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

[n0nce]

Hey kano! I've been wondering about some of the stats shown up top on https://kano.is. Is there an explanation somewhere that I've just not found or is it meant to be self-explanatory?



For instance, my 'two' hash rates. Is it something like 5min average and 30min average?
And is there currently 12.33PH/s pointed to your PPLNS pool and 12.41PH/s on the solo pool?

Does the number of shares with percentage of 189.7%, indicates that the PPLNS pool is 89.7% overdue to find a block?

[1715092674]

1715092674

[1715092674]

1715092674

[kano]

Hey kano! I've been wondering about some of the stats shown up top on https://kano.is. Is there an explanation somewhere that I've just not found or is it meant to be self-explanatory?

https://i.postimg.cc/LsRR9gHm/kanoi.png

For instance, my 'two' hash rates. Is it something like 5min average and 30min average?
And is there currently 12.33PH/s pointed to your PPLNS pool and 12.41PH/s on the solo pool?

Does the number of shares with percentage of 189.7%, indicates that the PPLNS pool is 89.7% overdue to find a block?

Lots of info on the Help->Stats page.

If you aren't logged in you'll see the pool total since the last block.
If you are logged in you'll see you're mining type since the last block of that mining type.
Pool->Stats shows each hash rate also.

'Expected' is 100% - it's not 'due'.

Like when you roll 6 dice at once, you will not get a 6 every time, but you are 'expected' to get one.
As you can see on the blocks page, blocks go up and down randomly - and that's the same on every single pool.

Also that % is actually correct, you will find none of the other small pools show it correctly.
Those other pools, when you cross a diff change, their % magically changes also.
Yet oddly enough, if the pool has done 50% of 'expected' work when you cross a diff change, you haven't magically done some other % due to a diff change

[n0nce]

'Expected' is 100% - it's not 'due'.

Like when you roll 6 dice at once, you will not get a 6 every time, but you are 'expected' to get one.
As you can see on the blocks page, blocks go up and down randomly - and that's the same on every single pool.

Sure, I know what you mean. But in a way, it means 200% equals having thrown 12 dice and still gotten no '6'?

[hZti]

'Expected' is 100% - it's not 'due'.

Like when you roll 6 dice at once, you will not get a 6 every time, but you are 'expected' to get one.
As you can see on the blocks page, blocks go up and down randomly - and that's the same on every single pool.

Sure, I know what you mean. But in a way, it means 200% equals having thrown 12 dice and still gotten no '6'?

Kano may be able to answer this better than me, but I suppose this is what it means. At least this is what it should mean by common thinking.

[kano]

'Expected' is 100% - it's not 'due'.

Like when you roll 6 dice at once, you will not get a 6 every time, but you are 'expected' to get one.
As you can see on the blocks page, blocks go up and down randomly - and that's the same on every single pool.

Sure, I know what you mean. But in a way, it means 200% equals having thrown 12 dice and still gotten no '6'?

Correct.
The Help->Luck page explains that also.

e.g.
a >100% block is expected, on average, once every 2.7 blocks
a >200% block is expected, on average, once every 7.4 blocks.
etc.

Right now we expect the next block to be 100% from now.
The fact that we are already over 100% has no effect on that expectation either, since block finding is random.
There is no 'due' effect at all.
It's simply averages.

[Flair14]

I have the "Too many failures" message when trying to login from my home network. The only way I can log in is using my phone's data.

How can I address this problem?

[Biffa]

I have the "Too many failures" message when trying to login from my home network. The only way I can log in is using my phone's data.

How can I address this problem?

Go onto the discord channel and kano will sort you out.

[NotFuzzyWarm]

I have the "Too many failures" message when trying to login from my home network. The only way I can log in is using my phone's data.
How can I address this problem?

Well the bigger question is, what was the initial failure errors reported? Wrong name? Wrong password?
To discourage hacker bots the site blocks too many failed attempts for 'a while' and just sends the Too many Failures msg...

[kano]

While a lot of people are going on about % solo mining - I'll point out how it can already be done here.

If you want to do 50% of your mining solo and 50% of your mining pplns you simply have two account and point your miners half and half.

If a block is found on pplns then you get your share of the reward based on your pplns hash rate vs the total pplns pool hash rate.
If you find a block on solo then you get all the reward.

You've simply decreased your chances of getting a solo block by 50%, and that 50% is now part of pplns to get some reward for any block found.

So why deal with a pool op who loses block due to negligence (about 5 so far) when, instead, you can run it here on a pool managed by an expert

Edit: and of course a great low 0.5% fee here on both solo and pplns

[willi9974]

Which pool has lost 5 blocks?

[kano]

person's code, not a single pool, though the most recent 4 are his pools

solo ck most recent (the user also said it was 2 blocks, though it is unlikely it was 2), then ck was somehow 'only' 'mostly' at fault
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5237323.msg54405218#msg54405218

splns first block - software bug
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1876330.msg20118023#msg20118023

solo ck 2 blocks - software bug
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=763510.msg17012035#msg17012035

This software bug existed in the ckpool code git for 3 weeks where it would lose segwit blocks
the person who reported it claimed they didn't lose a block though, but found it by testing (which as usual ck didn't do)
https://bitbucket.org/ckolivas/ckpool/commits/526a8f3666d062ad05209f2c75f4fd770e5bc182
He caused the bug
https://bitbucket.org/ckolivas/ckpool/commits/2aedae4379d5020a3e738771ea4a96c56daca955

fuckhash lost one due to using ckpool code coz the code allowed, but didn't handle, '3' addresses
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=763510.msg12845331#msg12845331

[bigdaddymccarron]

Kano,

How come we can no longer see all the Pool Workers on the website?

[NotFuzzyWarm]

Kano,
How come we can no longer see all the Pool Workers on the website?

Because a while ago a certain asshole started a vendetta against Kano when he did not get answers that fit with their view of how things work or more to the point, how they want things to work, decided to post the entire list of users here. While not directly a security issue it *did* give potential hackers a nice list to try using for attacks.

[kano]

Kano,
How come we can no longer see all the Pool Workers on the website?

Because a while ago a certain asshole started a vendetta against Kano when he did not get answers that fit with their view of how things work or more to the point how they want things to work decided to post the entire list of users here. While not directly a security issue it *did* give potential hackers a nice list to try using for attacks.

The odd thing about this is that he's directing his malice at the pool miners.
So I'd think that the hate zone towards him would be very high now.

The effect on the pool itself is minimal since I've had to deal with such bot attacks a number of times even last year,
and my pool code handles them quite well.

[NotFuzzyWarm]

So I'd think that the hate zone towards him would be very high now.

I've had him on 'ignore' ever since he opined in his local-node solo mining thread that I'm some sort of "venom-spitting demon with my never helpful and often 'hateful' replies to folks"....  Ja right. One scan through my post histories blows that right back up his backside where it came from...  

edit: btw that ^^ is the most 'hateful' I've ever posted... oh, and to be clear its *not* Sledge0001 we're talking about though the person has of course piped in there on Sledge's separate thread on the subject of mining to your own node.

[Sledge0001]

So I'd think that the hate zone towards him would be very high now.

I've had him on 'ignore' ever since he opined in his local-node solo mining thread that I'm some sort of "venom-spitting demon with my never helpful and often 'hateful' replies to folks"....  Ja right. One scan through my post histories blows that right back up his backside where it came from... 

edit: btw that ^^ is the most 'hateful' I've ever posted... oh, and to be clear its *not* Sledge0001 we're talking about though the person has of course piped in there on Sledge's separate thread on the subject.

Yeah I had to publicly ask him not to continue to hijack my thread and cease with his disparaging remarks since in my opinion there is no valid reason for his attack on Kano.

It seems as if he believes Kano is supposed to review everyone's CGMiner code variations /  modifications as well as test them.

Oh well...

[bigdaddymccarron]

Kano,
How come we can no longer see all the Pool Workers on the website?

Because a while ago a certain asshole started a vendetta against Kano when he did not get answers that fit with their view of how things work or more to the point how they want things to work decided to post the entire list of users here. While not directly a security issue it *did* give potential hackers a nice list to try using for attacks.

The odd thing about this is that he's directing his malice at the pool miners.
So I'd think that the hate zone towards him would be very high now.

The effect on the pool itself is minimal since I've had to deal with such bot attacks a number of times even last year,
and my pool code handles them quite well.

Well shit, it is always the one the screws it up for the masses!

[DaCryptoRaccoon]

 479d 23h 25m since last block I wonder if it will break 500 days!

Kano is there a point you will stop providing pool service if a block is not found going forward?  I'm interested to know your view on it as at some point miners will all leave if a block is not forthcoming I would presume? which would only increase the variance further?

Hope your keeping well Kano!

[kano]

Well I'll be shortly running around 9PH here on PPLNS.
I've been running over 5PH on PPLNS since the beginning of July.
So no idea why I'd shut the pool down

If you understand mining, it's the Block% number that matters.
Currently, overall, on combined solo+pplns hash rate, as you see on the web site:

Shares:  80,483,054,803,321 (262.01%)        Pool:  480d 7h 19m

So I guess I'd ask, would you quit mining on a pool that reaches 260% on a block?
If so you'd have to quit mining on every pool
260% is average 1 in 13.5 blocks on every pool.

[paid2]

Yeah in October 2021 I joined your pool 2 weeks before the block was found (on PPLNS)

It was so nice 

I will never quit a pool when the pool's block % is more than 100