I have numbers from October onwards from Slush, BTC Guild and Eligius, which I have copied from the pools and pasted into a spread sheet, so my numbers are not claims, just facts that you did not have to hand 

Been mining on Slush for a couple of years, I just don't post much so rather than newbie I would say I am just quiet - and sick of conspiracy theories based on no hard evidence, so I broke silence to add some facts to the equation.

However I have no argument with anyone and since I did indeed fail to spot your sarcasm, I will slink back into the shadows and let the usual contributors continue the song and dance show.

Cheers n beers

HP

Statistics and numbers can always be used or misused to prove or disprove a point, so here are some more numbers for you...

In December, 107 blocks were found above 10PH and only 55 found whilst below 10PH, which is a little different to the 142:23 ratio claimed in the posts above.

Cheers n beers

HP

Whilst I am not against the possibility that there could be a bug in the code that caused the pool to find less blocks when the hash rate breaches a particular level, let's look at the facts as they stand and then decide: -

From what I can see, the first time the pool went over 10PH was on the 5th December 2014, although it only stayed over 10PH for a few hours. On that day we found 6 blocks, all valid.

On 8th December, the pool passed 10PH (in fact it did it late the previous evening) and found 7 blocks that day. The pool remained above 10PH for pretty much the rest of the month and in that time it found a total of 125 blocks, of which 123 were valid. This is an average of 5.1 blocks per day.

The average blocks per day for the last few months are as follows: -

4.6 in October - (est. average pool hash rate = 7.8PH)
5.1 in November (est. average pool hash rate = 8.6PH)
5.2 in December (est. average pool hash rate = 10.3PH)
4.0 in January (est. average pool hash rate < 10.3PH)
5.2 so far for February (est. average pool hash rate < 9.3PH)

Looking at January as the worst month in recent times, we see that it started the month at 11.6PH and remained above 10PH until the 15th Jan (finding 65 valid blocks in 14.5 days). For the remaining 16.5 days of the month, the pool never went over 10PH (and was on average closer to 9PH) and found 57 blocks.

I personally would therefore call it luck (both good and bad) rather than being a bug in the code.

Cheers n beers

HP

P.S. In the same 2 periods in January, the BTC guild found 108 blocks and 89 blocks respectively, so our poor run in January if anything other than luck, was caused by something that effected other pools as well.

I too have been experimenting with the payouts of a few pools, mainly Slush vs BTC Guild but also to a lesser extent with Eligius, I have dabbled with a few others but will not present those numbers at this time.

In October last year, I ran all 3 guilds at the same time and when the results are scaled to make sure they all received equal hash power, I find that I have a reward ratio of 5.28:4.37:3.68 (Slush:BTC Guild:Eligius)

Since then I have been only running Slush vs BTC Guild (lthough I tracked Eligius blocks to get a longer comparison) and in the last 106 days, Slush has earned more than BTC Guild on 64 days, with BTC doing better on 42 days - although by the end of today I suspect that will be 43 to BTC Guild. In terms of earnings, this a ratio of 1:0.82 (Slush:BTC Guild) - in other words, what ever your hash power, for every £1 you could generate at Slush, the same hash power would yield £0.82 at the BTC Guild.

We all hate the 1 day+ blocks and whilst I can see a correlation between pool hash power and no. blocks found, I cannot see any real correlation between pool hash power and average reward over time since as the power goes up, the blocks go up but the reward per block goes down. Notice I did not say anything about luck since over the last 3 months, the average number of blocks per day has remained fairly constant (4.8/day for Slush and 6.3/day for BTC Guild) so has our luck - around 100%. If anyone is interested, we are currently on 5.2/day for February as confirmed by the 7 day luck value.

Basically, I have a monster spreadsheet of figures, month-by-month, pool-by-pool, block-by-block and there is nothing strange going on anywhere that I can see (except my love of spreadsheets maybe  ), so can we please stop with the conspiracy theories about our hash power of 10Ph, because they are ridiculous and I hate reading through them to get to the more interesting posts! We have had 10 blocks in a day at 8Ph and also at 12Ph but it all averages out in the end folks.

In conclusion, I have been with Slush for coming up to 2 years and have yet to find a better paying pool.

Cheers n beers for all

HP

Thanks for the reply, but please ignore my last post - total brainfart on my part!  

It was because I had been logged out of both the new and old sites when I did an F5. It happened at the same time and is strange because I have not logged out/in to either for weeks as the PC is on all the time and the browser window is always on the pool stats pages. Oh well, I'll know next time  

Cheers n beers

HP

Can I ask why has the old site stats page changed? The columns/data for Your Shares and Your BTC Reward seem to have been removed.

I was sure that I read that no changes would be made to the old site (https://mining.bitcoin.cz/stats/) as many people said they wanted to stick with using that site.

I am in the middle of running my own pool comparison and so I have a spread sheet of all blocks found at each site and my reward for each of those blocks. All of the pools I have run this test on publish different pool stats, but the one common thing published by all pools is your reward per block (it's kinda the most important piece of information) so why has Slush removed this?

I know the new site shows the block rewards, but the stats info is different so would require a new set of columns in my spread sheet and thus means that I would not have continuous data throughout my (2 months and counting) test. Any chance someone could look at the old site and re-instate the missing columns please?

Dazed and Confused

HPmuirt

Get Miner Info sent via PM as requested.

Cheers n beers

HPmuirt

P.S. I thought I would check the log as the new beta also had the reboot selected by default and found the following: -

08/12/2014 23:54:07: M's Miner Monitor v4.0b1 starting
08/12/2014 23:54:07: Initiated Ant refresh
08/12/2014 23:54:08: ERROR when querying S3:0.102 (step 1): Object reference not set to an instance of an object.
08/12/2014 23:54:08: Attempting to reboot S3:0.102 via the web because the API query errored out.
08/12/2014 23:54:08: REBOOTING S3:0.102 via SSH
08/12/2014 23:54:26: Reboot of S3:0.102 FAILED: Permission denied (password).
08/12/2014 23:54:53: ERROR when accessing API on 102: A socket operation was attempted to an unreachable network 0.0.0.102:4028
08/12/2014 23:54:53: ERROR when accessing API on 102: A socket operation was attempted to an unreachable network 0.0.0.102:4028
08/12/2014 23:54:53: ERROR when accessing API on 102: A socket operation was attempted to an unreachable network 0.0.0.102:4028
08/12/2014 23:59:11: Initiated Ant refresh
08/12/2014 23:59:11: ERROR when querying S3:0.102 (step 1): Object reference not set to an instance of an object.
08/12/2014 23:59:11: Attempting to reboot S3:0.102 via the web because the API query errored out.
08/12/2014 23:59:11: Need to reboot S3:0.102 but it hasn't been long enough since last reboot

Is the reason that the App cannot monitor unit 102 that it has not accepted the IP address even though the config screen reports the correct IP address?

No worries, what's done is done and at least I have learnt from my mistakes and so not set the SSH password, until you find the bug

The firmware is indeed the only difference as 101 is an S3+ and 102 is an older S3 running OpenWrt Barrier Breaker r38031 / LuCI Trunk (svn-r9909) firmware, but I would guess so are many of the older S3 units that are using your code.

Cheers n beers

HPmuirt

Just found and installed this nice little app but not yet read the 48 pages in this thread so apologies if the following issues are duplicates of earlier threads.

First issue is that I have 2 virtually identical AntMiner S3's on sequential IP addresses (101 and 102). All settings passwords etc. are the same and I can connect via http to both units but the App only shows 101 in the Ant Output section. The settings in the App are identical save for the IP address, Name and of course ID#. The log shows the following error message...

ERROR when querying S3:0.102 (step 1): Object reference not set to an instance of an object.
08/12/2014 17:28:22: Attempting to reboot S3:0.102 via the web because the API query errored out.
08/12/2014 17:28:22: REBOOTING S3:0.102 via SSH
08/12/2014 17:28:44: Reboot of S3:0.102 FAILED: Permission denied (password).


This leads on to my second issue - why is reboot on error enabled by default? Surely anything like this should by default be disabled, so that the user must choose to enable if required? This reason I am annoyed about this point is that the above log is taken from my second attempt to get 102 working. On my first attempt, I set the correct SSH password and the app rebooted my AntMiner - Ahhhhhh I was in the middle of a longevity test so not a happy bunny 

Happy to provide any screenshots or info if you require on the first point.

Many thanks in advance

Cheers n beers

HPmuirt

Many thanks for your reply - very helpful  

I have now managed to sign the message in my blockchain wallet and thus change my settings on Eligius. Also, quite opposite to some recent posts, received the payment to my Blockchain account within an hour or two, so all is now good.

Cheers n beers

HPmuirt

Hello,

I opened a support ticket many days ago but have had no response so trying on here. When you first come the website it says in BIG letters "You do not need to (and cannot) register an account on Eligius." but now it wants me to log in to track the status of my support query....have I missed something?

My original question went something like this.....
  
I am very new to mining (how many times must support emails start with that line?) but on reading your site, you list Blockchain as one of the compatible wallets, so that is what I used (an online wallet rather than downloading full blockchain). However, I now understand that since I have used a Blockchain wallet address as my mining address with this pool, I cannot sign the message in bitcoin-qt to change my settings to add a NMC address - or make any other changes for that matter, such as changing the pay out threshold.
  
I see that one cannot have funds moved to a new address and I understand that policy, so all I can think is that I must withdrawn my funds to the Blockchain wallet and start a new mining account with a Bitcoin-qt address (effectively delete old account and start again) but that has at least 2 issues as I see it: -

1. I will have to start again and so have lost the last week building up my rewarded shares percentage.
2. How do I access the Namecoins already mined during this time?
  
Is there another way around this please? I have tried adding my Blockchain address to the bitcoin-qt address book but it will not let me verify the message giving the error message "Private key for entered address is not available".
  
Many thanks in advance of any response/help

HPmuirt

Thanks for the replies chaps. Not sure why, but the solution seems to have been to point at the EU server (As suggested by Sir Alan)....see below: -

http://www.hpmuirt.com/images/temp/BTC%20Guild%2072%20hours-2.JPG

As you can see, as soon as I switched to that server, my reported speed and thus rewards came back up to normal and have remained there.

Cheers n beers

HPmuirt

Thanks for the replies gentlemen, this is very strange.

My stats went down from 230GH/s to 170GH/s and have remained at that level for 36 hours now, whereas the other half of my hash power going to slush has remained constant, as has the S3 itself which is sitting at 465GH/s. I could understand if the Slush stats had gone up (compensation for low BTC Guild) or down (AntMiner/connection issue) but since everything else remains the same, I am (easily) confused

http://www.hpmuirt.com/images/temp/BTC%20Guild%2072%20hours.JPG

I have switched over to the EU server and will see what happens.

Cheers n beers

HPmuirt

Greetings,

Has anyone else noticed a sudden decrease in their worker charts as of around 4pm (GMT) yesterday?

I have an Antminer S3 pointed at Slush and BTC Guild in balance mode and both the miner stats and Slush's stats report a constant 230GH/s to each site, but the BTC Guild charts show a sudden drop down to around 170GH/s and I cannot work out why, so wanted to see if it was a reporting issue for everyone or a problem somewhere for me.

Cheers n beers

HPmuirt