[HAVELOCK] PETAMINE - 1,150 TH/S HASH RATE (1GH/S per Unit)

[Ashitank]

Lol Shares being picked-up like hot cakes. 

[1715312743]

1715312743

[1715312743]

1715312743

[VonSpecht]

400TH/s will break today! 

[Foebar]

without detailed calculations : I think we still have insufficient mining power to go with luck into finding blocks ourselves

@ 350 Th/s : Average generation time for a block : 23 hours, 47 minutes

2 What's wrong with 1 block each day on average? Seems fine to me.

1 block on average is fine by me, but if we have a bad luck string, it could be several days without a block.
that could hurt our divs at the moment.

We should first try to get around 1,5 to 2% of total hash rate before thinking to go solo.

With a lot of luck we could also generate above average and have nice divs, but with current calcs I think it could be tricky.
But hey, it's not up to me, it's up to all of us

[mikemikemike]

without detailed calculations : I think we still have insufficient mining power to go with luck into finding blocks ourselves

@ 350 Th/s : Average generation time for a block : 23 hours, 47 minutes

2 What's wrong with 1 block each day on average? Seems fine to me.

1 block on average is fine by me, but if we have a bad luck string, it could be several days without a block.
that could hurt our divs at the moment.

We should first try to get around 1,5 to 2% of total hash rate before thinking to go solo.

With a lot of luck we could also generate above average and have nice divs, but with current calcs I think it could be tricky.
But hey, it's not up to me, it's up to all of us

Nah. It's up to CryptX. They'll know what's best.

[rdyoung]

without detailed calculations : I think we still have insufficient mining power to go with luck into finding blocks ourselves

@ 350 Th/s : Average generation time for a block : 23 hours, 47 minutes

2 What's wrong with 1 block each day on average? Seems fine to me.

1 block on average is fine by me, but if we have a bad luck string, it could be several days without a block.
that could hurt our divs at the moment.

We should first try to get around 1,5 to 2% of total hash rate before thinking to go solo.

With a lot of luck we could also generate above average and have nice divs, but with current calcs I think it could be tricky.
But hey, it's not up to me, it's up to all of us

I believe I have said it before, they can run a local p2pool node. They can install the daemons for all of the mergeable coins.
We would get a block or so a day, and with weekly divs thats fine, and as they increase power the # of blocks a day will definitely increase.

Disclaimer: I have another investment that is using P2Pool and having peta support would be huge for p2pool.

[Wayne_Chang]

It time for PETA to update its speedometer now.

[Collider]

Concerning solomining:

There is absolutely no financial advantage of going solo - there is even a disadvantage:

- currently we merge-mine various altcoins, giving us ~ + 2/3% more income
- Gh.io pays transaction costs to miners (same as solo)
- Gh.io has an interface API, so we can make cool stats and speedometers that we max out

I saw what happens when a mining operation decides to go solo... it wasn´t nice... (the example was 100th project which had 500th in November... and that wasn´t going too well)

- you have more variance in your rewards/ payouts, making it very hard to tell what the actual hashrate is
- you need to program a solomining software for your needs
- if you produce a problem anywhere in that code, best case scenario: you get lower dividens, worst case: someone manages to breach your security and gets your dividends...
- the reward would actually be lower, as no merged mining would occur.

I hope that settles the questions concerning this topic, feel free to ask additional ones though.

PS: I prefer a failover strategy with pooled mining from a simplicity standpoint. However, splitting hashrate between pools that offer equal advantages has benefits too.

[rdyoung]

Concerning solomining:

There is absolutely no financial advantage of going solo - there is even a disadvantage:

- currently we merge-mine various altcoins, giving us ~ + 2/3% more income
- Gh.io pays transaction costs to miners
- Gh.io has an interface API, so we can make cool stats and speedometers that we max out

I saw what happens when a mining operation decides to go solo... it wasn´t nice... (the example was 100th project which had 500th in November... and that wasn´t going too well)

- you have more variance in your rewards/ payouts, making it very hard to tell what the actual hashrate is
- you need to program a solomining software for your needs
- if you produce a problem anywhere in that code, best case scenario: you get lower dividens, worst case: someone manages to breach your security and gets your dividends...
- the reward would actually be lower, as no merged mining would occur.

I hope that settles the questions concerning this topic, feel free to ask additional ones though.

PS: I prefer a failover strategy with pooled mining from a simplicity standpoint. However, splitting hashrate between pools that offer equal advantages has benefits too.

P2pool is the way to go. If they install the daemons for ALL of the coins that support merged mining we will make more than we are with ghash. Yes, there is a variance with payouts, but we are on a weekly dividend schedule, and if 1 weeks dividends are lower because of variance than the next weeks is likely to be higher to make up for it.

As far as programming software, NO you don't need to. Bitcoind supports mining, all you have to do is point all of your miners at a local ip address once its setup. Its not that big of a deal and for the guys managing/installing the hardware for petamine, it would be a walk in the park.

[Collider]

P2pool is the way to go. If they install the daemons for ALL of the coins that support merged mining we will make more than we are with ghash. Yes, there is a variance with payouts, but we are on a weekly dividend schedule, and if 1 weeks dividends are lower because of variance than the next weeks is likely to be higher to make up for it.

As far as programming software, NO you don't need to. Bitcoind supports mining, all you have to do is point all of your miners at a local ip address once its setup. Its not that big of a deal and for the guys managing/installing the hardware for petamine, it would be a walk in the park.

I do agree that if we decide to split the hashrate at some point, it would be nice to atleast have some at p2pool, as it is a great concept.

The reason why we should try to have as little variance as possible, is to not add further reasons for price speculation to the mix, it is already complicated enough.

I was not talking about programming a standard miner software to run the blockchain and mine directly on it, i was talking about more complicated management software.
This concerns individual miner monitoring etc., right now this can easily be done via gh.io on a per worker basis (and other features too), if a machine has a problem you will know it.

Many existing features that gh.io or indeed any pool offers us right now would have to be built on our own.

Pooled mining also eases the way for Cryptx´ maximum transparency, as anyone can view stats, etc.

Finally, i think it is important to not try to fix problems that currently (and most likely in the future) dont exist. Have cryptx focus their energy on delivering amazing hashpower!

[mikemikemike]

P2pool is the way to go. If they install the daemons for ALL of the coins that support merged mining we will make more than we are with ghash. Yes, there is a variance with payouts, but we are on a weekly dividend schedule, and if 1 weeks dividends are lower because of variance than the next weeks is likely to be higher to make up for it.

As far as programming software, NO you don't need to. Bitcoind supports mining, all you have to do is point all of your miners at a local ip address once its setup. Its not that big of a deal and for the guys managing/installing the hardware for petamine, it would be a walk in the park.

I do agree that if we decide to split the hashrate at some point, it would be nice to atleast have some at p2pool, as it is a great concept.

The reason why we should try to have as little variance as possible, is to not add further reasons for price speculation to the mix, it is already complicated enough.

I was not talking about programming a standard miner software to run the blockchain and mine directly on it, i was talking about more complicated management software.
This concerns individual miner monitoring etc., right now this can easily be done via gh.io on a per worker basis (and other features too), if a machine has a problem you will know it.

Many existing features that gh.io or indeed any pool offers us right now would have to be built on our own.

Pooled mining also eases the way for Cryptx´ maximum transparency, as anyone can view stats, etc.

Finally, i think it is important to not try to fix problems that currently (and most likely in the future) dont exist. Have cryptx focus their energy on delivering amazing hashpower!

+1 +2 +3

[rdyoung]

P2pool is the way to go. If they install the daemons for ALL of the coins that support merged mining we will make more than we are with ghash. Yes, there is a variance with payouts, but we are on a weekly dividend schedule, and if 1 weeks dividends are lower because of variance than the next weeks is likely to be higher to make up for it.

As far as programming software, NO you don't need to. Bitcoind supports mining, all you have to do is point all of your miners at a local ip address once its setup. Its not that big of a deal and for the guys managing/installing the hardware for petamine, it would be a walk in the park.

I do agree that if we decide to split the hashrate at some point, it would be nice to atleast have some at p2pool, as it is a great concept.

The reason why we should try to have as little variance as possible, is to not add further reasons for price speculation to the mix, it is already complicated enough.

I was not talking about programming a standard miner software to run the blockchain and mine directly on it, i was talking about more complicated management software.
This concerns individual miner monitoring etc., right now this can easily be done via gh.io on a per worker basis (and other features too), if a machine has a problem you will know it.

Many existing features that gh.io or indeed any pool offers us right now would have to be built on our own.

Pooled mining also eases the way for Cryptx´ maximum transparency, as anyone can view stats, etc.

Finally, i think it is important to not try to fix problems that currently (and most likely in the future) dont exist. Have cryptx focus their energy on delivering amazing hashpower!

You are aware there is already software to do everything you are saying is a big hassle? How do you think the largest mines do it?
cgminer has an api option that you can use to monitor your workers, you use external software to do so and you will know exactly what and where went wrong.

Don't get me wrong, I am not demanding we change to p2pool or any other solo operation at the moment.
I am simply arguing against your "its really difficult and not worth the effort" argument. In fact for those of us that are tech inclined, its a lot easier than you are aware of.

As for price speculation? Why does it matter? The dividends will be what they will be, all that matters is that we are running as efficient an operation as possible. When the mine is operating at its potential and they are producing hardware as inexpensively as possible, the share price will even out and the market will decide what its worth. There will always be times of volatility, we have bots trying to scalp the price and then you will have people who have to liquidate ASAP for whatever reason.

[Collider]

You are aware there is already software to do everything you are saying is a big hassle? How do you think the largest mines do it?
cgminer has an api option that you can use to monitor your workers, you use external software to do so and you will know exactly what and where went wrong.

Don't get me wrong, I am not demanding we change to p2pool or any other solo operation at the moment.
I am simply arguing against your "its really difficult and not worth the effort" argument. In fact for those of us that are tech inclined, its a lot easier than you are aware of.

As for price speculation? Why does it matter? The dividends will be what they will be, all that matters is that we are running as efficient an operation as possible. When the mine is operating at its potential and they are producing hardware as inexpensively as possible, the share price will even out and the market will decide what its worth. There will always be times of volatility, we have bots trying to scalp the price and then you will have people who have to liquidate ASAP for whatever reason.

While in theory everything will always work nicely, with every bit of software you add, a new problem might come that you weren´t aware of yet.
Therefore the saying "never change a running system" has some truth to it, also, if it isn´t broke, why fix it?

I know that this isn´t quantum physics to build (and or install) the proposed system of miner management etc. but with scale new problems arise, and as we already have a working system, unless the new one offers significant advantages, why change it?

I think cryptx should focus on new, competetively priced good quality hardware first.
Afterwards i hope they get a good nights sleep and have a chance to rest.

If at some point they feel like putting in extra manhours, they can always come up with new (or existing) ideas for more efficient management.

[rdyoung]

You are aware there is already software to do everything you are saying is a big hassle? How do you think the largest mines do it?
cgminer has an api option that you can use to monitor your workers, you use external software to do so and you will know exactly what and where went wrong.

Don't get me wrong, I am not demanding we change to p2pool or any other solo operation at the moment.
I am simply arguing against your "its really difficult and not worth the effort" argument. In fact for those of us that are tech inclined, its a lot easier than you are aware of.

As for price speculation? Why does it matter? The dividends will be what they will be, all that matters is that we are running as efficient an operation as possible. When the mine is operating at its potential and they are producing hardware as inexpensively as possible, the share price will even out and the market will decide what its worth. There will always be times of volatility, we have bots trying to scalp the price and then you will have people who have to liquidate ASAP for whatever reason.

While in theory everything will always work nicely, with every bit of software you add, a new problem might come that you weren´t aware of yet.
Therefore the saying "never change a running system" has some truth to it, also, if it isn´t broke, why fix it?

I know that this isn´t quantum physics to build (and or install) the proposed system of miner management etc. but with scale new problems arise, and as we already have a working system, unless the new one offers significant advantages, why change it?

I think cryptx should focus on new, competetively priced good quality hardware first.
Afterwards i hope they get a good nights sleep and have a chance to rest.

If at some point they feel like putting in extra manhours, they can always come up with new (or existing) ideas for more efficient management.

You don't strike me as an IT guy/gal.
The way I would do it in this setup is have a piece of software redirecting all the traffic from the hardware, that way you only need to change the pool info on one machine. Rather than manually edit each machine.
For those like myself that have been playing with tech since word processors, commodore 64s and apple IIs were the norm, its not as difficult as you believe it to be.

As for the don't fix whats not broken. There are a multitude of reasons for peta to eventually go solo/p2pool.
The largest one is decentralization of the network. Currently ghash is around 25% of the network, however they are still growing.
P2pool over the longterm pays out better than standard pools plus supporting it also supports the decentralization.

[Collider]

As for the don't fix whats not broken. There are a multitude of reasons for peta to eventually go solo/p2pool.
The largest one is decentralization of the network. Currently ghash is around 25% of the network, however they are still growing.
P2pool over the longterm pays out better than standard pools plus supporting it also supports the decentralization.

How does p2pool pay more than gh.io?

While i do support decentralisation of pools, at the moment consistent payouts seem more important, this might change in the future though.

My approach is only, if there are no significant advantages, why change it. I am all for better, newer implementations of any software available, if there is significant value derived from it.

However, changing stuff around doesn´t seem to be too high on the priority list right now.

[pedrog]

It seems we're gonna hit 400 TH/s.

[rdyoung]

As for the don't fix whats not broken. There are a multitude of reasons for peta to eventually go solo/p2pool.
The largest one is decentralization of the network. Currently ghash is around 25% of the network, however they are still growing.
P2pool over the longterm pays out better than standard pools plus supporting it also supports the decentralization.

How does p2pool pay more than gh.io?

Found this thread on p2pool. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=153232.0

I think this covers it. From that thread.

What matters for good P2Pool results: low latencies

On average a miner on a classic pool needs to react to a new coinbase every 10 minutes. Every 10 minutes a miner on any pool can submit a share based on a block that isn't the last one anymore. This is wasted effort: it doesn't help generate the next block in the chain and the pool suffers from this. Most pools reject such work and ignore it when they compute miners' rewards.

Miners are often separated from their pools by long-distance networks with tens or hundreds of milliseconds of latency. This means that every 10 minutes a miner on a normal pool is wasting its efforts for at least tens or hundreds of milliseconds. This is why there are rejects even on properly tuned classic setups: for 10ms of latency between miner and pool on average you should expect 0.01/(60*10) = 0.0016%:

Latency   Expected rejects
10ms   0.0016%
100ms   0.016%
1s   0.16%

Conclusion: on a traditional pool, relatively high latencies aren't such a big deal.

On P2Pool, the tracking of the proof of work is implemented by a sharechain which mirrors several properties of the Bitcoin blockchain:

    A share is a proof of work with a given difficulty
    A share uses the previous share in its input to make a sharechain like blocks do to build the blockchain
    It builds on a block template given by a Bitcoin node: a share hitting the Bitcoin difficulty can become a block too
    It's difficulty is dynamically adjusted to maintain a fixed average rate of share generation (one every 30 seconds)


The last point means that having a low latency is more important for a P2Pool miner than a miner on a traditional pool. Pay attention to the fact that a share being submitted too late to enter the sharechain can still produce a block so it's not wasted work (high reject rates are not a problem for global income on P2Pool unlike rejects on traditional pools). This said as the rejected share isn't in the sharechain it won't count as a proof of work for the purpose of distributing the pool's income.

[pleiotropik]

I'm math challenged so sorry for the question: at 400th. how many gh/share? 

[Anotheranonlol]

I'm math challenged so sorry for the question: at 400th. how many gh/share? 

Just under 5

[VonSpecht]

At this week, we should take an additional level to our betting game:

Will we hit 500TH/s before Friday - YES/NO?

I would say YES!  

[kenmomotaro]

At this week, we should take an additional level to our betting game:

Will we hit 500TH/s before Friday - YES/NO?

I would say YES!  

Personally I hope yes, but I would say no this time.
Custom board should bring us total 250TH/s and that's all. Evan Peta deploys all custom board before Friday, we shall see around 450TH/s there. There's no way to be 500 TH/s this week. Unless Bitmine delivers those rigs to us this week but that is impossible from now to see.
So I'd vote NO. Sadly, but that's true.