KanoPool since 2014 🐈 - PPLNS and Solo 0.5% fee - Worldwide - 2436 blocks

[miner0007]

@Kano any though of supporting Bitcoin Unlimited?

[1715349247]

1715349247

[1715349247]

1715349247

[1715349247]

1715349247

[1715349247]

1715349247

[bitsink]

Workers > Shift Graph   put "all" without quotes in input box, make sure it's checked and hit update

Edit: if you mean for the whole pool Pool > Graph

I should have clarified: I mean without an account, just anonymous mining with an address (like was possible with eligius).

[kano]

Workers > Shift Graph   put "all" without quotes in input box, make sure it's checked and hit update

Edit: if you mean for the whole pool Pool > Graph

I should have clarified: I mean without an account, just anonymous mining with an address (like was possible with eligius).

If you want details then use an account.
... as it says on the http://kano.is/ web page
If you address mine, you just get the stats available at the time you check them.

[kano]

@Kano any though of supporting Bitcoin Unlimited?

Well they seem to be the closest to what the pools and miners in general want, but as I mentioned in the Antpoo thread, core seems to be the centralised control of bitcoin at the moment so it would need a core option to vote for it.

We had over 70% support for BIP100 that would almost certainly have got more support, but since core didn't want it, the minority centralised control (core) got their wish, no BIP100.

The biggest problem with the whole blocksize issue is that everyone has an agenda to add to it, core being the worst in this situation.

A simple vote for a simple blocksize increase (not the ridiculous BIP101 version) would get in very quickly and then the rest of the rubbish being peddled by everyone could be ignored
It seems no one will do that, as I said, everyone has some other agenda they want.

[CryptoBuddha]

Orphan or what's that?

[kano]

Stale block
Came in just after the block change.
CKDB automatically switches it to 'orphan' if the current block we are working on isn't the block we got.
i.e. the main pool bitcoind had switched to a different block before that block was processed, thus it was stale.

Edit: to be specific:
The other pool's block arrived at 2017-03-07 13:06:08.989605 UTC and bitcoind had processed it by 2017-03-07 13:06:09.156078 UTC
(166ms to fully process the block)
However, the share arrived at 2017-03-07 13:06:09.256 so it was 100ms after the block had changed - so when ckpool submitted it, bitcoind said 'no thanks' - thus CKDB marked it as an orphan since we weren't working on the share's block, and I then flagged it as 'Stale'
As usual, CKDB shows all block attempts by ckpool, if they succeed or fail.

[CryptoBuddha]

Edited, solved the issue, no need to answer the question that was in this place.

[bitsink]

Workers > Shift Graph   put "all" without quotes in input box, make sure it's checked and hit update

Edit: if you mean for the whole pool Pool > Graph

I should have clarified: I mean without an account, just anonymous mining with an address (like was possible with eligius).

If you want details then use an account.
... as it says on the http://kano.is/ web page
If you address mine, you just get the stats available at the time you check them.

Right ok. Could you provide accurate figures, not just rounded to 1Th/s? Say 2 significant figures or similar? Thanks.

[kano]

Workers > Shift Graph   put "all" without quotes in input box, make sure it's checked and hit update

Edit: if you mean for the whole pool Pool > Graph

I should have clarified: I mean without an account, just anonymous mining with an address (like was possible with eligius).

If you want details then use an account.
... as it says on the http://kano.is/ web page
If you address mine, you just get the stats available at the time you check them.

Right ok. Could you provide accurate figures, not just rounded to 1Th/s? Say 2 significant figures or similar? Thanks.

It's 3 significant figures.

[rwubbels]

@Kano any though of supporting Bitcoin Unlimited?

Well they seem to be the closest to what the pools and miners in general want, but as I mentioned in the Antpoo thread, core seems to be the centralised control of bitcoin at the moment so it would need a core option to vote for it.

We had over 70% support for BIP100 that would almost certainly have got more support, but since core didn't want it, the minority centralised control (core) got their wish, no BIP100.

The biggest problem with the whole blocksize issue is that everyone has an agenda to add to it, core being the worst in this situation.

A simple vote for a simple blocksize increase (not the ridiculous BIP101 version) would get in very quickly and then the rest of the rubbish being peddled by everyone could be ignored
It seems no one will do that, as I said, everyone has some other agenda they want.

Is there a scaling solution that you will be voting for Kano?

[kano]

@Kano any though of supporting Bitcoin Unlimited?

Well they seem to be the closest to what the pools and miners in general want, but as I mentioned in the Antpoo thread, core seems to be the centralised control of bitcoin at the moment so it would need a core option to vote for it.

We had over 70% support for BIP100 that would almost certainly have got more support, but since core didn't want it, the minority centralised control (core) got their wish, no BIP100.

The biggest problem with the whole blocksize issue is that everyone has an agenda to add to it, core being the worst in this situation.

A simple vote for a simple blocksize increase (not the ridiculous BIP101 version) would get in very quickly and then the rest of the rubbish being peddled by everyone could be ignored
It seems no one will do that, as I said, everyone has some other agenda they want.

Is there a scaling solution that you will be voting for Kano?

Well there's no real solution yet in my opinion.
If there ever is one I consider is an actual solution and not some random solution with some other agenda added to it, I'll let everyone know

[d57heinz]

@Kano any though of supporting Bitcoin Unlimited?

Well they seem to be the closest to what the pools and miners in general want, but as I mentioned in the Antpoo thread, core seems to be the centralised control of bitcoin at the moment so it would need a core option to vote for it.

We had over 70% support for BIP100 that would almost certainly have got more support, but since core didn't want it, the minority centralised control (core) got their wish, no BIP100.

The biggest problem with the whole blocksize issue is that everyone has an agenda to add to it, core being the worst in this situation.

A simple vote for a simple blocksize increase (not the ridiculous BIP101 version) would get in very quickly and then the rest of the rubbish being peddled by everyone could be ignored
It seems no one will do that, as I said, everyone has some other agenda they want.

Is there a scaling solution that you will be voting for Kano?

Well there's no real solution yet in my opinion.
If there ever is one I consider is an actual solution and not some random solution with some other agenda added to it, I'll let everyone know

While your on that subject.. If segwit were to pass.. I seen in another thread you posted on about it only supporting 3xx addys.  Does that mean the old 1x addresses will then be invalid?  I worry about this as most of my holdings are on trezors and to my knowledge they dont support those types.  I could be wrong.  (wont be the first time nor the last) 

BR

[kano]

@Kano any though of supporting Bitcoin Unlimited?

Well they seem to be the closest to what the pools and miners in general want, but as I mentioned in the Antpoo thread, core seems to be the centralised control of bitcoin at the moment so it would need a core option to vote for it.

We had over 70% support for BIP100 that would almost certainly have got more support, but since core didn't want it, the minority centralised control (core) got their wish, no BIP100.

The biggest problem with the whole blocksize issue is that everyone has an agenda to add to it, core being the worst in this situation.

A simple vote for a simple blocksize increase (not the ridiculous BIP101 version) would get in very quickly and then the rest of the rubbish being peddled by everyone could be ignored
It seems no one will do that, as I said, everyone has some other agenda they want.

Is there a scaling solution that you will be voting for Kano?

Well there's no real solution yet in my opinion.
If there ever is one I consider is an actual solution and not some random solution with some other agenda added to it, I'll let everyone know

While your on that subject.. If segwit were to pass.. I seen in another thread you posted on about it only supporting 3xx addys.  Does that mean the old 1x addresses will then be invalid?  I worry about this as most of my holdings are on trezors and to my knowledge they dont support those types.  I could be wrong.  (wont be the first time nor the last) 

BR

1x address transactions are weighted 4 times as much as 3x addresses - so the fee calculations will be much more to use 1x than 3x
Thus ... you can consider that the death of 1x addresses if segwit were to actually activate.

However, last time I checked they were only 20% i.e. dropping down, not gradually increasing ... so nothing to worry about

[d57heinz]

@Kano any though of supporting Bitcoin Unlimited?

Well they seem to be the closest to what the pools and miners in general want, but as I mentioned in the Antpoo thread, core seems to be the centralised control of bitcoin at the moment so it would need a core option to vote for it.

We had over 70% support for BIP100 that would almost certainly have got more support, but since core didn't want it, the minority centralised control (core) got their wish, no BIP100.

The biggest problem with the whole blocksize issue is that everyone has an agenda to add to it, core being the worst in this situation.

A simple vote for a simple blocksize increase (not the ridiculous BIP101 version) would get in very quickly and then the rest of the rubbish being peddled by everyone could be ignored
It seems no one will do that, as I said, everyone has some other agenda they want.

Is there a scaling solution that you will be voting for Kano?

Well there's no real solution yet in my opinion.
If there ever is one I consider is an actual solution and not some random solution with some other agenda added to it, I'll let everyone know

While your on that subject.. If segwit were to pass.. I seen in another thread you posted on about it only supporting 3xx addys.  Does that mean the old 1x addresses will then be invalid?  I worry about this as most of my holdings are on trezors and to my knowledge they dont support those types.  I could be wrong.  (wont be the first time nor the last) 

BR

1x address transactions are weighted 4 times as much as 3x addresses - so the fee calculations will be much more to use 1x than 3x
Thus ... you can consider that the death of 1x addresses if segwit were to actually activate.

However, last time I checked they were only 20% i.e. dropping down, not gradually increasing ... so nothing to worry about

Thank You much appreciated

BR

[NotFuzzyWarm]

Back to Bitmain firmware phoning home: Just looked at my s7's here at work and all from batch-1 up through at least batch-18 have a minerlink tab under Miner Configuration > Minerlink with a toggle to turn on/off and spaces to enter account info. As I said, once before I tried to use it on my first s7 but the service/site did not work. In retrospect, I'm glad it didn't as I would not be comfortable giving Bitmain any possible access to the miners.

S9's do not have that minerlink tab.

[rwubbels]

How come a lot of these big pools are suddenly inverting their pool fee?... ranging from -3% to -10%... so essentially promising a 103% to 110% mining profit...
how did that happen, and where do these extra BTC come from?

And more big pools are signalling BU...
this can't be any good for the future of the network....

[yukiko]

How come a lot of these big pools are suddenly inverting their pool fee?... ranging from -3% to -10%... so essentially promising a 103% to 110% mining profit...
how did that happen, and where do these extra BTC come from?

And more big pools are signalling BU...
this can't be any good for the future of the network....

Competition for bringing more miners into these pools to get bigger chance of winning blocks - most likely these pools keep the transaction fees of the block. Thus PPS payments only. If fees are on the rise, then they net more money if they keep those fees. Makes for more room to pay a negative admin fee (aka pay to bring in miners) because they make more on the back end. And they probably don't announce how much they made on those transaction fees either (aka lower transparency of pool).

Those transaction fees add up.

More miners also equal more power equal more control over network. I'm waiting for them to start adding a small ad on their dashboard settings pages too. There are ways to offset these types of payments. If they hook you first, there is an end goal.

[philipma1957]

How come a lot of these big pools are suddenly inverting their pool fee?... ranging from -3% to -10%... so essentially promising a 103% to 110% mining profit...
how did that happen, and where do these extra BTC come from?

And more big pools are signalling BU...
this can't be any good for the future of the network....

Fees are huge.

12.5 and 3 % is 12.875.  Most blocks are over 13 due to fees.

[VRobb]

How come a lot of these big pools are suddenly inverting their pool fee?... ranging from -3% to -10%... so essentially promising a 103% to 110% mining profit...
how did that happen, and where do these extra BTC come from?

And more big pools are signalling BU...
this can't be any good for the future of the network....

Fees are huge.

12.5 and 3 % is 12.875.  Most blocks are over 13 due to fees.

A sucker bet.  NO ONE is here to give you free money!  They want YOUR money.  TXN fees are miners' money.  Damn thieves!! 

[kano]

How come a lot of these big pools are suddenly inverting their pool fee?... ranging from -3% to -10%... so essentially promising a 103% to 110% mining profit...
how did that happen, and where do these extra BTC come from?

...

They have been taking the txn fees+pool fees from their miners ever since they started their pools.
They've been getting many millions of dollars each year just in "pool fees" from their miners.
Maybe they are considering returning some of those txn fees they've been stealing taking? ...