Pages

▼

Sunday, 25 August 2013

August 25th 2013 weekly pool and network statistics

Welcome, miners.

Changelog:
  • Nil
Usual pools missing from results:
  • Nil
Errors:
  • Nil

Pools with coinbase signature:


Pool hopping:
  • Nil.

 1. Deepbit is at 0.29% of the network
Only a year ago Deepbit was one of the top hashrate pools with 20% of the network. 18 months ago it was at 30% of the network. Now it is one hundredth the size at 0.29% of the network. The are many reasons for this drop, but I think the main thing for pool operators to keep in mind is to constantly innovate, keep ahead of the competition, and only use a non-exploitable reward method.


2. bghash.io
I turns out that the entity that had been signing "bghash.io" in the coinbase and paying out to 1CjPR7Z5ZSyWk6WtXvSFgkptmpoi4UM9BC is none other than bitfury's private pool, GHash.io. Bitfury is a manufacturer of ASIC mining devices, and if this pool is his test bed it's been running at 83 Thps for the last day or so (according to his website). I'll be contacting Bitfury to see if he'll give me access to any data for the weekly pool stats. The recent increase in the number of unknown blocks solved is mainly attributable to this pool - it has around 18% of the network at the moment.

    3. 1360 blocks solved by the network this week.
    Up from 1320 last week - the network's hashrate continues to rise exponentially without break, as it has for the last month (see the log-linear chart, figure 2). This is not a good time to have invested in mining hardware.

    Last week I estimated we see an average network hashrate of 500 Thps this week. At 490 Thps, we're almost there.


    4. BTCGuild luck
    BTCGuild had enormous luck yet again this week, with a CDF of 0.00. I have to derive the data in an unusual way for BTCGuild, so I'm a bit concerned that this luck may be incorrect. Indeed, if you look at Figure 5 for BTCGuild, you'll see that recently the CDF's have been grouped at very high or very low values. If I find some time I'll try to figure out why.


    5. The Google "+ 1" button
    The best form of feedback I get about the posts I make is from the "+ 1" button clicks at the bottom of each post. The more "+ 1" a post gets the more likely I am to post something about that in future - not much point taking the time to publish something no one finds useful or interesting. So if you find a post you like, please hit the "+ 1". The more "+ 1" a post gets, the more likely you'll see something similar in future.

    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 that of some pools 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 pool user hashrate distribution. Note that for some pools this average is over twenty four hours, some pools are averaged over an hour or more and some for only fifteen minutes, so expect some variance in the results.





















    Thanks to blockexplorer.com for use of their network statistics.

    organofcorti.blogspot.com is a reader supported blog:

    12QxPHEuxDrs7mCyGSx1iVSozTwtquDB3r
    <weeklypoolstatistics>
    at

    No comments:

    Post a Comment

    Comments are switched off until the current spam storm ends.