KanoPool since 2014 🐈 - PPLNS and Solo 0.5% fee - Worldwide - 2435 blocks

[ComputerGenie]

Suggesting a different hobby would make our pool smaller, not what I had in mind.
...

That was sarcasm driven by the constant crying over myopic daily views.

...November was marginal, December was horrible, and yes we are only 3 days into the month. However, don't you agree, that the smaller we are, the closer to solo mining we are? And the larger we are the more blocks will be found? Yes payouts will be a little smaller, but the payouts will be more regular.  
...

If your "expected payout" is for 9 months is 9x and you get x+10 in June, x-1 in July; x-1 in August; x-1 in September; x-1 in October; x-1 in November; x-10 in December; x+3 in January; x+2 in February, then you still get 9x. With any due respect, if your margins are such that you can't handle 1 really bad month (even on the back of a few slightly bad months), you really can't afford to be in the Bitcoin mining space.

I find the whole "the closer to solo mining we are" notion hysterically funny. I'm not sure that we have many here that would honestly be "closer to solo mining" (which is honestly an average of ~0.00324BTC per week with an S9 at the current difficulty) if we went an entire week before we hit our next block. I fail to see any comparison to making in excess of 100x over solo being "closer to solo" (again, that number excludes the few big guys).

...What does it hurt to ask what can be done to increase our pool size? I can wait and hope things get better, but I can also make suggestions to try to make things better.
...

Scroll back a few pages and see how many people had the same complaint when we we 2x larger than now.

...Do you have any suggestions on how we can improve our returns?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be a trolling idiot or person to bash anyone, I'm just asking "what can be done to help improve our situation?"

I'm not sure that there is a way to "improve returns" when you take such a myopic, short-term view of mining; mining is what mining is.

Edit: Did I mention that BTC/USD profit margins are up 40+% in the last 45 days (on top of the 60+% since June)?

[1714815518]

1714815518

[1714815518]

1714815518

[1714815518]

1714815518

[firetreeactual]

Volatility is to do with market and spot...this is just pure luck. As someone said, mining is what it is. I have friends who actually mine gold...have been doing it for a long time...and it's a similar game. You have to commit resources to improve your gain...but that doesn't guarantee increased return. When you know you're in the "right place," you stick at it until you find the "right stuff." With crypto-mining, we know where the "right stuff" is at...it's a matter of having a backhoe big enough to move the electromagnetic "overburden" to get to it...ie., find/solve a block.

I don't think it's a bad idea in itself to attract more miners (why not?), but I also don't think it's necessary to give away anything to do it. This is an admittedly more unique pool. Overall, we've got a solid group of fairly knowledgeable folks who are (generally) the adults in the room. We (at least I) came here because of the stable, transparent environment and, concurrently, a reasonable return.

In the words of the iconic/immortal Rachel Maddow as she stirs her Manhattan..."We'll be fine!"

 

[ComputerGenie]

Volatility is to do with market and spot...this is just pure luck...

By definition, luck-based is volatile.

volatile
adjective vol·a·tile \ˈvä-lə-təl, especially British -ˌtī(-ə)l\
Definition of volatile
…    4
… b :  characterized by or subject to rapid or unexpected change
5
    :  difficult to capture or hold permanently :  evanescent, transitory

[philipma1957]

Luck. Is what it is luck.


I pulled the old s9s and have the avalons pointed at the pool.

I may buy 1 more Avalon and hook it up to the other two.

[VRobb]

Arguing semantics at this point...  What isn't just semantics is the fact that once the FedEx dogsled arrives in Labrador tomorrow I'll have another R4 pointed at the pool.  More hash baby!!  

[d57heinz]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.  Once a miner comes to your pool they should not leave. now in my case I found one block. So I made you all more than my shares should have. I bet if you look Kano you'll see that many with low blocks to diff are no longer mining.  Could be im wrong. But also one has to look at all those small guys basically jut eating your rewards with Bismal chances of ever finding a block.  There should be pool with a max of 1 ths per user or if they have s3 type miners.  Put all those together.  Those of us with min s7 or avalon 6 can stay on original pool.  This will have to be done sooner better than later. They are draining this pool.  Look at the small guy bdr and you'll have your answers

Br

[ComputerGenie]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.  Once a miner comes to your pool they should not leave. now in my case I found one block. So I made you all more than my shares should have. I bet if you look Kano you'll see that many with low blocks to diff are no longer mining.  Could be im wrong. But also one has to look at all those small guys basically jut eating your rewards with Bismal chances of ever finding a block.  There should be pool with a max of 1 ths per user or if they have s3 type miners.  Put all those together.  Those of us with min s7 or avalon 6 can stay on original pool.  This will have to be done sooner better than later. They are draining this pool.  Look at the small guy bdr and you'll have your answers

Br

Puff...puff...pass
Exactly 0 miners that stay in the pool will ever "drain" it (and not many more than 0 that leave), what you put in is what you get out. By your "logic", the guy with 1PH should leave because those with 4.8TH are "draining" what he deserves.

Edit: P.S. - on any given day, the odds of an S7 finding a block are ~1 in 3,360.1 and the odds of an S9 only increase to ~1 in 1,243.5.  

[paramind22]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.  Once a miner comes to your pool they should not leave. now in my case I found one block. So I made you all more than my shares should have. I bet if you look Kano you'll see that many with low blocks to diff are no longer mining.  Could be im wrong. But also one has to look at all those small guys basically jut eating your rewards with Bismal chances of ever finding a block.  There should be pool with a max of 1 ths per user or if they have s3 type miners.  Put all those together.  Those of us with min s7 or avalon 6 can stay on original pool.  This will have to be done sooner better than later. They are draining this pool.  Look at the small guy bdr and you'll have your answers

Br

Small miners are still hashing chances that you would have to hash too, right?  Why is what they are doing useless then?  Just because a miner has 1000x the possibility of finding a block, doesn't mean that they aren't getting paid also 1000x what the small miner is getting.  The small miners cut down on your probabilities of wasting your hashing power.

[ComputerGenie]

Small miners are still hashing chances that you would have to hash too, right?  Why is what they are doing useless then?  Just because a miner has 1000x the possibility of finding a block, doesn't mean that they aren't getting paid also 1000x what the small miner is getting.  The small miners cut down on your probabilities of wasting your hashing power.

That is exactly the point of mining in a pool.

[clgrissom3]

When I first started here we were at 1.79PHs and I was making way more than any other pool I was on previously by far.  The actual size of the pool is not as important as your level of patience and your ability to tolerate variance.

[firetreeactual]

Yup.

[cybermods]

I dont post on here much but iv been mining at kano since it was 2ph. 24/7.. Not going anywhere. 

[clgrissom3]

I dont post on here much but iv been mining at kano since it was 2ph. 24/7.. Not going anywhere. 

With your experience you should post more

[jonnybravo0311]

The size of a miner is completely irrelevant.  Hash is hash.  There is no such thing as a miner draining the pool (unless he's purposefully withholding blocks), or for that matter a smaller miner somehow making a larger miner's hash less wasted.  Miner 1 has no impact on the probability of miner 2 hitting a block, regardless of the hash rates of either miner.

Remember... that guy with 1.4PH could have a warehouse with 100 S9s, or 234 A721s, or 1273 S5s or 3091 S3.  His hardware is no different than the guy with a single S3 in his basement... he just happens to have a whole lot more of it.

[OneInchWonder]

388017   12/Dec 12:21   25.21414810   397.780G   105hr 45m 5s   4.49PHs   0.00%

First block found when I started minning here. pool hash at 4.49 and just over a year ago and still going.

How about that BTC price.

[philipma1957]

388017   12/Dec 12:21   25.21414810   397.780G   105hr 45m 5s   4.49PHs   0.00%

First block found when I started minning here. pool hash at 4.49 and just over a year ago and still going.

How about that BTC price.

Yeah 1020 or higher is very nice.

[in2tactics]

The size of a miner is completely irrelevant.  Hash is hash.  There is no such thing as a miner draining the pool (unless he's purposefully withholding blocks), or for that matter a smaller miner somehow making a larger miner's hash less wasted.  Miner 1 has no impact on the probability of miner 2 hitting a block, regardless of the hash rates of either miner.

Remember... that guy with 1.4PH could have a warehouse with 100 S9s, or 234 A721s, or 1273 S5s or 3091 S3.  His hardware is no different than the guy with a single S3 in his basement... he just happens to have a whole lot more of it.

Yes, hash is hash. However, a pool stratum server can be overwhelmed with too many TCP connections by attackers with numerous low hash miners. It is my understanding that some pool operators have set minimum hash rate in order to protect pool resources from this form of attack. Although, I could be mistaken.

[hurricandave]

The size of a miner is completely irrelevant.  Hash is hash.  There is no such thing as a miner draining the pool (unless he's purposefully withholding blocks), or for that matter a smaller miner somehow making a larger miner's hash less wasted.  Miner 1 has no impact on the probability of miner 2 hitting a block, regardless of the hash rates of either miner.

Remember... that guy with 1.4PH could have a warehouse with 100 S9s, or 234 A721s, or 1273 S5s or 3091 S3.  His hardware is no different than the guy with a single S3 in his basement... he just happens to have a whole lot more of it.

Yes, hash is hash. However, a pool stratum server can be overwhelmed with too many TCP connections by attackers with numerous low hash miners. It is my understanding that some pool operators have set minimum hash rate in order to protect pool resources from this form of attack. Although, I could be mistaken.

   Sorta, the thought is to set a reasonable min. that can fend off BOTNET's of pirated CPU power, then filter out the absolute absurdly too small like a single U2 @1.6Gh/s mostly because it will struggle to even keep a pool connection these days let alone receive anything more than a couple satoshi per pool block in dust.

[kano]

The size of a miner is completely irrelevant.  Hash is hash.  There is no such thing as a miner draining the pool (unless he's purposefully withholding blocks), or for that matter a smaller miner somehow making a larger miner's hash less wasted.  Miner 1 has no impact on the probability of miner 2 hitting a block, regardless of the hash rates of either miner.

Remember... that guy with 1.4PH could have a warehouse with 100 S9s, or 234 A721s, or 1273 S5s or 3091 S3.  His hardware is no different than the guy with a single S3 in his basement... he just happens to have a whole lot more of it.

Yes, hash is hash. However, a pool stratum server can be overwhelmed with too many TCP connections by attackers with numerous low hash miners. It is my understanding that some pool operators have set minimum hash rate in order to protect pool resources from this form of attack. Although, I could be mistaken.

On a pool run using software that requires a lot of hardware and can't grow without concerns, that may be the case.

That, of course, is not the case here.
Here, the number that has an effect on the network is simply just "Workers" and that relates pretty close to the actual limiting number: total SPS (shares per second)

A botnet wont actually affect SPS since e.g. it takes ~500 thousand CPU miners to match an S9.
The main reason I don't allow botnets is coz they waste resources and directly represent someone stealing from someone else. No one runs a botnet they pay for unless they are a moron. I'll save those morons some money by not allowing them to mine here.

If there were botnets mining here, then it would affect the the total time it takes to send out a block change.
That would show as a higher than normal rate of stale and orphan blocks.
Of course, everyone would also be able to see the botnets due to there being a silly high "Workers" count.

I block CPU and GPU miners coz they are a waste of resources and I don't want them here wasting resources.
Consider that, on a work change, a 1PHs proxy requires as much network as a CPU miner - so yep it's a complete waste.

Aside: as the pool stands at the moment, it would be well over a few hundred PHs before I 'might' start to notice performance problems.
The code is well threaded in both cases, ckpool and ckdb, and in the case of ckpool, automatically increases threads as needed, and ckdb, I can tell it to add threads as needed, while running, but the main server is far from caring about the workload

[VRobb]

Arigato, kano-san mate. I love hearing about the "under the bonnet" goings on!