.

[Gyrsur]

.

[1714175282]

1714175282

[1714175282]

1714175282

[Graet]

blockorigin, but its over the last 2016 blocks not 24 hours

[organofcorti]

Or you could use this, which accurately reports weekly average hashrates and expresses them as a percentage of network hashrate for 16 larger sized pools, based on reported round lengths and block timestamps.

[Graet]

though http://blockchain.info/pools is looking pretty sweet for Ozcoin atm

 organofcorti does a nice job on the weekly stats too

[zvs]

i'm not sure why blockchain.info doesn't report all the "mmhi from poolserverj" blocks as from 50BTC.  That's probably 90% of the ones that I get credited to 5.9.24.81

or is that just a generic message?  i've noticed that almost all of them get credited to 50btc

[eleuthria]

blockorigin.pfoe.be is a much more "accurate" chart.  Blockchain uses a lot of assumptions for pools that don't have any kind of mark on their blocks, which leads to inaccurate reporting on pools that don't put any kind of note inside the coinbase of their blocks.

Additionally, Blockchains 48 hr/4 day charts are almost always wrong (they don't seem to include more than 36 hours of blocks).  A 24 hour snapshot can be dramatically different from day to day due to how much luck can vary (even on large pools) when only using a 24 hour window.

[kinlo]

As stated on the main page of blockorigin: we show the data as reported by the pools.  This means that if the pool reports their data correctly, the data on blockorigin is correct.   Blockchain just "guesses" based on relay ip, while it seems to be often correct, one should realize that it often produces invalid data.