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

[eleuthria]

I was going to check if I had any coins left in an old account here and it says my username doesn't exist.

It looks like your account was pruned in January 2012.  After the pool discontinued proportional and started PPS in 2011, there were 3 pruning events:

1) January 2012:  Accounts which had not logged in since the change to PPS and did not have the minimum withdrawable balance (0.01 at the time) were pruned.
2) October 2012:  Accounts which had not logged in since the change to PPS (1 year prior) were pruned.
3) June 2013:  Accounts which were created before May 2013 but had 0 mining activity in their history were removed (over half the registered accounts were unused).

The balances and account details for the 1st and 2nd pruning events were preserved including their unpaid balances and are available for restoration.  I can restore your account (assuming its the same as your forum name), though the balance is under 0.01 (~0.0026 to be exact), which is subject to a 0.0005 fee if you want to withdraw it (0.0021 to your wallet).

Send an email to support@btcguild.com if you want to have the account restored.

[tiberiandusk]

Thanks for the info. I assumed something like that happened. I'll send an email.

[kendog77]

Did something change with how the active worker summary hash rate is calculated? The dashboard appears to be reporting a hashrate ~5% higher than it did in the past.

[eleuthria]

Did something change with how the active worker summary hash rate is calculated? The dashboard appears to be reporting a hashrate ~5% higher than it did in the past.

Nothing has changed.  Sounds like your miners got lucky on share submissions?

[navigator]

Mine is doing the same thing, thought I was crazy. The rankings page shows the correct hashrate, but my worker summary has been showing 100gh too high all day, probably longer.

[eleuthria]

Problem found and fixed.  The website runs on a separate server from the database server.  The server running the website is virtualized and the system clock had drifted enough to screw up the averaging window.  Rankings/charts pages are unaffected because those are all done using the historical data in the database, while the dashboard attempts to create a live estimate.

[MoreBloodWine]

Nice, 30 blocks yesterday !

Looks like we're paying for it today...

We did, and today as well ;-/

[Sir Alan]

That must be one of the longest blocks in recent times - 302879 (following our 302878) took 1 hour 10 minutes to solve.  It was accumulating a nice fat bonus of transaction fees;  a shame it was Discus Fish that found it and not us.

[eleuthria]

That must be one of the longest blocks in recent times - 302879 (following our 302878) took 1 hour 10 minutes to solve.  It was accumulating a nice fat bonus of transaction fees;  a shame it was Discus Fish that found it and not us.

Not sure on the exact time between blocks (since blockchain.info no longer records time seen vs timestamp, it uses the timestamp for both now), but ~1h for the whole network, while rare, isn't something that's all that unusual.  Once every month or so.

[organofcorti]

That must be one of the longest blocks in recent times - 302879 (following our 302878) took 1 hour 10 minutes to solve.  It was accumulating a nice fat bonus of transaction fees;  a shame it was Discus Fish that found it and not us.

Not sure on the exact time between blocks (since blockchain.info no longer records time seen vs timestamp, it uses the timestamp for both now), but ~1h for the whole network, while rare, isn't something that's all that unusual.  Once every month or so.

At an average block solve rate of 1 per 500 seconds (a little faster that currently) a 70 minute inter-block gap is expected once every 4447 blocks ~ 25.73495 days. At 1 per 600 seconds, it becomes once every 1097 blocks, or a bit more than once a week.

Great estimate, eleuthria! You make it seem so easy

[eleuthria]

That must be one of the longest blocks in recent times - 302879 (following our 302878) took 1 hour 10 minutes to solve.  It was accumulating a nice fat bonus of transaction fees;  a shame it was Discus Fish that found it and not us.

Not sure on the exact time between blocks (since blockchain.info no longer records time seen vs timestamp, it uses the timestamp for both now), but ~1h for the whole network, while rare, isn't something that's all that unusual.  Once every month or so.

At an average block solve rate of 1 per 500 seconds (a little faster that currently) a 70 minute inter-block gap is expected once every 4447 blocks ~ 25.73495 days. At 1 per 600 seconds, it becomes once every 1097 blocks, or a bit more than once a week.

Great estimate, eleuthria! You make it seem so easy

Nice, organofcorti comes in and backs me up with SCIENCE!  I mean STATISTICS!  Which are kinda like the bastard child of science.  It was a rough estimate, but it did seem like about a once a month occurrence from my observations over the last 3 years.  Glad to see I was pretty close.

[BRADLEYPLOOF]

That must be one of the longest blocks in recent times - 302879 (following our 302878) took 1 hour 10 minutes to solve.  It was accumulating a nice fat bonus of transaction fees;  a shame it was Discus Fish that found it and not us.

Not sure on the exact time between blocks (since blockchain.info no longer records time seen vs timestamp, it uses the timestamp for both now), but ~1h for the whole network, while rare, isn't something that's all that unusual.  Once every month or so.

At an average block solve rate of 1 per 500 seconds (a little faster that currently) a 70 minute inter-block gap is expected once every 4447 blocks ~ 25.73495 days. At 1 per 600 seconds, it becomes once every 1097 blocks, or a bit more than once a week.

Great estimate, eleuthria! You make it seem so easy

Nice, organofcorti comes in and backs me up with SCIENCE!  I mean STATISTICS!  Which are kinda like the bastard child of science.  It was a rough estimate, but it did seem like about a once a month occurrence from my observations over the last 3 years.  Glad to see I was pretty close.

You're just running on a lunar calendar is all...

[guytechie]

I just got spondoolies yesterday and...what the luck?

I didn't get in on any of that Good luck, lol.  I hope we bounce back today

[ak49er]

Time to change the thread title to 11000TH?

[eleuthria]

Time to change the thread title to 11000TH?

I generally wait a few days before updating the thread title.  It's not like it means much .

[ak49er]

Time to change the thread title to 11000TH?

I generally wait a few days before updating the thread title.  It's not like it means much .

True, but I thought it had been 11 for a while.  I must admit I haven't been keeping up as I was without miners for a few days.  Just got back online last night.

[DevonMiner]

Time to change the thread title to 11000TH?

I generally wait a few days before updating the thread title.  It's not like it means much .

As the financial ads say ... the value of your investment can go UP as well as DOWN ... pool speeds are notorious for that ...

[eleuthria]

Time to change the thread title to 11000TH?

I generally wait a few days before updating the thread title.  It's not like it means much .

True, but I thought it had been 11 for a while.  I must admit I haven't been keeping up as I was without miners for a few days.  Just got back online last night.

We've been hitting 11 a lot, but our 24-hour average has only had 2 consecutive days above 11 PH/s.  I keep the pool speed relatively current on the title, but I don't feel the need to rush to update it every PH/s .

[kingscrown]

eleuthria good job running this man.

[hurricandave]

12,301 TH/s  the 11's just got crushed