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

[kano]

Sure... you could certainly build a patch to exclude transactions from any address you wanted... you could also setup firewall rules to block any traffic from known IP addresses.  This would have the effect of denying known dead pool miners from connecting to you, and you'd never allow a transaction from those pools to be included in your pool's work.

Yeah there's little chance of me ever implementing/using a btc address block in btcd
Even then I'd not suggest anyone to ever block a btc address either
The fungibility of BTC is crucial IMO

The only reasons I mentioned the address in my SPV thread was coz it's a publicly known f2pool address and thus shows straight away that it was f2pool using kano.is to get "SPV" headers

I have firewall ipsets for each of the different things the servers do (and a global one) and thus can block an IP in individual sets or globally.
So even when I block the f2pool dead pool miners, I'm not blocking any transactions or even their btcd if they were running on the same node.
It's just a miner block.

--

Also ... the gentoo issue was that he had the blacklists switched on by default in the default gentoo bitcoin core build

--

Yeah sometimes the payout can take a while to confirm when the network is busy.
It's rare, not common.
More hash rate could also speed it up since it is in our work and out next block should confirm it

As I have mentioned before ... if we were a few % of the network that would be good.
I'd have concerns if we were over 10%, and already be doing something about lowering it if we were ever over the 10% mark.
None of this "yeah it doesn't matter until you hit 50%" ... IMO more than 10% is when you should be turning away miners.

I do make that statement seriously, if we did ever get to 10% you will find me turning away miners and possibly even asking some to mine somewhere else.
You can quote me on this and send abuse if I were to ever do the opposite.

[Klinker]

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..

http://bitblk.com/ shows mining pool daily block counts with empty blocks marked in red.

[kano]

...

http://bitblk.com/ shows mining pool daily block counts with empty blocks marked in red.

Yeah but that one is rather short term so it doesn't show the true picture very well.

[-ck]

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)

One can't predict what will happen as it's a combination of real transaction volume and crafted spam transactions although the real transactions will inevitably rise in volume.

Bear in mind that if we magically had 8MB blocks (which isn't going to happen any time soon) that would give the dodgy pools an excuse to not bother fixing their empty block mining since they could just say they're adding transactions to the bigger blocks. Of course 8MB, while inevitable, isn't even on the visible horizon, yet transaction volume rising is, as is block reward halving, so the factors are stacked in favour of pools that aren't mining empty blocks for the visible future.

[omega015]

grrrrrr down time, more DDoS attacks?

.... if we did ever get to 10% you will find me turning away miners and possibly even asking some to mine somewhere else.
You can quote me on this and send abuse if I were to ever do the opposite.

I hope we get to 9.99% then 

But in all serious if a pool were to turn away potential miners, would a pool benefit from lots of little hash miners or fewer bigger ones? or mixture? or does the number of miners not matter ands it all about the pool hash rate? does 10 x 100GH/s have the same benefit as 1 x 1TH/s? Would a pool operator look for other qualities in a miner? like ping, forum etiquette  etc..

I am sure should kano.is hit 10% they're would be people here willing to start a pool with the same ethos as kano.is. I for one would put my money where my mouth is (financial situation pending of course).

[omega015]

One can't predict what will happen as it's a combination of real transaction volume and crafted spam transactions although the real transactions will inevitably rise in volume.

Bear in mind that if we magically had 8MB blocks (which isn't going to happen any time soon) that would give the dodgy pools an excuse to not bother fixing their empty block mining since they could just say they're adding transactions to the bigger blocks. Of course 8MB, while inevitable, isn't even on the visible horizon, yet transaction volume rising is, as is block reward halving, so the factors are stacked in favour of pools that aren't mining empty blocks for the visible future.

Time will tell on how things will pan out, but I don't see them changing tactics until the transaction rewards begin to outweigh the block reward. I'd prefer to see that happen due to more transaction volume as Bitcoin is accepted more and more for goods/services. I wonder if the likes of amazon/eBay will introduce Bitcoin as a payment method (with escrow).

I'd love to start a market place (illegal services prohibited). Unless one exists globally/UK already?

[kano]

grrrrrr down time, more DDoS attacks?
...

[jacobmayes94]

mmpool just went down at the same time as bitcointalk

[-ck]

mmpool just went down at the same time as bitcointalk

Nothing to do with this pool.

[omega015]

grrrrrr down time, more DDoS attacks?
...

Sorry that was because bitcointalk went down when I was trying to post. And there's been a number of DOS attacks.

[mavericklm]

https://blockchain.info/tx/15f3a66f6702bf3aa4a90fc3255d391584976b6293a809b193dc61e181b0b352

who's 1Hr9uwzwXWpjQDNUWdZ1i9qnoSpnniJe4U   

[kano]

https://blockchain.info/tx/15f3a66f6702bf3aa4a90fc3255d391584976b6293a809b193dc61e181b0b352

who's 1Hr9uwzwXWpjQDNUWdZ1i9qnoSpnniJe4U  

Firstly, yeah blockchain is pretty crappy.
Click on it and you will see it's not confirmed.

2ndly yep that's the pool 0.9% fee as should be obvious to anyone
I commonly send it to con and I every 4 blocks.
I pay whatever txn fee bitcoin-qt decides out of my amount.

[aarons6]

https://blockchain.info/tx/15f3a66f6702bf3aa4a90fc3255d391584976b6293a809b193dc61e181b0b352

who's 1Hr9uwzwXWpjQDNUWdZ1i9qnoSpnniJe4U  

Firstly, yeah blockchain is pretty crappy.
Click on it and you will see it's not confirmed.

2ndly yep that's the pool 0.9% fee as should be obvious to anyone
I commonly send it to con and I every 4 blocks.
I pay whatever txn fee bitcoin-qt decides out of my amount.

just did confirm.. at least i got a text.

[kano]

Heh yeah just now
[2015-12-12 11:02:36.042] Block hash changed to 00000000000000000771ef39c31fede029ced754a6a414b9191f96b4fca58b2b

Yay it was a solo ckpool block!

[yslyung]

morning folks,

hmm i see something weird with 1 of my accounts here @ kano

Block         Block UTC      Miner Reward   N Diff        N Range          Pool N Avg  Your %  Your N Diff Your N Avg Your BTC      BTC Received (Wallet)
387752   10/Dec 20:52   25.08313536   396.470G   105hr 11m 4s     4.50PHs   0.44%   1.746G      19.81THs   0.11049265   0.11096185
387624   10/Dec 07:03   24.90921122   396.673G   108hr 54m 57s   4.35PHs   0.33%   1.328G      14.55THs   0.08338757   0.08385328
387505   9/Dec 15:09     24.92477269   396.502G   118hr 9m 56s     4.00PHs   0.19%   772.908M   7.80THs    0.04858631   0.04905251
387465   9/Dec 09:16     25.05411500   396.082G   121hr 17m 20s   3.90PHs   0.14%   572.384M   5.63THs    0.03620613   0.03667524
Total:                                                                                                                                                         0.27867266   0.28054288

but my on another account, mining rewards is exactly the same as BTC Received in my wallet.

  "something weird account" got paid a little more when i was switching pool later than "another account" & it got more shares ? idk, just saying. i would like to return the extras to the pool if it is some error & share it with all miners mining here on the next block.

I apologize upfront if i missed something that i do not know.

Was away for a long day trip still blurrrrrrr.

btw, time for a block heh ? block block come come  



 

[kano]

Yeah you also mined to the same address directly.
So from that you can see the (extra) address payout also (that's combined with your username payout to the same address)

Edit: I'll PM you the other page you normally can't ever get at, since you've posted above your account and it's paid a lot more than the address acount, you obviously have access to the address you are mining to

[yslyung]

Yeah you also mined to the same address directly.
So from that you can see the (extra) address payout also (that's combined with your username payout to the same address)

oh yeah, the miner A & miner B earlier before i registered the second account instead of using a BTC addy to mine. thx !

at the pool now but when i "append name" to worker via proxy, only 1 worker mines & get connected, other don't connect but if i use only a single name under each different miner group then it all connects & mine but i could not monitor each individual miner.

i'd like to use ck proxy but don't have the know how to use it yet, using other proxy. my conf file :

    "name" : "Kano",
    "host" : "stratum.kano.is:3333",
    "user" : "myregisteredusername",  <----- meregisteredusername.workername, all miners connects & mine but unable to monitor each individual miners
    "password" : "x",
    "enableExtranonceSubscribe" : false,
    "appendWorkerNames" : true,  <----- only 1 worker connects & mine, rest of the miners are not connected but if set to false
    "workerNameSeparator" : ".",
    "useWorkerPassword" : false,
    "isEnabled": true,

[kano]

If you use ckproxy as a passthrough proxy (to any ckpool pool), the miners will be workers at the pool.

A normal proxy is a single worker at the pool otherwise it's a bit pointless having 10,000 miners mining 10,000 workers at the pool.
Also for a standard proxy, it also doesn't make any sense at all since you want to get a single piece of work and divide it up to your 10,000 miners, not get 10,000 pieces of work matching each miner

[yslyung]

If you use ckproxy as a passthrough proxy (to any ckpool pool), the miners will be workers at the pool.

A normal proxy is a single worker at the pool otherwise it's a bit pointless having 10,000 miners mining 10,000 workers at the pool.
Also for a standard proxy, it also doesn't make any sense at all since you want to get a single piece of work and divide it up to your 10,000 miners, not get 10,000 pieces of work matching each miner

i'm *nix retarded !!! sob sob, lemme slowly figure it out & will give it a try when it happens.

many other reasons such as that i would be able to identify which miner is not mining, hosting services, easier monitoring of individual miners. there can be a better solution that i may not know yet.

atm, i have 50+ miners & plan to add more in the near future.

[hurricandave]

  BLOCK