Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Adjust various CLI display ratios to arbitrary precision #6309

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Jun 16, 2021

Conversation

ribasushi
Copy link
Collaborator

Originally the deviations from using float64 were insignificant, but at
exabyte scale they start to show up. Cleanup all displays, and clarify
the expectation text, adding an extra 99.9% probability calculator to
lotus-miner info

Before:
image

After:
image

/cc @Kubuxu @nikkolasg

@ribasushi ribasushi force-pushed the feat/better_mining_projection_and_accuracy branch from 6772cae to 20fe10a Compare May 25, 2021 12:04
Originally the deviations from using float64 were insignificant, but at
exabyte scale they start to show up. Cleanup all displays, and clarify
the expectation text, adding an extra 99.9% probability calculator to
`lotus-miner info`
@ribasushi ribasushi force-pushed the feat/better_mining_projection_and_accuracy branch from 20fe10a to c2e5a83 Compare May 25, 2021 12:09
@ribasushi ribasushi requested a review from magik6k May 31, 2021 13:25
@ribasushi
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@BigLep @jennijuju I think we need to add this to the v1.11.x milestone. The power disparity after hyperdrive will make earning questions more pertinent.

@jennijuju
Copy link
Member

jennijuju commented Jun 9, 2021

@BigLep @jennijuju I think we need to add this to the v1.11.x milestone. The power disparity after hyperdrive will make earning questions more pertinent.

First of all, we normally add tickets not PR to milestone (dev work should generally starts with a ticket anyways).
I’m not too convinced this must be in v1.11.0, but if you can get anyone(that’s not head down on FNG) ✅ it, I don’t see why we won’t merge it to master! It could be nice to make it more precise.

@ribasushi
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I’m not too convinced this must be in v1.11.0,

That's fine, we'll merge it when we merge it.

@jennijuju jennijuju added P0 P0: Critical Blocker P3 P3: Might get resolved and removed P0 P0: Critical Blocker labels Jun 9, 2021
@jennijuju jennijuju requested review from arajasek and removed request for whyrusleeping June 9, 2021 14:56
@Kubuxu
Copy link
Contributor

Kubuxu commented Jun 14, 2021

Math looks correct, thanks @ribasushi for tackling this, this should reduce number of complaints of people having unlucky streaks.

@ribasushi ribasushi requested a review from Kubuxu June 15, 2021 20:02
Copy link
Contributor

@arajasek arajasek left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Math seems good, nice improvement overall!

@arajasek arajasek enabled auto-merge June 16, 2021 21:33
@arajasek arajasek merged commit 35f76f5 into master Jun 16, 2021
@arajasek arajasek deleted the feat/better_mining_projection_and_accuracy branch June 16, 2021 21:48
@arajasek arajasek mentioned this pull request Jun 16, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
P3 P3: Might get resolved
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants