KanoPool since 2014 🐈 - PPLNS and Solo 0.5% fee - Worldwide - 2437 blocks

[Jethroz]

My rig seems to be mining ok. Here's it's hash rate from the "Shifts" when the last block was found: http://prntscr.com/9czhww

Here's its N Avg on the "Rewards" screen for the same block: http://prntscr.com/9czicm

I'm just trying to understand how it's N avg on the Rewards screen was a lot lower than the actual Hash Rate showing on the Shifts screen. Am I missing something regarding the calculation for N Avg?

If you look at the Avg Hs column on the Shifts page, the rough 5n is about where the red line is (quick way of comparing without having to do any figuring). In your case, you probably haven't mined the full 5n yet (roughly @ 50%) and need to wait longer.

If you average 1.1T from the top of the shifts page all the way down to the payout line (currently at Dec-06 11:41:55), then your rewards would be around 1.1T. Any lower amounts will decrease your avg.

[PPOC]

Payout 387752 sent about 1.5 hours ago
5819e053783aa9ef768a9fa3d76da7cc6a1e86104fd485838101c8d47b5765c9
But still not confirmed yet

So when I look up this transactions on blockchain.info, I am getting this message
"Transaction rejected by our node. Reason: The Maximum number of outputs in a single transaction is 250"

[pj40]

Payout 387752 sent about 1.5 hours ago
5819e053783aa9ef768a9fa3d76da7cc6a1e86104fd485838101c8d47b5765c9
But still not confirmed yet

So when I look up this transactions on blockchain.info, I am getting this message
"Transaction rejected by our node. Reason: The Maximum number of outputs in a single transaction is 250"

Weird, I just saw that too.  Maybe Kano put too many addresses in his transaction?  I didn't know it was limited to 250.

[PPOC]

Payout 387752 sent about 1.5 hours ago
5819e053783aa9ef768a9fa3d76da7cc6a1e86104fd485838101c8d47b5765c9
But still not confirmed yet

So when I look up this transactions on blockchain.info, I am getting this message
"Transaction rejected by our node. Reason: The Maximum number of outputs in a single transaction is 250"

Weird, I just saw that too.  Maybe Kano put too many addresses in his transaction?  I didn't know it was limited to 250.

Yes, very odd. Around the same time as Kano sent this payment, I has 2 final payments from slush since I moved all my miners to Kano last night and one does not exist and the other still unconfirmed for over 90 blocks. The below links are right from the Slush payments page.

http://www.blockchain.info/tx/86f3f011f11ace78e1144e758c5a4567cf226309feb5bca72c69e0acd4cab878
http://www.blockchain.info/tx/bedb98924ed7de55322ae64f81487e8656f1086af17b20a984ca383f6d3f547e

Also odd is that Slush has made blocks since these payments so why would they not confirm their own transactions?

[ATCkit]

My rig seems to be mining ok. Here's it's hash rate from the "Shifts" when the last block was found: http://prntscr.com/9czhww

Here's its N Avg on the "Rewards" screen for the same block: http://prntscr.com/9czicm

I'm just trying to understand how it's N avg on the Rewards screen was a lot lower than the actual Hash Rate showing on the Shifts screen. Am I missing something regarding the calculation for N Avg?

If you look at the Avg Hs column on the Shifts page, the rough 5n is about where the red line is (quick way of comparing without having to do any figuring). In your case, you probably haven't mined the full 5n yet (roughly @ 50%) and need to wait longer.

If you average 1.1T from the top of the shifts page all the way down to the payout line (currently at Dec-06 11:41:55), then your rewards would be around 1.1T. Any lower amounts will decrease your avg.

Thx NuttyCoins and Jethroz. Ya I'm likely at about 2.5 N. I get it now. I'll be more patient.

[Mikestang]

Weird, I just saw that too.  Maybe Kano put too many addresses in his transaction?  I didn't know it was limited to 250.

It's not, that's just blockchain.info failing.  They are not the definitive source for all things transaction related.

[-ck]

I Got 2 controllers, so can point them at 2 different places where ever you want them. They Are just turned OFF atm..

Try pointing your hashes at ckpool.org:3333 . It's for testing only but I can see then if it produces valid hashes.

[zahzin]

There seems to be a huge backlog of transactions, according to blockchain.info around 13k unconfirmed transactions and mempool has grown to 14MB..

I bet this "backlog" would not exist or would be considerable lower if those greedy chinese pools were not mining empty 0-1 transaction blocks.. That is a lot of wasted space for transactions, there have been so many these empty ones today.. 

[jonnybravo0311]

In the past 24 hours there have been 14 empty blocks:

BW.com - 3 of their 7 blocks were empty
AntPool - 7 of their 44 blocks were empty
f2pool - 4 of their 31 blocks were empty

[helipotte]

Just for curiosity's sake, I have been doing some looking about as to why my monarchs using BGFminer acted up yesterday.  Maybe this is relevant.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=877081.msg12804456#msg12804456

Post #596.

[PPOC]

Weird, I just saw that too.  Maybe Kano put too many addresses in his transaction?  I didn't know it was limited to 250.

It's not, that's just blockchain.info failing.  They are not the definitive source for all things transaction related.

Well, not just blockchain.info

https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/tx/5819e053783aa9ef768a9fa3d76da7cc6a1e86104fd485838101c8d47b5765c9

[jonnybravo0311]

Blocktrail shows the transaction just fine... blockchain.info just refuses to show it at all.

[elduderino]

In the past 24 hours there have been 14 empty blocks:

BW.com - 3 of their 7 blocks were empty
AntPool - 7 of their 44 blocks were empty
f2pool - 4 of their 31 blocks were empty

Does this mean that they are working on blocks without transactions?

How is this possible?

I'm guessing that this makes it easier for them to mine with these blocks, therefore, higher chance of finding the payoff block?

[jonnybravo0311]

That's exactly what it means.  They put absolutely no transactions in their blocks.  It's possible because they create an empty block and pass that off to their miners.  Eventually they put transactions in to the work and pass that along.  That "eventually" depends entirely upon them.

[zahzin]

In the past 24 hours there have been 14 empty blocks:

BW.com - 3 of their 7 blocks were empty
AntPool - 7 of their 44 blocks were empty
f2pool - 4 of their 31 blocks were empty

Wow, thanks for the summary stats, have no idea where to see daily totals for these empty ones..

But yeah, 14 empty blocks today - 14k tx - 14MB mempool backlog, it pretty much matches straight up with the backlog and empty blocks possible tx content had they been filled to the brim..

I guess nothing motivates some people but greed..

What is a small miner to do about these large pools to get them to "behave", nothing I can think of anyways..

Sad and ironic.. They are shooting themselves in the leg as well if the network gets too clogged up their proceeds go down as the price might fall as well.. Not too forward thinking these chinese pool operators have to say..

Not to mention the ethics concerned, but I guess each person has his/her own..

[jonnybravo0311]

I get those stats from running my own code to parse the blocks

What can a small miner do?  Easy - don't point your hash to those pools.  Support other pools.  For example, looking at my own mempool info on my pool, I can see plenty of transactions waiting to be included:

Code:

bitcoin-cli getmempoolinfo
{
    "size" : 5138,
    "bytes" : 10033688
}

That's with limits on relay tx fees and setting my block size to be just shy of 1M.  Looking at my logs, I can see the blocks the pool is trying to create are right up against that barrier:

Code:

2015-12-11 20:23:25 CreateNewBlock(): total size 998934

Kano's pool always includes transactions in the work.  As a result, his pool has never once submitted an empty block.  There are plenty of pools out there that don't behave badly .  Unfortunately, they don't have huge amounts of hash.

[zahzin]

I get those stats from running my own code to parse the blocks

Nice one, atleast we get some proper stats on these thanks to you

What can a small miner do?  Easy - don't point your hash to those pools.  Support other pools.
...
Kano's pool always includes transactions in the work.  As a result, his pool has never once submitted an empty block.  There are plenty of pools out there that don't behave badly .  Unfortunately, they don't have huge amounts of hash.

Yeah over time I have gotten tired of the large pools and mostly mine now at Kanos and CKs Solo..
All my hash are gone from the big pools nowadays, sometimes a bit of FRC mining as well lol

Have to come over and check yours sometime as well..

Edit: We should get more people informed about the dirty game the big pools play and get people to start "voting" with by pointing their hash to more ethical pools as you suggested..

[elduderino]

That's exactly what it means.  They put absolutely no transactions in their blocks.  It's possible because they create an empty block and pass that off to their miners.  Eventually they put transactions in to the work and pass that along.  That "eventually" depends entirely upon them.

Sounds legit!

[omega015]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMY5VGYh2Go We need a block ;-) hoping this will provide some motivation  for a certain high hasher

or maybe the pool needs this.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msSc7Mv0QHY

Don't flame me, its a lonely Friday evening waiting for blocks and transactions 

P.S. will delete if desired 

[omega015]

That's exactly what it means.  They put absolutely no transactions in their blocks.  It's possible because they create an empty block and pass that off to their miners.  Eventually they put transactions in to the work and pass that along.  That "eventually" depends entirely upon them.

Are the backed up transactions only going to get worse the longer things go on? or do things eventually get caught up during "quiet time"? Is this where the block size change debate comes in? (as well as empty block mining). Do we simply have more transactions than the current 1MB block size can handle or if all pools pulled their weight it wouldn't be an issue? (yet)