[DEAD] DeepBit.net PPS+Prop,instant payouts, we pay for INVALID BLOCKS too

[mc_lovin]

Wow, I got twice as much BTC last night than normal!  Luck FTW!

[1713428328]

1713428328

[1713428328]

1713428328

[1713428328]

1713428328

[1713428328]

1713428328

[os2sam]

Wow, I got twice as much BTC last night than normal!  Luck FTW!

Did you find any shares in that 26 share block?  I wouldn't have minded getting a couple of those .  But alas I didn't.
Sam

[mc_lovin]

12.04 01:48:21   -    1   26     1.86538462

holy shit!  that share just made my day!

[pcexpress4less]

12.04 01:48:21   -    1   26     1.86538462

holy shit!  that share just made my day!

Lucky you. I didn't get any shares that round with 11gh/s and I also didn't get any out of the round with 96659 shares. I got 29 shares out of the 5868  round so I don't understand how I could not get at least 1 share out of the round with 96659. I'll have to keep a eye on this as it seems strange to me.

[DeepBit]

Lucky you. I didn't get any shares that round with 11gh/s and I also didn't get any out of the round with 96659 shares. I got 29 shares out of the 5868  round so I don't understand how I could not get at least 1 share out of the round with 96659. I'll have to keep a eye on this as it seems strange to me.

With such a short round it mostly depends on how "lucky" was the getwork you got at the start and how fast did you received it.
Even someone with a slower miner can win if his share was found at the start of the nonce range for that specific getwork.

[cmg5461]

DeepBit, when is the round time going to be fixed? o.o

[DeepBit]

DeepBit, when is the round time going to be fixed? o.o

This information was not important because precise block timestamps are provided anyway in the first column. But ok, I enabled it.

[pcexpress4less]

Lucky you. I didn't get any shares that round with 11gh/s and I also didn't get any out of the round with 96659 shares. I got 29 shares out of the 5868  round so I don't understand how I could not get at least 1 share out of the round with 96659. I'll have to keep a eye on this as it seems strange to me.

With such a short round it mostly depends on how "lucky" was the getwork you got at the start and how fast did you received it.
Even someone with a slower miner can win if his share was found at the start of the nonce range for that specific getwork.

That sounds correct for the short 29 share round but I would of at least expected a few hundred shares out of the 96659 round. The fact that I didn't even get 1 with 11 gh/s is what seems wrong.

[DeepBit]

That sounds correct for the short 29 share round but I would of at least expected a few hundred shares out of the 96659 round. The fact that I didn't even get 1 with 11 gh/s is what seems wrong.

You should get more than 260 shares from 96659-shares round. But this also may depend on your miner, your hardware (if you using something non-standard) and your luck.
This round was 2-minutes long, so if you don't get even a single share this may mean that something may be wrong with your miner. May be it was switched to your backup pool for some reason ?

Did you get any shares from 5868-long round ?

[cmg5461]

DeepBit, when is the round time going to be fixed? o.o

This information was not important because precise block timestamps are provided anyway in the first column. But ok, I enabled it.

Thank you, it's just nice to see it, rather than calculating it in my head

[The-Real-Link]

I also appreciate seeing the displayed times for each block.  I know the timestamps are correct but it's so much nicer just seeing how long it took displayed rather than figuring it out.  Thanks for fixing or re-enabling it.

[P4man]

Since you are fixing minor bugs on that page; when you click a date in the 'stats by date', you get the results for the day preceding the day you clicked.

The difficulty history below that is also either completely fubar, or I dont understand what its showing.

[DeepBit]

The difficulty history below that is also either completely fubar, or I dont understand what its showing.

It shows average shares per block during that difficulty period.

[P4man]

The difficulty history below that is also either completely fubar, or I dont understand what its showing.

It shows average shares per block during that difficulty period.

Ah. That explains the percentages. But I guess its completely logical its ordered descending by difficulty so we see 10 month old data first

[pcexpress4less]

That sounds correct for the short 29 share round but I would of at least expected a few hundred shares out of the 96659 round. The fact that I didn't even get 1 with 11 gh/s is what seems wrong.

You should get more than 260 shares from 96659-shares round. But this also may depend on your miner, your hardware (if you using something non-standard) and your luck.
This round was 2-minutes long, so if you don't get even a single share this may mean that something may be wrong with your miner. May be it was switched to your backup pool for some reason ?

Did you get any shares from 5868-long round ?

I have 8 rigs directed to you.I don't have any back up pool set up right now. I got 29 shares out of the 5868 long round. I'm on site with the rigs and all before and after rounds are correct.

[BlackPrapor]

That sounds correct for the short 29 share round but I would of at least expected a few hundred shares out of the 96659 round. The fact that I didn't even get 1 with 11 gh/s is what seems wrong.

You should get more than 260 shares from 96659-shares round. But this also may depend on your miner, your hardware (if you using something non-standard) and your luck.
This round was 2-minutes long, so if you don't get even a single share this may mean that something may be wrong with your miner. May be it was switched to your backup pool for some reason ?

Did you get any shares from 5868-long round ?

I've noticed that with my 1 HD6970 I do get 0 shares for some blocks that are less than 50000 shares in size. That makes me think that finding too small blocks will raise variance in payouts. Could someone with mathlab or some software like it calculate the distribution of payouts variance relative to the block size found? I.e. how strong is the variance at each size of the block. At least one month of blocks history is preferrable to use. Maybe if we had data of current pool speed for each block found, we could calculate how much that variance depends on the pool's speed. That info should give some idea on your minimum required proportion of pool's hash rate so you don't get any blocks with 0 shares. I imagine it would be hard to get that proportion in such a large pool as DeepBit, which makes me think that there should be a "golden middle" of the pool size for your specific hash rate. In case I can get all the data required to calculate that formula, I'll try.

[DeepBit]

That info should give some idea on your minimum required proportion of pool's hash rate so you don't get any blocks with 0 shares. I imagine it would be hard to get that proportion in such a large pool as DeepBit, which makes me think that there should be a "golden middle" of the pool size for your specific hash rate. In case I can get all the data required to calculate that formula, I'll try.

If you are getting LP correctly, you'll always have chance to submit a share in ANY block.
Actually even without LP you still have your chance. If you see a round with 50 000 shares, it means that at least hundreds or users managed to submit, may be even thousands, and I doubt that they are all in multi-GH/s range.

Also you can get 0 shares too, even with high hashrate.

[P4man]

I've noticed that with my 1 HD6970 I do get 0 shares for some blocks that are less than 50000 shares in size. That makes me think that finding too small blocks will raise variance in payouts.

Obviously it will, and its completely logical. The sheer existence of short and long blocks already is what causes variance, and being able to get proportionally more or less shares in to short rounds exacerbates that.

Deepbit has 3.5 GH. A 50K share round takes about 1 minute.  With a single 6970 you get what, 4-5 shares per minute on average? No surprise on some blocks you wont hit any. But on others you might get lucky and get 10 or more shares in. It should average out.

If you dont like variance, go to a PPS pool.

[BlackPrapor]

That info should give some idea on your minimum required proportion of pool's hash rate so you don't get any blocks with 0 shares. I imagine it would be hard to get that proportion in such a large pool as DeepBit, which makes me think that there should be a "golden middle" of the pool size for your specific hash rate. In case I can get all the data required to calculate that formula, I'll try.

If you are getting LP correctly, you'll always have chance to submit a share in ANY block.
Actually even without LP you still have your chance. If you see a round with 50 000 shares, it means that at least hundreds or users managed to submit, may be even thousands, and I doubt that they are all in multi-GH/s range.

Also you can get 0 shares too, even with high hashrate.

So you're saying that it more depends (or completely depends) on the number of pool users, and not their hash rate?

P.S. Would I be able to reduce variance on luck for small blocks if I have 50 accounts with smaller hash speed, instead of 1 fast?

[P4man]

So you're saying that it more depends (or completely depends) on the number of pool users, and not their hash rate?

It depends entirely on your share of the pools hash rate, so

P.S. Would I be able to reduce variance on luck for small blocks if I have 50 accounts with smaller hash speed, instead of 1 fast?

No. Join a smaller pool where your % is larger. That will decrease the variability of your % on short blocks, but of course your overall variability will only increase because a smaller pool has a bigger per day or per week variability.