[OFFLINE] SIMPLECOIN.US [PPLNS/SMPPS]

[dark_silverstar]

thanks for the update. now im relax and should not worried about my reward 

[teukon]

I'm told the issue is resolved and the responsible machine decommissioned. Even still I'm watching closely.

I'm sure we all are.  I have my finger's crossed that we once again have a solid and reliable server for simplecoin.us but no amount of promises and explanations from the data centre are going to convince me I'm afraid.  Only time will tell.

thanks for the update. now im relax and should not worried about my reward 

I'm sorry you've had some confusion and worry with this pool.  The fact is it's still in active and rapid development so you're experiencing teething problems with the rest of us.  I trust that mike is being very careful with the actual earnings and share records because he has been good with them historically and has clearly put a lot of time and effort into this pool.  General bad luck and data centre woes haven't helped and some users are beginning to spread FUD about this pool.  There's no getting around the fact that small pools require trust, patience, and mental discipline.  All I can add is that the PPLNS pool here remains my favourite and all of my hashes go here.

[teukon]

Now I've seen it once before, are you sure the recent blocks are all displayed Mike?  The PPLNS pool has Namecoin round shares at more than 6 times the difficulty.

[teukon]

Another few hours without any Namecoin blocks on any of the pools (and at this very low difficulty).  I have no doubt that something is wrong.  Please put our fears at ease Mike by fixing any stat update lag and putting the recent blocks up.

I continue to mine here but I absolutely cannot advise it to others.  If you're not happy to take the risk here I would mine at another pool and wait for block reports here to return to normal.  Merged mining itself seems to be perfectly fine and the income bonus for using it is very high (150%) so I would suggest another merged mining pool.

[Iyeman]

and the pool is down again...

[simplecoin]

and the pool is down again...

Solidcoin locked up the test server. Never again.

BTC/NMC/GG pools should still be up.

[Iyeman]

ah ok, im mining tbx here. and the website i get a "502 Bad Gateway"

[simplecoin]

ah ok, im mining tbx here. and the website i get a "502 Bad Gateway"

Yeah, website was trying to get info from solidcoin client.
Speaking of solidcoin. I no longer have plans now or in the future to support it. Anyone with a remaining solidcoin balance PM me.

TBX pool is back online.

[Iyeman]

TBX pool is back online.

thanks!

[teukon]

Right now my account is showing an unconfirmed balance of 1.52413899 BTC but the stats report no unconfirmed BTC blocks.  I have a separate confirmed balance of 1.61780172 BTC which I believe is down to trasp's block (149155).

Is there a PPLNS bitcoin block which is not yet on the stats chart Mike?

Might this "1.52413899" actually be unconfirmed namecoins from ericwmson's Namecoin block (20599)? (this block is currently unconfirmed and I have 0 unconfirmed namecoins).

I'd love to start encouraging people to come to this pool again but I'm personally finding the stats very concerning.

[teukon]

ah ok, im mining tbx here. and the website i get a "502 Bad Gateway"

Yeah, website was trying to get info from solidcoin client.
Speaking of solidcoin. I no longer have plans now or in the future to support it. Anyone with a remaining solidcoin balance PM me.

TBX pool is back online.

It's a shame solidcoin failed to deliver again.  After this I can't say I'd be eager to give them a third try either and I'm glad to see that you handled the instability well this time.

[simplecoin]

Right now my account is showing an unconfirmed balance of 1.52413899 BTC but the stats report no unconfirmed BTC blocks.  I have a separate confirmed balance of 1.61780172 BTC which I believe is down to trasp's block (149155).

Is there a PPLNS bitcoin block which is not yet on the stats chart Mike?

Might this "1.52413899" actually be unconfirmed namecoins from ericwmson's Namecoin block (20599)? (this block is currently unconfirmed and I have 0 unconfirmed namecoins).

I'd love to start encouraging people to come to this pool again but I'm personally finding the stats very concerning.

PPLNS has another unconfirmed BTC block not sure why it isn't showing on the blocks page though.

UPDATE: It was looking for the time on the network block (which missed entry due to solidcoin timing out). You can see it in stats now.

[teukon]

Right now my account is showing an unconfirmed balance of 1.52413899 BTC but the stats report no unconfirmed BTC blocks.  I have a separate confirmed balance of 1.61780172 BTC which I believe is down to trasp's block (149155).

Is there a PPLNS bitcoin block which is not yet on the stats chart Mike?

Might this "1.52413899" actually be unconfirmed namecoins from ericwmson's Namecoin block (20599)? (this block is currently unconfirmed and I have 0 unconfirmed namecoins).

I'd love to start encouraging people to come to this pool again but I'm personally finding the stats very concerning.

PPLNS has another unconfirmed BTC block not sure why it isn't showing on the blocks page though.

Hmm...  I'm using the blocks page to analyse this pool's luck so if there are missing blocks that could explain the disturbing figures I'm coming up with.  While you're looking into that could you check to see if the PPLNS pool found any Namecoin blocks between 20180 and 20463, assuming a constant 30 GH/s this is an incredible gap.

The PPLNS pool stats page is now reporting another Namecoin block discovery (comradehls, 34 confirms, 20661) but none of my personal stats have changed.  I remember there being some kind of significant lag between these two but I thought that had been fixed.

Also, my Namecoin estimate is currently 0.

[teukon]

I noticed that you put GamingG's missing Bitcoin block (149249) on the list.  Shouldn't there be a Namecoin block that coincides with this Bitcoin block?  There is no Namecoin block on this list within a 1 hour radius of this Bitcoin block.

Also, what is the matching Namecoin block of trasp's Bitcoin block (149155)?  Is it trasp's adjacent Namcoin block (19893) which is reported appearing more than a day earlier?  Is it your Namecoin block (20125) reported 12 seconds after?  Is it perhaps some other missing Namecoin block?

For anyone else out there trying to piece this together there was (and still may be) a +-1 offset bug to the reported block numbers here.

[simplecoin]

I noticed that you put GamingG's missing Bitcoin block (149249) on the list.  Shouldn't there be a Namecoin block that coincides with this Bitcoin block?  There is no Namecoin block on this list within a 1 hour radius of this Bitcoin block.

Also, what is the matching Namecoin block of trasp's Bitcoin block (149155)?  Is it trasp's adjacent Namcoin block (19893) which is reported appearing more than a day earlier?  Is it your Namecoin block (20125) reported 12 seconds after?  Is it perhaps some other missing Namecoin block?

For anyone else out there trying to piece this together there was (and still may be) a +-1 offset bug to the reported block numbers here.

That's not how merged mining works. Bitcoin blocks and Namecoin blocks are found independently of one another. The site wallet balance is perfectly in sync with each client, any missing blocks would show up as a discrepancy in the site balance (client balance - user balances - promotional funds)  in my admin panel.

If I'm not mistaken, there is a way to match which btc blocks and nmc blocks we've solved by looking at our solved btc & nmc blockchains.

[RyNinDaCleM]

I noticed that you put GamingG's missing Bitcoin block (149249) on the list.  Shouldn't there be a Namecoin block that coincides with this Bitcoin block?  There is no Namecoin block on this list within a 1 hour radius of this Bitcoin block.

Also, what is the matching Namecoin block of trasp's Bitcoin block (149155)?  Is it trasp's adjacent Namcoin block (19893) which is reported appearing more than a day earlier?  Is it your Namecoin block (20125) reported 12 seconds after?  Is it perhaps some other missing Namecoin block?

For anyone else out there trying to piece this together there was (and still may be) a +-1 offset bug to the reported block numbers here.

That's not how merged mining works. Bitcoin blocks and Namecoin blocks are found independently of one another. The site wallet balance is perfectly in sync with each client, any missing blocks would show up as a discrepancy in the site balance (client balance - user balances - promotional funds)  in my admin panel.

It was my understanding that in merged mining, we are looking for both, but that doesnt mean an automatic nmc block because we found a btc block. What do you mean "matching nmc block"?

[teukon]

Perhaps I've misunderstood something here.

By matching Bitcoin and Namecoin block I'm thinking of an SHA-256 hash of [a list of Bitcoin transactions, some Bitcoin address information, and Namecoin data in a merkle tree] which happens to be a particularly low number (begins with quite a lot of 0s).  It was my understanding that any hash small enough to generate a Bitcoin block would also be small enough to generate a Namecoin block and consequently I expected any merged mining Bitcoin block to have a corresponding Namecoin block (at least while Namecoin difficulty is less than Bitcoin difficulty).

This belief was made stronger by posts such as this:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=42667.msg566146#msg566146
where slush proudly announced the first Bitcoin merged mining block (which had a Namecoin counterpart) Bitcoin 148744 = Namecoin 19274.

Can you guys explain why Bitcoin and Namecoin block generation events are not linked in this way?  Are the corresponding random variables independent (in the sense of probability) and if so why?

Thanks.

[simplecoin]

Perhaps I've misunderstood something here.

By matching Bitcoin and Namecoin block I'm thinking of an SHA-256 hash of [a list of Bitcoin transactions, some Bitcoin address information, and Namecoin data in a merkle tree] which happens to be a particularly low number (begins with quite a lot of 0s).  It was my understanding that any hash small enough to generate a Bitcoin block would also be small enough to generate a Namecoin block and consequently I expected any merged mining Bitcoin block to have a corresponding Namecoin block (at least while Namecoin difficulty is less than Bitcoin difficulty).

This belief was made stronger by posts such as this:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=42667.msg566146#msg566146
where slush proudly announced the first Bitcoin merged mining block (which had a Namecoin counterpart) Bitcoin 148744 = Namecoin 19274.

Can you guys explain why Bitcoin and Namecoin block generation events are not linked in this way?  Are the corresponding random variables independent (in the sense of probability) and if so why?

Thanks.

The returning getwork hashes are passed to both nmc & btc clients. Either or both can find a block. To describe the whole process would be very lengthy.

[teukon]

The returning getwork hashes are passed to both nmc & btc clients. Either or both can find a block. To describe the whole process would be very lengthy.

Hmm...  It seems I'll have to read up on that at some point, thanks.

This doesn't solve the matter of the stats though.  Either there are lots of missing blocks on the stats page or something is broken.  Compare the list of recent blocks for the PPLNS pool here with with, for example, the list of recent blocks for masterpool.eu.  In the last 24 hours we've had only 8 blocks and they've had 61.  This simply cannot be explained by luck or the difference in hashing power (they've had about 140% more hashing power than us for this period).

[simplecoin]

The returning getwork hashes are passed to both nmc & btc clients. Either or both can find a block. To describe the whole process would be very lengthy.

Hmm...  It seems I'll have to read up on that at some point, thanks.

This doesn't solve the matter of the stats though.  Either there are lots of missing blocks on the stats page or something is broken.  Compare the list of recent blocks for the PPLNS pool here with with, for example, the list of recent blocks for masterpool.eu.  In the last 24 hours we've had only 8 blocks and they've had 61.  This simply cannot be explained by luck or the difference in hashing power (they've had about 140% more hashing power than us for this period).

I don't know what to tell you.... except to check out the new transaction log. It's broken down to the last 100 transactions for each currency. It's all there, and in a much more readable format this time.

http://simplecoin.us/transactionlog.php


As for possible "missed" blocks, that's only if the namecoin client missed them. The balance is perfect for user balances and promotions, an extra 50 NMC would stick out like a sore thumb.

If you like, I'll also post the Wallet balance, beside overall user balances & promotional balances. (Although, I'm not thrilled about announcing wallet info)