Bitcoin Forum
December 08, 2016, 12:13:03 AM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [500 GH/s]HHTT -Selected Diff/Stratum/PPLNS/Paid Stales/High Availability/Tor  (Read 52454 times)
bitcoindaddy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 481


View Profile
August 31, 2012, 04:02:29 PM
 #41

So far I really like the pool, my only complaint is that the web site is kind of goofy looking. Makes it hard to look at while at work - people will think I'm f&*cking around. I may change my mind about running solo when the ASICs arrive.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1960


Poor impulse control.


View Profile WWW
August 31, 2012, 04:05:03 PM
 #42

Just put red cellophane over the screen.

Bitcoin network and pool analysis 12QxPHEuxDrs7mCyGSx1iVSozTwtquDB3r
follow @oocBlog for new post notifications
nibor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 348


View Profile
August 31, 2012, 04:10:12 PM
 #43

Bitcoin difficult still seems on the rise if anything, so I would just knock that up the variance in submitting a few shares quicker than expected in an hour, than you did last time.
Variance can be quiet abit higher than predictable diff 1 shares, when doing diff 32 shares.
Variance at diff 32 is 32^2 times greater, i.e. 1024 times... so in my opinion, diff 32 is too high for current mining hardware in light of that (see my earlier post).

No - variance increase with mean not square of mean. And of more relevance to users is the Standard Deviation which is the Square Root of variance. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli_distribution)

So 32 difficulty only increase standard deviation by factor of 5.6.

I would have thought that as long as you get at least a few hundred shares a day your PPS variance should be fine. I will work this out later with proof!

So anyone should be fine with 32 diff shares (even with 5 Mhash/sec you will find 100 shares a day).
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1960


Poor impulse control.


View Profile WWW
August 31, 2012, 04:17:00 PM
 #44

Bitcoin difficult still seems on the rise if anything, so I would just knock that up the variance in submitting a few shares quicker than expected in an hour, than you did last time.
Variance can be quiet abit higher than predictable diff 1 shares, when doing diff 32 shares.
Variance at diff 32 is 32^2 times greater, i.e. 1024 times... so in my opinion, diff 32 is too high for current mining hardware in light of that (see my earlier post).

No - variance increase with mean not square of mean. And of more relevance to users is the Standard Deviation which is the Square Root of variance. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli_distribution)

So 32 difficulty only increase standard deviation by factor of 5.6.

I would have thought that as long as you get at least a few hundred shares a day your PPS variance should be fine. I will work this out later with proof!

So anyone should be fine with 32 diff shares (even with 5 Mhash/sec you will find 100 shares a day).

No, you'd get 100 D1 shares a day, but only 3 D32 shares a day.

Calculating the variance induced hashrate variations is easy since this is a PPS pool. For a 95% confidence interval, just calculate the 0.025 and 0.975 quantiles for a poisson distributed variable with a mean of (in this case) 3. When we do this, the calculated variability in average daily hashrate is between 0 and 30 Mhps. This is a huge daily variation. If you're mining at 5 Mhps, D 32 is way too big.





Bitcoin network and pool analysis 12QxPHEuxDrs7mCyGSx1iVSozTwtquDB3r
follow @oocBlog for new post notifications
bitcoindaddy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 481


View Profile
August 31, 2012, 05:48:20 PM
 #45

Does the difficulty need to be a power of 2?  It seems like I'm having just as many shares accepted as a normal difficulty 1 pool.
nibor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 348


View Profile
August 31, 2012, 08:32:43 PM
 #46

Bitcoin difficult still seems on the rise if anything, so I would just knock that up the variance in submitting a few shares quicker than expected in an hour, than you did last time.
Variance can be quiet abit higher than predictable diff 1 shares, when doing diff 32 shares.
Variance at diff 32 is 32^2 times greater, i.e. 1024 times... so in my opinion, diff 32 is too high for current mining hardware in light of that (see my earlier post).

No - variance increase with mean not square of mean. And of more relevance to users is the Standard Deviation which is the Square Root of variance. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli_distribution)

So 32 difficulty only increase standard deviation by factor of 5.6.

I would have thought that as long as you get at least a few hundred shares a day your PPS variance should be fine. I will work this out later with proof!

So anyone should be fine with 32 diff shares (even with 5 Mhash/sec you will find 100 shares a day).

No, you'd get 100 D1 shares a day, but only 3 D32 shares a day.

Calculating the variance induced hashrate variations is easy since this is a PPS pool. For a 95% confidence interval, just calculate the 0.025 and 0.975 quantiles for a poisson distributed variable with a mean of (in this case) 3. When we do this, the calculated variability in average daily hashrate is between 0 and 30 Mhps. This is a huge daily variation. If you're mining at 5 Mhps, D 32 is way too big.

Yes you are correct - I should have learnt that gut feelings and statistics never mix!

Assuming that the average miner would accept a variation in return such that 1 or 2 days a month they got less than 95% of their expected payout (obviously 1 or 2 days a month they would also get over 105% of their expected daily payout). Then a 50 Mhash/Sec miner should use difficulty 1 shares. And every time you double your mining power you should double the difficulty to keep the same variation.
So a 800Mhash/sec miner should be using difficulty 16 shares.

So as a rule of thumb you should take your Mhash/Sec and divide by 50 to find the difficulty you should use on a PPS pool - assuming you accept the above variation in returns and want to reduce the load on the mining pool servers.

See https://s3.amazonaws.com/bitcoinstatus.rowit.co.uk/other/share+difficulty.xls for details.

Make sense to everyone?

fireduck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 366



View Profile
September 01, 2012, 01:48:12 AM
 #47

Does the difficulty need to be a power of 2?  It seems like I'm having just as many shares accepted as a normal difficulty 1 pool.

It needs to be an integer but doesn't need to be a power of 2.  However, I wouldn't be surprised if some not very smart mining software didn't handle it correctly and did something stupid.  I've only tested with cgminer and it works very well.
dree12
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232



View Profile
September 01, 2012, 01:54:26 AM
 #48

Does the difficulty need to be a power of 2?  It seems like I'm having just as many shares accepted as a normal difficulty 1 pool.

It needs to be an integer but doesn't need to be a power of 2.  However, I wouldn't be surprised if some not very smart mining software didn't handle it correctly and did something stupid.  I've only tested with cgminer and it works very well.

Difficulty does not need to be an integer (concept-wise), though I'm nearly sure an integer is the only value supported by mining software.
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1960


Poor impulse control.


View Profile WWW
September 01, 2012, 01:59:31 AM
 #49

Bitcoin difficult still seems on the rise if anything, so I would just knock that up the variance in submitting a few shares quicker than expected in an hour, than you did last time.
Variance can be quiet abit higher than predictable diff 1 shares, when doing diff 32 shares.
Variance at diff 32 is 32^2 times greater, i.e. 1024 times... so in my opinion, diff 32 is too high for current mining hardware in light of that (see my earlier post).

No - variance increase with mean not square of mean. And of more relevance to users is the Standard Deviation which is the Square Root of variance. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli_distribution)

So 32 difficulty only increase standard deviation by factor of 5.6.

I would have thought that as long as you get at least a few hundred shares a day your PPS variance should be fine. I will work this out later with proof!

So anyone should be fine with 32 diff shares (even with 5 Mhash/sec you will find 100 shares a day).

No, you'd get 100 D1 shares a day, but only 3 D32 shares a day.

Calculating the variance induced hashrate variations is easy since this is a PPS pool. For a 95% confidence interval, just calculate the 0.025 and 0.975 quantiles for a poisson distributed variable with a mean of (in this case) 3. When we do this, the calculated variability in average daily hashrate is between 0 and 30 Mhps. This is a huge daily variation. If you're mining at 5 Mhps, D 32 is way too big.

Yes you are correct - I should have learnt that gut feelings and statistics never mix!

Assuming that the average miner would accept a variation in return such that 1 or 2 days a month they got less than 95% of their expected payout (obviously 1 or 2 days a month they would also get over 105% of their expected daily payout). Then a 50 Mhash/Sec miner should use difficulty 1 shares. And every time you double your mining power you should double the difficulty to keep the same variation.
So a 800Mhash/sec miner should be using difficulty 16 shares.

So as a rule of thumb you should take your Mhash/Sec and divide by 50 to find the difficulty you should use on a PPS pool - assuming you accept the above variation in returns and want to reduce the load on the mining pool servers.

See https://s3.amazonaws.com/bitcoinstatus.rowit.co.uk/other/share+difficulty.xls for details.

Make sense to everyone?



I think the CIs you calculated should show variation over a day rather than a month - people track their daily earnings closely. Or maybe weekly at most. Monthly is just too long a time frame for most people.

You will need to use Poisson probabilities instead of the CLT.

Otherwise, good idea.

Bitcoin network and pool analysis 12QxPHEuxDrs7mCyGSx1iVSozTwtquDB3r
follow @oocBlog for new post notifications
Tittiez
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686



View Profile
September 01, 2012, 02:01:51 AM
 #50

Difficulty 1 shares don't seem to be working. 2 worked fine, but work doesn't send when I use difficulty 1. 450Mh/s, but I waited well over a minute for a single share and saw none. I assume it defaulted back to 32 if there was a problem with 1.

I'll use 2 for now, its fine.
fireduck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 366



View Profile
September 01, 2012, 02:04:24 AM
 #51

So far I really like the pool, my only complaint is that the web site is kind of goofy looking. Makes it hard to look at while at work - people will think I'm f&*cking around. I may change my mind about running solo when the ASICs arrive. Currently running at difficulty 10 with 1.4Gh/s.

Ha.  I thought other mining pools tried to hard to look all business and wanted to have a little fun.
fireduck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 366



View Profile
September 01, 2012, 02:09:59 AM
 #52

Difficulty 1 shares don't seem to be working. 2 worked fine, but work doesn't send when I use difficulty 1. 450Mh/s, but I waited well over a minute for a single share and saw none. I assume it defaulted back to 32 if there was a problem with 1.

I'll use 2 for now, its fine.

Yeah, there is a bug with difficulty 1.  I'll figure that out, thanks for letting me know.
Tittiez
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686



View Profile
September 01, 2012, 02:12:55 AM
 #53

Oh, and, uh... this

Quote
[2012-08-31 22:11:04] Rejected 3e934289.9dba2434 GPU 0 pool 0 (unknown-user)
 [2012-08-31 22:11:37] Rejected 69e032bf.4c96ad30 GPU 1 pool 0 (unknown-user)
 [2012-08-31 22:11:50] Rejected 1cb4a275.52a67d59 GPU 1 pool 0 (unknown-user)
 [2012-08-31 22:11:54] Rejected 3ad22116.8e18450a GPU 1 pool 0 (unknown-user)

Out of nowhere it started throwing this a few minutes after mining. And it just stopped and my shares are being accepted again.
fireduck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 366



View Profile
September 01, 2012, 02:15:11 AM
 #54


Difficulty does not need to be an integer (concept-wise), though I'm nearly sure an integer is the only value supported by mining software.

Yeah, I was talking about my pool specifically.  My difficulty to target code is pretty stupid (as evidenced by my bug with difficulty 1) and certainly only works with integers.
fireduck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 366



View Profile
September 01, 2012, 02:16:32 AM
 #55

Oh, and, uh... this

Quote
[2012-08-31 22:11:04] Rejected 3e934289.9dba2434 GPU 0 pool 0 (unknown-user)
 [2012-08-31 22:11:37] Rejected 69e032bf.4c96ad30 GPU 1 pool 0 (unknown-user)
 [2012-08-31 22:11:50] Rejected 1cb4a275.52a67d59 GPU 1 pool 0 (unknown-user)
 [2012-08-31 22:11:54] Rejected 3ad22116.8e18450a GPU 1 pool 0 (unknown-user)

Out of nowhere it started throwing this a few minutes after mining. And it just stopped and my shares are being accepted again.

Yeah, that was me kicking over the pool daemon.  I changed the code to use difficulty 2 for anyone who wants to use 1 until I get that bug worked out.  It should be fine now.
Tittiez
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686



View Profile
September 01, 2012, 02:30:12 AM
 #56

Yeah, that was me kicking over the pool daemon.  I changed the code to use difficulty 2 for anyone who wants to use 1 until I get that bug worked out.  It should be fine now.

I figured maybe you restarted it or something. Okey. Thanks
nibor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 348


View Profile
September 01, 2012, 12:41:55 PM
 #57

I was getting over paid  for about 30 mins Grin.

http://hhtt.1209k.com/user-details.php?user=1DPJHpt2hBNNumXqErSzw4r5SzFk9yL5X2

I got 0.00071569 per 32 difficulty share found instead of 0.00064245.

Any reason why?

R0MEO
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 33


View Profile
September 02, 2012, 06:54:24 PM
 #58

My miner says "Result didn't meet full difficulty, not sending", is that ok or my share has rejected?
fireduck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 366



View Profile
September 03, 2012, 02:44:56 AM
 #59

I was getting over paid  for about 30 mins Grin.

http://hhtt.1209k.com/user-details.php?user=1DPJHpt2hBNNumXqErSzw4r5SzFk9yL5X2

I got 0.00071569 per 32 difficulty share found instead of 0.00064245.

Any reason why?



Only explanation I can come up with was blockexplorer temporarily reporting the wrong difficulty.  I should use the local bitcoind for that number.
fireduck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 366



View Profile
September 03, 2012, 02:46:34 AM
 #60

My miner says "Result didn't meet full difficulty, not sending", is that ok or my share has rejected?

I don't know, what miner software are you using?

Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!