating the next difficulty, just check back every few days to see if it has changed.

http://bitcoinwisdom.com/bitcoin/difficulty

What's this mean ?

Reward-Drop ETA: 2016-09-23 22:24:06 UTC (149 weeks, 1 day, 8 hours, 10 minutes)

[DrHaribo]

What's this mean ?

Reward-Drop ETA: 2016-09-23 22:24:06 UTC (149 weeks, 1 day, 8 hours, 10 minutes)

That's the next reward halving. After that each block will have 12.5 new coins.

We still have a while to go though, it's not that long since the previous reward halving from 50 to 25 new coins per block.

[MoreBloodWine]

What's this mean ?

Reward-Drop ETA: 2016-09-23 22:24:06 UTC (149 weeks, 1 day, 8 hours, 10 minutes)

That's the next reward halving. After that each block will have 12.5 new coins.

We still have a while to go though, it's not that long since the previous reward halving from 50 to 25 new coins per block.

Gotcha, thats gonna piss a lot of ppl of lol.

As for what I was talkin about earlier, and I didn't notice it on that clock. But whens the next increase in difficulty. Something I looked at a few days ao said somehing like 6 days and that I hink was 4 days ago.

[bluedragon]

Ha ha, I glanced up at my computer earlier and this is what I saw... 

http://s23.postimg.org/siv3fz7ej/7777.jpg

[Carlton Banks]

Support the discouraging of address re-use.


The exchange rate value of everyone's Bitcoins depends on killing the lists. Including you, me, DrHaribo, and everyone mining, pooled, decentrally or solo.

DrHaribo, please consider using the address re-use de-prioritising mining node. This will be a step along the way to preventing the public blockchain record from being used against us to devalue our Bitcoins.

Everyone at Bitminter should familiarise themselves with the forthcoming HD wallets feature, keychains. You can create as many keychains as you wish, just like single addresses. This will let you lock reward payments to a sequence of crytographically determined keychain addresses instead of one address. It is a superior alternative to locking to a static address, you can gain more privacy with the same level of security.

HD wallets will likely be available in the 0.9 Bitcoin client.


Support the discouraging of address re-use.

[Walter Rothbard]

Running at 290 TH tonight!

[qwerty40]

Where the lost block 270154 

[Dot99lr]

Where the lost block 270154  

Yeah, I saw that too. What happened?

[Henchman24]

Where the lost block 270154  

Yeah, I saw that too. What happened?

If you're referring to blockchain.info tagging a block as coming from BitMinter, here is Doc's recent response:

Blockchain.info has wrongly identified a block at height 269542 as coming from Bitminter. Some miners are already asking about this. It does not go to an address we control and there is no "BitMinter" text in the coinbase.

The block is not from Bitminter and I have no idea what makes blockchain.info think so. Perhaps it was relayed through one of our bitcoin nodes. Note that blockchain.info is very unreliable for identifying who made a block, and as a result their estimates of the hashrates of each pool is also very unreliable.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=27062.msg3578815#msg3578815

Here's another post on the same subject, entitled Don't believe everything you read on blockchain.info about block sources

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=123726.0

[DrHaribo]

When you see "relayed by Bitminter" at blockchain.info it just means we relayed the block. That doesn't mean we created the block, it only means the block passed through one of our bitcoin nodes. In a peer-to-peer system like bitcoin, nodes are relaying stuff all the time. The information is utterly useless. What you can read out of this is "Bitminter is using Bitcoin". Great. Thank you, blockchain.info.

If your wallet got hacked and the transaction that stole the coins was relayed by person X: that doesn't mean he stole your coins. It just means he runs a bitcoin node. Don't start threatening him based on some nonsense you saw on blockchain.info. You can trust that data like you can trust random gossip on the interwebs. This example is based on a true story.

For some reason blockchain.info displays this (completely useless) information very prominently on their site and it causes a lot of confusion. Why on Earth would they do this? That, gentle reader, I leave for you to figure out.

Here is an alternative that actually works: http://blockorigin.pfoe.be/

[AussieHash]

When you see "relayed by Bitminter" at blockchain.info it just means we relayed the block. That doesn't mean we created the block, it only means the block passed through one of our bitcoin nodes. In a peer-to-peer system like bitcoin, nodes are relaying stuff all the time. The information is utterly useless. What you can read out of this is "Bitminter is using Bitcoin". Great. Thank you, blockchain.info.

If your wallet got hacked and the transaction that stole the coins was relayed by person X: that doesn't mean he stole your coins. It just means he runs a bitcoin node. Don't start threatening him based on some nonsense you saw on blockchain.info. You can trust that data like you can trust random gossip on the interwebs. This example is based on a true story.

For some reason blockchain.info displays this (completely useless) information very prominently on their site and it causes a lot of confusion. Why on Earth would they do this? That, gentle reader, I leave for you to figure out.

Here is an alternative that actually works: http://blockorigin.pfoe.be/

The fact is lots of people use blockchain.info, but we just need to take it's origin notice with a grain of salt.
It's still pretty accurate though isn't it ? say 99% ?