Laurentia Pool - BAD risk for miners

[kano]

...
If you are creating a pool, how do you encourage people to join if they might not get paid more then once a month or possibly every other month or once a quarter?
Same loop as above just from the other side.
...

-Dave

Actually it's quite simple

Firstly, while I've made no where near the BTC of the large pools charging large fees and -ck charging ridiculous amounts to write crappy, buggy code, so they have to pay him more again to fix it,
I have made enough to be happy (2 digits) and also keep the pool running for the future - even though it's running at a loss at the moment.
Where did that BTC I made come from? Running a pool of course - so why not keep it running using that BTC ...

Anyway the simple answer is, as has happened a number of times in the past on my pool, some large miner gets fed up with the fees and lies of the pool they are using, and they come by and talk to me.
Unfortunately the last two (900PH and 200PH) couldn't convince their board that joining a small pool would be a good idea.
Odd though, since the pool wouldn't be small any more

But it happens on occasion, and it will only take one of them to come on board, then lots of small and medium miners will join again after that.

The sooner the better of course, but alas, it's random when it happens.

Maybe some of the new features I've spent so much time and effort on will help convince the next one

My pool is the best connected and best for Bitcoin pool, without doubt.
Alas at the moment it's too small to attract lots of small to medium miners.

[mikeywith]

If it's just about the coding and the back end and connectivity, then without a full review of their code and a complete network and peer map then it's just a guess.

Exactly what I am trying to state here, Kano claims his pool has the best code and connectivity, the only source for these claims are obviously his own words which I for obvious reasons can't trust without an inpedenent review of his claims, he could have lost 10 blocks and all went unnoticed, just like any pool could, so to claim that you never lost a block without providing a proof on how does your code/connectivety prevent this and how do they differ from other well known large pools who can afford to pay the best devs on planet and rent or probably own their own high-end servers.

We know about the last block cksolo pool lost because that person happen to check his miner's best share (mainly due to the fact that he was mining solo) we don't know many blocks in TOTAL did ckpool (non-solo) lose neither do we know about Kano's pool, and since "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" we can't tell if Kano lost a few blocks without knowing or actually he knows but never admitted it, it remains a guess, so unless he states a straight forward proof to support his claim, I will still believe that he is simply promoting his mining pool.

[kano]

Heh funny about all that merit you got - even the mod who doesn't follow the forum rules unless he's told to

Firstly, you've been on ignore for a long time, so I never read your posts.
The only reason I read it was all the merit

Fun fact, all this information about my pool configuration is available in many posts I've made in the past in detail

That being: the pool has nodes all over the world, working on accepting shares and distributing blocks as quickly as possible.
The nodes themselves submit blocks to the bitcoin network as soon as a share, that is a block, arrives to them from the miner.
The share is of course also sent back to the master server where ckpool and KDB both process it (KDB accurately, unlike ckpool) and they both submit the block also.
ckpool also sends the share to every other node to do the same block submission.
This point also was completely confused in the Laurentia white paper - mfb clearly does not even understand ckpool.
His paper says he uses ckpool without this advantage, that some of the 137 BTC I gave -ck covered the cost of adding.
Of course the current ckpool git doesn't work with AB blocks but I fixed that in my copy when I first did all the AB testing before putting the AB changes live.

Secondly, you are, like phil did, simply trashing -ck with most of this comment.
As I've pointed out here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5264067.msg54855598#msg54855598

Now there's probably also some explanation necessary since I'd guess you don't understand what's meant by 'lost' blocks in all this discussion.
Your comments about not even caring if you find blocks or not, are alarming at the least, so I doubt you understand the various issues with finding blocks.

By 'lost' I specifically mean lost by negligence and code bugs.

In these cases, the miner may know it found a block, the pool will get the share that represents a block, but the block was not sent out to the network when it should have been or not sent out at all, due to a code fault or in the most recent cksolo one, server management negligence.

There are of course also stale and orphan blocks, caused by rare block find timing (orphans) slow pools (orphans/stales) remote miners not well connected to the pool (stales) or miners generally slow getting the block to the pool for whatever reason (stales)
But they don't fall under the heading of 'lost' - but all 'should' be displayed by all pools (though I doubt most of them do)

If instead a block is lost due to network issues like the share never being delivered to the pool, well then there's no way for the pool to handle that, since it never got the share - only the miner could know about that one, assuming cgminer actually reports it.

So related specifically to this item - my pool's worldwide node distribution is relevant to that - miners have nodes close to them - nodes that submit blocks to the bitcoin network immediately, not waiting until they are processed less than 100ms later by the master server.
(the ckpool master node latency report for each KanoPool node is under 70ms for all but the Singapore node which is 86ms)

But what this also leads to, by design, is that every node on the Worldwide KanoPool network submits the block to the area it is in.
The block submission does not require the full block to be sent to each node, only the tiny share data, thus it distributes the blocks around the world faster than any other pool - and there certainly can be no argument against this now that the Fibre Block relay is gone - though when the Fibre Block relay was working, the process of only sending a share via TCP rather than the full block via UDP was also probably faster than the Fibre Block relay, since the incoming block to the FIbre Block relay, and outgoing to the other pools on the network 'at the other end', was also TCP.
Also, of course, the KanoPool nodes are all interconnected with their bitcoinds as well.

As for blocks 'missing'
Well this is a rather curious suggestion that a pool could make blocks disappear but still get the BTC
To do this would require:
1) sending a miner different work to the rest of the pool, not identifying the block as Kano
2) the miner would then find a block and have to never notice that it found a block
Both of these things, any miner 'can' check, so I'd magically have to know which miners would never check this and hope I never get caught even once over the years.

While this has never happened on KanoPool, I guess I 'could' come up with some excuses like ckpool has over the years for losing blocks ... if it ever did happen

Lastly, as can been seen in the old git, but of course not my current private git, but has happened with every block found on the pool, KDB immediately displays the block found irrelevant of if it is valid/stale/orphan/rejected and I also do this in IRC and Discord.
... unlike all the ckpools ... including laurentia

--

Edit: While people may say that 'the big pools' must have more resources and a better network:
There are currently 11 KanoPool nodes around the world, 4 of which are bare metal hardware, the equivalent power of the server that's runs all of cksolo or laurentia (4Core/8Thread, SSD, 32GB RAM though one has 64GB), the other 7 are VPS, 16GB/4vCPU/SSD AWS/Vultr/RamNode/Aliyun.
Also the 3 main connections, Netherland, US-West and US-East, have two nodes each, one metal and one VPS i.e. with 2 providers to handle the case if there is an issue involving one or the other provider.
These are the servers I add as needed, or also for large miners to have a dedicated node, part of the KanoPool network.
The main (metal) server is a 'bit' more powerful ... 24Core/48Thread 96GB RAM, SSD ... though I'll probably upgrade that soon.
The web server is also a separate metal server the same as the nodes (4Core/8Thread/32GB/SSD)

[minefarmbuy]

“Laurentia Pool - BADLY advertising kano pool”

Take care bud.

[mikeywith]

If instead a block is lost due to network issues like the share never being delivered to the pool, well then there's no way for the pool to handle that, since it never got the share - only the miner could know about that one, assuming cgminer actually reports it.

Then to claim that your pool has never lost a block is not accurate, the proper way of stating this would be "your pool never lost a block that you know of" since the connection between the miner and the pool depends on both the miner's connection and the pool's connection, there is a chance that at the time when a miner submitted a share your sever wasn't listening for many reasons such as bad connectivity which resulted in a packet loss of some kind, and that person didn't happen to check his miner's status page, he could have rebooted the miner a while later, and proof of a block went missing forever, "when it's techinally possible, it can happen, it could have happened".

So related specifically to this item - my pool's worldwide node distribution is relevant to that - miners have nodes close to them...

Most pools have worldwide node distribution, so this isn't Kano pool's exulsive feature.

... thus it distributes the blocks around the world faster than any other pool...

Do you have access to the code and servers of every mining pool on planet earth? if not then I call bullshit, you don't know how the other pools operate, you are using CKpool which he himself admitted to be running on an inadequate server with a code which he probably hasn't improved forever because he doesn't treat his mining pools as a source of income, and just because your pool is better than CK's you have the nerve to claim without a proof that your pool distributes blocks faster than ALL pools.

While people may say that 'the big pools' must have more resources and a better network:
There are currently 11 KanoPool nodes around the world...

Comparing your servers' specs and connectivity to CKpool and coming up with the conclusion that your pool runs on the BEST servers, and has the BEST connectivity and the BEST code is plain stupid really, the only way for your claims to be real is if they are backed by solid evidence, those include a breakdown of ALL the other pool's servers, connectivity and code, but since most of that is private information nobody in thier right mind will claim thier pool is the best when they can't see what their competitors actually have.

I do know that you are a professional developer, you probably invested all you could afford on the pool's resources, I am not debating that, but I also know that pools which generate millions of dollars in profit, and owned by multi-billion $ companies most likely have and 'can' afford a better code, servers and worldwide connectivity than a pool of your size.

Having said that, I am not against your pool, I have actually told people in this very forum that if they don't have a problem with your terrible attitude they should certainly mine at your pool, I benifit directly by more pools and more competition in the mining industry, so I indeed wish to see your pool grow bigger, but without the b.s of it being the BEST pool.

[kano]

I do know that you are a professional developer, you probably invested all you could afford on the pool's resources, I am not debating that, but I also know that pools which generate millions of dollars in profit, and owned by multi-billion $ companies most likely have and 'can' afford a better code, servers and worldwide connectivity than a pool of your size.

Unless they do the same as my pool - share distribution, not block distribution, then they will be slower.

As for the assumption that money = quality, well that's easy to prove wrong.
All the way up to the S7, BM did not include the changes I made in the S1,S2,S3 in the public cgminer git into their miner.
The miner driver code BM added to cgminer has same glaringly obvious issues.
The S9 did make 2 related changes, but not all of them.
Yet they have been for a very long time the largest miner producer on the planet

As "Laurentia" likes to advertise "Dr Con Kolivas a computer programmer" - alas he has no computing degree at all, and is only an Anesthetist by his own words - which by USA specifications, is an RN, not an MD.
Though I think that is called marketing - wording something so it appears better than it is - but wording it so that no one can claim they are doing that.
Yet, BM still use cgminer code also ... while it wouldn't be all that hard to write a better one themselves ...
and e.g. remove the failover bug that's existed in it since stratum was first added, and causes problems for all miners.

Another fun fact, F2Pool once posted specifically how they had a better network and they could orphan KanoPool as they liked.
They shut up about that after KanoPool orphaned one of their blocks ...

Odd though, that you'd ignore this comment in this thread ... yet post multiple times before and after it

Our server is highly optimized and more efficient than any other pool on market. Full stop.
...

A single server tucked away in some corner in the US ...

P.S. Mine On
As people have been posting "Mine On" in the KanoPool thread since 2016

--

Edit: oh you missed the "Best for Bitcoin" bit.
We don't produce empty blocks - all the top pools do.

--

Edit2:

...
Comparing your servers' specs
...

Actually it is quite relevant, since I know the servers I use are never overloaded and are specified above the requirements to ensure that.
Simple one actually.

[minefarmbuy]

Our whitepaper outlines our efficiencies compared to pools with multiple slave nodes. Imagine there will be long reply inc now.

With all your TL;DR's here we all could really quote out considerable "claims" from karen.

I don't make rules regarding titles for countries so you can debate that with Australia. I think we state it twice on website in reference to Con, not sure if we've marketed the pool directly as such. But sure marketing. ..  just like your Kano pool pump thread here at our expense or at least your imaginary one.

You want to clown me about my use of #mineon like we trademarked it or some lame shit like we own the phrase.

Anything else? or can we wrap this up? I've never witnessed anyone deeply committed to the demise of project that's just getting started. I just put it down to jealously. It's incredibly obvious and I don't think you realize how much damage to your already dwindled reputation this is causing.

There are so many deliberate scams in this space and you choose to single us out. A project actually attempting to achieve a little something with principle, and dedication to the user and network.

Kudo's, well done.

#mineon

[mikeywith]

Unless they do the same as my pool - share distribution, not block distribution, then they will be slower...

You DON'T know if they propagate only the share or the whole block, you CAN't tell, you are only assuming that you are the only person on planet earth who knows that distributing a share is faster and more effienct than sending out a whole block, I don't know how the other pools operate, but if I had to take a bet, I bet they know better and that they utilize all aspects to keep their found blocks distribution as fast and effienct as possible, so long story short, your pool isn't proven to be the best, for all I know and since all of those large pools are based in China, they could very well be communcitng within the same LAN and ALL of them have better and faster connections to the other mining nodes (that matter), that of course is an assumption just like the many assumptions you make.

All the way up to the S7, BM did not include the changes I made in the S1,S2,S3 in the public cgminer git into their miner. The miner driver code BM added to cgminer has same glaringly obvious issues. The S9 did make 2 related changes, but not all of them. Yet they have been for a very long time the largest miner producer on the planet

Another fun fact, F2Pool once posted specifically how they had a better network and they could orphan KanoPool as they liked.
They shut up about that after KanoPool orphaned one of their blocks ...

This doesn't prove that you have a better network, not sure why you bring this up because I know you know very well that oprhan blocks aren't caused only buy a poor node-connecevity.

Odd though, that you'd ignore this comment in this thread ... yet post multiple times before and after it...

I call B.S on that as well, that's a baseless claim just like the many once you make, the only difference is that my guess is that he said that out of frustration because you pissed him off, which I suppose he would, later on, edit it or provide a proof on how is his server "more efficient than any other pool on market", and since we all know he has no proof on that, I suppose he should take that back, or he could of course follow your lead and keep claiming things with zero evidence.

As people have been posting "Mine On" in the KanoPool thread since 2016...

Which makes me wonder Kano, you kind of had the "pole position" in the mining pool race, and yet you now sit at the very back with a tiny amount of hashrate, a fresh pool like this one which hasn't gone online yet has hashrate commitments of about 70PH, maybe (just maybe) it would be best if you hire someone else who would take care of all things non-techincal, and that starts with interacting with the forum members, I am 100% positive that your attitude is one of the main reasons why your pool isn't attracting enough miners, I mean based on the current hashrate you own, you make about 160$ a month or so, this probably doesn't even pay for the "best" servers you rent, you should really shake things up while you have the chance, and start by droping the attitude. Good luck.

[philipma1957]

actually mikey  give kano a break.

He went from the hottest pool on earth 104% luck for his first 1431 blocks.

His pool has done 1000 blocks since at 96% luck.

Which is not terrible but a huge letdown when compared to 104% luck.

Kano is actually a victim of those 1431 first blocks.  
He has failed to keep pace with that and lost most of his network share.

I am convinced he has made a coding error and is blind to it due to not having a second eyes check it. {a guy like ck}

Thus he acts out in a very angry manner to the community.

He really is a victim of his 1431 block 104% luck starting streak.

Think if he was 96% for first 1000 blocks then 104% for last 1431 block his pool would be godlike and he would be riding high.

If you go back and read early parts of his thread it was like this.

I guess he is like a washed up athlete his glory days are past and it eats him alive.

I for one would love for him to read this go look at his code find a way to tweak it and go on a god like hot steak.

@ kano I truly am not fucking with your head here. This is  a sincere wish for you to be able to recaptchture the pools magic .



It would be nice to see him happy like he once was. Rather then the angry person he seems to be now.
@ kano you and I were once friendly for more then a few years.  I rathe stop fighting with you and see you cheer up.

Look at the code and try some tweak on the mofo  good luck at it.

I mean those that remember the pool back in the day known what I am talking about.

[Biffa]

Phil, all of that, sarcasm and mockery is beneath you. You know as well as anyone that luck is luck, nothing can change it, we should not expect to get better than 100% luck over the long term, and the longer the term the closer to 100% the needle swings.

As far as I can tell he's not angry with any of you, his modus operandi is to try and educate people to do things the right way, and highlight things that are just plain wrong or illogical.

If you don't listen and try to bluff you way through the science or just post plain wrong information then he will correct it, if you continue to do it then he'll correct it stronger. He's not the only person who does this.

In the past, just about every pool that has come up and then fallen by the wayside because it was badly managed or conceived or just a complete scam has been called out and held to account by kano, and earlier on in the day by ck as well.

Which tells me his main concern is to educate, both the pool operators and the miners. Most of the time in those instances he is battling against the tide of perceived wisdom, because "who cares if its a scam as long as I'm getting 10% bonus while I mine there" etc.

Your analysis of the luck of the pool is erroneous, you know it, I don't know why you bang on about it other than because you feel slighted in someway, or just because you don't understand it. Who knows. Let it go.

Just my tuppence worth.

As far as laurentia goes good luck (sic) to you, I think your crazy trying to run it all on one pool and I don't agree with any of the science in your whitepaper, but I'm just a miner not a pool operator and I hope you prove me wrong. For now I'll keep on doing what I'm doing luck has been great last few blocks at kano, but I run half my hash half the time on a PPS pool to help pay the bills. I'm probably not doing it right, but it feels right.

That's my take on things, hopefully I've been pretty even handed about it, I've tried to stay out of it but felt I needed to say my peice, I've no problem with any of you, and you've all been pretty decent to me most of the time. So there you go

[kano]

I'll say this yet again - since people in general seem to like making things up and then claiming them as fact.

Firstly, the KanoPool has never even been as high 4% of the network.

Next, though not really related, I have stated many times that I'd never let it get over 10%.
Though I'll also throw in, that most people on the pool know, I'll also lower the fee to 0.6% if the pool ever gets over 400PH

Anyway, the ups and downs of the pool hash rate are various, but the hash rate running down since Nov 2018 is quite straight forward to explain and, again, I've explained it before on multiple occasions.
I guess the problem is that people prefer to make up reasons and pretend they are fact, rather than ask.

The largest miner on the pool, that had been on KanoPool for a year, that was something like 75% of the hash rate, moved to ViaBTC due to a low month luck in Nov 2018.
He IPO'd his company that year, and the board of directors couldn't understand or handle variance
Yet for that year, including that bad month of luck, the pool was still ahead of the top pools in PAPPS%
It was simply a 'quarter' issue - companies get upset when one quarter is bad - even if the other quarters make up for it.

It's quite obvious on the "Monthly Statistics" table - Nov 2018 200+PH - then Dec 2018 50+PH

The hash rate after that had someone throwing a % of their pool at KanoPool every so often, but that source of hashrate ... got shutdown.

Thus like EVERY other small pool that's been around for a while, the low hash rate has scared away miners.

3 of the many offers I've had for a large miner to join the pool, that I rejected were:
1) I guess he quoted his hash rate to get me interested, but ended up saying he only wanted me to do cgminer changes - so no use for the pool.
2) Wanted ownership of part of the pool - sorry not going to do that since it's effectively just giving someone free mining
3) One group, who only did management of the mining for someone, but didn't own it, said they wanted kick backs and that ViaBTC gave them kick backs so I should also. Not sure where these kick backs were supposed to come from since the pool fee here was way lower than they were paying there

As mentioned previously, I've also had 2 people discuss joining (900PH and 200PH) but couldn't get their board to agree - so alas didn't happen.

Thus I really don't have issue with how I've been running the pool.

1PH is only 10-20 miners these days, so you need to be talking a couple hundred PH before you are referring to a 'large' miner.

[minefarmbuy]

The irony is everything is a claim until we start mining. When people ask me for recommendations on pools, I recommend ones that are actively mining. People who want to mine on Laurentia Pool obviously reach out and express their interest. I also don’t need to sweep under any comment I make. Context is important but still we’re motivated to deliver, will thrive on competition, and we assume skepticism as we would be as well.

Even the million/billion dollar companies use the same hardware we do, just more of it. A single server is more than enough for 100 users who most are using their own proxies to point to LP.

I think we’ve worked an incredible plan to drive revenue to every user, while focusing on a consistent mining environment in a pooled scenario, that pays from coinbase. With hashrate in pool that is fixed every difficulty adjustment and highly incentivizing continued participation.

Also our push is to compete with PPS, and show it’s inherent net loss, which I would think a non PPS op would appreciate. Still there’s nothing wrong with preference, or mining at a lower margin for more consistency if desired. Still I’m not in here attacking PPS pools or their users. Just offering a choice we see as better. If anything simply providing more options in market. Everything we’re pushing for is deliberate and proactive. Still no one has to agree or see our side, and the expectation will always be to let our work speak for it’s self.

Which at this point still only brings us back to first sentence of this reply till we hit 340PH (or more) to open, allowing us to use actuals in data, and monitor a single server of 100 users (not thousands) and check and adjust like any business would to stay on mission to provide excellence in service.

If anyone wants details on technicals I’ll parrot this again and again: speak with ck directly, make a genuine inquiry on our thread, or in email. As this thread only exists is because the intent is to flame and fud, not to have an open dialogue, while manipulating the situation of our division labor. And lastly that we require some essence of civility in our thread.

If anyone really sees or think we’re being deceptive it’s because literally no one is making the effort to follow the advice the service organizer of our pool is giving to get the answers they’re seeking. If it can’t be seen why there’s no benefit for us to provide anything of substance here, or for me proxy technical information that can easily derived from our dev. Then I’m sorry, this just isn’t the thread we desire to have become the collection of inquiry for our work.

#mineon

[philipma1957]

[...]

this is why I wrote what I wrote. I would never mock kano.

I think that a 1431 block streak at 104% luck changing to 96% 100 block streak is killing kano in his head.

You know that in the first 3 years of the pool I was a loyal supporter of kano and sincerely thought he had written a superior mining pool code.

I think no one has ever had a streak like his streak.  I think it haunts him that he can't figure out the drop off.

Never think you know sarcasm I have zero need to be nasty or sarcastic to kano.
I truly feel sorry for him as I know it has to be killing him to see the pool shift that way.

I have been here a long time if you think I am mocking kano you are wrong.

I am not mocking him. I do feel sorry for him. Why would I lie about something like that. I have no skin in this game.

Am I angry yes.
Being called a stupid moron  can do that.
Being called a criminal can do that.

Am I being sarcastic no.
I am saddened that it has come to this.

No more no less.

[kano]

...
I truly feel sorry for him as I know it has to be killing him to see the pool shift that way.
...

It's not killing me.
Money does not drive me in any way.
It never has.

The luck is nothing to be unexpected running a PPLNS pool.

I have never posted anywhere saying I expect better than 100% luck or that the miners on the pool should ever expect that.
I have always made the point, when we do better (or worse), that it is simply luck, not some magic coding - since that is impossible - and I know it better than most since I've written code for miners and pools and understand this equal or possibly better than anyone else in bitcoin.

Heck read the Help->Luck page on my pool - it's quite clear about that:
https://kano.is/index.php?k=poisson

In fact I usually add the point that all pools should expect below 100% due to orphans and stales
(which are now much rarer due to bitcoin core finally speeding the block change code up in it, only a few years ago)

Alas, pool size is the only Issue I have with the pool.

[philipma1957]

Kano timing is every thing.
If the pools first 1000 blocks were 96% luck and the latest 1431 blocks were 104% luck your pools size would be at least 1eh as I type.

That is a fact, whether is was all simple luck or not does not really matter.
I will say it was nice while it lasted and it would be nice to see a streak like that again.

[Biffa]

Phil, no luck is everything.

Luck is luck, you can't do anything about it, its just luck. Only gamblers think they have any control over luck.

So when you say "whether it was all simple luck or not does not really matter." that is a misleading statement. Maybe that is what you believe is true, but its not true.

It's not "simple luck or not" there is no "or not" its just simple luck, period.

As kano says all pools, everything being equal will even out to 100% luck all the time, the only thing that will reduce that number and how it relates to payouts to miners are what has been listed:

1. Orphans
2. Stales
3. Fees

You can try and minimise them by building your pool to have excellent performance, uptime, redundancy and connectivity, but you can't remove them altogether.

[philipma1957]

So I will say it this way { kano.is }  had the bad luck to be the luckiest pool on earth from block 1 to block 1431 over 104% luck

then followed up with 1000 blocks at 96% luck.

This is simply bad luck to be really lucky then not so lucky

Bad luck that when coins paid under 3000 usd the luck was great.
Bad luck that when coins paid over 3000 usd luck was a bit less then the norm of 99-100 it was 96

This caused the pool to shrink because people were spoiled by the 1431 streak at 104%

It simply is what happened.

A 1431  block 104%  hot streak when coins were under 3000
A 1000 block.   96% cool spell when coins are over 3000.

This causes pool shrinkage.
Which kano is frustrated with.

Now I am not sure if kano had the luckiest steak in the history of BTC

block 1 to block 1431 = 104%+

But I don't think anyone ever had that record.

From block 1 to block 1431. (104% +)  It truly is an amazing record.

I simply think it has caused him grief or at least has caused him pool shrinkage.

If the pool simply stayed near 100 % every month the pool would not have shrunk.

That drop off was the pools cause of shrinking more than any other reason.

[mikeywith]

[...]

True, it's all about luck, I don't think phill is suggesting that Kano could have prevented the bad luck with the last 1000 or so blocks, but if, only if his pool's luck was better recently than earlier that would most likely be more beneficial to the pool, timining from luck perspective is indeed crucial, but it will be labeled under the same concept of luck, and here is an example:

A new guy with 500PH is looking around for the best pool, with all other things being equal, he goes to check the pools' luck, and just so happened that pool x had 96% luck for the latest 1000 blocks while another pool had 104%, since most people including large scale miners don't really understand statistics and probablity they "believe" that future incidents are related to the once in the past, where in reality bitcoin mining is merely "poison " distributed and eventually all pools will have very very close ratio to 100%.

There are other people who understand how "luck" functions, and they assume that a 1000 blocks is a long enough "events" that happened in a long enough "interval" and they would assume that IF the pool's luck is far from 100% then the pool has other major problems like code or connectivity, these conclusions are wrong but many new comers when they see a pool with 96% luck over a period of months, it will scare them away.

Now as far as Laurentia's being bad risk for miners, only time will tell, and for Laurentia's owner, I know that Kano is probably doing all of this because 1- you are a competitor 2- the pool has -CK in it and that does trigger oneway or the other, but with that being said, he did you a great favour by pointing out a few weaknesses which you should work on, get another 3rd party dev to "check" your pool's specs and code, not that I don't trust -CK, but it isn't wise to count on one person's knowledge to carry an operation of such size.

Good luck to both pools Kano and Laurentia.

[kano]

This post - I'm pointing out why ignoring statistics means you don't understand the subject of bitcoin mining.
ckpool/laurentia has no valid statistics

With yet another lucky block on KanoPool, the July month now reads:

2020 July…  10.32PHs  2  0.37  18.44%  107.57%  0.0534  542.36%  578.16%

So claiming that you can't simply have bad luck with a high CDF[Erl] (90%) is quite literally like claiming you can't have good luck with a low CDF[Erl] below 10% - in this case 5.3% ... and ... 542% luck

... and before anyone says something pointless about the number of blocks, yes the number of events (blocks) is specifically the point of the CDF[Erl] calculation.

Again, ckpool/laurentia has NO such statistics.
They only have one value available, BlockDiff/NetworkDiff ... which is also wrong.
https://bitbucket.org/ckolivas/ckpool-solo/commits/7691dd01a123d25349a04018acda4df4109437a4
You need to add up each share's %, which also has issues in C, which can underestimate the value due to the accuracy of the largest float.

[Artemis3]

Yet, BM still use cgminer code also ... while it wouldn't be all that hard to write a better one themselves ...
and e.g. remove the failover bug that's existed in it since stratum was first added, and causes problems for all miners.

Still waiting for you to remove the automated ban for the only proper (written from scratch open source) replacement cgminer ever had for the S9. That, or write your own kanominer we could easily drop in instead... But i guess its easier to stick to the bmminer tyranny which you love so much because you are too busy to audit someone else code since you don't trust the people who wrote it.

Surely you could find flaws in bosminer and expose its risks too?, rather than act on a whim banning for something they might have done 5 years ago in a totally unrelated project, which is their pool which happens to currently measure hash rate in the exa hash range as opposed to yours which for your own aesthetic reason, decided to measure in tera hash when its currently just about 8 peta hashes per second.

Even with your technically superior software and infrastructure, they flock to Chinese pools that eat their transaction fees away and probably even "lose" more blocks. Laurentia is nothing, i don't even see why you bother talking about them, why do you even care they use ckpool? Angry they didn't use kanopool you don't even bother to keep updated on github instead? Or are you afraid Biffa and canaan would leave your pool taking 25% of your entire hashrate to them? I don't think so...

The conditions to enter Laurentia are ridiculous to begin with, its trying to be an exclusive club for miner "whales", and those whales love their Chinese pps pools too much to bother with obscure pools to begin with. Just leave them be and be more productive rather than a not so subtle advertising thread in the forum you dislike so much but yet refuse to sponsor a signature campaign with that fortune of yours or your whale miners who would directly benefit from the increased hash rate you desperately need before going the way of ck's pool before its last swan song of finding a block right after another at 6% in the middle of your not so lucky beginning of 2020. But duh, luck is luck, it cannot be helped, and he didn't bother banning rentals or "dubious" firmware either...

Only last year it was his at 8 PH. How is a block per year sounding for Kano's pool? As mining becomes less and less profitable, so do the pools, and they will also shrink (and or close). We will see if you succumb or not to the temptation of just quit and close when you go under the peta hash per second mark. Can you even justify maintaining that infrastructure of yours? Just how many miners are in Singapore anyway? most of your nodes belong to countries with expensive electricity unsuitable for mining, so you have fast nodes to nowhere, cool i guess.

My country, one of the few where mass S9 mining still occurs post halving, has no node of yours. And probably never will, when you learn we don't even have an IXP and the best link here won't ever get under 150ms (and would go to US east anyway). Unless Elon Musk's Starlink becomes available here with its 20ms world coverage promise...

Now stop ranting about how superior your pool is, how inferior all other pools are, and get that code update you promised.