Quote from: joblo on November 28, 2019, 02:34:45 AM

Edit: your post was so long I didn't absorb it all the first read. I've changed my reply.

What you describe is statiscally accurate to a certain level of precision but not exact because luck always plays a part.
The longer the sample period the less the error but it's always non-zero.

With the tool release I will post links to basic work on the Poisson distribution and proven bounds. Like I wrote, after 1M shares it's a proven fact that 99% of the time, your samples hashrate will be +-0.33% from the true value. We have run our tests over and over again and reproduced the same results, and those runs are independent. If people want to believe that the black swan event keeps repeating itself every single time, I can't stop them, I can just point out that it's very very very improbable.

Quote from: joblo on November 28, 2019, 02:34:45 AM

The pool has no direct knowlege of how many nonces the miner is actually hashing, it calculates hash rate from shares / time.

Indeed, and you are making my point: neither can the user based on the displayed hash rate printed by a closed source miner (this miner included). We can print anything. It needs to be probed, just like a pool does. Hence the release of a "pool" than uses much lower diff and calculates your hash rate in a single huge session.

Quote from: joblo on November 28, 2019, 02:34:45 AM

But those falacies are beside the point as I accept that your test is statistically accurate enough to prove there is a discrepency,
but not necessarilly a problem.

There is indeed a problem if a miner's displayed hash rate - dev fee never will be representative of what it can generate poolside.

Quote from: joblo on November 28, 2019, 02:34:45 AM

Whether it was your intent or not, your post implies willful intent on the part of the miner developper
when, IMO, there is a perfectly reasonable explanation.

I disagree. Errors in the range of 0.2-0.5% are fine, that could be an added DAG rebuild as part of a dev fee switch etc. Not more than that.

Quote from: joblo on November 28, 2019, 02:34:45 AM

Publishing your test is also irresponsible. It looks like you've started a conspiracy theory and are trying to spread it.

Ehmm, are you kidding? Right now, what I _have_ been doing can _indeed be called irresponsible_, i.e. _not_ backing up my words with a scientifically proven way for others to reproduce my results. NOT publishing is the irresponsible action.

Quote from: joblo on November 28, 2019, 02:34:45 AM

You've already done all the hard work with the kernel, you can prove it one way or another. You don't have to reveal
any secrets, just the results. It's either including fee time in the hashrate or the miner sofware is inflating the count.
One is a user misunderstanding, the other is unethical.

I don't think people would just buy the results from some logs I'm presenting? Giving everyone the same chance of reproducing the results is key. It's basic peer review. If what I'm claiming can't easily be reproduced by others, how can the community trust my claims in any way? I CLEARLY have a huge incentive of spreading disinformation here.

Quote from: joblo on November 28, 2019, 02:34:45 AM

I think the responsible thing to do is the extra step and either confirm the conspiracy or kill it, after all you
started it. But It's up to you.

I 100% agree, and that has ALWAYS been the intent. Your issue rather seems to be with the approach taken to prove my claims, which I still strongly argue is the best approach: simple open source software used for a long-running statistical test, with proven bounds on the probability for certain results to happen.

Also, please note that I'm _not_ happy about my quote being taken from a Discord and posted in youtube vids, but that was me being naive. Tonight (CET) or tomorrow at the latest, the ethash miner tester tool will be published open source on my github. For people with a grasp if of the statistics involved, they will buy the results (assuming they match our own results, that is).

Quote from: joblo on November 28, 2019, 02:34:45 AM

I'm going with fee time, prove me wrong.

I've spent 100+ hours on this, easily. Fee time was of course the first thing I checked since it's the obvious explanation. No one is _stealing_ anything. No miner is consuming more of your resources than announced. Claymore is bang on target for 1.0%. Phoenix switch time is also 100% correct. The dev fee switch time will be easily identifiable in the the tester tool's logs since we're pushing through shares every second. The dev fee switch means a blackout window of N secs.

I will not be posting anything else here now before releasing the tool mentioned above, it's such a time and focus hog.