jonnybravo0311
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1344
Merit: 1023
Mine at Jonny's Pool
|
 |
April 03, 2015, 10:28:56 PM |
|
ensure that your miners are submitting stale shares. Yes, bfgminer, for example, has the option "--submit-stale". The standard firmware on Ants for example discards them... Even though they may be valid solutions for a block. Why does "The standard firmware on Ants for example discards" stale shares? Um, because Bitmain's fork of cgminer is terrible. That's why kano and ck wrote their own binaries for a bunch of different Antminer models. |
Jonny's Pool - Mine with us and help us grow! Support a pool that supports Bitcoin, not a hardware manufacturer's pockets! No SPV cheats. No empty blocks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are several different types of Bitcoin clients. The most secure are full nodes like Bitcoin Core, but full nodes are more resource-heavy, and they must do a lengthy initial syncing process. As a result, lightweight clients with somewhat less security are commonly used.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
kano
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4494
Merit: 1808
Linux since 1997 RedHat 4
|
|
April 04, 2015, 12:50:47 AM |
|
ensure that your miners are submitting stale shares. Yes, bfgminer, for example, has the option "--submit-stale". The standard firmware on Ants for example discards them... Even though they may be valid solutions for a block. Why does "The standard firmware on Ants for example discards" stale shares? Um, because Bitmain's fork of cgminer is terrible. That's why kano and ck wrote their own binaries for a bunch of different Antminer models. It's also enabled by default in the master cgminer to submit stale shares. There's no real reason to actually disable it since each pool will have it's own rules about when a share is stale and 2nd guessing every pool is a bad idea. Submitting stale shares shouldn't be a problem either on any good pool  |
|
|
|
ilovecoinZ
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 8
Merit: 0
|
|
April 04, 2015, 11:41:46 AM |
|
I think as a rule if you find lots of miners using a particular pool, the chances of it being safe are high.
That being said owners circumstances can change which them may influence their honesty.
Its a lottery really but a little homework puts the odds in your favour!
|
|
|
|
|
|
BCwinning
|
|
April 05, 2015, 01:56:41 PM |
|
I recommend slush, they're the first mining pool ever, still running today.
They have a 2% fee, but they're pretty stable. And low variance too because they have a pretty big market share. (5%)
I don't If you want to pay a fee than use btcguild and earn namecoin in the process as well. Plus they have more hashrate. Slush needs to either start the merge mining back up or drop his fee. Personally I think 2% is greedy. especially if they also take the transaction fee. |
The New World Order thanks you for your support of Bitcoin and encourages your continuing support so that they may track your expenditures easier.
|
|
|
|
sloopy
|
|
April 05, 2015, 06:27:29 PM |
|
I recommend slush, they're the first mining pool ever, still running today.
They have a 2% fee, but they're pretty stable. And low variance too because they have a pretty big market share. (5%)
I don't If you want to pay a fee than use btcguild and earn namecoin in the process as well. Plus they have more hashrate. Slush needs to either start the merge mining back up or drop his fee. Personally I think 2% is greedy. especially if they also take the transaction fee. I think btcguild is ran by a good pool operator, but the Namecoin I made is still sitting in my offline storage because it was so insignificant. Can you actually still register a name and use it with NMC? Do most just dump it? Ofcourse I since moved most hash to kano.is and call it 'luck', but my payouts are much higher. I was with the guild for a couple of months, and now Kano for a couple. So not a long term comparison, but I'll say it is a great data point for me. One thing I never understood is what the groups are accomplishing at the Guild. Or "teams", I should say. Although I joined one to look at stats. |
Transaction fees go to the pools and the pools decide to pay them to the miners. Anything else, including off-chain solutions are stealing and not the way Bitcoin was intended to function.
Make the block size set by the pool. Pool = miners and they get the choice.
|
|
|
|
sloopy
|
|
April 05, 2015, 06:34:56 PM |
|
ensure that your miners are submitting stale shares. Yes, bfgminer, for example, has the option "--submit-stale". The standard firmware on Ants for example discards them... Even though they may be valid solutions for a block. Why does "The standard firmware on Ants for example discards" stale shares? Um, because Bitmain's fork of cgminer is terrible. That's why kano and ck wrote their own binaries for a bunch of different Antminer models. Do you or anyone know the "core devs" at BITMAIN? The people who handle the pool code and firmware? It would be interesting to hear their opinions on their implementation(s) and understand how many of them there are. I would assume BITMAIN have deep pockets and from there assume they would have cutting edge developers working on pool software full time. Especially since they mine with our products for a long time prior to shipping. Hell even when you receive a miner from their repair shop they have set it back to mine at their pools. I would always stay away from a mining company's pool. Unless they hired CK and Kano, then I might follow them for the simple transparency they seem to bring to the table. I know transparency is a buzz word in our community, but I like the fact they explain things on a different level and pay attention to the community. If I screwup they tell me, and if I do well they tell me, but mainly it is the fact they communicate well, so the "telling me" part I like. Sorry Kano and CK if I bug you too much That is expected of a pool operator though isn't it? "Transparency" in the forms of operations and communication. |
Transaction fees go to the pools and the pools decide to pay them to the miners. Anything else, including off-chain solutions are stealing and not the way Bitcoin was intended to function.
Make the block size set by the pool. Pool = miners and they get the choice.
|
|
|
DrHaribo
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2730
Merit: 1034
Needs more jiggawatts
|
|
April 06, 2015, 01:59:04 PM |
|
from there assume they would have cutting edge developers
It's not enough to be good at programming, you have to know how the domain (bitcoin mining) works as well. There are plenty of horrible mining client implementations. Things like using a 32-bit integer to hold the difficulty, resulting in accidental block withholding attacks. Or making the user select the difficulty to mine at (and throwing away most of your work) instead of implementing the stratum protocol correctly and listening to the server when it tells you the difficulty. Or taking forever (and producing huge amounts of stale work) when the server tells you to immediately flush old work data and start on new data. Or throwing away stale work instead of passing it to the server. When a developer who is new to bitcoin touches mining code I am frequently surprised at how bad the results are. It's as if there is no testing or quality control. That is expected of a pool operator though isn't it? "Transparency" in the forms of operations and communication.
One would hope so. But the reality is much worse. As one of the biggest pools used their hashpower to scam and steal from a dice game, very few of their miners left them. As the biggest pool grew too big (centralizing too much hashpower) and refused to do anything about it, very few of their miners moved their hashpower. When new pools offer 10% or even 40% extra mining income, or investment opportunities offer 7% gains per week, people queue to sign up. If you ask for transparency they get mad at you because they think you are trying to ruin the good deal for them. Please. I am quickly turning into a bitter old man. Those of you who are still asking questions and demanding transparency and responsible behavior - you are my last hope.  |
|
|
|
|
Geremia (OP)
|
|
April 13, 2015, 08:05:17 PM |
|
How is "pool manager fraud" even possible?
|
|
|
|
|
Geremia (OP)
|
 |
April 13, 2015, 09:52:14 PM |
|
Are pools in which the miners are paid via the generation transaction (e.g., Eligius, puddinpop) immune to fraud?
|
|
|
|
-ck
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4102
Merit: 1632
Ruu \o/
|
|
April 13, 2015, 09:57:10 PM |
|
Are pools in which the miners are paid via the generation transaction (e.g., Eligius, puddinpop) are immune to fraud?
Not in the slightest, no. |
Developer/maintainer for cgminer, ckpool/ckproxy, and the -ck kernel
2% Fee Solo mining at solo.ckpool.org
-ck
|
|
|
|
Geremia (OP)
|
|
April 13, 2015, 10:00:45 PM |
|
Are pools in which the miners are paid via the generation transaction (e.g., Eligius, puddinpop) immune to fraud?
Not in the slightest, no. How could the manager of a non-P2Pool that pays its miners via the generation transaction claim some or all of a freshly-minted coin? |
|
|
|
-ck
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4102
Merit: 1632
Ruu \o/
|
|
April 13, 2015, 10:01:46 PM |
|
Are pools in which the miners are paid via the generation transaction (e.g., Eligius, puddinpop) immune to fraud?
Not in the slightest, no. How could the manager of a non-P2Pool that pays its miners via the generation transaction claim some or all of a freshly-minted coin? By not including your quota in the generation.. |
Developer/maintainer for cgminer, ckpool/ckproxy, and the -ck kernel
2% Fee Solo mining at solo.ckpool.org
-ck
|
|
|
bigbitmine
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 196
Merit: 100
Big Bit Mine
|
|
April 13, 2015, 10:04:31 PM |
|
I recommend slush, they're the first mining pool ever, still running today.
They have a 2% fee, but they're pretty stable. And low variance too because they have a pretty big market share. (5%)
I'm with Slush. Happy with it but the conspiracy part of my brain will never truly trust anyone. |
|
|
|
|
Geremia (OP)
|
|
April 13, 2015, 10:06:18 PM |
|
Are pools in which the miners are paid via the generation transaction (e.g., Eligius, puddinpop) immune to fraud?
Not in the slightest, no. How could the manager of a non-P2Pool that pays its miners via the generation transaction claim some or all of a freshly-minted coin? By not including your quota in the generation.. But isn't that part of the mined block? They can't fudge around with that once it's mined… |
|
|
|
|
Geremia (OP)
|
|
April 13, 2015, 10:09:15 PM |
|
Bitmain's fork of cgminer is terrible. Is there a way to easily update `cgminer` on AntMiners? |
|
|
|
-ck
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4102
Merit: 1632
Ruu \o/
|
|
April 13, 2015, 10:09:28 PM |
|
Are pools in which the miners are paid via the generation transaction (e.g., Eligius, puddinpop) immune to fraud?
Not in the slightest, no. How could the manager of a non-P2Pool that pays its miners via the generation transaction claim some or all of a freshly-minted coin? By not including your quota in the generation.. But isn't that part of the mined block? They can't fudge around with that once it's mined… Do you deconstruct the data sent to your mining hardware to know what you're mining? |
Developer/maintainer for cgminer, ckpool/ckproxy, and the -ck kernel
2% Fee Solo mining at solo.ckpool.org
-ck
|
|
|
|
Geremia (OP)
|
|
April 13, 2015, 10:14:28 PM |
|
Are pools in which the miners are paid via the generation transaction (e.g., Eligius, puddinpop) immune to fraud?
Not in the slightest, no. How could the manager of a non-P2Pool that pays its miners via the generation transaction claim some or all of a freshly-minted coin? By not including your quota in the generation.. But isn't that part of the mined block? They can't fudge around with that once it's mined… Do you deconstruct the data sent to your mining hardware to know what you're mining? I don't understand what or why you're asking this. I think I have answered my own question: These pool managers could simply refuse to include you in the payout queue. P2Pool is immune to that sort of fraud, certainly. |
|
|
|
-ck
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4102
Merit: 1632
Ruu \o/
|
|
April 13, 2015, 10:19:35 PM |
|
But isn't that part of the mined block? They can't fudge around with that once it's mined…
Do you deconstruct the data sent to your mining hardware to know what you're mining? I don't understand what or why you're asking this. Because that's the only way you'd be able to confirm that it's actually part of the mined block before it's mined. There is also nothing that stops them putting less than you deserve into the blocks you are mining while you are mining them. You'd have to audit the pool hashrate somehow accurately and track each and every payout no differently to any other payout scheme. |
Developer/maintainer for cgminer, ckpool/ckproxy, and the -ck kernel
2% Fee Solo mining at solo.ckpool.org
-ck
|
|
|
jonnybravo0311
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1344
Merit: 1023
Mine at Jonny's Pool
|
|
April 13, 2015, 10:20:39 PM |
|
Are pools in which the miners are paid via the generation transaction (e.g., Eligius, puddinpop) immune to fraud?
Not in the slightest, no. How could the manager of a non-P2Pool that pays its miners via the generation transaction claim some or all of a freshly-minted coin? By not including your quota in the generation.. But isn't that part of the mined block? They can't fudge around with that once it's mined… Do you deconstruct the data sent to your mining hardware to know what you're mining? I don't understand what or why you're asking this. He's stating that unless you're examining the data being sent to your miner how would you know? You still have to create transactions to distribute the block reward and that data is part of what your miner is trying to find the hash. So unless you're looking at exactly what data your miner is hashing you wouldn't know. Of course even if you did you'd still have to determine the fraudulent distribution. As you can see miners place a bit of faith in the pool operators |
Jonny's Pool - Mine with us and help us grow! Support a pool that supports Bitcoin, not a hardware manufacturer's pockets! No SPV cheats. No empty blocks.
|
|
|
|
Geremia (OP)
|
|
April 13, 2015, 10:35:48 PM |
|
Because that's the only way you'd be able to confirm that it's actually part of the mined block before it's mined.
There is also nothing that stops them putting less than you deserve into the blocks you are mining while you are mining them. You'd have to audit the pool hashrate somehow accurately and track each and every payout no differently to any other payout scheme.
Yes, that's what I meant when I said it's 100% up to these pools' managers as to whether you're included in the payout queue. He's stating that unless you're examining the data being sent to your miner how would you know? You still have to create transactions to distribute the block reward and that data is part of what your miner is trying to find the hash. So unless you're looking at exactly what data your miner is hashing you wouldn't know. Of course even if you did you'd still have to determine the fraudulent distribution. As you can see miners place a bit of faith in the pool operators indeed thanks for the clarifications, guys |
|
|
|
|
