[CLOSED] BTC Guild - Pays TxFees+NMC, Stratum, VarDiff, Private Servers

[joeofall]

but those unknow is 28% of the share! even ghash drop too lol

[1714012036]

1714012036

[1714012036]

1714012036

[1714012036]

1714012036

[ManeBjorn]

True.
The amount of transactions in China is funny for being reported as banned.
Maybe all pools should switch to P2Pool setups so everyone can get a crack at the bitcoins.
Ghash is out of control and going for well  over 50% by years end if their numbers for upgrades are true and what actually ships to the public for gears pans out.

It's mostly going to China.
Where bitcoin is not really banned.
http://fiatleak.com/

Just scroll up once the page loads and let the chart run for 1/2 an hour or so.  Pretty frustrating.
Most likely the mining hardware manufactures mining with the equipment they pre-sold.

There's only about 7.5% really unknown. There are a bunch of hashers that blockchain.info doesn't keep track of, and these get lumped into their "unknown".

[organofcorti]

but those unknow is 28% of the share! even ghash drop too lol

No, 28% of the network is unknown to blockchain.info. Only about 7.5% of the network is unknown to me:

(Apologies to eleuthria for the OT)

[ManeBjorn]

Thanks for that chart and great website.
That is really an excellent breakdown.

but those unknow is 28% of the share! even ghash drop too lol

No, 28% of the network is unknown to blockchain.info. Only about 7.5% of the network is unknown to me:





(Apologies to eleuthria for the OT)

[joeofall]

Thanks You!!

but those unknow is 28% of the share! even ghash drop too lol

No, 28% of the network is unknown to blockchain.info. Only about 7.5% of the network is unknown to me:



(Apologies to eleuthria for the OT)

[joeofall]

https://blockchain.info/blocks/91.121.112.133

had 9 block

hmm able to access that ip

[eleuthria]

Just a request:  When you quote somebody...please don't quote a giant half-page (or full page on low res monitors) image.  Edit that out!

[BrandonMcPherson]

Anyone with the math skills have the time and interest (or perhaps the masochistic need) to figure out the chances of running this bad for this long (roughly 20% under EV for two weeks)? I'm just curious, mind you, not complaining. Maybe a little fascinated, too.

[organofcorti]

Anyone with the math skills have the time and interest (or perhaps the masochistic need) to figure out the chances of running this bad for this long (roughly 20% under EV for two weeks)? I'm just curious, mind you, not complaining. Maybe a little fascinated, too.

Not possible to work out without the raw data, sorry.

[opentoe]

Since I moved to another pool it has been slightly better, (only talking approx 580Ghg/s) not much but I'm also not giving out a fee so that makes it a little more sweeter. Please don't accuse me of being a pool hop er. I've used the Guild since I owned my hardware and never switched but everyone has a breaking point. I'm sure lady luck will part with me soon.

[Minor Miner]

Could it be that the pool is not really 6 PH/s?   What I mean by that is that there are a lot of new machines HF Ants  etc.   Is it possible that one of the new machines really does not solve blocks (but generates hashes) so the pool really is NOT 6PH/s because some percentage (let's call it 20%) of the hashes are being credited to people that have machines that rarely (or never) solve a block?

[organofcorti]

Could it be that the pool is not really 6 PH/s?   What I mean by that is that there are a lot of new machines HF Ants  etc.   Is it possible that one of the new machines really does not solve blocks (but generates hashes) so the pool really is NOT 6PH/s because some percentage (let's call it 20%) of the hashes are being credited to people that have machines that rarely (or never) solve a block?

You mean something like a block withholding attack?

[AussieHash]

Could it be that the pool is not really 6 PH/s?   What I mean by that is that there are a lot of new machines HF Ants  etc.   Is it possible that one of the new machines really does not solve blocks (but generates hashes) so the pool really is NOT 6PH/s because some percentage (let's call it 20%) of the hashes are being credited to people that have machines that rarely (or never) solve a block?

Earlier this difficulty period the pool's hashrate by 40-50% in just a few days.
I've been wondering whether a miner hash mutation vulnerability exists. I believe a pool participant's shares include the pool's wallet address. One attack may be to without valid hashes from the pool, however this attack should cost the attacker money as they should not be able to steal the block reward. (So such an attack would be transient like a DDOS)

[Minor Miner]

Could it be that the pool is not really 6 PH/s?   What I mean by that is that there are a lot of new machines HF Ants  etc.   Is it possible that one of the new machines really does not solve blocks (but generates hashes) so the pool really is NOT 6PH/s because some percentage (let's call it 20%) of the hashes are being credited to people that have machines that rarely (or never) solve a block?

You mean something like a block withholding attack?

No, I am not smart enough to even know what that means.   I mean, let's assume that ABC manufacturer's Super Hash machines DO NOT WORK yet they produce hashes.  And a whole bunch of people point their ABC machines at BTCGuild (not knowing they do not work).   Even if other pools have ABC machines in them, it would still be whoever had the most that would get the worst luck.
What if one the big makers (like ant or HF) made a lot of machines that do not solve blocks but produce shares?   
Isn't that possible?    He could just contact the top 20 people (or figure out what they are hashing with) to test this crazy theory.   
I know its not me because there are WAY more blocks solved than coins coming out in my accounts.
This could happen since the NW is so large you now really need 600TH/s to solo mine so no one may be solo mining these dysfunctional machines.
Is that an impossible theory?

[organofcorti]

Could it be that the pool is not really 6 PH/s?   What I mean by that is that there are a lot of new machines HF Ants  etc.   Is it possible that one of the new machines really does not solve blocks (but generates hashes) so the pool really is NOT 6PH/s because some percentage (let's call it 20%) of the hashes are being credited to people that have machines that rarely (or never) solve a block?

You mean something like a block withholding attack?

No, I am not smart enough to even know what that means.   I mean, let's assume that ABC manufacturer's Super Hash machines DO NOT WORK yet they produce hashes.  And a whole bunch of people point their ABC machines at BTCGuild (not knowing they do not work).   Even if other pools have ABC machines in them, it would still be whoever had the most that would get the worst luck.
What if one the big makers (like ant or HF) made a lot of machines that do not solve blocks but produce shares?  
Isn't that possible?    He could just contact the top 20 people (or figure out what they are hashing with) to test this crazy theory.    
I know its not me because there are WAY more blocks solved than coins coming out in my accounts.
This could happen since the NW is so large you now really need 600TH/s to solo mine so no one may be solo mining these dysfunctional machines.
Is that an impossible theory?

This is getting a bit OT, but the short answer is no: if the machine is producing valid proofs of work then there is work_diff/network_diff chance that any one of them can solve a block.

[hurricandave]

You can't engineer a machine to solve a block. Just hash faster to increase the chances that one of the hashes you complete solves A block. Anyone has a chance to solve the blocks qualifying share but the faster you complete your share the faster you get another one, increasing your chance of being the one who solves the block by having more opportunities. If someone was taking share assignments and submitting pure garbage back at a high rate even if it was a really fast machine, the reject percentage would climb high enough that the pool OP should be alerted to determine if it needed banned. The thing that blows me away is the volume of people I have noticed that post they have 1 or 5 Antminer S1's and they don't know what they are doing and are complaining about there high HW errors, cumulatively what kind of effect is that kind of out of control hash power doing to the pool its pointed at?

[organofcorti]

You can't engineer a machine to solve a block. Just hash faster to increase the chances that one of the hashes you complete solves A block. Anyone has a chance to solve the blocks qualifying share but the faster you complete your share the faster you get another one, increasing your chance of being the one who solves the block by having more opportunities. If someone was taking share assignments and submitting pure garbage back at a high rate even if it was a really fast machine, the reject percentage would climb high enough that the pool OP should be alerted to determine if it needed banned. The thing that blows me away is the volume of people I have noticed that post they have 1 or 5 Antminer S1's and they don't know what they are doing and are complaining about there high HW errors, cumulatively what kind of effect is that kind of out of control hash power doing to the pool its pointed at?

Rejected shares are not included in the pool's hashrate, so this doesn't affect Minor Miner's concerns.

[AussieHash]

Is a withold-and-mutate block attack possible ?

[organofcorti]

Is a withold-and-mutate block attack possible ?

Is this a biology question?

I don't know what you mean, sorry.

[AussieHash]

Could block winning shares be malleable, to make a block witholding attack viable.