Bitcoin Forum
December 03, 2016, 02:33:10 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 [343] 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 ... 426 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [CLOSED] BTC Guild - Pays TxFees+NMC, Stratum, VarDiff, Private Servers  (Read 828297 times)
This is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic.
ericisback
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 35


View Profile
May 06, 2014, 02:01:14 PM
 #6841



2)  There have been no backend changes for ScryptGuild.  There have been no changes to the backends period in the last 9 months.  6 of those months were positive on luck.  The last 2 were not.  The 9th month isn't available since luck only started being tracked across multiple difficulties 8 months ago (prior to that it only showed the most recent shifts of the current difficulty).



eleuthria, you should just eliminate the luck graph on the site entirely.  Even though the metric is measurable, it cannot be acted upon, so, in this instance, the measurement is not valuable.  And if I have to read the "bad luck" posts for 4 more months (until we are even again), I'm going to kill myself.

P.S.  Yes, I do know that the 4 month number is not really the guaranteed length of time it will take until the variances work themselves out - it was a joke.

BTC:  152kxHXJEZpQPvsB2iaQfWHT2DMMYnn8dD
1480732390
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480732390

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480732390
Reply with quote  #2

1480732390
Report to moderator
1480732390
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480732390

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480732390
Reply with quote  #2

1480732390
Report to moderator
1480732390
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480732390

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480732390
Reply with quote  #2

1480732390
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480732390
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480732390

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480732390
Reply with quote  #2

1480732390
Report to moderator
1480732390
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480732390

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480732390
Reply with quote  #2

1480732390
Report to moderator
1480732390
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480732390

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480732390
Reply with quote  #2

1480732390
Report to moderator
dropt
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442



View Profile
May 06, 2014, 02:40:35 PM
 #6842



2)  There have been no backend changes for ScryptGuild.  There have been no changes to the backends period in the last 9 months.  6 of those months were positive on luck.  The last 2 were not.  The 9th month isn't available since luck only started being tracked across multiple difficulties 8 months ago (prior to that it only showed the most recent shifts of the current difficulty).



eleuthria, you should just eliminate the luck graph on the site entirely.  Even though the metric is measurable, it cannot be acted upon, so, in this instance, the measurement is not valuable.  And if I have to read the "bad luck" posts for 4 more months (until we are even again), I'm going to kill myself.

P.S.  Yes, I do know that the 4 month number is not really the guaranteed length of time it will take until the variances work themselves out - it was a joke.

Bad luck graph or not.  It's pretty fucking obvious when there's a continual stream of >6 blocks found per shift when historically it's been >9.
eleuthria
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750


BTC Guild Owner


View Profile WWW
May 06, 2014, 04:49:05 PM
 #6843



2)  There have been no backend changes for ScryptGuild.  There have been no changes to the backends period in the last 9 months.  6 of those months were positive on luck.  The last 2 were not.  The 9th month isn't available since luck only started being tracked across multiple difficulties 8 months ago (prior to that it only showed the most recent shifts of the current difficulty).



eleuthria, you should just eliminate the luck graph on the site entirely.  Even though the metric is measurable, it cannot be acted upon, so, in this instance, the measurement is not valuable.  And if I have to read the "bad luck" posts for 4 more months (until we are even again), I'm going to kill myself.

P.S.  Yes, I do know that the 4 month number is not really the guaranteed length of time it will take until the variances work themselves out - it was a joke.

Bad luck graph or not.  It's pretty fucking obvious when there's a continual stream of >6 blocks found per shift when historically it's been >9.

BTC Guild is smaller (relative to network size) than it was months ago.  The days of a public facing pool being 25%+ of the network are over, unless they have an obscenely large private farm propping it up.  Private mining entities now make up ~40% of the network, leaving only 60% left to fight over.  As a result, shifts are no longer setup around 15-20x difficulty, they're setup to be roughly 10x difficulty.  This means bad luck shifts are no longer 8-10 blocks.  A neutral shift right now is 8.75 blocks (meaning 9 blocks or more in a shift is positive luck).

R.I.P. BTC Guild, 2011 - 2015.
BTC Guild Forum Thread
dropt
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442



View Profile
May 06, 2014, 05:43:08 PM
 #6844

BTC Guild is smaller (relative to network size) than it was months ago.  The days of a public facing pool being 25%+ of the network are over, unless they have an obscenely large private farm propping it up.  Private mining entities now make up ~40% of the network, leaving only 60% left to fight over.  As a result, shifts are no longer setup around 15-20x difficulty, they're setup to be roughly 10x difficulty.  This means bad luck shifts are no longer 8-10 blocks.  A neutral shift right now is 8.75 blocks (meaning 9 blocks or more in a shift is positive luck).

I understand and agree that BTCGuild's size is decreasing in terms of network percentage, as are the other public facing pools.  However, moving the average luck down to 8.75 b.p.h doesn't introduce a large margin of error on the values I stated in my earlier post. 

The bottom line is the luck is shit, and has been long enough that it's actually dragged BTCGuild's "all-time" luck sub 100.  I recognize that luck is out of our collective hands, so I've not come in here pissing and moaning about it.  However, the sustained streak is starting to raise flags, and I find it interesting that Eligius and BTCGuild are experiencing similar trends extending from a similar point in time.  I don't blame you for the "luck" or for nefarious acts, and in the event that it's actually bad hardware I fail to see any way to counter it.
Trongersoll
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 448


Retired Software Engineer


View Profile
May 06, 2014, 06:26:05 PM
 #6845

We should all remember, when pool luck is down we all lose. Eleuthria loses too. If there was anything he could think of to fix this he would do it. He is probably pulling his hair out like the rest of us. he is also very good at his job and most likely understands this stuff better than we do.

This is not to say that people shouldn't keep coming up with ideas. Personally, i liked the underperforming hardware idea. a lot of the miners have controllers on their boards that may have a problem with numbers that are too large. There is always the possibility that one of us may come up with something that no one else thought of. Brainstorming is good.

But just yelling that the system is broke and to fix it will not accomplish anything. Even if we did determine that some evil organization is interfering or cheating in some way, it is quite likely that nothing could be done about it.

I understand the randomness of Luck and that it is what it is, but i too "feel" that there has to be something causing this but, untill someone can prove their theory we just have to accept things the way they are. nobody complained when btcguild luck was over 100% for months on end. now it has swung the other way. At least until someone can prove otherwise.

*insert appropriate begging line here* 
BTC: 1CS6AV7VnjcPLxaTFoUhTjXK4mQCTzfSxE
Doge: DB22tiynvXKg7SyPpnH9jyfitKLTZb6ejc
yochdog
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
May 06, 2014, 07:23:06 PM
 #6846

Looks like miners are getting skittish and bailing fast.  Not sure I have ever seen such a drastic fall in hash-rate on the guild before.  Down by a couple thousand TH overnight. 

I am a trusted trader!  Ask Inaba, Luo Demin, Vanderbleek, Sannyasi, Episking, Miner99er, Isepick, Amazingrando, Cablez, ColdHardMetal, Dextryn, MB300sd, Robocoder, gnar1ta$ and many others!
eleuthria
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750


BTC Guild Owner


View Profile WWW
May 06, 2014, 07:32:54 PM
 #6847

Looks like miners are getting skittish and bailing fast.  Not sure I have ever seen such a drastic fall in hash-rate on the guild before.  Down by a couple thousand TH overnight.  

I froze a few accounts last night that had started showing unusually bad block solving rates over the last 6 weeks, even if they had previously not had bad luck, or did not have abnormally bad luck over the lifetime of their account.  One of those users has contacted me and we're now going to go over their HW/SW configuration to find out if something is busted.

The pool luck only took a drastic turn ~6 weeks ago.  And unfortunately, you can't tell how abnormally bad luck is until you have enough time to identify a clear pattern.  2-3 weeks at 15% of the network is not enough to call 90% luck bad enough to be suspicious, so it was not clear if it was abnormally bad or just bad until ~2 weeks ago, when we had a solid month at ~90%.  Even that is not enough to rule out variance for certain.  Since then, the 1 month time frame is in the 80s, which is even worse worse.

6 weeks ago is (roughly) when difficulty surpassed the limit of an unsigned 32-bit integer (4.2b).  It is very possible that this is the cause of it, but until I know hardware/software specifications of these users, it's uncertain.

R.I.P. BTC Guild, 2011 - 2015.
BTC Guild Forum Thread
hurricandave
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 864



View Profile
May 06, 2014, 08:00:07 PM
 #6848

Well, if we want to entertain the idea of faulty hardware having some bearing on the overall results, we need to identify recent release's. I follow a number of the Antminer threads and see a significant number of miners struggling to keep the S2's up and running. Also see a significant number of S2 miners posting screen shots with concerns over large numbers of Hardware Errors and Rejects. Some one will do a little math and say...Mheee...that's not too bad. My point though is that is 1TH/s equipment and those rejects and errors accumulated in 2-3hrs exceed my accepts for a given time period. AND knock-off miners with slightly less advertised total hash speed from Bit-Mine seem to have a slightly higher error rate/hour as well. Just seems too me like these units are a bit off, maybe they are putting out some bad vibe static.......
eleuthria
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750


BTC Guild Owner


View Profile WWW
May 06, 2014, 08:04:06 PM
 #6849

Well, if we want to entertain the idea of faulty hardware having some bearing on the overall results, we need to identify recent release's. I follow a number of the Antminer threads and see a significant number of miners struggling to keep the S2's up and running. Also see a significant number of S2 miners posting screen shots with concerns over large numbers of Hardware Errors and Rejects. Some one will do a little math and say...Mheee...that's not too bad. My point though is that is 1TH/s equipment and those rejects and errors accumulated in 2-3hrs exceed my accepts for a given time period. AND knock-off miners with slightly less advertised total hash speed from Bit-Mine seem to have a slightly higher error rate/hour as well. Just seems too me like these units are a bit off, maybe they are putting out some bad vibe static.......

If the problem is related to the difficulty going above the limits of a 32-bit variable, it may not have anything to do with *recent* hardware releases.  It could be OLD hardware.  It would likely be firmware or software in the controller for the hardware.  (See edit for more info).

This would explain why these accounts were not noted the last time I did a pass.  I was looking for active withholding previously.  Accounts with significantly low block submissions vs shares submitted.  Last night's pass was specifically targetting shares vs blocks over the last 6 weeks, eliminating the chance of past luck making up for recent shortfalls.


EDIT/CLARIFICATION: The hardware itself has no reason to actually know the result of its hashing outside of diff>=1 (or >=1024 in some newer hardware I believe).  It's probably not in the software since *most* ASICs do not use custom software, they use cgminer or bfgminer.  So the point in the middle that handles communication between the hardware and the software is the most likely culprit.

R.I.P. BTC Guild, 2011 - 2015.
BTC Guild Forum Thread
Entropy-uc
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 560


View Profile
May 06, 2014, 08:46:22 PM
 #6850

Well, if we want to entertain the idea of faulty hardware having some bearing on the overall results, we need to identify recent release's. I follow a number of the Antminer threads and see a significant number of miners struggling to keep the S2's up and running. Also see a significant number of S2 miners posting screen shots with concerns over large numbers of Hardware Errors and Rejects. Some one will do a little math and say...Mheee...that's not too bad. My point though is that is 1TH/s equipment and those rejects and errors accumulated in 2-3hrs exceed my accepts for a given time period. AND knock-off miners with slightly less advertised total hash speed from Bit-Mine seem to have a slightly higher error rate/hour as well. Just seems too me like these units are a bit off, maybe they are putting out some bad vibe static.......

If the problem is related to the difficulty going above the limits of a 32-bit variable, it may not have anything to do with *recent* hardware releases.  It could be OLD hardware.  It would likely be firmware or software in the controller for the hardware.  (See edit for more info).

This would explain why these accounts were not noted the last time I did a pass.  I was looking for active withholding previously.  Accounts with significantly low block submissions vs shares submitted.  Last night's pass was specifically targetting shares vs blocks over the last 6 weeks, eliminating the chance of past luck making up for recent shortfalls.


EDIT/CLARIFICATION: The hardware itself has no reason to actually know the result of its hashing outside of diff>=1 (or >=1024 in some newer hardware I believe).  It's probably not in the software since *most* ASICs do not use custom software, they use cgminer or bfgminer.  So the point in the middle that handles communication between the hardware and the software is the most likely culprit.

It could also be in the silicon.  You could have a fully unrolled hasher with a perverse error that corrupts the last 32 bits of the hash value under circumstances that includes the second 32 bits hashing to 0 (diff >4.2B).  The silicon could then find plenty of golden nonces but none (or a significant % lost) over 4.2B.

I was quite unhappy about the closed nature of many of the recently released products specifically because I wanted to run a test suite of known solutions against the hardware and was unable to do so.  The hardware we have online have solved ~150% more blocks than we have collected reward on, so I do have indirect confidence about the systems we own.
yochdog
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
May 06, 2014, 09:06:04 PM
 #6851

Well, if we want to entertain the idea of faulty hardware having some bearing on the overall results, we need to identify recent release's. I follow a number of the Antminer threads and see a significant number of miners struggling to keep the S2's up and running. Also see a significant number of S2 miners posting screen shots with concerns over large numbers of Hardware Errors and Rejects. Some one will do a little math and say...Mheee...that's not too bad. My point though is that is 1TH/s equipment and those rejects and errors accumulated in 2-3hrs exceed my accepts for a given time period. AND knock-off miners with slightly less advertised total hash speed from Bit-Mine seem to have a slightly higher error rate/hour as well. Just seems too me like these units are a bit off, maybe they are putting out some bad vibe static.......

If the problem is related to the difficulty going above the limits of a 32-bit variable, it may not have anything to do with *recent* hardware releases.  It could be OLD hardware.  It would likely be firmware or software in the controller for the hardware.  (See edit for more info).

This would explain why these accounts were not noted the last time I did a pass.  I was looking for active withholding previously.  Accounts with significantly low block submissions vs shares submitted.  Last night's pass was specifically targetting shares vs blocks over the last 6 weeks, eliminating the chance of past luck making up for recent shortfalls.


EDIT/CLARIFICATION: The hardware itself has no reason to actually know the result of its hashing outside of diff>=1 (or >=1024 in some newer hardware I believe).  It's probably not in the software since *most* ASICs do not use custom software, they use cgminer or bfgminer.  So the point in the middle that handles communication between the hardware and the software is the most likely culprit.

It could also be in the silicon.  You could have a fully unrolled hasher with a perverse error that corrupts the last 32 bits of the hash value under circumstances that includes the second 32 bits hashing to 0 (diff >4.2B).  The silicon could then find plenty of golden nonces but none (or a significant % lost) over 4.2B.

I was quite unhappy about the closed nature of many of the recently released products specifically because I wanted to run a test suite of known solutions against the hardware and was unable to do so.  The hardware we have online have solved ~150% more blocks than we have collected reward on, so I do have indirect confidence about the systems we own.

Can you elaborate on the test in bold?  Are you speaking of your own farm? 

I am a trusted trader!  Ask Inaba, Luo Demin, Vanderbleek, Sannyasi, Episking, Miner99er, Isepick, Amazingrando, Cablez, ColdHardMetal, Dextryn, MB300sd, Robocoder, gnar1ta$ and many others!
Entropy-uc
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 560


View Profile
May 06, 2014, 09:25:44 PM
 #6852

Well, if we want to entertain the idea of faulty hardware having some bearing on the overall results, we need to identify recent release's. I follow a number of the Antminer threads and see a significant number of miners struggling to keep the S2's up and running. Also see a significant number of S2 miners posting screen shots with concerns over large numbers of Hardware Errors and Rejects. Some one will do a little math and say...Mheee...that's not too bad. My point though is that is 1TH/s equipment and those rejects and errors accumulated in 2-3hrs exceed my accepts for a given time period. AND knock-off miners with slightly less advertised total hash speed from Bit-Mine seem to have a slightly higher error rate/hour as well. Just seems too me like these units are a bit off, maybe they are putting out some bad vibe static.......

If the problem is related to the difficulty going above the limits of a 32-bit variable, it may not have anything to do with *recent* hardware releases.  It could be OLD hardware.  It would likely be firmware or software in the controller for the hardware.  (See edit for more info).

This would explain why these accounts were not noted the last time I did a pass.  I was looking for active withholding previously.  Accounts with significantly low block submissions vs shares submitted.  Last night's pass was specifically targetting shares vs blocks over the last 6 weeks, eliminating the chance of past luck making up for recent shortfalls.


EDIT/CLARIFICATION: The hardware itself has no reason to actually know the result of its hashing outside of diff>=1 (or >=1024 in some newer hardware I believe).  It's probably not in the software since *most* ASICs do not use custom software, they use cgminer or bfgminer.  So the point in the middle that handles communication between the hardware and the software is the most likely culprit.

It could also be in the silicon.  You could have a fully unrolled hasher with a perverse error that corrupts the last 32 bits of the hash value under circumstances that includes the second 32 bits hashing to 0 (diff >4.2B).  The silicon could then find plenty of golden nonces but none (or a significant % lost) over 4.2B.

I was quite unhappy about the closed nature of many of the recently released products specifically because I wanted to run a test suite of known solutions against the hardware and was unable to do so.  The hardware we have online have solved ~150% more blocks than we have collected reward on, so I do have indirect confidence about the systems we own.

Can you elaborate on the test in bold?  Are you speaking of your own farm? 

Yes.  Before we pulled everything off BTCguild about a month ago, we had solved blocks worth around 150% of the payments collected.
navigator
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 360


View Profile
May 06, 2014, 09:34:34 PM
 #6853

Will a 1PH pool of S2's find more blocks than a 1PH pool of S1's?

Difficulty has become so high that older slower miners may never ever find a block to help balance out luck. They are slowly becoming leechers instead of seeders for the pool.

Let's compare 5 S1's vs 1 S2. We are given 10 minutes to work on a block. Each S1 starts counting from 1 and makes it to 1000, The S2 makes it to 5000 in the same time frame. Are those 5 S1's counting a total of 5000 really equal to the single S2 that counted to 5000 on its own? To me, comparing the 5000 vs 1000 of each S1, says that the S2 will produce a higher share height in a given time frame compared to the 5 S1's.
hurricandave
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 864



View Profile
May 06, 2014, 09:36:23 PM
 #6854

Are you referencing total shares submitted above a particular difficulty? Just total shares against block size? Sorry I just have a lot yet to learn and am not sure what/how your 150% is compared too.
DPoS
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 462



View Profile
May 06, 2014, 09:45:28 PM
 #6855


 nobody complained when btcguild luck was over 100% for months on end. now it has swung the other way. At least until someone can prove otherwise.

I respect this position, but no one is throwing red flags for luck going down from 105% to 95%..the three month is already at 90% and it has been a completely different rhythm.  (longer lows and clipped highs)   Sorry that isn't scientific but many things can only be sensed with your gut to tell your brain that it doesn't have enough information to make a conclusion yet and needs to keep digging.

the discussion is healthy.. because if 80% is the new normal, there should at least be a reason for it.


~~BTC~~GAMBIT~~BTC~~Play Boardgames for Bitcoins!!~~BTC~~GAMBIT~~BTC~~ Something I say help? Donate BTC! 1KN1K1xStzsgfYxdArSX4PEjFfcLEuYhid
eleuthria
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750


BTC Guild Owner


View Profile WWW
May 06, 2014, 09:45:58 PM
 #6856

Will a 1PH pool of S2's find more blocks than a 1PH pool of S1's?

Difficulty has become so high that older slower miners may never ever find a block to help balance out luck. They are slowly becoming leechers instead of seeders for the pool.

Let's compare 5 S1's vs 1 S2. We are given 10 minutes to work on a block. Each S1 starts counting from 1 and makes it to 1000, The S2 makes it to 5000 in the same time frame. Are those 5 S1's counting a total of 5000 really equal to the single S2 that counted to 5000 on its own? To me, comparing the 5000 vs 1000 of each S1, says that the S2 will produce a higher share height in a given time frame compared to the 5 S1's.

1 million 1 MH/s miners are just as likely to solve a block as 1000 1 GH/s miners or a single 1 TH/s miner.

R.I.P. BTC Guild, 2011 - 2015.
BTC Guild Forum Thread
BRADLEYPLOOF
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 519


View Profile
May 06, 2014, 09:52:20 PM
 #6857

Will a 1PH pool of S2's find more blocks than a 1PH pool of S1's?

Difficulty has become so high that older slower miners may never ever find a block to help balance out luck. They are slowly becoming leechers instead of seeders for the pool.

Let's compare 5 S1's vs 1 S2. We are given 10 minutes to work on a block. Each S1 starts counting from 1 and makes it to 1000, The S2 makes it to 5000 in the same time frame. Are those 5 S1's counting a total of 5000 really equal to the single S2 that counted to 5000 on its own? To me, comparing the 5000 vs 1000 of each S1, says that the S2 will produce a higher share height in a given time frame compared to the 5 S1's.

1 million 1 MH/s miners are just as likely to solve a block as 1000 1 GH/s miners or a single 1 TH/s miner.

I would hate that 1,000,000 1mh/s electricity bill...
eleuthria
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750


BTC Guild Owner


View Profile WWW
May 06, 2014, 09:54:00 PM
 #6858

I would hate that 1,000,000 1mh/s electricity bill...

Didn't say they were as efficient Tongue

R.I.P. BTC Guild, 2011 - 2015.
BTC Guild Forum Thread
hurricandave
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 864



View Profile
May 06, 2014, 10:00:28 PM
 #6859

The Antminer U1 and the S2 have the exact same chip, the S2 just has more of them, pretty much the same idea.
DevonMiner
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 409



View Profile
May 06, 2014, 10:41:44 PM
 #6860

Wow ... the pool speed has dipped hugely from a couple of days ago.

Pages: « 1 ... 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 [343] 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 ... 426 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!