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

[ComputerGenie]

You altered the history when you told the S9v1 to leave without a long enough sample size. Had they stayed the variance would of caught back up. Any sample size should be bare minimum one year.

He didn't "alter" anything. S9s will forever suffer from the pre-January deficit and would have to span months of overages to "break even"; this is not the same as "altering history", it's forcing historical losses to coincide with current statistics.

[1713451643]

1713451643

[1713451643]

1713451643

[kano]

You altered the history when you told the S9v1 to leave without a long enough sample size. Had they stayed the variance would of caught back up. Any sample size should be bare minimum one year.

He didn't "alter" anything. S9s will forever suffer from the pre-January deficit and would have to span months of overages to "break even"; this is not the same as "altering history", it's forcing historical losses to coincide with current statistics.

Except that, as I said, people have still been mining with S9v1 on the pool non-stop.
Just a lot fewer.

[tournamentdan]

S9v1

Yep I was asleep for that one

Good to know im not the only one who find a block here on kano with S9v1   looks like all those "bad" miners still able to find blocks

There's no doubt they find blocks, they've found 95 so far.
The issue is the total number S9v1 has found is well below what it should have - CDF[Erl] = 0.991261 with that last one.
(They're expected to have found almost 25 more)

...
Had all those machines stayed they could have hit those blocks.
...

Yes, and they 'could' have hit more, less, or even none.
Doesn't matter what they 'could' have done, since that's supposed to be random.
Unfortunately, history suggests otherwise.

You altered the history when you told the S9v1 to leave without a long enough sample size. Had they stayed the variance would of caught back up. Any sample size should be bare minimum one year.

Time isn't a factor in determining block luck statistics.
The number of hashes and the number of blocks are the only 2 numbers that matter.

I've no idea where you got 'one year' from.
But they have also been hashing on the pool since I asked people to switch, just not as many.

Time is a factor to figure for block luck statistics. You might have no blocks one day and ten the next. If you calculate the statistics in a short amount of time. You will not have a real number for what the statistics will be over a longer amount of time.

But they have also been hashing on the pool since I asked people to switch, just not as many.

Yes and that is part of my point. Had the majority of the s9 stayed. They could have gone on a lucky streak and come back even with the expected number. But we will never know now since you asked them to leave based on your statistics taken over a way to short of a time frame.
At the same time you asked the s9 to leave. Someone asked about the expected amount for the new avalons. Which you replied there had not been "enough time to get a good idea of the performance of the avalon." Funny how time is a factor when it comes to the avalon. But not the s9.

[tournamentdan]

S9v1

Yep I was asleep for that one

Good to know im not the only one who find a block here on kano with S9v1   looks like all those "bad" miners still able to find blocks

There's no doubt they find blocks, they've found 95 so far.
The issue is the total number S9v1 has found is well below what it should have - CDF[Erl] = 0.991261 with that last one.
(They're expected to have found almost 25 more)

You see this stattistic was directly affected by you asking the s9 people to leave. So in reality you can only count the blocks after the mass exodus of s9v1.
What is the expected for the S9v1 from after we lost half of our hash rate?

[kano]

S9v1

Yep I was asleep for that one

Good to know im not the only one who find a block here on kano with S9v1   looks like all those "bad" miners still able to find blocks

There's no doubt they find blocks, they've found 95 so far.
The issue is the total number S9v1 has found is well below what it should have - CDF[Erl] = 0.991261 with that last one.
(They're expected to have found almost 25 more)

...
Had all those machines stayed they could have hit those blocks.
...

Yes, and they 'could' have hit more, less, or even none.
Doesn't matter what they 'could' have done, since that's supposed to be random.
Unfortunately, history suggests otherwise.

You altered the history when you told the S9v1 to leave without a long enough sample size. Had they stayed the variance would of caught back up. Any sample size should be bare minimum one year.

Time isn't a factor in determining block luck statistics.
The number of hashes and the number of blocks are the only 2 numbers that matter.

I've no idea where you got 'one year' from.
But they have also been hashing on the pool since I asked people to switch, just not as many.

Time is a factor to figure for block luck statistics. You might have no blocks one day and ten the next. If you calculate the statistics in a short amount of time. You will not have a real number for what the statistics will be over a longer amount of time.

Incorrect.
Again, it is ONLY "The number of hashes and the number of blocks"
Neither have anything to do with time.

But they have also been hashing on the pool since I asked people to switch, just not as many.

Yes and that is part of my point. Had the majority of the s9 stayed. They could have gone on a lucky streak and come back even with the expected number. But we will never know now since you asked them to leave based on your statistics taken over a way to short of a time frame.
At the same time you asked the s9 to leave. Someone asked about the expected amount for the new avalons. Which you replied there had not been "enough time to get a good idea of the performance of the avalon." Funny how time is a factor when it comes to the avalon. But not the s9.

Incorrect.

The time fact I was referring to was actually hashes - meaning for the time they had been on the pool, they had not expended enough hashes to be able to give a useful sample.

Luck doesn't correct itself.
Making any assumption that it does means you clearly have no idea about statistics.
I posted in detail about this the other day also.

[tournamentdan]

Luck doesn't correct itself.
Making any assumption that it does means you clearly have no idea about statistics.
I posted in detail about this the other day also.

Sure it does. Last month you were below the expected. This month you are above the expected. You found more blocks this month than you were supposed to. I wonder if that 20ph of s9v1 that left could have found more blocks than they were supposed to in the last few months to bring the "block found" statistic closer to the "expected block" statistic.

[philipma1957]

@
tournamentdan

do you agree with the world  that 1+1 = 2

this is true  because  the human race made of a set of rules and we stick to it.

the s9 v1  has a cdf of .992

it has made around 95 blocks while it hashed enough to make 120 blocks.

we the human race made up a set of rules that say the cdf is .992

what this means if there was a 1000 groups of correctly functioning s9's v1 that hashed enough to make 120 blocks

we would have lost out to 992 of them and beat 7 of them.

So at what point does shit luck turn into shit software?

I have no idea.  but 120 blocks of hashing making 95 blocks means death to me as a miner.

and as kano says the luck is not improving it is still worse
 then .99

I get your argument  that if 20ph left and we now have 5 ph in s9 v 1   they can not move us back to a cdc of .80 to .70 to .60 since they do not have strength of numbers do it.
but they are still at .992  which is easy to move to .950  even if the hash is 5 ph and not 20ph in s9's v1

.992 is so fucking bad   that .85 cdc  would move it to .97 cdf  and that has not happened.


so when kano comes to the thread
 and tells us  s9 v1 has improved from .992 cdf to .970 cdf  then to .950 cdf

I would say your point could maybe come true.

[beltsniffer]

Luck doesn't correct itself.
Making any assumption that it does means you clearly have no idea about statistics.
I posted in detail about this the other day also.

Sure it does. Last month you were below the expected. This month you are above the expected. You found more blocks this month than you were supposed to. I wonder if that 20ph of s9v1 that left could have found more blocks than they were supposed to in the last few months to bring the "block found" statistic closer to the "expected block" statistic.

We started losing 25ph in September and it was steady decline through to January. It started long before Kano said anything about upgrading s9v1 or asking people to mine elsewhere with those machines if they couldn't switch it.

[ComputerGenie]

...S9s will forever suffer from the pre-January deficit...

...Luck doesn't correct itself....

See we can agree on some things 

[wmabern]

Well, since two of my four S9's were version 1.0.0, I updated them on Saturday to 2.0.0. Now since we haven't had a block in 44 hours, I declare the version 2's are bad luck!! LOL

COME ON BLOCKSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Sr.Urbanist]

COME ON BLOCKSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No kidding! I've got to stop watching this: https://blocks.wizb.it

[smutboy420]

All those recent ghs added PLEASE LEAVE!!!! It looks like we find blocks faster when we have less ghs going at it. 

Turns out there is a work around. You need to have your rigs in "tune with someone with some s9v2s so If you add smutboy420.yourusernameworkername (change workername for each workers name) on all your workers it will help the your luck outcome by a lot.    lol    well at least will make a YUGE difference in your payouts.


J/k  hopefully no one takes that to seriously. :-) 

 

[kano]

Well, since the "Monthly Statistics" table shows blocks found during the month, and the next block will be found in March - it's now 20minutes into UTC March - looks like February has helped anyone who mined here in December and didn't do a runner, recover some if not all of their losses!
Yay for February

[beltsniffer]

Yay for February

Yay is right! We needed recover from that month!

[tournamentdan]

Well, since the "Monthly Statistics" table shows blocks found during the month, and the next block will be found in March - it's now 20minutes into UTC March - looks like February has helped anyone who mined here in December and didn't do a runner, recover some if not all of their losses!
Yay for February

Yes, thanks for February. Which makes December and January hurt a little less in the butt.

[philipma1957]

Well, since the "Monthly Statistics" table shows blocks found during the month, and the next block will be found in March - it's now 20minutes into UTC March - looks like February has helped anyone who mined here in December and didn't do a runner, recover some if not all of their losses!
Yay for February

Yes, thanks for February. Which makes December and January hurt a little less in the butt.

January was fine

[beltsniffer]

Well, since the "Monthly Statistics" table shows blocks found during the month, and the next block will be found in March - it's now 20minutes into UTC March - looks like February has helped anyone who mined here in December and didn't do a runner, recover some if not all of their losses!
Yay for February

Yes, thanks for February. Which makes December and January hurt a little less in the butt.

January was fine

Especially when you add in an average block payout of 13.08

[kano]

Block! by schmokeandapancake
S9v2
13.9 BTC
... and 2 payouts

[smutboy420]

Block! by schmokeandapancake Smiley
S9v2
13.9 BTC
... and 2 payouts

Ah finally..  That bugger was like a trying to smash a titanium block.  lol

[kano]

Block! by schmokeandapancake Smiley
S9v2
13.9 BTC
... and 2 payouts

Ah finally..  That bugger was like a trying to smash a titanium block.  lol

Well the CDF says that we expect, on average, 1 in ~22 blocks to be greater than ~308%, so, nothing unexpected.