Top 10 pools which are "ASIC ready" (in order of size):
Top 10 pools that have had an increase in percentage of the network hashrate this week (in order of size):
There are still only a small number of ASICs running, and these are having a disproportionate affect on the network and on the pools hosting them. I expect all pools that are "ASIC ready" to displace all the "not ASIC ready" pools from the top 10.
MTRED is a bit of a mystery - where is it's increase in hashrate coming from? Has redditorex actually made it "ASIC ready" just not updated the MTRED website? Or are the GPU miners that are attempting to mine the last few coins at current difficulty jumping on to the only zero fee PPS pool?
The "unknown" portion of the pie continues to reduce. It will be interesting to see if that reduction accelerates as difficulty increases, or if the solominers and dark pools upgrade to ASICs. If they don't they were probably botnets, and we'll all be better off without them.
BitMinter's drop in hashrate is a bit of a shock. This is a pool that belongs in the top 5 but has seen a constant reduction in hashrate since their own DDoS experience a while back. I hope DrHaribo is able to turn this around. Well, I'm sure he will, since BitMinter is one of only a few "ASIC ready" pools. And in other DDoS casualty news, Coinotron is still down and under DDoS attack. This must be some kind of record, and my best wishes go out to the Coinotron team.
Ozcoin gets the "Quiet achiever" award for February. The hashrate at Ozcoin has increased consistently since well before ASICs were being used on the pool, and their percentage of the network averaged at 50% more than DeepBit for the past week. If hashrates continue to change as they have for the last four weeks, Ozcoin could be the second largest pool in the network within a month.
If DeepBit is unable to improve their "ASIC ready" status, EclipseMC or BitMinter may replace them in the top 5. A year ago, when some miners were making their stange "Boycott DeepBit" demands, no one had any idea that things could change so drastically in twelve months.
Finally - look at BTCGuild's percentage of the network history. It's actually much greater than that - more like 30% of the network. However the pool has had poor luck this week, which affects the method I use to estimate the hashrate. BTCGuild pool op eleuthria and I are working on a way to make this an accurate result rather than an estimate with confidence intervals.
As usual, please post comments if there's anything you don't understand, with which you disagree, or just think is wrong.
The charts
Table: Table of all pools with public data and their various statistics averaged for the last seven days - for smaller pools the average may be more or less than seven days, depending on number of blocks solved for the week. Network hashrate and 50BTC.com hashrate are estimates, the upper and lower 95% confidence interval bounds are included.
Figure 1: Pie chart of the percentage of network blocks hashrate by pool. "Unknown" combines those pools for which I can't scrape statistics, solominers and private pools. The percentage of network hashrate will only be approximate since the exact network hashrate is unknown.
Figure 2: Chart of network hashrate, hashrate of the largest mining pool, combined hashrates of the three largest mining pools, and a line representing 50% of the network hashrate. Handy if you're worried about 51% attacks. The upper and lower 95% confidence interval bounds for the network hashrate are in between the shaded areas.
Figure 3: Chart of chronology of pool hashrates, averaged per week.
Figure 4: Chart of average hashrates per pool per round for the week, and per 144 rounds for the network. The upper and lower 95% confidence interval bounds for the network hashrate are in between the shaded areas.
Figure 5: Chart of chronology of negative binomial CDF probability of shares submitted and blocks produced for the week.
Figure 6: Chart of chronology of round length divided by difficulty, averaged per week.
Figure 7: Chart of hashrate vs round length for hoppable pools (the larger the hashrate increase at the start of a round, the larger the loss to strategic miners).
Figure 8: Chart of fulltime miner earnings loss at a proportional pool caused by pool hoppers, expressed as expected PPS earnings for fulltime miners. Currently only for Bitlc and Deepbit. Only valid if strategic pool hopping is actually occurring (see figure 7).
Thanks to blockexplorer.com and blockchain.info for use of their network statistics.
Donations help give me the time to analyse bitcoin mining related issues and post the results.
12QxPHEuxDrs7mCyGSx1iVSozTwtquDB3r
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are switched off until the current spam storm ends.