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

[DrHaribo]

It took a day for them to switch

One day is extremely long. I can't think of anything on my end that would cause that. Let me know if you have any more problems. And make sure you are running a recent version of bfgminer/cgminer - there's been bugs with the failover pool functionality before, but hopefully not with recent versions.

[philipma1957]

Ok...here it goes...

I am currently running 1.2TH in antminer S1's.  For a variety of reasons (all legal) I have been presented with a situation where my electricity costs are minimal.  (less than 6 cents kWh) The catch is that I only have 24U in a data rack with which to put miners in.  The room is also air conditioned and sound is not a problem. So...the only limiting factor is CapEx (I'm no lottery winner) and space.   It's funny you should mention Spondoolies because it would seem to solve my problem nicely.  Except...I have found the PepperMining Habanero.  I have run the numbers and I can fit 2 boards in a single re-purposed 2U server case complete with psu's and plenty of cooling, for a little less than half the CapEx of the Spondoolies. So 1.4TH vs 1.3TH in roughly the same space with a significant cost difference, minus the intangibles. (which might make a huge difference and I'm just too new to see them - i.e. who can you trust, who will be supportive, who's going to be around in 6 months time)

My question is...without being burdened by power efficiency, cooling or noise pollution, am I crazy to consider building up the Habanero's (which haven't even be produced yet) in lieu of going with a tried and tested Spondoolies (which is so highly priced that the ROI is scary, and delivery data is kinda iffy)?  Or I could simply stick with the tried and tested Antminer S2 which is shipping in 48hrs and jam as many as I can in the cabinet and call it a day. (a bird in the hand)

Or am I missing something so obvious that you're all screaming at your monitors right now?

The pools' collected wisdom is very welcome

I don't see how you can recover your CapEx even with low cost power.  If the difficulty keeps rising ~20%, you'll never earn enough BTC to warrant what you'll spend in BTC to cover your equipment costs.  If you buy with cash and then BTC goes up significantly, then you can earn a return.  However, you'd simply be better buying BTC at current rates and if it goes to $600 to $800, you'll make a much more significant return.

The S2 is much more power efficient, but the cost is significantly higher than the S1's for the same Gh/s. You can get nearly double the hash rate by buying S1's.  At some point though, you'll run out of power in your facility.

    buying  coins is not bad or good but depending upon your location tax laws differ a lot.    In the USA you can buy a coin today note the price you paid for it.  Then do nothing in terms of reporting it as long as you do not get rid of it.  In the USA if you are mining every piece of a coin earned  needs to be reported when you mine it and when you get rid of it.   So mining is more work on the tax end.

  Always hard to tell someone what to do. since coins are not that high right now.

[ichtus27]

What just happend, i saw the pool bounce from 645 or so to back at 1006. Koi was at 20 for a moment and getting back.
Was al lot op miners gone or a bump in .. what happend??

[Solemn]

OK...Thanks for your thoughts and comments on the hardware aspect guys.  I have a bit more thinking and spreadsheet work to do, so I'll get back on topic.

New question...

Is there a direct correlation between the total pool hashing capability and the frequency of blocks being "mined" that can be charted?  I ask because I've seen people say that a larger pool capability simply means that the smaller guys get a smaller percentage more often...but given the "luck" or CDF that this pool has seen over the past couple of weeks, I have to wonder what part that CDF plays in relation toline of thought that says, "...individual hash ratio to pool decreasing, but payouts are a wash due to increased frequency of blocks."

My gut says that there must be some benefit to a larger pool...right?  This pool has grown from around 400TH to 1000Th since I've been a member.  Should that mean that the frequency of blocks "mined" should have increased by the same margin...?



 

[eleuthria]

OK...Thanks for your thoughts and comments on the hardware aspect guys.  I have a bit more thinking and spreadsheet work to do, so I'll get back on topic.

New question...

Is there a direct correlation between the total pool hashing capability and the frequency of blocks being "mined" that can be charted?  I ask because I've seen people say that a larger pool capability simply means that the smaller guys get a smaller percentage more often...but given the "luck" or CDF that this pool has seen over the past couple of weeks, I have to wonder what part that CDF plays in relation toline of thought that says, "...individual hash ratio to pool decreasing, but payouts are a wash due to increased frequency of blocks."

My gut says that there must be some benefit to a larger pool...right?  This pool has grown from around 400TH to 1000Th since I've been a member.  Should that mean that the frequency of blocks "mined" should have increased by the same margin...?

The rate of blocks is (fairly) static.  The target is one block on the entire network every 10 minutes.  If the network is growing, that time shrinks (it's been ~8 minutes on average for the last 6 months roughly).

A pool's neutral luck rate of blocks is entirely a measure of the pool's speed compared to network difficulty.  If the pool is growing at 10%, and the network is growing at 10% per adjustment, then the number of blocks a pool is expected to receive in a given time frame does not change.

If a pool is growing at 10% per adjustment period but the network is growing at 11%+ per adjustment period, the pool will, over time, make fewer and fewer blocks per period.  If the pool is growing at 11%+ and the network is growing at 10% or less, then the pool will gradually make more and more blocks per period.

Smaller pools have a bigger "jackpot" possibility.  You might make a lot less than expected (unlucky), you might make a lot more than expected (lucky).  This is because the way blocks are generated is truly random, and the odds are very low.  You can have very large swings of luck with a smaller pool because you're basically looking at a small sample size.  

Flip a coin 100 times, check your heads vs tails percentages.  Flip it 1,000 times, you're likely going to be much closer to expectation (50%/50%).  Flip it 10,000 times, even more likely.  This is similar to comparing small pools vs large pools.  The large pool is doing more iterations per time period, meaning they're less likely to deviate as far from expectation.  A small pool's *expected* output is the same, but it can be much further from that expectation in either direction.

[freddyfarnsworth]

Which brings us to our first unknown string variable "variance"

As in pool size or power.

There are more...

[loshia]

It took a day for them to switch

One day is extremely long. I can't think of anything on my end that would cause that. Let me know if you have any more problems. And make sure you are running a recent version of bfgminer/cgminer - there's been bugs with the failover pool functionality before, but hopefully not with recent versions.

Doc,

I am starting to think the cause of this is because FW or something
Basically my miners are using two different external ips. So everything else is same except ips. From one IP there are 5 miners only No issues at all
But from the other one there are always 2-3 miners struggling to connect. The funny part is that if i restart connected miner it connects immediately
But if i restart the one that is struggling to connect - same cgminer worker pool url it is refusing to connect. I will make a tcpdump of connect session and post this here

[Hunyadi]

My worker address is username.workername, however, web page says: " As user name put your Bitminter user name, an underscore, then a worker name, e.g. DrHaribo_asic3." So, does username_workername work as well?

[DrHaribo]

I am starting to think the cause of this is because FW or something

Not sure what it is. Let's see if it helps when the new server version is up and running.

My worker address is username.workername, however, web page says: " As user name put your Bitminter user name, an underscore, then a worker name, e.g. DrHaribo_asic3." So, does username_workername work as well?

Yes, username_workername works and is the official correct way to do it at Bitminter. I added support for using a period instead of an underscore because another pool was doing that. So it works both ways and there are fewer confused users.

[ichtus27]

So Fefox, you still do not have your power supply's that you where waiting for to get your hash up??

I'm waiting on my firts antminer s1 to come in and all that it needs.

Good luck and and good earnings..

Me..

[hayseed]

Holy Xor DOC!!

I solved a block!!  Imagine my shock when scrolling through the previous block list on "BTC Miner" app and I see FeFox, JoeCool2k, Koi, Koi, Collective,…

then MY NAME!!!!  blink eyes, rub eyes, readjust glasses, yep I read it right. And on Towel Day as well !!!!

Never thought I would solve one for the pool. Did just get my first ant miner S1 on the 19th.

Feel like a proud Poppa ;-)

BTC block at height 302575

Minted by: bitdude

Status: confirmed

Proofs of work submitted: 16693206284

Work begun: 2014.05.24 - 20:25

Work completed: 2014.05.25 - 15:25

[DrHaribo]

Holy Xor DOC!!

I solved a block!!

Hey, congratulations Very cool to find a block now with this difficulty.

[hayseed]

Holy Xor DOC!!

I solved a block!!

Hey, congratulations Very cool to find a block now with this difficulty.

Thanx Doc !!

[loshia]

It took a day for them to switch

One day is extremely long. I can't think of anything on my end that would cause that. Let me know if you have any more problems. And make sure you are running a recent version of bfgminer/cgminer - there's been bugs with the failover pool functionality before, but hopefully not with recent versions.

All is good for the moment Doc. I do not know what it was but now I can reboot my miners as many times as I want without being afraid they will not connect

[philipma1957]

Holy Xor DOC!!

I solved a block!!  Imagine my shock when scrolling through the previous block list on "BTC Miner" app and I see FeFox, JoeCool2k, Koi, Koi, Collective,…

then MY NAME!!!!  blink eyes, rub eyes, readjust glasses, yep I read it right. And on Towel Day as well !!!!

Never thought I would solve one for the pool. Did just get my first ant miner S1 on the 19th.

Feel like a proud Poppa ;-)

BTC block at height 302575

Minted by: bitdude

Status: confirmed

Proofs of work submitted: 16693206284

Work begun: 2014.05.24 - 20:25

Work completed: 2014.05.25 - 15:25

I used to solve one every month.  I think It has been close to a 7 months since I solved one. 

[GigaBit]

Holy Xor DOC!!

I solved a block!!  Imagine my shock when scrolling through the previous block list on "BTC Miner" app and I see FeFox, JoeCool2k, Koi, Koi, Collective,…

then MY NAME!!!!  blink eyes, rub eyes, readjust glasses, yep I read it right. And on Towel Day as well !!!!

Never thought I would solve one for the pool. Did just get my first ant miner S1 on the 19th.

Feel like a proud Poppa ;-)

BTC block at height 302575

Minted by: bitdude

Status: confirmed

Proofs of work submitted: 16693206284

Work begun: 2014.05.24 - 20:25

Work completed: 2014.05.25 - 15:25

Congrats and thank you BitDude!

[GigaBit]

I am starting to think the cause of this is because FW or something

Not sure what it is. Let's see if it helps when the new server version is up and running.
---

Hey Doc, some advice/tips from a webmaster/game developer...

You need to UPGRADE your server, one PH/s I lose too much hashing power because of traffic bottle-necking, too many connections.  Tried your pool for a week today and I am disconnecting today too due to having too great of a hash power loss compared to when I joined when you were below 1PH/s.  I'll assume you're hosting online, most hosts can do an upgrade in an hour or so.

That's why you're having such a hard time to find blocks as of late, you're not using the pool's complete hashing potential I am afraid.  I observed about 10%-20% average hashing power loss using your pool compared to other modern, non-beta pools I have tested.  Has nothing to do with the recent difficulty increase, made really little to no difference.

I noticed the difference the minute BMT went back over 1PH/s and kept growing on it.  I monitor my workers like a hawk, so I know in real time what's going on, at all times of the day and when your stats show almost 50GH/s difference from my miner's interface to yours for most of the time, I start asking questions because that's rather significant, in my book anyways.  Connection is steady though.

Your server needs a hardware upgrade and maybe very well, bandwidth.

Sorry but I can't mine here with only having 400GH/s with a 50GH/s loss due to bottle-necking.  People buy machines that clock at 50GH/s, right now it's like I have one of those and your pool's rejecting the whole thing.

I hope you take from what I just said, lots of people pay good money for my advice.  But again, my knowledge on mining is still rather rudimentary but my knowledge on making money, computers and web design is spot on =D

I mean, it's not just your pool with bottle-necking but I actually like BitMinter... well used to thus so far anyways.  Maybe it's just me?  I doubt it, your pool does stand out in the bottle-neck column.  That's why i don't hash with GHash anymore, bottlenecks and gaps were too great during the day.

Peace out

[SgtMoth]

I am starting to think the cause of this is because FW or something

Not sure what it is. Let's see if it helps when the new server version is up and running.
---

Hey Doc, some advice/tips from a webmaster/game developer...

You need to UPGRADE your server, one PH/s I lose too much hashing power because of traffic bottle-necking, too many connections.  Tried your pool for a week today and I am disconnecting today too due to having too great of a hash power loss compared to when I joined when you were below 1PH/s.  I'll assume you're hosting online, most hosts can do an upgrade in an hour or so.

That's why you're having such a hard time to find blocks as of late, you're not using the pool's complete hashing potential I am afraid.  I observed about 10%-20% average hashing power loss using your pool compared to other modern, non-beta pools I have tested.  Has nothing to do with the recent difficulty increase, made really little to no difference.

I noticed the difference the minute BMT went back over 1PH/s and kept growing on it.  I monitor my workers like a hawk, so I know in real time what's going on, at all times of the day and when your stats show almost 50GH/s difference from my miner's interface to yours for most of the time, I start asking questions because that's rather significant, in my book anyways.  Connection is steady though.

Your server needs a hardware upgrade and maybe very well, bandwidth.

Sorry but I can't mine here with only having 400GH/s with a 50GH/s loss due to bottle-necking.  People buy machines that clock at 50GH/s, right now it's like I have one of those and your pool's rejecting the whole thing.

I hope you take from what I just said, lots of people pay good money for my advice.  But again, my knowledge on mining is still rather rudimentary but my knowledge on making money, computers and web design is spot on =D

I mean, it's not just your pool with bottle-necking but I actually like BitMinter... well used to thus so far anyways.  Maybe it's just me?  I doubt it, your pool does stand out in the bottle-neck column.  That's why i don't hash with GHash anymore, bottlenecks and gaps were too great during the day.

Peace out

Ive ALWAYS made more here....

[K3nn3th]

Seems like a nice pool.
Definitly checking it.

[DrHaribo]

It looks like you don't understand two basic mining concepts, called "variance" and "difficulty". These are the two most important concepts for a new miner to learn and understand. I recommend researching these two concepts before investing in any mining hardware. And please learn from intelligent people like Organofcorti and Meni Rosenfeld, not the people who post misinfirmation on this forum on purpose.

But I will try to respond to your post below:

You need to UPGRADE your server, one PH/s I lose too much hashing power because of traffic bottle-necking, too many connections.  Tried your pool for a week today and I am disconnecting today too due to having too great of a hash power loss compared to when I joined when you were below 1PH/s.  I'll assume you're hosting online, most hosts can do an upgrade in an hour or so.

I don't understand what you mean. There is plenty of free filehandles on the server, we could easily handle a couple hundred thousand more connections. There is also plenty of free bandwidth. I don't see any kind of bottle necks. The load is actually much lower than it has been in the previous 12 months. In the past we have handled loads MUCH MUCH higher than what we see today.

The load on the server is much lower now than when we were below 1 PH/s. There are much fewer connections, much lower CPU usage and much lower memory usage. This is because there are fewer people mining. We can easily handle an unlimited hashpower. It's the number of people/workers mining that creates the load, and the load keeps dropping lower and lower all the time, as the smallest miners give up.

The server is almost falling asleep at this point.

During the GPUMAX days there were loads challenging me to improve the Bitminter server software to properly handle it when GPUMAX turned on the firehose. Eventually, after many improvements, Bitminter became one of their favorite pools because it could handle extreme loads. Today with the stratum protocol and with fewer people mining, the load that mining pools are seeing is very small and any newbie programmer could write software to handle it on cheap and slow server hardware.

That's why you're having such a hard time to find blocks as of late, you're not using the pool's complete hashing potential I am afraid.  I observed about 10%-20% average hashing power loss using your pool compared to other modern, non-beta pools I have tested.  Has nothing to do with the recent difficulty increase, made really little to no difference.

This is a modern and non-beta pool. And we are using 100% of the hashing power.

Luck goes up and down. But we are very close to the average expected number of blocks found.

As the difficulty goes up you need more hashpower to find the same number of blocks per day.

No surprise there. It is as expected.

If you think a difficulty increase of 10-15% makes no difference then you don't understand what the difficulty is and you need to research it further. I've heard it from some miners before: "I don't think difficulty actually has any impact on mining". If you have such thoughts then you need to consult your local psychiatrist and/or mathematics professor.

I noticed the difference the minute BMT went back over 1PH/s and kept growing on it.  I monitor my workers like a hawk, so I know in real time what's going on, at all times of the day and when your stats show almost 50GH/s difference from my miner's interface to yours for most of the time, I start asking questions because that's rather significant, in my book anyways.  Connection is steady though.

The server does not know your hashrate. The website tries to make an estimate of your hashrate based on how many proofs of work you sent in during the last couple minutes. This is very inaccurate.

You could take a look at the estimated hashrate for a shift rather than the live hashrate esimates. The shift estimates are more accurate as they are estimated over more time. Have a look at https://bitminter.com/shifts

Your server needs a hardware upgrade and maybe very well, bandwidth.

The current server has very low bandwidth usage, very low CPU usage, and very low memory usage. I'm not sure what kind of server upgrade would help. Actually, I know that no server upgrade would help. An increasing bitcoin difficulty isn't balanced out by upgrading a mining server. You need more hashpower, that's the only thing that can do it, and it has nothing to do with the mining server.

Sorry but I can't mine here with only having 400GH/s with a 50GH/s loss due to bottle-necking.  People buy machines that clock at 50GH/s, right now it's like I have one of those and your pool's rejecting the whole thing.

What kind of bottle-necking are you talking about? The load on the server is extremely low. The server is basically falling asleep from boredom because of the low load. There is no bottle neck.

If you are getting over 10% rejected work then something is seriously wrong. The average reject ratio for all users in the pool right now is about 0.13-0.14%. If you are not actually getting rejected work, but just saw your 400 GH/s display as 350 GH/s at the website for a moment, this is normal - the website live hashrates are (inaccurate) estimates of your real hashrate.

Please understand this: the server load and network load is almost zero. We find fewer blocks now than some months ago because the difficulty has increased very quickly.

As a miner one of the most important topics for you to research and understand is "difficulty".

To newbie miners: please stop thinking server load is proportional with hashrate. The server load comes from the number of workers mining in the pool. Even the biggest pools today can run on a single server if their software is efficient.

To experienced miners: yes, it is true, fewer and fewer people are mining. Mining is becoming more and more centralized. Small miners give up when their hashpower becomes insignificant and buying significant hashpower is out of their budgets. It is an unfortunate development. This may be important for the future of bitcoin.