Bitcoin Forum
December 10, 2016, 08:41:29 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Has anything you've read here or on the Neighbourhood Pool Watch blog changed your mining habits for the better?
Yes
No
I don't mine

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Neighbourhood Pool Watch  (Read 45630 times)
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1960


Poor impulse control.


View Profile WWW
August 06, 2012, 02:18:09 PM
 #261

And to wake up the thread before it gets old ... Smiley
So ... if someone was to get some BFL MiniRigs ... or some time in the far distant future ... a bunch of ASIC ...
Wouldn't it be best for them to mine on a PPS pool and withhold blocks ... so they don't increase the difficulty and thus get more BTC ...

Sorry I missed this Kano. It's an interesting point. The block witholding attack has been mentioned before, but not in the context of someone with a large hashrate not wanting to affect difficulty. The miner would have to have a large proportion of the network hashrate to affect difficulty by himself, plus he'd have to hide the fact by using multiple miners on multiple pools.

I think in this circumstance you everyone but the network would notice a problem. Say the attacker has 5% of the network hashrate and doesn't want to affect difficulty. He has to spread the hashrate over several workers (or one worker would look suspiciously unlucky) and at several pools (or one pool would look suspiciously unlucky). Then all the PPS pools will start looking slightly unlucky.

If you found that round lengths were larger than normal on average but the luck index (calculated as log(Percentage of network blocks solved / Percentage of network hashrate) )  was averaging at zero, you'd start to suspect this could be happening.

Luckily I have some charts somewhere that might help Wink

Bitcoin network and pool analysis 12QxPHEuxDrs7mCyGSx1iVSozTwtquDB3r
follow @oocBlog for new post notifications
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481402489
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481402489

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481402489
Reply with quote  #2

1481402489
Report to moderator
1481402489
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481402489

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481402489
Reply with quote  #2

1481402489
Report to moderator
1481402489
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481402489

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481402489
Reply with quote  #2

1481402489
Report to moderator
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1960


Poor impulse control.


View Profile WWW
August 12, 2012, 12:07:32 AM
 #262

4.2 Slush's score method and miner earnings part 1 is posted. This will be a three part series explaining the effects of the exponentially scored method on fulltime miner earnings.

Quote
5. Conclusions
  • Expected share values decrease with increasing total shares submitted until reaching a steady state.
  • The current steady state expected share value is about 0.957 and is reached shortly after the "hop point"
  • Increasing difficulty or decreasing 'c' or pool hashrate reduces the hop point and thus the pool hoppers potential profits; the converse is also true.
  • The theoretical maximum expected earnings loss is much lower than for a standard proportional pool; currently about 4.1% for Slush's pool as opposed to 43.4% for a standard proportional pool.


Bitcoin network and pool analysis 12QxPHEuxDrs7mCyGSx1iVSozTwtquDB3r
follow @oocBlog for new post notifications
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1960


Poor impulse control.


View Profile WWW
August 27, 2012, 01:50:30 PM
 #263

6.1 Bitlc.net - Pool hopping and unfulfilled promise reports on a pool that started well, stagnated and then become one of the last few prop pools. What went wrong. And more to the point, who still mines there?


Quote
7. Conclusions

* Bitlc.net began with a good service and great ideas. Unfortunately the pool has stagnated with few recent updates and an unfair reward method.
* Bitlc.net could be a much more successful pool if the reward method was changed and if monetised in such a way that Jine was able to spend more time on the pool or delegate someone to manage it.
* Fulltime miners at Bitlc.net currently lose approximately 30% of their expected earnings to pool hoppers. By comparison, at Deepbit.net the current percentage loss of earnings for fulltime proportionally rewarded miners to pool hoppers is 1.9%.
* Mining at a 5% fee PPS pool would earning the fulltime miners at Bitlc.net 35% more than they earn at Bitlc.net currently.


Bitcoin network and pool analysis 12QxPHEuxDrs7mCyGSx1iVSozTwtquDB3r
follow @oocBlog for new post notifications
Shadow383
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336


View Profile
August 28, 2012, 10:06:35 AM
 #264

Very much in agreement regarding bitlc. That's been one of the pools my proxy has hopped for quite a long time now - the unfortunate fact of the matter is that whilst it's profitable to do we'll keep doing it.

However, how did you come to your conclusion that only 6.7% of deepbit's hashrate pre-hop is pool hoppers? I was under the impression that ~500Ghash was hopping that pool, just like with Slush.
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1960


Poor impulse control.


View Profile WWW
August 28, 2012, 10:21:04 AM
 #265

Very much in agreement regarding bitlc. That's been one of the pools my proxy has hopped for quite a long time now - the unfortunate fact of the matter is that whilst it's profitable to do we'll keep doing it.

However, how did you come to your conclusion that only 6.7% of deepbit's hashrate pre-hop is pool hoppers? I was under the impression that ~500Ghash was hopping that pool, just like with Slush.

It's an estimate, using the median average hashrate per round after 2*D as the fulltime miner hashrate, and  the median average hashrate per round after 2*D as (Fulltime + hopper) hashrate. It's close to results I've obtained in the past using more accurate estimations. I've noticed that the hop hashrate at Deepbit has been much less than when I posted NPW2.2.


Bitcoin network and pool analysis 12QxPHEuxDrs7mCyGSx1iVSozTwtquDB3r
follow @oocBlog for new post notifications
Shadow383
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336


View Profile
August 28, 2012, 10:24:06 AM
 #266

Very much in agreement regarding bitlc. That's been one of the pools my proxy has hopped for quite a long time now - the unfortunate fact of the matter is that whilst it's profitable to do we'll keep doing it.

However, how did you come to your conclusion that only 6.7% of deepbit's hashrate pre-hop is pool hoppers? I was under the impression that ~500Ghash was hopping that pool, just like with Slush.

It's an estimate, using the median average hashrate per round after 2*D as the fulltime miner hashrate, and  the median average hashrate per round after 2*D as (Fulltime + hopper) hashrate. It's close to results I've obtained in the past using more accurate estimations. I've noticed that the hop hashrate at Deepbit has been much less than when I posted NPW2.2.

Interesting... There has been a bit of a ban wave on there lately, but mostly for larger hopping accounts (>5Gh/s or so). They don't seem to be IP banning yet.
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1960


Poor impulse control.


View Profile WWW
August 28, 2012, 10:57:03 AM
 #267

I've noticed the hop rate dropped since mid April, so whatever is being done has been done since then.

Edit: Thank you to my most recent anonymous donor.

Bitcoin network and pool analysis 12QxPHEuxDrs7mCyGSx1iVSozTwtquDB3r
follow @oocBlog for new post notifications
ShadesOfMarble
Donator
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 543



View Profile
September 05, 2012, 01:27:00 PM
 #268

I don't know if this pool is of interest because of its small hash rate: https://miner.ecki.net:444/

But there seems to be serious evidence that the OP is cheating.
After I found this post
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=78391.msg874690#msg874690

I made some investigations, i.e. clicked thru the "found blocks" page on the pool webpage and entered the block numbers on blockchain.info

What I found is this:

BTC 187,500 Distribution marrog 2012-07-04 20:43:02 537,341
http://blockchain.info/block-index/242747/00000000000000461dcf498b2ba02f19dde9a98bb126de9d8e313b0bcdba5bfb
=> P2Pool


BTC 188,332 Distribution glordglord 2012-07-10 04:10:01 966,959
http://blockchain.info/block-index/244059/000000000000094b944cc807129a2e270753a565a3a8b37f609dc1e80a631e4c
=> P2Pool


BTC 188,936 Distribution Mycom 2012-07-14 05:23:02 1,715,598
http://blockchain.info/block-index/245155/00000000000001e4cee1f8f939b18d5248f367397ec5ec7ff8cf240cfb669ef8
=> OzCoin


BTC 195,994 Distribution marrog 2012-08-28 05:32:05 7,313,184
http://blockchain.info/block-index/269508/00000000000000e03ed033296e37cd676536ecbfdc600059dba12b25e2ca2fe3
=> BTC Guild


So it's not the classic "faking round lengths" but the whole blocks are "faked".

My question is: How reliable are the markers P2Pool, OzCoin and BTC Guild use? Is this strong enough evidence?

I'm asking because I think you have way more experience in exposing cheating pool OPs.

Review of the Spondoolies-Tech SP10 „Dawson“ Bitcoin miner (1.4 TH/s)

[22:35] <Vinnie_win> Did anyone get paid yet? | [22:36] <Isokivi> pirate did!
Graet
VIP
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980



View Profile WWW
September 05, 2012, 01:53:31 PM
 #269

not long after Ozcoin started I had a furious person join our IRC blaming us for "stealing" another pools block
our software reported the wrong block number, we had the previous one.....

since January all Ozcoin blocks have eco@ozco.in in the coinbase
easily seen here http://blockchain.info/tx/cc8e9de906601a9f1537d83d0c86f48f76853cdae835d18141e1ca3186d9e62b/cc8e9de906601a9f1537d83d0c86f48f76853cdae835d18141e1ca3186d9e62b for example

| Ozcoin Pooled Mining Pty Ltd https://ozcoin.net Double Geometric Reward System https://lc.ozcoin.net for Litecoin mining DGM| https://crowncloud.net VPS and Dedicated Servers for the BTC community
ShadesOfMarble
Donator
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 543



View Profile
September 05, 2012, 02:00:24 PM
 #270

So it could also be a bug in the pool software?

Review of the Spondoolies-Tech SP10 „Dawson“ Bitcoin miner (1.4 TH/s)

[22:35] <Vinnie_win> Did anyone get paid yet? | [22:36] <Isokivi> pirate did!
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1960


Poor impulse control.


View Profile WWW
September 05, 2012, 02:02:15 PM
 #271

Interesting, but how would claiming blocks not theirs benefit the pool op? It's a PPLNS pool so he would have to pay extra to his miners. I can't quite see where the gain for the pool op is.

I don't know how reliable the block claim markers are, and I'm not sure how accurate blockchain.info is.

Bitcoin network and pool analysis 12QxPHEuxDrs7mCyGSx1iVSozTwtquDB3r
follow @oocBlog for new post notifications
Graet
VIP
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980



View Profile WWW
September 05, 2012, 02:03:58 PM
 #272

So it could also be a bug in the pool software?
would be my 1st guess Smiley
I do see what you mean though, checked a couple of their blocks (including the Ozcoin one)

| Ozcoin Pooled Mining Pty Ltd https://ozcoin.net Double Geometric Reward System https://lc.ozcoin.net for Litecoin mining DGM| https://crowncloud.net VPS and Dedicated Servers for the BTC community
ShadesOfMarble
Donator
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 543



View Profile
September 05, 2012, 03:00:03 PM
 #273

@Graet you were right. Block numbers are off. Blocknumber+1 is the correct one. So just a bug in the pool software Smiley

Review of the Spondoolies-Tech SP10 „Dawson“ Bitcoin miner (1.4 TH/s)

[22:35] <Vinnie_win> Did anyone get paid yet? | [22:36] <Isokivi> pirate did!
Graet
VIP
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980



View Profile WWW
September 05, 2012, 03:21:43 PM
 #274

@Graet you were right. Block numbers are off. Blocknumber+1 is the correct one. So just a bug in the pool software Smiley
good news Smiley

| Ozcoin Pooled Mining Pty Ltd https://ozcoin.net Double Geometric Reward System https://lc.ozcoin.net for Litecoin mining DGM| https://crowncloud.net VPS and Dedicated Servers for the BTC community
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1960


Poor impulse control.


View Profile WWW
September 05, 2012, 10:15:46 PM
 #275

@Graet you were right. Block numbers are off. Blocknumber+1 is the correct one. So just a bug in the pool software Smiley

Which ones are out by one - ecki.net - or the other pools?

Bitcoin network and pool analysis 12QxPHEuxDrs7mCyGSx1iVSozTwtquDB3r
follow @oocBlog for new post notifications
kano
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1932


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
September 05, 2012, 10:24:33 PM
 #276

@Graet you were right. Block numbers are off. Blocknumber+1 is the correct one. So just a bug in the pool software Smiley

Which ones are out by one - ecki.net - or the other pools?
ecki.net or course ...
As mentioned above you simply look at the coin base to identify a lot of pools.
In fact around 50% of blocks can be identified directly by looking at the coinbase transaction - either they say the pool name or they are e.g. like p2pool you can identify it by the number of payouts and some of the addresses in there.

Pool: https://kano.is BTC: 1KanoiBupPiZfkwqB7rfLXAzPnoTshAVmb
CKPool and CGMiner developer, IRC FreeNode #ckpool and #cgminer kanoi
Help keep Bitcoin secure by mining on pools with Stratum, the best protocol to mine Bitcoins with ASIC hardware
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1960


Poor impulse control.


View Profile WWW
September 05, 2012, 10:28:03 PM
 #277

@Graet you were right. Block numbers are off. Blocknumber+1 is the correct one. So just a bug in the pool software Smiley

Which ones are out by one - ecki.net - or the other pools?
ecki.net or course ...
As mentioned above you simply look at the coin base to identify a lot of pools.
In fact around 50% of blocks can be identified directly by looking at the coinbase transaction - either they say the pool name or they are e.g. like p2pool you can identify it by the number of payouts and some of the addresses in there.

When I'm at work I have to deal with a locked down computer and internet - it's just easier to get other people to confirm things for me.

Bitcoin network and pool analysis 12QxPHEuxDrs7mCyGSx1iVSozTwtquDB3r
follow @oocBlog for new post notifications
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1960


Poor impulse control.


View Profile WWW
September 06, 2012, 02:23:04 PM
 #278

New post : Neighbourhood Pool Watch 4.3 Slush's score method and miner earnings part 2

In this post I derive the actual current loss of earnings for fulltime miners at Slush's pool.

Quote
6. Conclusions
  • Slush's constant has changed to ~ 210. This has reduced the "hoppability" of the pool significantly. Currently, changing 'c' from 300 to 210 has reduced by half the maximum possible percent loss of earnings for fulltime miners.
  • The current loss experienced by fulltime miners is (as a proportion of the expected fee free PPS reward, B/D) for current D, pool hopper hashrate, full time miner hashrate and c is ~ 98.5% of PPS, where a standard proportional reward method would result in fulltime miners only earning ~ 82.8% of PPS.
  • Reducing Slush's constant 'c' makes pool hopping less profitable, but increases miner variance.


Bitcoin network and pool analysis 12QxPHEuxDrs7mCyGSx1iVSozTwtquDB3r
follow @oocBlog for new post notifications
emcg
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 12


View Profile
September 11, 2012, 02:40:30 AM
 #279

Thanks for the most recent topic as it was one I was waiting to read about.
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1960


Poor impulse control.


View Profile WWW
October 10, 2012, 12:44:36 PM
 #280

In this post I explain how to select either a particular number of submitted shares per minute or a particular pool difficulty to result in an acceptable variation in average hashrate.

Quote
4. Conclusions
  • Increasing average submitted shares per period only increases the standard deviation in submitted shares per period by the square root of the average submitted shares per period.
  • When difficulty varies constantly so shares per minute remains constant, the variation in average hashrate is not dependant on the miner's hashrate, but only on the number of shares per minute.
  • When difficulty is selected by the miner,  the variation in average hashrate is very much dependant on the miner's hashrate and the selected difficulty.



Bitcoin network and pool analysis 12QxPHEuxDrs7mCyGSx1iVSozTwtquDB3r
follow @oocBlog for new post notifications
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 »  All
  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!