KanoPool since 2014 🐈 - PPLNS and Solo 0.5% fee - Worldwide - 2438 blocks

[kano]

Why is BTC.com explorer 2-3 blocks ahead of blocktrail.com?

 took a while to get up to 456380 from 456376, maybe 10-15 minutes?

456,381 is found but blocktrail doesn't show it

Well firstly, Bitmain owns both - so I guess they prefer everyone to use their pool one rather than blocktrail ... to attract people to use their pool

Blocktrail waits for up to a couple of minutes before updating each block.
The block at 01:05:00 (456,375) was followed close behind by 5 more blocks:
01:07:03  01:11:47  01:12:23  01:14:09  01:16:11
So that may be why.

[Megaquake]

Why is BTC.com explorer 2-3 blocks ahead of blocktrail.com?

 took a while to get up to 456380 from 456376, maybe 10-15 minutes?

456,381 is found but blocktrail doesn't show it

Well firstly, Bitmain owns both - so I guess they prefer everyone to use their pool one rather than blocktrail ... to attract people to use their pool

Blocktrail waits for up to a couple of minutes before updating each block.
The block at 01:05:00 (456,375) was followed close behind by 5 more blocks:
01:07:03  01:11:47  01:12:23  01:14:09  01:16:11
So that may be why.

Ok thanks Kano

[yukiko]

I admire the morality and transparency going on in this pool. A lot. Including those providing the support. The amount hash power of this pool is no where near where it should realistically be from an overall comparison of pools.

It seems the general miner community prefers the PPS negative payment structure with the pool pocketing the transaction fees that are greater than the reward payout. At least, it seems that way for now based upon pool network percentage shares.

Is there any effective way to offer a better deal than some of these pools, like Antpool, while you keep the transaction fees if desired by the miner?

Just thinking if you offered your current pool structure and the alternative structure that people seem to be flocking towards, you could show transparency in both and offer links via the dashboard to both styles. Similar to what some pools do anyhow, yet with your much more transparent statistics. One could even show a breakdown of what they would have earned on the alternative payout structure for comparison.

People, seeing a dashboard where one side keeps the fees and the other doesn't (with a comparison), may help education the mining community. And, given the success of these pools pocketing transaction fees, it seems some education is very necessary.

I like the much more open payout structure at Kano. I also recognize the miner hesitation to join when seeing last pool block 37 hours ago. Even if that number is purely psychological from a payout standpoint. My thoughts are there must be a way to combine both the quality and transparency of Kano with the tactics of larger pools that are clearly dominating the overall network.

I'm certain many people would want to help support this pool with such an endeavour, from back-end work to helping with other methods like running social media accounts. Of course, this all boils down to the real question: Is there an interest here in proactively growing?

[ComputerGenie]

...Is there any effective way to offer a better deal than some of these pools, like Antpool, while you keep the transaction fees if desired by the miner?
...

IMO, much of Antpool's hashrate comes from the same thing that gave Internet Explorer such a large market share: The "average" person just doesn't know any better.

[yukiko]

...Is there any effective way to offer a better deal than some of these pools, like Antpool, while you keep the transaction fees if desired by the miner?
...

IMO, much of Antpool's hashrate comes from the same thing that gave Internet Explorer such a large market share: The "average" person just doesn't know any better.

I fully agree. Why not capture that audience though? It could be done. It requires aggressive work though. And I have a hunch there are many would be happy to help. There are also other ways to indirectly, and completely automated, generate income that are completely benign to the web user while increasing pool profits back to those users.

It's probably where one has to cross the line between making an income and giving back to the community. There are ways to do both.

[huynhdat1989]

...Is there any effective way to offer a better deal than some of these pools, like Antpool, while you keep the transaction fees if desired by the miner?
...

IMO, much of Antpool's hashrate comes from the same thing that gave Internet Explorer such a large market share: The "average" person just doesn't know any better.

They do know the different but antpool have much share so money in their pocket is faster.

[bitsink]

Kano, nice to see how active you are on this thread!

Have you considered adding an onion address to the pool frontend and even offering an onion address for mining?

[bitsink]

At least some of it looks like 1 significant figure only, which is not really enough resolution for a nice graph ;-) nOt sure why the "bestshare" is always 0?

Code:

{"hashrate1m": "0", "hashrate5m": "4T", "hashrate1hr": "447.94G", "hashrate1d": "4T", "hashrate7d": "0", "lastupdate": xxxxx, "workers": 1, "shares": xxxx, "bestshare": 0} 

It doesn't show the trailing zeros.
So in this case it's 4.00T

hashrate1m, hashrate7d and bestshare will be zero coz I changed it when I switched to the new server setup.
It used to just display the ckpool text files on the server (10s of thousands of them )
It now generates the file from CKDB which doesn't track bestshare (and probably never will since it's a meaningless random number) and doesn't pass hashrate1m or hashrate7d through to the web site.

ckpool doesn't use any form of database, just zillions of disk text files it updates all the time ... which I should remove from the code since it is a major I/O bottleneck when you have a real pool with lots of users and workers.

It is highly unlikely to repeatedly hit exactly a round hashrate of eg. 4.00TH/s. I really think this is a rounding issue. If you looked into the code, I am sure you would be able to confirm this?

[kano]

Kano, nice to see how active you are on this thread!

Have you considered adding an onion address to the pool frontend and even offering an onion address for mining?

No since that will add latency to mining - more stale shares and more stale blocks.

[kano]

NYA 🐈 node is currently dead since 17:57:20 UTC
The provider knows about it also and I'm simply waiting for them to fix it (they already knew about it when I checked why the alarms went off)

[kano]

At least some of it looks like 1 significant figure only, which is not really enough resolution for a nice graph ;-) nOt sure why the "bestshare" is always 0?

Code:

{"hashrate1m": "0", "hashrate5m": "4T", "hashrate1hr": "447.94G", "hashrate1d": "4T", "hashrate7d": "0", "lastupdate": xxxxx, "workers": 1, "shares": xxxx, "bestshare": 0} 

It doesn't show the trailing zeros.
So in this case it's 4.00T

hashrate1m, hashrate7d and bestshare will be zero coz I changed it when I switched to the new server setup.
It used to just display the ckpool text files on the server (10s of thousands of them )
It now generates the file from CKDB which doesn't track bestshare (and probably never will since it's a meaningless random number) and doesn't pass hashrate1m or hashrate7d through to the web site.

ckpool doesn't use any form of database, just zillions of disk text files it updates all the time ... which I should remove from the code since it is a major I/O bottleneck when you have a real pool with lots of users and workers.

It is highly unlikely to repeatedly hit exactly a round hashrate of eg. 4.00TH/s. I really think this is a rounding issue. If you looked into the code, I am sure you would be able to confirm this?

Fixed.

[kano]

NYA 🐈 node is currently dead since 17:57:20 UTC
The provider knows about it also and I'm simply waiting for them to fix it (they already knew about it when I checked why the alarms went off)

NYA 🐈 node back to life, and mining resumed on it at 18:46:18 UTC

[bitsink]

Kano, nice to see how active you are on this thread!

Have you considered adding an onion address to the pool frontend and even offering an onion address for mining?

No since that will add latency to mining - more stale shares and more stale blocks.

Yes, true on the mining backend. What about for the frontend?

[kano]

...Is there any effective way to offer a better deal than some of these pools, like Antpool, while you keep the transaction fees if desired by the miner?
...

IMO, much of Antpool's hashrate comes from the same thing that gave Internet Explorer such a large market share: The "average" person just doesn't know any better.

I fully agree. Why not capture that audience though? It could be done. It requires aggressive work though. And I have a hunch there are many would be happy to help. There are also other ways to indirectly, and completely automated, generate income that are completely benign to the web user while increasing pool profits back to those users.

It's probably where one has to cross the line between making an income and giving back to the community. There are ways to do both.

I don't offer PPS for 2 reasons:

1) It's got nothing to do with bitcoin
Mining is for confirming transactions by finding blocks.
(Even though most pools produce empty blocks - AntPool, F2Pool, Eligius, Bitminter, Slush, etc)

PPS has no requirement for finding blocks, it's purely a pay per share as you submit them to a pool.
(That's why cloud mining scams work)

PPLNS means everyone on the pool shares a reward when we find a block, and if we find more due to good luck, everyone gets that luck, if we don't find any then no one gets anything - i.e. it's directly related to bitcoin, since that's how bitcoin rewards work.
Also, although that evens out over time, it's a direct motivation for miners to do the right thing on the pool.

That's also why I have the CKDB block page the way it is - showing all and every attempt at submitting blocks.
That's what matters, finding and distributing our blocks and of course knowing about them all, good or bad.

2) It requires a safety net of currently around a few hundred thousand dollars. I don't have that

Although long term, I would have made extra profit from PPS, a month e.g. like December I'd have had to find 221 BTC to cover PPS
PPS is risky for a pool and can easily lead to financial failure.

PPLNS guarantees that an honest pool will continue to run as long as there are enough miners on the pool.

[kano]

Kano, nice to see how active you are on this thread!

Have you considered adding an onion address to the pool frontend and even offering an onion address for mining?

No since that will add latency to mining - more stale shares and more stale blocks.

Yes, true on the mining backend. What about for the frontend?

Then use another pool if you want to hide your access to the kano.is web site

Even over the last couple of weeks I still get regular tiny DDoSes by morons who have no idea that they are not affecting the pool web site at all (no one notices them except when I temporarily disable logins to grab the list of bot IP addresses and ban them all)
The last thing I want to do is promote that annoyance.

[smutboy420]

NYA 🐈 node back to life, and mining resumed on it at 18:46:18 UTC

dang I just realized i had my fall over settings wrong and had the nya in both my 1s and 2nd instead of setting so it would fall over to stratum+tcp://stratum.kano.is:3333 if the nya one went dead.

so it fell over to the 3rd which was antpoo opps.  I got myself a whole whopping  0.00044660   BTC tho lol

[kano]

NYA 🐈 node back to life, and mining resumed on it at 18:46:18 UTC

dang I just realized i had my fall over settings wrong and had the nya in both my 1s and 2nd instead of setting so it would fall over to stratum+tcp://stratum.kano.is:3333 if the nya one went dead.

so it fell over to the 3rd which was antpoo opps.  I got myself a whole whopping  0.00044660   BTC tho lol

Node failures are pretty rare, and that's the longest one for a very long time.
(Yes I'm pretty happy with the current provider I use for the non-china nodes)

But yep, if you add another close node as the 2nd backup (or even the main pool) then even a failure like that one is only a tiny blip of a failover to another node.

There's a couple of people who have shown interest is putting a lot more hash rate on the pool as they obtain it (and have already)
If we do grow over the coming months, that will of course lead to me adding more nodes as we grow (even though there is a lot of nodes already IMO) and thus give more options for configuring your backups also.

I've used various providers over the last couple of years, and the current one for nodes outside china has certainly been the best of them.
With more expansion, I guess the best move next would be to find a second provider who matches them in quality and thus be able to have more points for nodes in more regions and thus have better options for configuring your backup settings.

[NotFuzzyWarm]

Query: How would we point to different nodes?
currently for me
pool-0 is stratum+tcp://stratum.kano.is:3333
pool-1 is stratum+tcp://stratum80.kano.is:80
pool-2 is stratum+tcp://stratum81.kano.is:81

Are those different nodes or just different ports on same node?

[kano]

Query: How would we point to different nodes?
currently for me
pool-0 is stratum+tcp://stratum.kano.is:3333
pool-1 is stratum+tcp://stratum80.kano.is:80
pool-2 is stratum+tcp://stratum81.kano.is:81

Are those different nodes or just different ports on same node?

They are different ports to the main pool (passthru)

The other nodes are (as in the thread title) DE,SG,JP,NL,NYA 🐈
So for them it's e.g.:
stratum+tcp://nl.kano.is:3333

For the nodes you just change the port number 3333 to any of 8080, 443, 80, 81
(you don't change the name)

You can ping them to see which is closest
e.g. ping nl.kano.is

[NotFuzzyWarm]

Ah. Gotcha. my current kano.is:<port> time 70ms
To nya.kano.is is 35ms
Changing pool-0 to nya!