NastyFans: The Bitcoin Enthusiast Fan Club (est. 2012)

[OgNasty]

Yes I currently have BTCguild and slush working fine with BFGminer in "Load balanced" tried adding yours but keeps saying pool is dead.

I'm currently mining on the pool with no problems.  Does it work without load balancing?

You can see the pool is online via the following link: http://nastyfans.org:9332/static/

[1714044131]

1714044131

[1714044131]

1714044131

[1714044131]

1714044131

[Zillions]

Whipes egg off face ...

ok it's working if I put in as only pool but I'm getting more "requested work update"'s than accepted / rejected messages by about a ratio of 6-1 and atm I'm pointing 8GH your way. Yeah I know now days not much but my btc/hr rate droped dramatically.

[OgNasty]

ok it's working if I put in as only pool but I'm getting more "requested work update"'s than accepted / rejected messages by about a ratio of 6-1 and atm I'm pointing 8GH your way. Yeah I know now days not much but my btc/hr rate droped dramatically.

P2pool is different than a regular mining pool.  The work rounds changing every 10 30 seconds is typical p2pool behavior.  I'd invite you to read up about it by following the below link.  Once you understand the behavior, I think you will see that your earnings over any meaningful length of time would be higher on our pool than with one that charges a fee.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/P2Pool

[kuzetsa]

ok it's working if I put in as only pool but I'm getting more "requested work update"'s than accepted / rejected messages by about a ratio of 6-1 and atm I'm pointing 8GH your way. Yeah I know now days not much but my btc/hr rate droped dramatically.

P2pool is different than a regular mining pool.  The work rounds changing every 10 seconds is typical p2pool behavior.  I'd invite you to read up about it by following the below link.  Once you understand the behavior, I think you will see that your earnings over any meaningful length of time would be higher on our pool than with one that charges a fee.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/P2Pool

These days it's 30 seconds, it's been changed (the p2pool page on bitcoin wiki says 30 seconds in one spot, but then 10 seconds in a different spot)


Edited to add:

P2Pool payouts explained / short version:

The chain continuously regulates its target to keep generation around one share every thirty seconds, just as Bitcoin regulates it to generate one block every ten minutes. This means that finding shares becomes more difficult (resulting in higher variance) the more people mine on P2Pool, though large miners have the option to raise their difficulty, and so reduce the impact of their mining on P2Pool's minimum difficulty.

This has the effect of making is such that when you find a share, it pays out a trickle over the next 72 hours (which will be a larger trickle, increased proportional to the number of shares you have found in the past 72 hours)

one share = aprox 0.0033 BTC per block found by p2pool, two shares = aprox 0.0068

This trickle is paid out every time p2pool finds a block within 72 hours of the time you first found the share (and if you stop mining, it takes 72 hours before your last share falls out of the p2poolsharechain for the trickle to completely stop)

There are some examples of people using the nastyfans p2pool node and how much income they're getting per-block found, as reported here:

http://nastyfans.org:9332/static/graphs.html?Week

my own local (non-public) p2pool shows similar graphs for my own mining


Still wondering about this:

I still can't figure out why the "Local rate" graph for nastyfans.org still only shows 100 GH/s or so for hash rate... are some of the BFL ASIC Singles down? According to the screenshot in the original post, all 7 singles are hashing away and pointed at the local (127.0.0.1 / nastyfans.org I assume) p2pool node.

Edited again:

waaait a minute... the difficulty in that screenshot [268M] doesn't match the bitcoin network's [511M] as reflected by my own p2pool nodes

(and bitcoin difficulty is probably about to be over [600M] in the next 48 hours)

Also, why such an old version of cgminer? What's going on?

I thought those screenshots used to get updated on a regular basis.

[silverfuture]

I want to bring up a suggestion for the future of Nasty Mining in terms of broad policy for equipment purchase.  It seems that with a deflationary unit like bitcoin that we would be much better off saving than borrowing for new equipment.  I understand that it may have been in our best interest at times in the past to borrow for hardware in certain cases but once these loans are paid off, wouldn't it make sense to only save for immediately deliverable goods?  Also, I would like to suggest raising another motion to increase our retained portion of BTC to 50%.  This would help us pay off our loans faster and start saving for what is only going to be a more competitive environment for hardware going forward.  Thanks to both yourself and nonnakip for your hard work and dedication!

[maqifrnswa]

since p2pool doesn't mine the bitcoin blockchain (but instead the p2pool sharechain), load balancing won't work. "failover-only" is encouraged because any worked leaked from another pool while p2pool is catching up will be rejected

p2pool orphans/DOA do not mean wasted work like they do in other pools. Compare the "efficiency" percentage, that is how much you are making compared to a 0% fee pps pool that pays out all fees. So, realistically, as long as your node is >95% you're beating pps.


Re: upping to 50%.
Mining will move to a sustenance market where there won't be much profit to gain. Long term NastyFans would need to diversify to grow, as OgNasty is doing with running a pool, selling physical goods. Mathematically, selling new seats and keeping reinvestment rates at 25% is the same as keeping the same number of seats and upping reinvestment rate. Permanently changing reinvestment rates to chasing shrinking mining profits may be a bad idea. Selling loans or seats to take advantage of an perishable opportunity is probably better (assuming the investment returns more than the loan or dilution).

[smooth]

deflationary unit like bitcoin

The "deflation" in myth. If you look back through my old posts (on some other thread last year) I've explained why. But it is true that bitcoin goes up a lot (bad for borrowers).  On the other hand it sometimes crashes (good for borrowers).

This is not intended to express an opinion on the proposal, just clear up a widely held misconception so people can think clearly about the issues.

[smooth]

Mining will move to a sustenance market where there won't be much profit to gain.

Well eventually everything goes to economic break even in a mature market. But if you think mining is close to that you probably shouldn't be involved with a mining-focused endeavor. Maybe sell your seats?

I happen to think that mining is slowly moving toward a mature market but is nowhere near there yet. If you look at the difficulties that exist with buying mining equipment, constant missed ship dates, payment and refund issues, hardware reliability issues, etc. it is pretty clear we aren't there yet.

BTW (related to other post about loans) leverage can actually be a good thing in a near-mature market. If you have a small edge (say a high degree of competence in any of the above areas) you can turn it into a big edge in ROI.

The diversified stuff is great but don't count mining out yet. I see at least two big transitions coming in mining. Navigate those well and profit.

[OgNasty]

I still can't figure out why the "Local rate" graph for nastyfans.org still only shows 100 GH/s or so for hash rate... are some of the BFL ASIC Singles down? According to the screenshot in the original post, all 7 singles are hashing away and pointed at the local (127.0.0.1 / nastyfans.org I assume) p2pool node.

I'm sure I mentioned this somewhere, but it is probably buried.  Nasty Mining does not mine on our public node.  I run a local private p2pool server to reduce latencies and separately collect alt coins.  That being said, we are currently mining at about 580GH/s and have been for around a week now.  The reason for this being that I had a power supply and motherboard burn out in one of my machines that hosted some personal miners, and until I get that fixed, I will continue to have my personal miners run alongside Nasty Mining.

Edited again:

waaait a minute... the difficulty in that screenshot [268M] doesn't match the bitcoin network's [511M] as reflected by my own p2pool nodes

(and bitcoin difficulty is probably about to be over [600M] in the next 48 hours)


Also, why such an old version of cgminer? What's going on?

I thought those screenshots used to get updated on a regular basis.

These question can all be explained by an oversight.  When changing servers, updating some scripts was overlooked and that caused the screenshot to not update.  As you can now see, the screenshot is showing the 10 live miners (3 of them being my personal miners which usually pay for the electricity consumption of our operation) and is the latest version of cgminer.  Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

[smooth]

I'm sure I mentioned this somewhere, but it is probably buried.  Nasty Mining does not mine on our public node.  I run a local private p2pool server to reduce latencies and separately collect alt coins.  That being said, we are currently mining at about 580GH/s and have been for around a week now.  The reason for this being that I had a power supply and motherboard burn out in one of my machines that hosted some personal miners, and until I get that fixed, I will continue to have my personal miners run alongside Nasty Mining.

I'd suggest modifying this policy (with some neutral/fair adjustment for the altcoins, etc.) because the pool will become more popular if it already has more hash rate on it.

Or, it occurs to me that maybe the mining equipment is at a different location from the pool server? If that's the case, then multiple pool nodes are good to reduce latency, but consider them to all be part of the pool administratively and combine the stats.

[OgNasty]

I'd suggest modifying this policy (with some neutral/fair adjustment for the altcoins, etc.) because the pool will become more popular if it already has more hash rate on it.

The pool had over 1TH/s on it for a bit.  I think it will jump back up again soon. 

Or, it occurs to me that maybe the mining equipment is at a different location from the pool server? If that's the case, then multiple pool nodes are good to reduce latency, but consider them to all be part of the pool administratively and combine the stats.

Correct.  The pool server and my local server are definitely not located in close proximity.  I don't agree about combining stats though.  They are 2 totally different things.  I think people should be able to differentiate between our mining operation and our public pool node.  What I do think is missing is lots of scripts showing stats like the pool rate on the OP.

[smooth]

The pool had over 1TH/s on it for a bit.  I think it will jump back up again soon.  

That would be great!

The pool server and my local server are definitely not located in close proximity.  I don't agree about combining stats though.  They are 2 totally different things.  I think people should be able to differentiate between our mining operation and our public pool node.  What I do think is missing is lots of scripts showing stats like the pool rate on the OP.

I didn't mean "combine" in the sense that you couldn't tell the difference, but think about it this way. The mining operation could use any public pool, but it doesn't, it uses its own p2pool node. No reason (other than a slight difference in the payout formula) not to treat that node as part of the pool, so the pool has two nodes, not just one. Lots of pools have multiple nodes.

That said, if the pool has 1 TH it doesn't matter that much.  

[maqifrnswa]

Mining will move to a sustenance market where there won't be much profit to gain.

Well eventually everything goes to economic break even in a mature market. But if you think mining is close to that you probably shouldn't be involved with a mining-focused endeavor. Maybe sell your seats?

I happen to think that mining is slowly moving toward a mature market but is nowhere near there yet. If you look at the difficulties that exist with buying mining equipment, constant missed ship dates, payment and refund issues, hardware reliability issues, etc. it is pretty clear we aren't there yet.

BTW (related to other post about loans) leverage can actually be a good thing in a near-mature market. If you have a small edge (say a high degree of competence in any of the above areas) you can turn it into a big edge in ROI.

The diversified stuff is great but don't count mining out yet. I see at least two big transitions coming in mining. Navigate those well and profit.

I'm kind of confused, you seem to agree with me... but at the same time seem confrontational...
My problem is the pricing of ASIC products makes positive ROI impossible, at least for now, so patience is worthwhile to find an opportunity that has a good chance of working out (maybe monarchs are, if we get in the bullet run it might be possible)

The fact is that, for nearly every ASIC product, you would have been better off buying BTC instead of the miner. There is negative ROI (measured in BTC out minus BTC in) everywhere except maybe the very first avalons and first month BFL products. Nasty's BFL products are probably a net loss*. KNC is a 50% loss from day 1. The solution to that isn't necessarily "let's save money to go buy more miners."

EDIT: I support Nasty and what he's trying to do, even with the loss. But since you had an emotion response to my first post, I'll give you a mathematical proof to my point:

*Nasty raised  ~4k BTC (based on IPO and current shares outstanding, correct me if wrong). Of that original fund raising, we have received ~500 BTC in revenue. We may receive 20-50 BTC more over the life of the hardware. That original fundraising did not buy any of the monarchs or cointerra products, since they were financed via loans - so ~600BTC is probably the best we'll see as a return on the original IPO purchased products. Overall, this is positive ROI (by a lot) in $, but negative ROI in BTC.

[smooth]

I'm kind of confused, you seem to agree with me... but at the same time seem confrontational...
My problem is the pricing of ASIC products makes positive ROI impossible, at least for now

I disagree that the pricing of ASICs makes positive ROI impossible. I actually think the ROIs can be pretty good as investments go. I've looked at several opportunities recently that look like 50-100% ROI over a few months (BTC out vs. BTC in, although that methodology has issues too because ROI is not independent of the exchange rate). But you have to be very careful about what you buy, who you buy it from, delivery dates, etc.

I agree that eventually this will happen.  

The fact is that, for nearly every ASIC product, you would have been better off buying BTC instead of the miner.

Well many of the ASIC companies thus far have been scams or near scams or just incompetent. That's not an axiom of the market that must be true or always will be true, it is just what happened over the past year.  

"Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future return." This phrase is usually used to warn that future performance may be worse, but it can also work the other way.

BTW my response wasn't emotional, just a different point of view. Room for multiple opinions here I hope.

[kroneko]

To keep me distracted from the big swings in price - any updates on the 1 ounce coins?   

[smooth]

I have 30 GH coming later this week that will go on the pool. Not a lot but its something...

[OgNasty]

I want to bring up a suggestion for the future of Nasty Mining in terms of broad policy for equipment purchase...I would like to suggest raising another motion to increase our retained portion of BTC to 50%.  This would help us pay off our loans faster and start saving for what is only going to be a more competitive environment for hardware going forward...

I agree that this may be wise to look at once Monarchs get closer to shipping and we see what kind of a response our 1oz coins receive from the community.  For now, I hope fans will use their donations to grab a miner and join us in the pool.

To keep me distracted from the big swings in price - any updates on the 1 ounce coins?  

I've been told the extra materials needed for the coins have been manufactured and shipped.  No word if the coin dyes have finished being crafted yet.

EDIT: The dye crafting finished yesterday and the coins are being minted as we speak.  They will most likely be received late next week and I hope to have them on sale the first or second week of December to make for some awesome Christmas gifts.

I have 30 GH coming later this week that will go on the pool. Not a lot but its something...

You would be about 20% of the pool if you joined right now.

[Yogafan00000]

I want to bring up a suggestion for the future of Nasty Mining in terms of broad policy for equipment purchase...I would like to suggest raising another motion to increase our retained portion of BTC to 50%.  This would help us pay off our loans faster and start saving for what is only going to be a more competitive environment for hardware going forward...

I agree that this may be wise to look at once Monarchs get closer to shipping and we see what kind of a response our 1oz coins receive from the community.  For now, I hope fans will use their donations to grab a miner and join us in the pool.

I agree as well.  I think we should have a new fan poll to decide if we should increase the amount of donations towards miners.

I believe we should have 4 choices:
Keep it the same at 25%
Increase it to 50% until all debt is paid off
Increase it to 75% until all debt is paid off
Increase it to 100% until all debt is paid off

My vote would be to increase it to 75% until debt is cleared.  There is now a lot of fiat owing due to increase in BTC/fiat rate.  This combined with the debt load is clearly having a depressing effect on the current seat price.

[gaba]

My vote is for 100%

[nonnakip]

1 poll opened

[member opinion] increase percentage of donations for fundraising