KanoPool since 2014 🐈 - PPLNS and Solo 0.5% fee - Worldwide - 2436 blocks

[firetreeactual]

My guess is that Canaan is doing a first-batch burn-in on the 741...

Juvia's boyfriend GRAY has also joined in yesterday, 120 x A7s from Labrador 

Way to go, GRAY...so that's why Alan's been so busy...I luv it when a plan comes together.

[1715002318]

1715002318

[1715002318]

1715002318

[1715002318]

1715002318

[1715002318]

1715002318

[1715002318]

1715002318

[1715002318]

1715002318

[citronick]

My guess is that Canaan is doing a first-batch burn-in on the 741...

Juvia's boyfriend GRAY has also joined in yesterday, 120 x A7s from Labrador 

Way to go, GRAY...so that's why Alan's been so busy...I luv it when a plan comes together.

It took awhile to get 6 fully loaded controllers setup and power distribution; to all the miners up and running.

Juvia is still on S9v1 and will be on permanent vacation mining elsewhere until further notice.

Who knows.... we could have a 2PH reunion soon.

[Newko]

My guess is that Canaan is doing a first-batch burn-in on the 741...

Juvia's boyfriend GRAY has also joined in yesterday, 120 x A7s from Labrador 

Way to go, GRAY...so that's why Alan's been so busy...I luv it when a plan comes together.

It took awhile to get 6 fully loaded controllers setup and power distribution; to all the miners up and running.

Juvia is still on S9v1 and will be on permanent vacation mining elsewhere until further notice.

Who knows.... we could have a 2PH reunion soon.

Would luv to see Juvia back in the near future   She's a good luck girl! 

[blacksmithtm]

Hello, what is the status for SegWit? Brian Armstrong from Coinbase recently endorsed it https://twitter.com/brian_armstrong/status/817258015619321857

I don't think you will see it here anytime soon...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=789369.msg16868494#msg16868494

Thank you. Do the pros outweigh the cons?

In ckpool/ckdb we have a structure called the workinfo, that's the break down of the common data required for all stratum work sent to miners.
One part of that is what we call coinbase2 - it's got a limit of 256 hex bytes.
Since 1-Mar this year, in all work, coinbase2 has been 196 hex bytes.
segwit has put coinbase2 over 256 hex bytes - more than 30% bigger ...

How big of an issue is that?

And i think the sidechain part is irrelevant. Who cares what people do with bitcoin? As long as they pay the fees to miners and dont ddos (In fact SegWit improves verification times afaik) etc. There are many benefits of SegWit and the cost and risks seem neglicible. Anyway im out. Peace.

[kano]

Hello, what is the status for SegWit? Brian Armstrong from Coinbase recently endorsed it https://twitter.com/brian_armstrong/status/817258015619321857

I don't think you will see it here anytime soon...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=789369.msg16868494#msg16868494

Thank you. Do the pros outweigh the cons?

In ckpool/ckdb we have a structure called the workinfo, that's the break down of the common data required for all stratum work sent to miners.
One part of that is what we call coinbase2 - it's got a limit of 256 hex bytes.
Since 1-Mar this year, in all work, coinbase2 has been 196 hex bytes.
segwit has put coinbase2 over 256 hex bytes - more than 30% bigger ...

How big of an issue is that?

And i think the sidechain part is irrelevant. Who cares what people do with bitcoin? As long as they pay the fees to miners and dont ddos (In fact SegWit improves verification times afaik) etc. There are many benefits of SegWit and the cost and risks seem neglicible. Anyway im out. Peace.

Well, there's also the hidden and avoided question of "Why segwit?"

There is actually no problem with current standard transactions, and the malleability issue, though effectively no longer relevant, is fixed with a very minor change that's not part of segwit, but in the segwit change also, but I guess the devs don't want people to notice that.

Segwit is a fix for maleability in P2SH (3xxxx transactions)
When the bitcoin devs designed P2SH, they got it wrong, they added a faulty P2SH.
Segwit is a fix for some of their mistakes.
But it also forces everyone to use P2SH instead of standard transactions.
So basically forcing everyone into whatever other problems there are with P2SH, and out of using standard 1xxxx transactions.
All your 1xxxxx addresses will become a thing of the past if segwit activates (which it wont)

[elokk]

So what exactly would happen with everyones current 1xxxx wallets that hold funds?

[-ck]

So what exactly would happen with everyones current 1xxxx wallets that hold funds?

Absolutely nothing. The existing 1x transactions work the way they always did, using the standard blockchain space and mechanism for transactions, signing, and verification.

[kano]

So what exactly would happen with everyones current 1xxxx wallets that hold funds?

Absolutely nothing. The existing 1x transactions work the way they always did, using the standard blockchain space and mechanism for transactions, signing, and verification.

No.
The txns that use 1xxxx addresses get weighted 4x using a 3xxxx address.
So the cost of using 1xxxx addresses will effectively be 4x the cost of using a 3xxxx address if segwit activates.

[Make-A-Buck]

My guess is that Canaan is doing a first-batch burn-in on the 741...

Good guess.
I noticed yesterday that canaan was @ more than DOUBLE the rate of his current rate (1,185.64THs) that he's at today.

[oh337]

Kano, is this you? I'm going to pass you . I'm loving this pool!
http://i1308.photobucket.com/albums/s604/Oh337/IMG_6148_zpsthqnkscq.jpg

[kano]

Kano, is this you? I'm going to pass you . I'm loving this pool!
http://i1308.photobucket.com/albums/s604/Oh337/IMG_6148_zpsthqnkscq.jpg

Oh, yes that's me
You'll also see me in the Workers menu under K.Workers and K.Graph, which shows that I turn the miners on and off 'almost' randomly.

[Make-A-Buck]

My guess is that Canaan is doing a first-batch burn-in on the 741...

Good guess.
I noticed yesterday that canaan was @ more than DOUBLE the rate of his current rate (1,185.64THs) that he's at today.

There he is (canaan) back to 2,650.97THs
Wow

[n200UG]

Hello, what is the status for SegWit? Brian Armstrong from Coinbase recently endorsed it https://twitter.com/brian_armstrong/status/817258015619321857

I don't think you will see it here anytime soon...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=789369.msg16868494#msg16868494

Thank you. Do the pros outweigh the cons?

In ckpool/ckdb we have a structure called the workinfo, that's the break down of the common data required for all stratum work sent to miners.
One part of that is what we call coinbase2 - it's got a limit of 256 hex bytes.
Since 1-Mar this year, in all work, coinbase2 has been 196 hex bytes.
segwit has put coinbase2 over 256 hex bytes - more than 30% bigger ...

How big of an issue is that?

And i think the sidechain part is irrelevant. Who cares what people do with bitcoin? As long as they pay the fees to miners and dont ddos (In fact SegWit improves verification times afaik) etc. There are many benefits of SegWit and the cost and risks seem neglicible. Anyway im out. Peace.

Slush just pull 3 in-a-row I did not think this was still possible at the current worldwide hashing rate and difficulty. Question: When a block is found on the network, obliviously the pool that mined it is the first to know and first to mine a new block!. How long does it take for the other pool to be notified ? and is this a real factor 

[n200UG]

My guess is that Canaan is doing a first-batch burn-in on the 741...

What are the known specs on this beast ?

[kano]

...
Question: When a block is found on the network, obliviously the pool that mined it is the first to know and first to mine a new block!. How long does it take for the other pool to be notified ? and is this a real factor  

That depends on how well connected the pool is.
The problem is actually if they are not well connected, they will get more orphans.

So the smaller the time until every other pool knows about your block, the better.
It is not to your advantage to hide or delay the fact you found a block ...

Having 'extra' time to mine a block is not an advantage.
That 'extra' time is very small ('should' be less than 1 second) but it's not 'extra' time as such, it's actually time for some other pool to get into an orphan race with you by finding a block at the same height, which is, of course, bad.

[n200UG]

...
Question: When a block is found on the network, obliviously the pool that mined it is the first to know and first to mine a new block!. How long does it take for the other pool to be notified ? and is this a real factor  

That depends on how well connected the pool is.
The problem is actually if they are not well connected, they will get more orphans.

So the smaller the time until every other pool knows about your block, the better.
It is not to your advantage to hide or delay the fact you found a block ...

Having 'extra' time to mine a block is not an advantage.
That 'extra' time is very small ('should' be less than 1 second) but it's not 'extra' time as such, it's actually time for some other pool to get into an orphan race with you by finding a block at the same height, which is, of course, bad.

Thanks Kano. Very interesting. So seeing pool pulling many block In-A-Row is just luck I guess.

[philipma1957]

...
Question: When a block is found on the network, obliviously the pool that mined it is the first to know and first to mine a new block!. How long does it take for the other pool to be notified ? and is this a real factor  

That depends on how well connected the pool is.
The problem is actually if they are not well connected, they will get more orphans.

So the smaller the time until every other pool knows about your block, the better.
It is not to your advantage to hide or delay the fact you found a block ...

Having 'extra' time to mine a block is not an advantage.
That 'extra' time is very small ('should' be less than 1 second) but it's not 'extra' time as such, it's actually time for some other pool to get into an orphan race with you by finding a block at the same height, which is, of course, bad.

Thanks Kano. Very interesting. So seeing pool pulling many block In-A-Row is just luck I guess.

yep  and more hash = lower odds.


if you have 1%  of the worlds hash  your odds are 1/100 x 1/100 or 10,000 to one   of  ever  pulling 3 in a row

if you have 1% of the worlds hash your odds are 1/100 x 1/100 x 1/100 or 1,000,000 of pulling the next 3  in a row

[ComputerGenie]

yep  and more hash = lower odds.


if you have 1%  of the worlds hash  your odds are 1/100 x 1/100 or 10,000 to one   of  ever  pulling 3 in a row

if you have 1% of the worlds hash your odds are 1/100 x 1/100 x 1/100 or 1,000,000 of pulling the next 3  in a row

That needs an edit  
"Three in a row, ever" means: "I need to find one, then I need to find 2 more"
"Three in a row, including this one" means: "I found one; now, I need to find 2 more"
You do get how impossible it is to find "3 in a row" without ever finding the 1st one, right?
I'm simply saying that to "find 3 in a row" is not grammatically, or mathematically, the same as "finding 2 more after you've found 1". (to which you prattle on about how many times we've for 2 in a row [which has nothing to do with 3 in a row])

[kano]

yep  and more hash = lower odds.


if you have 1%  of the worlds hash  your odds are 1/100 x 1/100 or 10,000 to one   of  ever  pulling 3 in a row

if you have 1% of the worlds hash your odds are 1/100 x 1/100 x 1/100 or 1,000,000 of pulling the next 3  in a row

That needs an edit  

Nope. It's correct.
When you find a block, you've ... found a block already.
In the first case, there's no requirements on finding the first block ... it's just some time in the future.

Edit: to avoid littering the thread with garbage again:

I'll step off the big numbers and give an example with smaller numbers.
We'll use 2 instead of 3 ...

What are the chances that a 1% pool will find 2 blocks in a row.
1/100

Why? Coz the assumption is that you can find one block.

Once you've found one block you have specified something about finding a second block ... "It's in a row"
i.e. "block 2" is the next block after "block 1"
We didn't specify anything about "block 1", except the assumption that we can find a block.

So this leads to the fact that, if we can find a block, then the probability of finding a block is ... 1
Now there's a minor adjustment to that:
We may not find a block.
However, since we've effectively been given infinite time to find a block, the probability is 'almost 1'
So for the purpose of the question, it's assumed to be ... 1

So the chances of finding 2 blocks in a row is 1 x 1/100 = 1/100

Next:
What are the chances that a 3% pool will find 2 blocks in a row.
3/100 or 1/33.333...


Lets pretend I don't know what I'm talking about
1/33.333... x 1/33.333... = 1/1111.111...

So that would say we really should have only maybe found 2 in a row, about once or twice, maybe three times if we were quite lucky.

Checking the history of the pool ... OMG ... we've done it ... lotsa times! Not once or twice or thrice.

To be exact it's ...  40 times!

Code:

340928 340929
348799 348800
386502 386503
391919 391920
397983 397984
398704 398705
399427 399428
399826 399827
400295 400296
405447 405448
407091 407092
407143 407144
407467 407468
407574 407575
409157 409158
410864 410865
414165 414166
414516 414517
414535 414536
414888 414889
415569 415570
415599 415600
416188 416189
416629 416630
417042 417043
418031 418032
418424 418425
419390 419391
420957 420958
421894 421895
421921 421922
422212 422213
423186 423187
427673 427674
428452 428453
428700 428701
430861 430862
432365 432366
438561 438562
439746 439747

Ego: something is wrong ... ah it's this:
"Lets pretend I don't know what I'm talking about
1/33.333... x 1/33.333... = 1/1111.111..."

[clgrissom3]

yep  and more hash = lower odds.


if you have 1%  of the worlds hash  your odds are 1/100 x 1/100 or 10,000 to one   of  ever  pulling 3 in a row

if you have 1% of the worlds hash your odds are 1/100 x 1/100 x 1/100 or 1,000,000 of pulling the next 3  in a row

That needs an edit 

Nope. It's correct.
When you find a block, you've ... found a block already.
In the first case, there's no requirements on finding the first block ... it's just some time in the future.

Yea, I'll be happy with just the first one right about now