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

[-ck]

I would not take this swing of good luck as proof that your S9's are a cause of bad luck.
Your 1.4PH would not make that big of a difference, at 100% that is like 1 block every 9 days.

This is the most accurate comment. You're attributing random chance association with proof. That's just plain wrong.

[firetreeactual]

I would not take this swing of good luck as proof that your S9's are a cause of bad luck.
Your 1.4PH would not make that big of a difference, at 100% that is like 1 block every 9 days.

True...but I didn't refer to any "proof", at least in my own comments. Inductive meant that the probability of the thesis was heightened. We'll see, I think.

[-EOS-]

Block by jmww!  This is his 26th Kano block and our 6th of the day!  

GREAT DAY!

[elokk]

I agree with Phil and Zach

Every time this pool has less than stellar luck everyone starts theorizing something is wrong with the pool, their mining equipment, etc. Really makes for some entertaining reading at times.

[wmabern]

Okay, Boys and Girls. Just got home from my miserable 2nd job and checking out today's blocks. All I can say is.... YESSSSSSS!!!

That's the way to do it!  

Now if we could only do this EVERY DAY, I can quit my Tues and Thursday job!

Lovn' It!   Great payouts with the lowered pool hash rate.
I haven't found a block recently with any of my four S9's. But one of them did find a block a few months ago. I'm not taking them off the pool as this is the place to be. And I can only think-hope that I am helping to crack these blocks we are getting.

Keep on ROCKING folks!  

EDIT: Also love the fact that we are 3.something ahead of the expected block count for our pool hash rate. Definitely a lucky day!  

EDIT2: I just did some quick math. Close to $100 today with my four S9's. That is really sweet. (Of course that doesn't account for electric, but that's a small part.)   I could really dig 100 bucks a day, every day of the month! Might even be able to get my credit cards paid off.

[Biodom]

well, quite a few more people left the pool in the last few wk.
I don't know if most were on S9 or not, but it is not an outrageous proposition that they could have been.
"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" of this putative linkage.
I would think that both statements are inconclusive, at least for now.

[kano]

well, quite a few more people left the pool in the last few wk.
I don't know if most were on S9 or not, but it is not an outrageous proposition that they could have been.
"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" of this putative linkage.
I would think that both statements are inconclusive, at least for now.

4 of last 10 blocks where bmminer
Which of course also means nothing

--

Meanwhile ... if anyone here reads/visits the linuxjournal web site ... I might suggest you find somewhere else to spend your time.

Someone from there is using ckpool - which is of course no problem, it is opensource after all - they also found a couple of blocks even - and had the donation enabled to -ck for 0.5% as the README says ... ... ... but apparently the boss there was livid when he found out about that 0.5% donation being enabled and got them to turn it off.

Hopefully my suggestion to avoid them will make them even more livid
Oddly they are also not telling the block sites what their coinbase sig is, so show up as unknown on them all.

[firetreeactual]

Meanwhile ... if anyone here reads/visits the linuxjournal web site ... I might suggest you find somewhere else to spend your time.

Someone from there is using ckpool - which is of course no problem, it is opensource after all - they also found a couple of blocks even - and had the donation enabled to -ck for 0.5% as the README says ... ... ... but apparently the boss there was livid when he found out about that 0.5% donation being enabled and got them to turn it off.

Hopefully my suggestion to avoid them will make them even more livid
Oddly they are also not telling the block sites what their coinbase sig is, so show up as unknown on them all.

Ah...I was curious who that might be. I gotcha. Thanks.

[Sierra8561]

Meanwhile ... if anyone here reads/visits the linuxjournal web site ... I might suggest you find somewhere else to spend your time.

Someone from there is using ckpool - which is of course no problem, it is opensource after all - they also found a couple of blocks even - and had the donation enabled to -ck for 0.5% as the README says ... ... ... but apparently the boss there was livid when he found out about that 0.5% donation being enabled and got them to turn it off.

Hopefully my suggestion to avoid them will make them even more livid
Oddly they are also not telling the block sites what their coinbase sig is, so show up as unknown on them all.

Ah...I was curious who that might be. I gotcha. Thanks.

I'm lost lol

[fvineyard]

Agreed, I am not sure I follow this (recent) conversation either....

[kano]

Agreed, I am not sure I follow this (recent) conversation either....

firetreeactual was (I think) referring to who was making the 'unknown' blocks very recently using the ckpool pool software
(they've found 4 so far I think)

However the discussion before around page 1000 was not linuxjournal, that was gbminers

[firetreeactual]

Correct. Just curious.

[fvineyard]

Thanks for connecting the lines dots for me kano. That helps

[kano]

Block by btcer

[Newko]

Well yesterday was a stellar day and woke up this morning to one in the basket. . Very nice indeed!

@Citronic: Kudos to you for wanting to protect this pool from the S9. Very admirable. However, I do not think you have sufficient data to draw the conclusion that your S9s were causing the bad luck. Even if there were something fishy with your hardware, I agree with the others here who have said that at 1% of the total pool hash you're not going to skew the luck. If you want to keep your concience clear and if it's not to much of a PIA, try that 5 day on, 5 day off test for several cycles as Phil suggested and then look at the data (although you'd probably have to do that for at least 100 days to get a large enough sample size).

C'mon back, friend. You belong here and we miss lovely Juvia
Mine on!

[ZACHM]

I think everyone agrees with what Newko said.
citronick you really should come back, Juvia belongs here. 

[clgrissom3]

I think everyone agrees with what Newko said.
citronick you really should come back, Juvia belongs here. 

Ditto!  Come on back citronick and let Juvia help you enjoy the next block party with today's spot price of $669! 

[firetreeactual]

I think everyone agrees with what Newko said.
citronick you really should come back, Juvia belongs here.  

Ditto!  Come on back citronick and let Juvia help you enjoy the next block party with today's spot price of $669!  

Well...I'll third and fourth those tomes. Not to extend the S9 discussion...but, one of my students (a really brilliant person) in my grad school Research Methods class once quipped, "Yeah, correlation doesn't necessarily prove causation...but when you're observing a cat catch and eat a mouse, do you need to see ten other cats eat ten other mice to feel comfy in the statement that cats eat mice?" IMHO you did a good thing, citronick, and for the right reasons, whether it turns out that our paranoia is founded or not. For me and my teeny-tiny group here, we're doing OK still. No worries.
 
Saw spot this morning as well...nice, steady, not-too-fast climb. Nice.

FWIW...I got a response from Canaan this morning. They've got a new ticket system, seems to work OK. They asked me to pop the box and take some photos; I'll do that later today...got some other things to take care of first. Hope to get something back online soon. Not even a whisper about an A7, of course.

EDIT: Blatant commercial support here...Canaan's been really good overall about comms and following through. Hope they're able to "break out" soon.

[organofcorti]

I think everyone agrees with what Newko said.
citronick you really should come back, Juvia belongs here.  

Ditto!  Come on back citronick and let Juvia help you enjoy the next block party with today's spot price of $669!  

Well...I'll third and fourth those tomes. Not to extend the S9 discussion...but, one of my students (a really brilliant person) in my grad school Research Methods class once quipped, "Yeah, correlation doesn't necessarily prove causation...but when you're observing a cat catch and eat a mouse, do you need to see ten other cats eat ten other mice to feel comfy in the statement that cats eat mice?" IMHO you did a good thing, citronick, and for the right reasons, whether it turns out that our paranoia is founded or not. For me and my teeny-tiny group here, we're doing OK still. No worries.
 
<snip>

This is testable though, right? You run your mining software, record *all* the hashes 1. smaller than some size, and 2. for some amount of time that provides enough data 3. to test whether or not the data could belong to the theoretical population distribution. The test could be a "goodness of fit test" or use statistical inference.

"Enough data" might just mean enough hashes to determine whether or not citronick has the 32 bit error that some previous miners have had (though I assume that Kano has already run that particular test ).

[philipma1957]

I think everyone agrees with what Newko said.
citronick you really should come back, Juvia belongs here.  

Ditto!  Come on back citronick and let Juvia help you enjoy the next block party with today's spot price of $669!  

Well...I'll third and fourth those tomes. Not to extend the S9 discussion...but, one of my students (a really brilliant person) in my grad school Research Methods class once quipped, "Yeah, correlation doesn't necessarily prove causation...but when you're observing a cat catch and eat a mouse, do you need to see ten other cats eat ten other mice to feel comfy in the statement that cats eat mice?" IMHO you did a good thing, citronick, and for the right reasons, whether it turns out that our paranoia is founded or not. For me and my teeny-tiny group here, we're doing OK still. No worries.
 
<snip>

This is testable though, right? You run your mining software, record *all* the hashes 1. smaller than some size, and 2. for some amount of time that provides enough data 3. to test whether or not the data could belong to the theoretical population distribution. The test could be a "goodness of fit test" or use statistical inference.

"Enough data" might just mean enough hashes to determine whether or not citronick has the 32 bit error that some previous miners have had (though I assume that Kano has already run that particular test ).

yeah  I would really like for him to do some 5 day off 5 day on tests.

 he should hit a block every nine days.  so if he did say 3 tests of 9 days on and 3 tests of 9 days off.  it is 54 days I would love to see if for the 27 days he was on the pool was a lot different the the 27 days off the pool