Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 13:58:52 +0400 From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Parallella: Litecoin mining Rafael, On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 05:08:11AM +0100, Rafael Waldo Delgado Doblas wrote: > I mean that if there is a block found on the network, the miner stops > working on old data and begins to hash the next block. I'm getting a lot of > longpolls then is it possible that cgminer never finds a share because > doesn't mine fast enough?. This is a good point. However, please note that with mining many things are probabilistic. The time it'd take for us to find a share will vary. Although it might take e.g. 2 hours on average at the awful speed we currently have, it might also take e.g. 1 second if we're really lucky. My understanding is that when we're forced to start mining for a new block, we lose only a very small portion of work (and actually some pools accept "stale shares", I think). On one hand, yes, our "2-hour average" (or whatever) period starts anew, but on the other it does not matter for our chances to find a share on any given second. Here's an analogy: computer hardware MTBF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_time_between_failures For example, a hard disk drive might have an MTBF of 1000000 hours. If we replace HDDs every hour, will we never encounter a HDD failure? Per the MTBF model, no - we'll run into a HDD failure anyway, as long as the density function is not a constant zero for the 0 to 1 hour period. Often it is assumed to be such that we'd run into failures every 1000000 hours on average anyway. And it is actually (almost) such in cryptocurrency mining, I think. Alexander
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.