grndzero


March 31, 2011, 10:13:59 AM 

I can connect to both pool and site now.

Ubuntu Desktop x64  HD5850 Reference  400Mh/s w/ cgminer @ 975C/325M/1.175V  11.6/2.1 SDK Donate if you find this helpful: 1NimouHg2acbXNfMt5waJ7ohKs2TtYHePy







Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.



CryptikEnigma


March 31, 2011, 10:15:23 AM 

Ah, just went back up for me.




MasterBob
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 2


March 31, 2011, 10:54:49 AM 

I received the following error: 31/03/2011 03:15:52, e0413b11, accepted at 0% of getwork[1575] 31/03/2011 03:16:03, 463996bb, accepted at 21% of getwork[1575] Problems communicating with bitcoin RPCException in thread Thread2: Traceback (most recent call last): File "threading.pyo", line 532, in __bootstrap_inner File "threading.pyo", line 484, in run File "BitcoinMiner.pyo", line 481, in miningThread File "BitcoinMiner.pyo", line 231, in hashrate ZeroDivisionError: float division again. It is nice to see that you do not believe that mathematical proofs (not theories, but proofs) don't mean anything.
That's like saying that the mathematical proof that shows that "X = 1 + Y" is the equivalent to "X  Y = 1" is absolutely meaningless until you manually substitute and solve both equations for a statistically large set of possible X and Y values.
Raulo published a full mathematical proof that the poolhopping attack does in fact increase expected average payouts. Read it.
faith [feyth]–nounbelief that is not based on proof proof [proof]nounevidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth. Theory is not evidence. Also Mathematical proof != faith. Though, I have seen no mathematical proofs.




geebus


March 31, 2011, 11:23:28 AM 

A lack of sufficient evidence, with nothing but a belief that something is true, is faith. Mathematical proofs work on the premise that anyone can duplicate the results by following it. In order for a proof to be a proof instead of a theorem requires that the results can be confirmed with sufficient data to backup the confirmation.
The same person repeating a process once *could be* a coincidence. However, if multiple 3rd parties, uninfluenced by the author, can duplicate the results, multiple times, and provide the data to backup the process and result, it becomes a proof (proof of the concept) instead of a theorem (theory of the concept).
I've seen a bunch of people say that it is supposed to work one way or another, but have yet to see anyone say "here is the proof, look at the data, it's undeniable".
Until it is proven, with sufficient data, I remain skeptical. I will however, happily accept it as setinstone truth when I see the data to prove it.

Feel like donating to me? BTC Address: 14eUVSgBSzLpHXGAfbN9BojXTWvTb91SHJ



nster


March 31, 2011, 11:27:20 AM 

A lack of sufficient evidence, with nothing but a belief that something is true, is faith. Mathematical proofs work on the premise that anyone can duplicate the results by following it. In order for a proof to be a proof instead of a theorem requires that the results can be confirmed with sufficient data to backup the confirmation.
The same person repeating a process once *could be* a coincidence. However, if multiple 3rd parties, uninfluenced by the author, can duplicate the results, multiple times, and provide the data to backup the process and result, it becomes a proof (proof of the concept) instead of a theorem (theory of the concept).
I've seen a bunch of people say that it is supposed to work one way or another, but have yet to see anyone say "here is the proof, look at the data, it's undeniable".
Until it is proven, with sufficient data, I remain skeptical. I will however, happily accept it as setinstone truth when I see the data to prove it.
This would take at least 1 month to do and is time consuming lol

167q1CHgVjzLCwQwQvJ3tRMUCrjfqvSznd Donations are welcome Please be kind if I helped



slush


March 31, 2011, 11:41:31 AM 

FYI, deepbit's last block was at 10:58 UTC. So, geebus, do we have an agreement? EDIT: Murphy laws; looks like the block was not deepbit's. That's first detection failure in last 10 deepbit blocks .




FairUser


March 31, 2011, 12:23:02 PM 

I received the following error: 31/03/2011 03:15:52, e0413b11, accepted at 0% of getwork[1575] 31/03/2011 03:16:03, 463996bb, accepted at 21% of getwork[1575] Problems communicating with bitcoin RPCException in thread Thread2: Traceback (most recent call last): File "threading.pyo", line 532, in __bootstrap_inner File "threading.pyo", line 484, in run File "BitcoinMiner.pyo", line 481, in miningThread File "BitcoinMiner.pyo", line 231, in hashrate ZeroDivisionError: float division again. We had a server outage earlier today. Please just restart your miner.

▄████▄ ▄████████▄ ▄████████████▄ ▄████████████████▄ ████████████████████ ▄█▄ ▄███▄ ▄███▄ ▄████████████████▀ ▄██████████ ▄▄▄▀█████▀▄▄▄▄▀█████▀▄▄▄ ▀██▄ ▄██▀ ▀██▄ ▄██▀ ▀██▄ ▄██▀ ██ ▄█████▄▀▀▀▄██████▄▀▀▀▄█████▄ ▀██▄ ▄██▀ ▀██▄ ▄██▀ ▀██▄ ▄██▀ ▄█▄ ▀██████████████▄ ████████████████████████████ ▀██▄ ▄██▀ ▀██▄ ▄██▀ ▀██▄ ▄██▀ ▀█▀ ██ ▀████████████████████████▀ ▀██▄ ▄██▀ ▀██▄ ▄██▀ ▄█▄ ▀██▄ ▄██▀ ██ ▀████████████████████▀ ▀███▀ ▀███▀ ▀█▀ ▀███▀ ▄███████████████████████████████████▀ ▀████████████████▀ ▀████████████▀ ▀████████▀ ▀████▀
 ║║ ║█ ║█ ║║  .
 .
║║ ██ ║║
 .
 .
║║ ██ ║║
 .
 ║║ █║ █║ ║║  




xenon481


March 31, 2011, 01:49:01 PM 

faith [feyth] –noun
belief that is not based on proof
I am glad that we agree. Since there is a mathematical proof that was done by Raulo, unless you have mathematical evidence and or proof that there is a mathematical error within Raulo's mathematical proof, it is you that is using faith, hoping that Raulo's proof is incorrect.

Tips Appreciated: 171TQ2wJg7bxj2q68VNibU75YZB22b7ZDr



nster


March 31, 2011, 03:20:14 PM 

faith [feyth] –noun
belief that is not based on proof
I am glad that we agree. Since there is a mathematical proof that was done by Raulo, unless you have mathematical evidence and or proof that there is a mathematical error within Raulo's mathematical proof, it is you that is using faith, hoping that Raulo's proof is incorrect. Raulo's "proof" is a THEOREM. ie: IN THEORY ie: NO ACTUAL PROOF I do think he is right though

167q1CHgVjzLCwQwQvJ3tRMUCrjfqvSznd Donations are welcome Please be kind if I helped



xenon481


March 31, 2011, 03:36:14 PM 

faith [feyth] –noun
belief that is not based on proof
I am glad that we agree. Since there is a mathematical proof that was done by Raulo, unless you have mathematical evidence and or proof that there is a mathematical error within Raulo's mathematical proof, it is you that is using faith, hoping that Raulo's proof is incorrect. Raulo's "proof" is a THEOREM. ie: IN THEORY ie: NO ACTUAL PROOF I do think he is right though No, it is a Mathematical Proof of the Theorem that is stated in the Background portion. [Mathematical] Proofs are obtained from deductive reasoning, rather than from inductive or empirical arguments.

Tips Appreciated: 171TQ2wJg7bxj2q68VNibU75YZB22b7ZDr



bombo999


March 31, 2011, 03:43:09 PM 

I strongly advise all users to avoid this pool!
why? Don't just come and troll here, without a reason on top of that I strongly advise you go fuck yourself? I mean seriously It is my opinion that users not use this particular pool. It appears that based on your response that you have a differing opinion. I do not believe that the fact that you disagree with me negates my ability to offer my opinion. I also do not believe that name calling and abusive language is an appropriate response.




grndzero


March 31, 2011, 03:43:51 PM 

I am glad that we agree. Since there is a mathematical proof that was done by Raulo, unless you have mathematical evidence and or proof that there is a mathematical error within Raulo's mathematical proof, it is you that is using faith, hoping that Raulo's proof is incorrect.
There are mathematical proofs for blackjack and poker too, many times over. They're called statistics or odds. Statistics don't keep me from losing a hand at poker, or even having a bad month. They also don't keep me from having a bad night at the blackjack tables. Statistics are a good rule of thumb in the short term, but much more effective in the long term. True that you can't lose all your value in mining in a pool, but some of the rounds have gone out for a pretty long time and diminished the returns of the people who got out earlier than later, or stuck it out. But you won't ALWAYS get the 2030% increased returns. There's still a luck factor involved (stated in my bitcoin documents and websites) that can't be qualified or quantified. You seem adamant that it works. The why don't you try it out instead of espousing that it's the holy grail of mining. I've dealt a lot with statistics from just learning to play card games. Mathematical proofs can be wrong, you never know until you test them, and they have to be tested over a good period of time. You can't do it for a day, or even a week. A better data set would be 36 months.

Ubuntu Desktop x64  HD5850 Reference  400Mh/s w/ cgminer @ 975C/325M/1.175V  11.6/2.1 SDK Donate if you find this helpful: 1NimouHg2acbXNfMt5waJ7ohKs2TtYHePy



xenon481


March 31, 2011, 04:08:29 PM 

But you won't ALWAYS get the 2030% increased returns.
I never said that it ALWAYS worked every single time. The proof specifically states that it is probabilistic and the probabilities are built into the proof. I specifically stated (emphasis added): [...]it is a mathematically proven strategy to maximize your total payout over time above the theoretical limits by exploiting mathematical inefficiencies in the markets which are pools. Mathematical inefficiencies that don't naturally exist with just solomining.
Also, look at Figure #2 at the end of the paper by Raulo. It specifically shows that you can add a significant (although not maximum) ~20% of your expected returns over time by jumping ship after just 20% of the expected time to finish a round. A vast majority of rounds will last longer than 20% of the expected average round length. Assuming you choose to leave the rounds at 20% of expected average round length, while you will only get 100% of your expected output in rounds that last less than 20% of the average round length, you will be averaging 120% of expected payout on all the other vast majority of rounds. And that is for a nonmaximizing jumping time!

Tips Appreciated: 171TQ2wJg7bxj2q68VNibU75YZB22b7ZDr



nster


March 31, 2011, 04:09:02 PM 

I strongly advise all users to avoid this pool!
why? Don't just come and troll here, without a reason on top of that I strongly advise you go fuck yourself? I mean seriously It is my opinion that users not use this particular pool. It appears that based on your response that you have a differing opinion. I do not believe that the fact that you disagree with me negates my ability to offer my opinion. I also do not believe that name calling and abusive language is an appropriate response. I do not recommend drinking water or any time of liquid for that matter.
*why? that seems just stupid. you're stupid and nonlogical*
It is my opinion that people not drink this particular matter (liquids). It seems that based on your response that you have a differing opinion. I do not believe that the fact that you disagree with me negates my ability to offer my opinion. I also do not believe that name calling and abusive language is an appropriate response. I never said you weren't able to offer your opinion, I'm saying your opinion is stupid, and that, by conciquence, so are you Anyhow, I'm going to stop now before I make you successful at crapping this thread

167q1CHgVjzLCwQwQvJ3tRMUCrjfqvSznd Donations are welcome Please be kind if I helped



nster


March 31, 2011, 04:23:34 PM 

just ignore nster hes a troll You're just mad cuz I called you out on your BF:BC2 CD key selling thread Please, if you agree with the other guy, do give a reason

167q1CHgVjzLCwQwQvJ3tRMUCrjfqvSznd Donations are welcome Please be kind if I helped



dayfall


March 31, 2011, 07:21:55 PM 

I don't want to cheat anyone, but I feel that I am justified if the operator says that a specific action is ok.
The BitcoinMiningPool just took 15h to find a block. If I assume 7.5h is average time to find a block, I should have left before the 7h mark. Here is my reasoning: If the block was found at 7.5h, then jumping obviously has no effect. But if the block was found at 15h and if I had jumped, then my shares on BitcoinMiningPool would have devalued to half of what it would have been had I stayed the whole 15h. (I worked only 7.5h of the 15. I would have averaged 150Mh/s rather than 300Mh/s over the 15h period.) but I also would have worked at another pool for 7.5h at 300Mh/s. so payoff is 150/7.5 + 300/7.5.
Jumping, I get either 1+1 or 1/2+1 Staying, I get either 1+1 or 1 (Edit: 1 = the amount of payment expected for 300Mh/s work over 7.5h.)
So it seems to me that the longer I stay after 7.5h the less I can expect to make based on the work I am doing. Even though I would have only gotten 0.7BTC (1/2 of my expected 1.5BTC) if I had jumped, I would have rather had spent my computing power elsewhere.
Any hard feelings if I do this? (By the way, I don't want anyone else jumping until we agree it is somehow not cheating.)




FRanz33
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 56


March 31, 2011, 07:32:01 PM 

if everone does that our pool will never find a block




[Tycho]


March 31, 2011, 07:34:14 PM 

if everone does that our pool will never find a block
No, it will, because sometimes block is found before the 43% mark.

Welcome to my bitcoin mining pool: https://deepbit.net  Both payment schemes (including PPS), instant payout, no invalid blocks ! ICBIT Trading platform : USD/BTC futures trading, Bitcoin difficulty futures ( NEW!). Third year in bitcoin business.



FRanz33
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 56


March 31, 2011, 07:41:44 PM 

and how long do u think a round will last if it goes from 15 to 5ghash after the the 43% mark?




