What do you think?
2 Likes
only a matter of time
1 Like
Probably, as NoSSD has been the only pool seeing significant IF ANY growth for months now.
MadMax MIGHT eventually match their “most compressed” plots, Chia Official has only barely caught up with the PREVIOUS round of compression and seems to be short-handed to try to catch up to the current round.
1 Like
Not sure whether the data in those charts holds water. If yes, GH compressed plots are at over 10 EB right now, basically the sum of Space Pool and NoSSD. XCH.farm | Compressed Netspace Estimate
1 Like
Nossd is so easy to use and you dont need to worry if your plot get reward finding a plot, Nossd running and i dont worry about anything than Chia price. Sure i pay 3.5% fee but it is worth for paying to run system which is so easy to use.
3.5% fee is no worse than Gigahorse + pool fee.
Slightly better in most cases.
nossd is already number 1 by blocks won 164 vs 159
1 Like
I wonder where this sudden jump of +0.5 EiB in the spacepool comes from?
“All hands on deck”? 
1 Like
Blocks won maybe, hard space maybe not.
Blocks won is the only measure that counts
To you maybe, but others exist.
I’ve been trying to understand
Nossd claim to have 6 or 7 eb and that site miningpoolstats shows that they are winning about 22% of blocks…30eb x 22% = 6.6 eb so that seems reasonable.
The no.2 - 5eb and 13% of blocks does not. The website of the pool shows luck of 100% and winning 750 blocks per day ( = 16% of 4608)
So why is there a gap between the two?
16% of netspace is 4.8eb so that doesn’t look like their claimed 5.2eb either
Perhaps this explains it :
“Less than 100% means the pool was lucky. More than 100% signifies the pool was unlucky.”
The luck chart is upside down?
Yes, its effort to mint a block.
It is rather hard to compare two pools just based on a one day snapshot, moreover not taking into the account farm size distribution and stales. Space has about 10x more famers than NoSSD, what may imply having more less-efficient farms / more stales.
I took top 6 pools from that chart:
| Size | Blocks | Ratio (B/S) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| NoSSD | 6.86 | 229 | 33.4 |
| Space | 5.25 | 166 | 31.6 |
| h9 - OG | 3.34 | 101 | 30.2 |
| h9 | 2.15 | 72 | 33.5 |
| Spacefarmers | 1.05 | 18 | 17.1 |
| xchpool | 0.348 | 12 | 34.5 |
At least the day that snapshot was taken, Space was close to 10% down comparing to NoSSD, h9 and xchapool. As we had few folks posting recently about upgrading from pre-fork installation, maybe Space (having more smaller farms) reports space regardless of whether farm is sitting on pre-fork or not. Also, maybe they have more issues with stales.
Of course, all the above doesn’t answer your original question, but maybe puts into the perspective where NoSSD and Space are as far as pool efficiency comparing to a bit more pools.
It’s also hard to compare NOSSD to other pools in diskspace mined, as it’s much more likely for it’s miners to be using “compressed” plots that multiply the effective disk space.
1 Like
I think that netspace is reported in plot units (~103GB any k32 plot), not disk space.
1 Like
I thoght netspace was calcd using win rate / difficulty.
Afaik, chia doesnt care about compressed or not, but assumes space based on other neasurements.
Unless they reworked that when they incorporated comp plots, which i doubt.
1 Like
So, we agree. When the count is done, it is based on reported k-value (thus I mentioned plot units and those are later translated to GB using uncompressed sizes, …).
Most likely, there is no provision to report compression levels, as chia assumed that it was impossible. Also, compression levels are non-standard and not guaranteed to be maintained by third party providers, making them rather worthless to account for from bc point of view.
What I should have said in that previous post is that a pool is a pool, and there is no notion of physical HD space there anymore, only k-units translated to non-compressed values.
1 Like
A pool is not a pool. An NFT pool is healthy but OG pools and nossd are unhealthy. As nossd passes 8eb it is now becoming dangerous.
What can chia inc do?
1 Like
My guess is Chia doubles down on ‘51% attack isn’t possible nor is it a problem.’ And it may not be, but optics count for something.
1 Like