Eligius: 0% Fee BTC, 105% PPS NMC, No registration, CPPSRB

[-ck]

Although poorly designed mining software (*cough* cgminer) and hardware have forced us to artificially limit it

Define this alleged limitation you speak of in a way that can be fixed instead of plain trolling.

[1714800242]

1714800242

[1714800242]

1714800242

[1714800242]

1714800242

[Luke-Jr]

Although poorly designed mining software (*cough* cgminer) and hardware have forced us to artificially limit it

Define this alleged limitation you speak of in a way that can be fixed instead of plain trolling.

I don't know exactly why cgminer has this problem; it doesn't affect BFGMiner, so I never bothered investigating it.
My guess would be something that causes cgminer to not keep up with generating "struct work"s as fast as the hashers need them.

[-ck]

Although poorly designed mining software (*cough* cgminer) and hardware have forced us to artificially limit it

Define this alleged limitation you speak of in a way that can be fixed instead of plain trolling.

I don't know exactly why cgminer has this problem; it doesn't affect BFGMiner, so I never bothered investigating it.
My guess would be something that causes cgminer to not keep up with generating "struct work"s as fast as the hashers need them.

You are still not defining what you perceive as a problem. I have users mining with 50TH off one instance of cgminer, so I say you are just plain trolling now.

[Luke-Jr]

Although poorly designed mining software (*cough* cgminer) and hardware have forced us to artificially limit it

Define this alleged limitation you speak of in a way that can be fixed instead of plain trolling.

I don't know exactly why cgminer has this problem; it doesn't affect BFGMiner, so I never bothered investigating it.
My guess would be something that causes cgminer to not keep up with generating "struct work"s as fast as the hashers need them.

You are still not defining what you perceive as a problem. I have users mining with 50TH off one instance of cgminer, so I say you are just plain trolling now.

Try testing with a generation transaction of 100+ kB size.
Edit: Also, I would expect it to not affect high-end hosts. Probably just embedded and crappy miner-only hosts.

[-ck]

You are still not defining what you perceive as a problem. I have users mining with 50TH off one instance of cgminer

Try testing with a generation transaction of 100+ kB size.
Edit: Also, I would expect it to not affect high-end hosts. Probably just embedded and crappy miner-only hosts.

The host WAS mining on this pool with the 50TH without a problem

As for "crappy" miner only hosts, cointerra devices use "crappy" beaglebone boards and mine on this pool with 1.6TH per instance at 3% CPU usage.

So how big is the current generation transaction?

[Biomech]

You are still not defining what you perceive as a problem. I have users mining with 50TH off one instance of cgminer

Try testing with a generation transaction of 100+ kB size.
Edit: Also, I would expect it to not affect high-end hosts. Probably just embedded and crappy miner-only hosts.

The host WAS mining on this pool with the 50TH without a problem

As for "crappy" miner only hosts, cointerra devices use "crappy" beaglebone boards and mine on this pool with 1.6TH per instance at 3% CPU usage.

So how big is the current generation transaction?

*sigh*

Depending on what I'm mining and the mood I'm in and what machine I'm using, I have used cgminer, sgminer (a derivative work) and bfgminer. All of them, let me repeat that in large letters, ALL OF THEM work well.

cgminer is the best known and most widely used. I don't really see why bfgminer doesn't have wider adoption, as it's damn good too.

You two have a long running problem with each other. I don't know, or care, what it is.

But I have a proposal. I raise the funds to get you both in a boxing ring. No holds barred fight, pay-per-view. Tickets start at .1 BTC. I take 10 percent of the profit for getting it organized. You two split the rest. You'll make money, no matter what, and have the pleasure of beating the shit out of each other.

What do you say?

[x3maniac]

You are still not defining what you perceive as a problem. I have users mining with 50TH off one instance of cgminer

Try testing with a generation transaction of 100+ kB size.
Edit: Also, I would expect it to not affect high-end hosts. Probably just embedded and crappy miner-only hosts.

The host WAS mining on this pool with the 50TH without a problem

As for "crappy" miner only hosts, cointerra devices use "crappy" beaglebone boards and mine on this pool with 1.6TH per instance at 3% CPU usage.

So how big is the current generation transaction?

*sigh*

Depending on what I'm mining and the mood I'm in and what machine I'm using, I have used cgminer, sgminer (a derivative work) and bfgminer. All of them, let me repeat that in large letters, ALL OF THEM work well.

cgminer is the best known and most widely used. I don't really see why bfgminer doesn't have wider adoption, as it's damn good too.

You two have a long running problem with each other. I don't know, or care, what it is.

But I have a proposal. I raise the funds to get you both in a boxing ring. No holds barred fight, pay-per-view. Tickets start at .1 BTC. I take 10 percent of the profit for getting it organized. You two split the rest. You'll make money, no matter what, and have the pleasure of beating the shit out of each other.

What do you say?

I will buy a ticket!

x3

[nottm28]

for the veterans of this pool, how 'lucky' is it would you say?

[edit] I only ask because today I have watched it's blocks and it seems to be a 'bad' day - am I right?

[mdude77]

for the veterans of this pool, how 'lucky' is it would you say?

[edit] I only ask because today I have watched it's blocks and it seems to be a 'bad' day - am I right?

Today was a rough day.  A day or two ago we were at 160% for 24 hours.  Here's where we stand now...

last 10 blocks: 80.71%
last 12 hours: 78.32%
last 24 hours: 89.24%
last 7 days: 102.27%
last 30 days: 95.79%
last 90 days: 97.27%

M

[nottm28]

for the veterans of this pool, how 'lucky' is it would you say?

[edit] I only ask because today I have watched it's blocks and it seems to be a 'bad' day - am I right?

Today was a rough day.  A day or two ago we were at 160% for 24 hours.  Here's where we stand now...

last 10 blocks: 80.71%
last 12 hours: 78.32%
last 24 hours: 89.24%
last 7 days: 102.27%
last 30 days: 95.79%
last 90 days: 97.27%

M

Thanks mdude - at the moment it seems to be take your pick from a pile of unlucky pools...

[mdude77]

for the veterans of this pool, how 'lucky' is it would you say?

[edit] I only ask because today I have watched it's blocks and it seems to be a 'bad' day - am I right?

Today was a rough day.  A day or two ago we were at 160% for 24 hours.  Here's where we stand now...

last 10 blocks: 80.71%
last 12 hours: 78.32%
last 24 hours: 89.24%
last 7 days: 102.27%
last 30 days: 95.79%
last 90 days: 97.27%

M

Thanks mdude - at the moment it seems to be take your pick from a pile of unlucky pools...

As long as you stay somewhere, it will eventually balance out in the end assuming the pool (and operator) are functioning properly.  The lower hashrate pools will have higher variance, and it could take a long time to get to the "end".

No one was complaining about the 160% luck we had not that long ago.

M

[-ck]

You are still not defining what you perceive as a problem. I have users mining with 50TH off one instance of cgminer

Try testing with a generation transaction of 100+ kB size.
Edit: Also, I would expect it to not affect high-end hosts. Probably just embedded and crappy miner-only hosts.

The host WAS mining on this pool with the 50TH without a problem

As for "crappy" miner only hosts, cointerra devices use "crappy" beaglebone boards and mine on this pool with 1.6TH per instance at 3% CPU usage.

So how big is the current generation transaction?

*sigh*

Depending on what I'm mining and the mood I'm in and what machine I'm using, I have used cgminer, sgminer (a derivative work) and bfgminer. All of them, let me repeat that in large letters, ALL OF THEM work well.

cgminer is the best known and most widely used. I don't really see why bfgminer doesn't have wider adoption, as it's damn good too.

You two have a long running problem with each other. I don't know, or care, what it is.

But I have a proposal. I raise the funds to get you both in a boxing ring. No holds barred fight, pay-per-view. Tickets start at .1 BTC. I take 10 percent of the profit for getting it organized. You two split the rest. You'll make money, no matter what, and have the pleasure of beating the shit out of each other.

What do you say?

Happy to participate in a boxing match.

Just to be clear what the real issue is here though, as this is not a pissing match:

Luke-jr is saying the reason this pool uses a cold wallet is to store transactions they can't "fit" into the coinbase, and he is saying they do this to work around some limitation in cgminer, thereby delaying maybe a million dollars worth of rewards. All I am doing is asking what that limitation is so I can try and help. However so far it's only been some vague accusation which is as good as trolling.

[Biomech]

You are still not defining what you perceive as a problem. I have users mining with 50TH off one instance of cgminer

Try testing with a generation transaction of 100+ kB size.
Edit: Also, I would expect it to not affect high-end hosts. Probably just embedded and crappy miner-only hosts.

The host WAS mining on this pool with the 50TH without a problem

As for "crappy" miner only hosts, cointerra devices use "crappy" beaglebone boards and mine on this pool with 1.6TH per instance at 3% CPU usage.

So how big is the current generation transaction?

*sigh*

Depending on what I'm mining and the mood I'm in and what machine I'm using, I have used cgminer, sgminer (a derivative work) and bfgminer. All of them, let me repeat that in large letters, ALL OF THEM work well.

cgminer is the best known and most widely used. I don't really see why bfgminer doesn't have wider adoption, as it's damn good too.

You two have a long running problem with each other. I don't know, or care, what it is.

But I have a proposal. I raise the funds to get you both in a boxing ring. No holds barred fight, pay-per-view. Tickets start at .1 BTC. I take 10 percent of the profit for getting it organized. You two split the rest. You'll make money, no matter what, and have the pleasure of beating the shit out of each other.

What do you say?

Happy to participate in a boxing match.

Just to be clear what the real issue is here though, as this is not a pissing match:

Luke-jr is saying the reason this pool uses a cold wallet is to store transactions they can't "fit" into the coinbase, and he is saying they do this to work around some limitation in cgminer, thereby delaying maybe a million dollars worth of rewards. All I am doing is asking what that limitation is so I can try and help. However so far it's only been some vague accusation which is as good as trolling.

Understood. My first post was tongue in cheek, and I'm not technical enough to address the actual issue. However, the part about the two of you having a problem with each other is evident every time you interact, and it serves neither of you. From my POV, you and he have both been easy to deal with, except when you deal with each other. I primarily use cgminer, because I like it and because it's the embedded program in my device . But when mining scrypt coins with ancient APU's, I've used bfgminer and sgminer with better results. Probably because you've concentrated more on the bleeding edge of late. No worries there, it needs doing.

If there is indeed the problem he alludes to, it's serious in that in time the network is supposed to function on tx fees alone. Given that, I think you've got a few minutes before the end of the mining cycle

Though in retrospect, I still think a PPV brawl would be fun to produce 

[organofcorti]

I was in a pissing match once. I made it to 30 metres and won, but pissed all over my docs at the same time.

/OT

[smooth]

As long as you stay somewhere, it will eventually balance out in the end assuming the pool (and operator) are functioning properly.  The lower hashrate pools will have higher variance, and it could take a long time to get to the "end".

It will eventually converge toward average luck no matter what you do. Even if you jump around your own results will still converge (assuming the pools are using hop-neutral payout methods).

If you want to minimize your variance you should split your hash rate between pools according to their share of the network, though any split will reduce your variance and any reasonable split will reduce your variance quite a bit. If you want to avoid fees a reasonable one is ghash+eligius+eclipse, maybe bitminter (1% fee but pays NMC and xfees), and maybe p2pool (if you feel p2pool is worth supporting despite its tiny hash rate).

No one was complaining about the 160% luck we had not that long ago.

M

True that.

[mdude77]

As long as you stay somewhere, it will eventually balance out in the end assuming the pool (and operator) are functioning properly.  The lower hashrate pools will have higher variance, and it could take a long time to get to the "end".

It will eventually converge toward average luck no matter what you do. Even if you jump around your own results will still converge (assuming the pools are using hop-neutral payout methods).

Theoretically you could always hop to a bad luck pool. 

M

[mdude77]

Meanwhile.. lady luck is back.

184% on last 10 blocks
125% on 12 hours
104% on 24 hours

Apparently the block listing has a limitation on percentage.  If it's above 9000%, it just says ">9000%"  (for our 15 second block earlier today).

M

[nottm28]

Sorry for another question that has no doubt been asked millions of times (couldn't find it in the faq).

My actual earnings have almost reached my 'approximate maximum potential earnings' for the day. Now I notice that my 'esitmated change' is significantly lower per block (by a factor of 10) than what it was saying earlier. Does that mean I cannot go over my 'approximate maximum potential earnings' no matter how lucky the pool is?

[mdude77]

Sorry for another question that has no doubt been asked millions of times (couldn't find it in the faq).

My actual earnings have almost reached my 'approximate maximum potential earnings' for the day. Now I notice that my 'esitmated change' is significantly lower per block (by a factor of 10) than what it was saying earlier. Does that mean I cannot go over my 'approximate maximum potential earnings' no matter how lucky the pool is?

I don't think the two are related.  I also think the "estimated change" will vary based on pool conditions (how many users, total shares for that block/your shares for that block).

Not really sure though. 

M

[un_ordinateur]

Luke-jr is saying the reason this pool uses a cold wallet is to store transactions they can't "fit" into the coinbase, and he is saying they do this to work around some limitation in cgminer, thereby delaying maybe a million dollars worth of rewards. All I am doing is asking what that limitation is so I can try and help. However so far it's only been some vague accusation which is as good as trolling.

As far as I know, most of the queue is due to coins mined during failsafe mode, which were not sent as part of the generation transaction, and must be manually sent later.

During "normal" period, the queue is 3-4 blocks deep, but stays that way (except maybe during incredible lucky/unlucky streaks), and thus does not introduce that much of a delay!