[∞ YH] solo.ckpool.org 2% fee solo mining USA/DE 255 blocks solved!

[wmtomlinso]

Con,

How much could a dishonest pool operator influence who gets awarded a solo block?  is it even possible at all?   

I am in NO WAY implying anything about CKpool.  I am just curious about other altcoin solo pools coming online now.  Can they be trusted?

[-ck]

Con,

How much could a dishonest pool operator influence who gets awarded a solo block?  is it even possible at all?   

I am in NO WAY implying anything about CKpool.  I am just curious about other altcoin solo pools coming online now.  Can they be trusted?

Realistically you are implicitly putting your trust 100% in the pool operator when you are mining at their pool. It is actually not that hard for them to direct your hashes at whatever they want to direct them to and solve blocks of whatever they want. HOWEVER, since I put block solve detection in cgminer a very long time ago, it is impossible to hide the fact that miners have solved a block and miners tend to notice when they've solved a block - which often leads to confusion if the pool they're mining on is merged mining and solving random altcoin shit blocks which register as block solves on cgminer when people are thinking bitcoin blocks. If miners note a discrepancy in their block solves and the pool's solved blocks they should - and usually do - start shouting loudly. Miners must be eternally vigilant for the implied trust in pool operators is extreme. But this is only vaguely on topic for this thread.

[-ck]

I've had a think about it and I figure what I will do is if the de pool solves a block, that will pay for commissioning a better VPS for it and then I'll deploy a more powerful version of it. The only downside to this is that what's really happening is miners are leaving solo.ckpool.org and going to de.ckpool.org so that even though de is proving instantly popular, the solo pools combined will still only be solving the same total number of blocks.

As a followup to this, it appears the combined hashrates of solo and de ARE somewhat more than solo was alone. So I'll keep my promise of creating a more powerful node in DE if it solves a block. The best thing about it is I investigated where I'd be rolling out the more powerful server and it's very close to the existing server so even after migration, those of you are on the DE server will be getting basically identical ping times to what the current server is getting you.

[o_solo_miner]

Hi con, looks like we are on the same a near Host:

Code:

PING 84.200.2.30 (84.200.2.30) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 84.200.2.30: icmp_req=1 ttl=57 time=0.857 ms
64 bytes from 84.200.2.30: icmp_req=2 ttl=57 time=0.819 ms
64 bytes from 84.200.2.30: icmp_req=3 ttl=57 time=0.856 ms
64 bytes from 84.200.2.30: icmp_req=4 ttl=57 time=0.831 ms

Code:

HOST: xxxxxx.de         Loss%   Snt   Last   Avg  Best  Wrst StDev
  1.|-- vh256-9019.1blu.de      0.0%    10    0.0   0.0   0.0   0.1   0.0
  2.|-- te0-0-1.g2.blubone.net  0.0%    10    0.3   1.3   0.3  10.8   3.2
  3.|-- te0-0-3.g1.blubone.net  0.0%    10    0.4   0.4   0.3   1.3   0.0
  4.|-- te1-4.c1.mk.de          0.0%    10    0.4   5.8   0.3  32.4  10.6
  5.|-- xe0-0-0.5.e3.mk.de      0.0%    10    0.4   0.4   0.3   0.5   0.0
  6.|-- decix.accelerated.de    0.0%    10    0.8   0.7   0.7   0.9   0.0
  7.|-- fra1.accelerated.de     0.0%    10    1.1   4.1   0.8  31.1   9.5
  8.|-- 84.200.84.203           0.0%    10    0.8   0.9   0.8   1.0   0.0
  9.|-- 84.200.2.30             0.0%    10    0.8   0.9   0.8   1.2   0.0

I am actualy setting up my VServer for the company....
Well i got some space.

[-ck]

Just bounced the tube proxy on port 3335 again for updates in case anyone was watching that.

[hurricandave]

Hi con, looks like we are on the same a near Host:

Code:

PING 84.200.2.30 (84.200.2.30) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 84.200.2.30: icmp_req=1 ttl=57 time=0.857 ms
64 bytes from 84.200.2.30: icmp_req=2 ttl=57 time=0.819 ms
64 bytes from 84.200.2.30: icmp_req=3 ttl=57 time=0.856 ms
64 bytes from 84.200.2.30: icmp_req=4 ttl=57 time=0.831 ms

Code:

HOST: xxxxxx.de         Loss%   Snt   Last   Avg  Best  Wrst StDev
  1.|-- vh256-9019.1blu.de      0.0%    10    0.0   0.0   0.0   0.1   0.0
  2.|-- te0-0-1.g2.blubone.net  0.0%    10    0.3   1.3   0.3  10.8   3.2
  3.|-- te0-0-3.g1.blubone.net  0.0%    10    0.4   0.4   0.3   1.3   0.0
  4.|-- te1-4.c1.mk.de          0.0%    10    0.4   5.8   0.3  32.4  10.6
  5.|-- xe0-0-0.5.e3.mk.de      0.0%    10    0.4   0.4   0.3   0.5   0.0
  6.|-- decix.accelerated.de    0.0%    10    0.8   0.7   0.7   0.9   0.0
  7.|-- fra1.accelerated.de     0.0%    10    1.1   4.1   0.8  31.1   9.5
  8.|-- 84.200.84.203           0.0%    10    0.8   0.9   0.8   1.0   0.0
  9.|-- 84.200.2.30             0.0%    10    0.8   0.9   0.8   1.2   0.0

I am actualy setting up my VServer for the company....
Well i got some space.

[o_solo_miner]

  i go to bed now, right on your server.

It is too late now, have to realy go to bed, tomorrow i will try to setup a bitcoind then.

good night

[iglasses]

<<crickets>>

[madmartyk]

<<crickets>>

Big Diff jump.  Much harder to hit a block!!  Been suck on this bestshare": 19198012551.985401 for a couple days!!

[hodedowe]

<<crickets>>

Big Diff jump.  Much harder to hit a block!!  Been suck on this bestshare": 19198012551.985401 for a couple days!!

That's for sure. 93 billion - I don't think any of my miners have ever seen a number that high.
Next estimation is 108 billion.

 

[philipma1957]

<<crickets>>

Big Diff jump.  Much harder to hit a block!!  Been suck on this bestshare": 19198012551.985401 for a couple days!!

That's for sure. 93 billion - I don't think any of my miners have ever seen a number that high.
Next estimation is 108 billion.

 

here is the lowest estimate I can find

https://bitcoincharts.com/


Blocks   389403
Total BTC   14.985M
 
Difficulty   93448670796
Estimated   96038295084 in 1701 blks
 
Network total   803850.738 Thash/s
Blocks/hour   7.21 / 499 s


 so if you take 96 and 108   the middle is 102 for  next diff   or a 9 to 10% jump.

still big a very big  number   about   90ph in hash

[kano]

To put that image at a size that would still be too big for the importance and accuracy of the content:


There is no magic 100 is "Looking good" but 101 is "Too far"

One problem with that image is that it is telling p2poolers to centralise p2pool.
Right ...
The idea of p2pool is to run it yourself so you can indeed make the claim that p2pool is decentralised.
The image is telling people to centralise p2pool and mine on other nodes.

Now if you were silly enough to mine on someone else's random who knows what set up p2pool node, then their node configuration is just as likely to make even a 500ms ping time almost totally irrelevant.
Most of them are, to be blunt, poorly configured and slow to handle work changes.

--

So now, when discussing pools with high performance hardware and software (and pools that don't have that ...)

The performance of solo.ckpool.org (and kano.is closely behind it ) means that the fast pool work change time will make even a sizeable ping time worth your while mining.

The ping time vaguely infers your stale share rate, so of course a higher ping time will mean higher stales.
But also remember that a block time average is expected to be around 600s (or less at the moment) so even a 600ms work reply time would put your stale shares caused by that at around ... 0.1% ...
The problem isn't so much your ping time as it is the mining hardware being able to switch work quickly.

So yes, ping time is quite relevant if it takes you 2000ms to get a packet from the Antarctic via penguin satellite to Tasmania then weave it's way through the crappy internet of Australia and make it to a pool somewhere else on the planet, but in general the pool's work change time will usually be way more important to determining if you will find a block ... which is all that matters here on solo ...

[iglasses]

<<crickets>>

Big Diff jump.  Much harder to hit a block!!  Been suck on this bestshare": 19198012551.985401 for a couple days!!

That's for sure. 93 billion - I don't think any of my miners have ever seen a number that high.
Next estimation is 108 billion.

 

I threw 100Ths at it yesterday for 12+ hours and didn't see anything higher than 1.9b 

[o_solo_miner]

The ping time vaguely infers your stale share rate, so of course a higher ping time will mean higher stales.

But also remember that a block time average is expected to be around 600s (or less at the moment) so even a 600ms work reply time would put your stale shares caused by that at around ... 0.1% ...

What makes me thinking about some chinese pool's.
They use SAT I-Net for connection, wich give you a latency greater 600 mS.
I used it for 3 years also, because I am living on the country/forrest side with no speedy i-net.

How can they secure a good share rate then?

 

[madmartyk]

<<crickets>>

Big Diff jump.  Much harder to hit a block!!  Been suck on this bestshare": 19198012551.985401 for a couple days!!

That's for sure. 93 billion - I don't think any of my miners have ever seen a number that high.
Next estimation is 108 billion.

 

I threw 100Ths at it yesterday for 12+ hours and didn't see anything higher than 1.9b 

Still running, bestshare": 19198012551.985401, that was from yesterday.

[kano]

The ping time vaguely infers your stale share rate, so of course a higher ping time will mean higher stales.

But also remember that a block time average is expected to be around 600s (or less at the moment) so even a 600ms work reply time would put your stale shares caused by that at around ... 0.1% ...

What makes me thinking about some chinese pool's.
They use SAT I-Net for connection, wich give you a latency greater 600 mS.
I used it for 3 years also, because I am living on the country/forrest side with no speedy i-net.

How can they secure a good share rate then?

Well ... if you had mining hardware that could handle a block change instantly ... ok lets call that 1ms ...

If at some pool you where getting 0.4% rejects/stales that were thus really only due to network speed, then 0.4% of 600s is ... 2400ms ...

The main point of my comment is that a 101ms ping time is only a part of what you need to consider.
Using only the ping time to decide will certainly give you the wrong answer unless the ping time is very large.

[o_solo_miner]

Code:

If at some pool you where getting 0.4% rejects/stales that were thus really only due to network speed, then 0.4% of 600s is ... 2400ms ...

36000 Km x 2 @ C => 240 mS (Signal Runtime) + Handling that is close to the border OK it works!

Nice to see how everything fits.

Code:

The main point of my comment is that a 101ms ping time is only a part of what you need to consider.
Using only the ping time to decide will certainly give you the wrong answer unless the ping time is very large.

Of corse, ty Kano for a deeper understanding of the timing (I dont know the technics behind the stratum protocol).

I was just reporting, because the server is new and I like a good performance, so i tryed to ping the pool
and was realy supprised about the short time.

[jacobmayes94]

I pulled a 7B share with 3S3s. I pulled the U3 out as it kept going zombie on me. Total power is roughly 1.3TH. Letting the blocks roll in guys

Funny you pulled a best share of 1.9B with a 12 hr 100TH rental. My friend pulled a 1.1B share running his GPU as a test for two weeks at 500MH/s :O
Jacob

[madmartyk]

I have a 21B share this round with my 50T rental.  Hoping!!!

[EnJoyThis]

I have a 21B share this round with my 50T rental.  Hoping!!!

With 50T shouldn't you better call it "gambling" instead of "hoping"? Don't want to spoil the fun though but in the the long run isn't it just luck you are counting on when renting 50Th?