Bink
Newbie
 Offline
Activity: 31
Merit: 0
|
 |
August 04, 2015, 06:20:40 AM |
|
Our first 'almost' block - but it wasn't good enough.
ckpool submits the share as a block if it is within a small amount of being a block just to be sure.
So it shows up on the web site, but alas not good enough.
share block was: 52123573961.901596
but current diff is: 52278304845.59168243
It will show up as an orphan, but I guess I need to label it as something else later since it's not an orphan.
I think there are bigger issues, I see the Pool is on the SAME Block as the NETWORK now!!! |
|
|
|
|
kano (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4606
Merit: 1851
Linux since 1997 RedHat 4
|
|
August 04, 2015, 08:26:29 AM |
|
Our first 'almost' block - but it wasn't good enough.
ckpool submits the share as a block if it is within a small amount of being a block just to be sure.
So it shows up on the web site, but alas not good enough.
share block was: 52123573961.901596
but current diff is: 52278304845.59168243
It will show up as an orphan, but I guess I need to label it as something else later since it's not an orphan.
I think there are bigger issues, I see the Pool is on the SAME Block as the NETWORK now!!! Not sure what you mean there? All workinfos that ckpool works on are from calling bitcoind getblocktemplate (yeah GBT is pretty poorly written in bitcoind but we call it since it is the reference standard code) At the time when our "368348 block" was found we were working on confirming block height 368347. Since our bitcoind rejected our "368348 block", we continued to build on block height 368347 that was before ckpool submitted the rejected block - since there was no new block known anywhere. When some other pool found 368348, we then switched to building on their new 368348 block as expected. We don't do SPV mining and we don't build empty blocks as an excuse for having crap slow pool code. We don't need to, our block change handling is probably one of the fastest of all pools on the network. At no point during that time when ckpool submitted our rejected "368348 block" did any miner on the pool begin work on building on our rejected "368348 block" |
|
|
|
|
pekatete
|
|
August 04, 2015, 08:43:41 AM |
|
No it isn't.
His fee is higher and his long term luck is lower ...........
You really have to keep up if you are going to insist on being pig-headed .... there's no fee on slush. |
|
|
|
|
tokingtoking
|
|
August 04, 2015, 09:38:12 AM |
|
No it isn't.
His fee is higher and his long term luck is lower ...........
You really have to keep up if you are going to insist on being pig-headed .... there's no fee on slush. i think he is talking about f2pool, or i missed something. |
|
|
|
|
|
pekatete
|
|
August 04, 2015, 09:42:31 AM |
|
i think he is talking about f2pool, or i missed something.
You did miss something. He's expressly talking about slush. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
kano (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4606
Merit: 1851
Linux since 1997 RedHat 4
|
|
August 04, 2015, 11:32:00 AM |
|
Thus his official terms of service on his web site are wrong ... or you are wrong. Maybe slush should keep it up to date ... if he has time to and can afford to? I've no idea which, but I obviously have no want or desire to have an account on slush or follow crap on facedesk. Since his official terms of service say he is charging you 2% ... https://mining.bitcoin.cz/terms-of-servicethen who knows ... If you are correct and slush is wrong, then I'd be more worried about the fact that he effectively has no income supporting his pool according to your statement ... and we are heading for another BAN ... if he is forever charging no fees to anyone ever again. Though of course your 0% fees since 1-Aug you are talking about, is less than 4 days of mining since however long way back when he finally dropped his fees to 2% ... and finishes when?  |
|
|
|
|
pekatete
|
|
August 04, 2015, 11:56:57 AM |
|
Thus his official terms of service on his web site are wrong ... or you are wrong. Maybe slush should keep it up to date ... if he has time to and can afford to? I've no idea which, but I obviously have no want or desire to have an account on slush or follow crap on facedesk. Since his official terms of service say he is charging you 2% ... https://mining.bitcoin.cz/terms-of-servicethen who knows ... If you are correct and slush is wrong, then I'd be more worried about the fact that he effectively has no income supporting his pool according to your statement ... and we are heading for another BAN ... if he is forever charging no fees to anyone ever again. Though of course your 0% fees since 1-Aug you are talking about, is less than 4 days of mining since however long way back when he finally dropped his fees to 2% ... and finishes when? We digress, but yes, I am right and the info on the TOS is outdated, but more pertinent, you are wrong (as indeed anyone can be). If you insist on sticking your head in the sand (even give the impression of doing so), thats your prerogative. Fact is, even before the demise of the fee on slush, actual payouts were better than kano.is expected (and actual) payouts. Now that the fees on slush have been dropped AND merged mining NMC introduced, I am as sure as can be that payouts at slush will confortably exceed whatever kano.is can expect to payout, even with the supposed better luck that you claim for kano.is; Your concerns as to how slush gets on without income are purely for anecdotal value as being the pioneer pool, I am confident they can get their numbers right. |
|
|
|
|
innerchaos
|
|
August 04, 2015, 12:42:06 PM |
|
Yay a real one  |
|
|
|
|
|
TheAnalogKid
|
|
August 04, 2015, 01:17:15 PM |
|
Now that the fees on slush have been dropped AND merged mining NMC introduced, I am as sure as can be that payouts at slush will confortably exceed whatever kano.is can expect to payout, even with the supposed better luck that you claim for kano.is;
So, that being the case, why don't you do what johnnybravo has done elsewhere, and point some hardware at both, record the payouts, and compare them so you can prove your point, rather than continue the cat fight back and forth. Really, I could give a shit less about what you, or anyone for that matter, "think" or "know" about any pool being better than any other pool with regards to luck or payouts without empirical data, and I'm sure most of the rest would agree. And, this does not except Kano from that statement either, but he at least has proven before to provide numbers and calculations to attempt to support his assertions, instead of specious knowledge and feelings. If you prove it with numbers, there is no ability to question or deny at that point. Until then, it's merely speculation and attempts to denigrate. |
|
|
|
|
kano (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4606
Merit: 1851
Linux since 1997 RedHat 4
|
|
August 04, 2015, 01:18:05 PM |
|
... Thus his official terms of service on his web site are wrong ... or you are wrong. Maybe slush should keep it up to date ... if he has time to and can afford to? I've no idea which, but I obviously have no want or desire to have an account on slush or follow crap on facedesk. Since his official terms of service say he is charging you 2% ... https://mining.bitcoin.cz/terms-of-servicethen who knows ... If you are correct and slush is wrong, then I'd be more worried about the fact that he effectively has no income supporting his pool according to your statement ... and we are heading for another BAN ... if he is forever charging no fees to anyone ever again. Though of course your 0% fees since 1-Aug you are talking about, is less than 4 days of mining since however long way back when he finally dropped his fees to 2% ... and finishes when? We digress, but yes, I am right and the info on the TOS is outdated, but more pertinent, you are wrong (as indeed anyone can be). If you insist on sticking your head in the sand (even give the impression of doing so), thats your prerogative. Fact is, even before the demise of the fee on slush, actual payouts were better than kano.is expected (and actual) payouts. Well again I've no idea who is right - since - again - his official terms of service that the pool publishes don't match what you say. Maybe he's only doing it for a week, so he doesn't go broke paying out many hundreds or thousands of dollars a month running the pool servers, and thus your point is basically irrelevant? As for payout history ... you don't need to have me prove kano.is is better than slush - look at: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1059040.msg11941177#msg11941177and since his last report, payouts here have continued like that. So yeah since kano.is has been the best paying pool against BTCGuild, Antpool, F2Pool and NiceHash for payouts over those 12 weeks and payouts have not fallen even with a 666.666% block in there ... I'd have difficulty believing slush was paying better for the past 3 or 4 months ... especially when you provide no proof of that ... and it was reported when we got the 666.666% block, that slush had a worse than 666.666% block in there also ... Now that the fees on slush have been dropped AND merged mining NMC introduced, I am as sure as can be that payouts at slush will confortably exceed whatever kano.is can expect to payout, even with the supposed better luck that you claim for kano.is;
Your concerns as to how slush gets on without income are purely for anecdotal value as being the pioneer pool, I am confident they can get their numbers right.
You need to look up the meaning of the word anecdotal. The numbers, according to you, are zero. So yeah I doubt they can get their numbers right if you are correct in saying their income is zero forever more. |
|
|
|
|
CapnBDL
|
|
August 04, 2015, 01:55:45 PM |
|
Must we continue this 'Battle of the Pool'? It really comes down to choice. I choose kano.is. Battle over, I win!
|
|
|
|
Dmc123dmc
Member
Offline
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
Time is the one thing you can't run from
|
|
August 04, 2015, 02:57:07 PM |
|
Must we continue this 'Battle of the Pool'? It really comes down to choice. I choose kano.is. Battle over, I win!
Seconded, everybody does there own research and chooses a pool based on what he finds. If you don't like this pool then go find another one! |
|
|
|
kano (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4606
Merit: 1851
Linux since 1997 RedHat 4
|
|
August 04, 2015, 04:18:13 PM |
|
Must we continue this 'Battle of the Pool'? It really comes down to choice. I choose kano.is. Battle over, I win!
Seconded, everybody does there own research and chooses a pool based on what he finds. If you don't like this pool then go find another one! Yeah I said that to him in the first post in all this |
|
|
|
|
CapnBDL
|
|
August 04, 2015, 05:43:12 PM |
|
Canaan...you rock! Block!
|
|
|
|
|
BlInK311
|
|
August 04, 2015, 05:44:50 PM |
|
Woohooo block!! love it!
Was 368348 the 1st orphan for this pool? or was there one early on?
|
|
|
|
|
|
ZACHM
|
|
August 04, 2015, 05:50:01 PM |
|
Woohooo block!! love it!
Was 368348 the 1st orphan for this pool? or was there one early on?
I think we have had two in the past, but this one was not an Orphan: Our first 'almost' block - but it wasn't good enough.
ckpool submits the share as a block if it is within a small amount of being a block just to be sure.
So it shows up on the web site, but alas not good enough.
share block was: 52123573961.901596
but current diff is: 52278304845.59168243
It will show up as an orphan, but I guess I need to label it as something else later since it's not an orphan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
BlInK311
|
|
August 04, 2015, 06:00:23 PM |
|
Woohooo block!! love it!
Was 368348 the 1st orphan for this pool? or was there one early on?
I think we have had two in the past, but this one was not an Orphan: Our first 'almost' block - but it wasn't good enough.
ckpool submits the share as a block if it is within a small amount of being a block just to be sure.
So it shows up on the web site, but alas not good enough.
share block was: 52123573961.901596
but current diff is: 52278304845.59168243
It will show up as an orphan, but I guess I need to label it as something else later since it's not an orphan.
Ahhhh... I missed that post. Thanks for the answer tho. |
|
|
|
|
|
nhminer
|
|
August 04, 2015, 09:48:53 PM |
|
Our first 'almost' block - but it wasn't good enough.
ckpool submits the share as a block if it is within a small amount of being a block just to be sure.
So it shows up on the web site, but alas not good enough.
share block was: 52123573961.901596
but current diff is: 52278304845.59168243
It will show up as an orphan, but I guess I need to label it as something else later since it's not an orphan.
You could call it a vagabond or vagrant |
BCH - 1EshwUEg9LRbY5WMSw7bkBGQUYQeenkcet
|
|
|
|
