sjc1490
|
|
November 21, 2014, 03:23:48 PM |
|
Added another 4TH, now lets solve this block!!
|
BTC ADDRESS: 12Qwd8VKLQ4xF44ytHXBpCAKuF9VknG4X2
|
|
|
MrGreenHat
|
|
November 21, 2014, 05:59:25 PM |
|
Will be adding another measly 2 THs sometime in the next few hours when I receive my S4
|
|
|
|
sjc1490
|
|
November 21, 2014, 11:07:20 PM |
|
Afraid ours won't help much as looks like we lost a couple of hundred TH.
|
BTC ADDRESS: 12Qwd8VKLQ4xF44ytHXBpCAKuF9VknG4X2
|
|
|
philipma1957
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4284
Merit: 8728
'The right to privacy matters'
|
|
November 21, 2014, 11:15:27 PM |
|
Afraid ours won't help much as looks like we lost a couple of hundred TH. you do realize that you get more coin when you hit this way. you A) added hash power B) hung in and stayed the course while the luck chasers ran. therefore if you were 3 th of 1400th you will now be 5th of 950th So 3/1400 x 25 = .053 old way 5/950 x 25 = .131 new way mind you my estimates are really really rough and by no means accurate in any way with the possible exception of the ratios .
|
|
|
|
sjc1490
|
|
November 21, 2014, 11:22:20 PM |
|
Afraid ours won't help much as looks like we lost a couple of hundred TH. you do realize that you get more coin when you hit this way. you A) added hash power B) hung in and stayed the course while the luck chasers ran. therefore if you were 3 th of 1400th you will now be 5th of 950th So 3/1400 x 25 = .053 old way 5/950 x 25 = .131 new way mind you my estimates are really really rough and by no means accurate in any way with the possible exception of the ratios . I do, but I also realize it often increases the time it takes to find a block. I guess it all works out in the end, just would like to see folks hang in there as I really like this pool.
|
BTC ADDRESS: 12Qwd8VKLQ4xF44ytHXBpCAKuF9VknG4X2
|
|
|
kano (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4592
Merit: 1851
Linux since 1997 RedHat 4
|
|
November 21, 2014, 11:28:13 PM |
|
We know who all the biggest hashers are If it drops a lot, it is usually a datacenter issue.
|
|
|
|
sjc1490
|
|
November 21, 2014, 11:29:55 PM |
|
We know who all the biggest hashers are If it drops a lot, it is usually a datacenter issue. Thanks, good to know.
|
BTC ADDRESS: 12Qwd8VKLQ4xF44ytHXBpCAKuF9VknG4X2
|
|
|
Cheeseater
|
|
November 21, 2014, 11:40:33 PM |
|
While I'm not going to dispute more hash equals more blocks lets not forget what I feel counts most LUCK. In my year of mining I've made that I'm aware of 9 blocks and almost everyone I made was with less than 5TH. It's all about the magic hash, it took me a whole year to figure out that it boils down to that. On one pool I used to mine at we were on day 4 and somebody joined in with about 240 Th and we made the block about three hours later. Everyone was cheering and praising him for slaying the beast, but the block was made by someone hashing at under 1 TH. Not to ramble even though I did... someone will will create the magic sooner or later.
|
|
|
|
kano (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4592
Merit: 1851
Linux since 1997 RedHat 4
|
|
November 22, 2014, 12:05:54 AM |
|
I thought I might mention the CDF number coz it also helps explain the current somewhat expected block finding winter. The 225% block has a CDF of 0.89 What that means is that 11% of blocks you expect to average to be longer that 225% and 89% of blocks you expect to average to be less than 225% Those two numbers are true for all pools. i.e. about 1/9 of the blocks you expect to be like the last 2 or worse. I'm not gonna try to work out the probability of getting 17 blocks in a row under 100% (averaging better than 50%) coz when dealing with poisson distributions, I've no idea how you combine them But also remember another thing Luck is a measure of history, not of the future - so that 17 block luck in no way affects the future block finding. We may be lucky in the future or we may be unlucky. We won't know until after we find blocks, and anyone who has made 200% to 300% PPS on the blocks before the 225% one, there is no statistical expectation whatsoever that the following blocks will be lots of bad luck to even that out. Feel free to read this link if you are curious about that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy
|
|
|
|
TheMinex
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 54
Merit: 0
|
|
November 22, 2014, 06:22:12 PM |
|
I was young (no approach to statistic) , and, one of my first times in casino, I decided to try Martingale betting system using color doubling. All was working well, until I decided to double the minimum play and unluck suddenly hit me with same colour for 14 rounds in row . Those unrelated events definitively killed all my cash That was the first time I lie face to face to the concept you explained. It's so easy for miners to use difficulty for income's calculations, but luck in BTC plays big role too and it's usually understimated when calculations are made. I'm not sure that big mining operations think about the luck/unluck, but as margins are eroded the weight of variance increase. For the long time there is nothing to worry about ; we are mining on a super optimized, honest project, and this is what make the difference !!! Good work Kano !
|
|
|
|
DevonMiner
|
|
November 22, 2014, 10:04:57 PM |
|
Kano, I have two SP30s on the pool and each are reporting 4.5Ths respectively (accessing the miners directly at the hosting company).
I've not set any minimum difficulty settings under 'worker management' as I believe the pool adapts per miner power.
However, one reports 4.42Ths, but the other at 3.45Ths to 3.9Ths consistently over a 10 hour period.
Any ideas?
|
|
|
|
-ck
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4256
Merit: 1645
Ruu \o/
|
|
November 22, 2014, 10:07:16 PM |
|
Kano, I have two SP30s on the pool and each are reporting 4.5Ths respectively (accessing the miners directly at the hosting company).
I've not set any minimum difficulty settings under 'worker management' as I believe the pool adapts per miner power.
However, one reports 4.42Ths, but the other at 3.45Ths to 3.9Ths consistently over a 10 hour period.
Any ideas?
SP30's web interface lies. It reports how much it thinks it's hashing, not how much effective hashing it's doing. If it's consistently low at the pool end, there's a reason: its actual hashrate is low.
|
Developer/maintainer for cgminer, ckpool/ckproxy, and the -ck kernel 2% Fee Solo mining at solo.ckpool.org -ck
|
|
|
DevonMiner
|
|
November 22, 2014, 10:23:33 PM |
|
SP30's web interface lies. It reports how much it thinks it's hashing, not how much effective hashing it's doing. If it's consistently low at the pool end, there's a reason: its actual hashrate is low.
OK - thanks, interesting to know
|
|
|
|
DevonMiner
|
|
November 22, 2014, 11:22:43 PM |
|
SP30's web interface lies. It reports how much it thinks it's hashing, not how much effective hashing it's doing. If it's consistently low at the pool end, there's a reason: its actual hashrate is low.
OK - thanks, interesting to know Moved the offending SP30 to another pool and after 50 mins (acceptable time to settle down) it reports 4.5+THs.
|
|
|
|
-ck
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4256
Merit: 1645
Ruu \o/
|
|
November 22, 2014, 11:28:45 PM |
|
Moved the offending SP30 to another pool and after 50 mins (acceptable time to settle down) it reports 4.5+THs. There's nothing unique about the work at ckpool that would make it hash slower. Give it much longer as I find many SP30s degrade over hours/days in hashrate.
|
Developer/maintainer for cgminer, ckpool/ckproxy, and the -ck kernel 2% Fee Solo mining at solo.ckpool.org -ck
|
|
|
DevonMiner
|
|
November 22, 2014, 11:36:07 PM |
|
Moved the offending SP30 to another pool and after 50 mins (acceptable time to settle down) it reports 4.5+THs. There's nothing unique about the work at ckpool that would make it hash slower. Give it much longer as I find many SP30s degrade over hours/days in hashrate. I agree, I know this is a 'pure pool' I'll keep an eye on things, thanks ckolivas.
|
|
|
|
727miner
|
|
November 23, 2014, 12:53:57 AM |
|
Man, I hope we knock a block off soon and a few short ones real fast soon after!
|
|
|
|
kano (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4592
Merit: 1851
Linux since 1997 RedHat 4
|
|
November 23, 2014, 12:43:38 PM |
|
We know who all the biggest hashers are If it drops a lot, it is usually a datacenter issue. Seems he did split his rate half here and half elsewhere. Oh well, at least it's still 1Ph total. But we're back over 1400 TH again
|
|
|
|
|
sjc1490
|
|
November 24, 2014, 02:24:30 AM |
|
Let's point everything we have here and lets get a block solved........
|
BTC ADDRESS: 12Qwd8VKLQ4xF44ytHXBpCAKuF9VknG4X2
|
|
|
|