Topic: [0 GH/s 0% fee SMPPS] ArsBitcoin mining pool! - page 35. (Read 123775 times)
Finally a test for falblack - I am now on btc guild again autoamtically trying out every couple of seconds. Nice.
Yeah, BT is working on it as we speak.
Ars currently down?
I've been following p2pool also and am running a cpuminer on it. Scalability is still concerning; how many mini nodes can branch off and still maintain reasonable propagation? The structure just seems too flat. I could see advanced improvements in network latency alleviating that to some degree.
Yeah, no idea if this will work or be scalable, but its worth a shot!
As a side note, some of my personal miners are trying out the p2pool here: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=18313.0 I think it would be good for everyone if mining was less centralized than it is now, so please help test this out if you can!
I've been following p2pool also and am running a cpuminer on it. Scalability is still concerning; how many mini nodes can branch off and still maintain reasonable propagation? The structure just seems too flat. I could see advanced improvements in network latency alleviating that to some degree.
Hi everyone,
I appreciate all the talk about helping me pay for the pool. At the current hashrate and donation percentages, I think I'm about breaking even. This is just fine with me, I don't have to make money on the pool.
My thoughts about implementing a mandatory fee are actually more to help control the size of the pool. I don't like providing a sub-optimal service, which is what was happening before I closed registrations with the RPC errors, etc, affecting how many shares people can submit. So I want to improve the scalability. I can do this with code/DB fixes to some extent.
It also doesn't seem fair that only some people donate to help, while others get a free ride. I thought this was a good idea at first, but to me it makes the system less fair (much like pool hoppers do on a proportional pool.)
So, a mandatory fee makes it more fair for everyone, and helps keep the pool size more controllable so that those who DO want to mine here can hopefully have less issues doing so. It would also allow me to add more servers if needed in the future.
Anyways, even with all of that, I am STILL undecided, and the first priority is still to improve the scalability of the code.
As a side note, some of my personal miners are trying out the p2pool here: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=18313.0 I think it would be good for everyone if mining was less centralized than it is now, so please help test this out if you can!
Thanks
I appreciate all the talk about helping me pay for the pool. At the current hashrate and donation percentages, I think I'm about breaking even. This is just fine with me, I don't have to make money on the pool.
My thoughts about implementing a mandatory fee are actually more to help control the size of the pool. I don't like providing a sub-optimal service, which is what was happening before I closed registrations with the RPC errors, etc, affecting how many shares people can submit. So I want to improve the scalability. I can do this with code/DB fixes to some extent.
It also doesn't seem fair that only some people donate to help, while others get a free ride. I thought this was a good idea at first, but to me it makes the system less fair (much like pool hoppers do on a proportional pool.)
So, a mandatory fee makes it more fair for everyone, and helps keep the pool size more controllable so that those who DO want to mine here can hopefully have less issues doing so. It would also allow me to add more servers if needed in the future.
Anyways, even with all of that, I am STILL undecided, and the first priority is still to improve the scalability of the code.
As a side note, some of my personal miners are trying out the p2pool here: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=18313.0 I think it would be good for everyone if mining was less centralized than it is now, so please help test this out if you can!
Thanks
If the transaction fees are removed, then do this (1% taken for server)
You will earn (1 / difficulty) * 49.5 BTC per share
You will earn (1 / difficulty) * 49.5 BTC per share
Quote
Transaction fees are kept by the pool (usually 0.04-0.16 BTC.)
donations should NOT be forced.
Donations aren't forced. That's why this would be called a fee.
Getting caught up in semantics is pointless - the issue still remains that the pool has operation costs that need to be covered.
Quote
Transaction fees are kept by the pool (usually 0.04-0.16 BTC.)
donations should NOT be forced.
I think BT mentioned that it costs roughly $8-$9 per day for the server costs alone. That adds up to $240-$270 a month. So with a %.5 fee, it almost covers that.
Yes, about 0.63% would cover the 13.5BTC or $270/month, all else being equal. Hmm... I think I'm going to increase my donation...
Hey BT - just go for a 1% fee. It's a good buffer if BTC languishes around the current price level and you can always lower it as the pool grows.
I thought it was a good idea when BT defaulted the donation to 1%. Because 1% seems like a fair donation. But it seems like a lot of people (especially pool hoppers) immediately changed that back to 0%. And pool hoppers were causing the spikes in traffic, which is causing RPC connection problems for everyone. It wasn't very fair for us loyal users to donate 1% or more and for the pool hoppers to get a free ride. So I'm ok with having a fee for everyone.
I think BT mentioned that it costs roughly $8-$9 per day for the server costs alone. That adds up to $240-$270 a month. So with a %.5 fee, it almost covers that.
Yes, about 0.63% would cover the 13.5BTC or $270/month, all else being equal. Hmm... I think I'm going to increase my donation...
Hey BT - just go for a 1% fee. It's a good buffer if BTC languishes around the current price level and you can always lower it as the pool grows.
At the recent Mt. Gox exchange low of approximately $13/BTC, that comes out to roughly $200/month.
I don't know what the server costs are, but from the above analysis, 0.5-1% fee implementation seems a very reasonable rate to cover bandwidth and processing expenses, as well as at least some of BT's time spent on the pool.
I don't know what the server costs are, but from the above analysis, 0.5-1% fee implementation seems a very reasonable rate to cover bandwidth and processing expenses, as well as at least some of BT's time spent on the pool.
I think BT mentioned that it costs roughly $8-$9 per day for the server costs alone. That adds up to $240-$270 a month. So with a %.5 fee, it almost covers that. I think 1% fee seems fair to cover the server costs and BT's time. Plus if there's a need increase number of servers, that will cost money too.
BT has really done a tremendous job with ArsBitcoin. I'm all for having a fee and help keep a good thing going.
Yea karma coming back for all those short rounds now. Oh well I think we have a good enough buffer (I hope).
Please feel free to correct me if my assumptions or math are wrong in any way. From the pool stats page, the latest round currently has about 3.86 million shares valued at 0.000029570125 BTC per share and a donation weight of 0.4480.
3860000 * 0.004480 = 17292.8 shares
17292.8 * 0.000029570125 = 0.511350258 BTC
This has been a very slow round, taking over 18 hours to find a new block. If the frequency remains at an average of 1 block every 24 hours, then:
0.511350258 * 30 = 15.3405075 BTC/month
At the recent Mt. Gox exchange low of approximately $13/BTC, that comes out to roughly $200/month.
I don't know what the server costs are, but from the above analysis, 0.5-1% fee implementation seems a very reasonable rate to cover bandwidth and processing expenses, as well as at least some of BT's time spent on the pool.
Aside from that, it would appear that the decline in USD/BTC rate has met with enough demand to suggest a bottom. As the rate rises, the incurred overhead costs should marginalize further, providing a much-deserved increase in return for BT.
3860000 * 0.004480 = 17292.8 shares
17292.8 * 0.000029570125 = 0.511350258 BTC
This has been a very slow round, taking over 18 hours to find a new block. If the frequency remains at an average of 1 block every 24 hours, then:
0.511350258 * 30 = 15.3405075 BTC/month
At the recent Mt. Gox exchange low of approximately $13/BTC, that comes out to roughly $200/month.
I don't know what the server costs are, but from the above analysis, 0.5-1% fee implementation seems a very reasonable rate to cover bandwidth and processing expenses, as well as at least some of BT's time spent on the pool.
Aside from that, it would appear that the decline in USD/BTC rate has met with enough demand to suggest a bottom. As the rate rises, the incurred overhead costs should marginalize further, providing a much-deserved increase in return for BT.
That current donation weight includes a lot of people who were around in the formative days who recognized a good thing and are giving large percentages to support the growth of the pool. I won't reduce my donation if a mandatory 1% is implemented. I would love to see the donation weight rise above 1% and our volume to continue to skyrocket. BT has obviously worked hard to whip this together, and he's helped me out a million times on the IRC. C'mon everyone...make it rain btc.
Please feel free to correct me if my assumptions or math are wrong in any way. From the pool stats page, the latest round currently has about 3.86 million shares valued at 0.000029570125 BTC per share and a donation weight of 0.4480.
3860000 * 0.004480 = 17292.8 shares
17292.8 * 0.000029570125 = 0.511350258 BTC
This has been a very slow round, taking over 18 hours to find a new block. If the frequency remains at an average of 1 block every 24 hours, then:
0.511350258 * 30 = 15.3405075 BTC/month
At the recent Mt. Gox exchange low of approximately $13/BTC, that comes out to roughly $200/month.
I don't know what the server costs are, but from the above analysis, 0.5-1% fee implementation seems a very reasonable rate to cover bandwidth and processing expenses, as well as at least some of BT's time spent on the pool.
Aside from that, it would appear that the decline in USD/BTC rate has met with enough demand to suggest a bottom. As the rate rises, the incurred overhead costs should marginalize further, providing a much-deserved increase in return for BT.
3860000 * 0.004480 = 17292.8 shares
17292.8 * 0.000029570125 = 0.511350258 BTC
This has been a very slow round, taking over 18 hours to find a new block. If the frequency remains at an average of 1 block every 24 hours, then:
0.511350258 * 30 = 15.3405075 BTC/month
At the recent Mt. Gox exchange low of approximately $13/BTC, that comes out to roughly $200/month.
I don't know what the server costs are, but from the above analysis, 0.5-1% fee implementation seems a very reasonable rate to cover bandwidth and processing expenses, as well as at least some of BT's time spent on the pool.
Aside from that, it would appear that the decline in USD/BTC rate has met with enough demand to suggest a bottom. As the rate rises, the incurred overhead costs should marginalize further, providing a much-deserved increase in return for BT.
Agreed here. Been extremely happy with my mining here on Ars and major props to BT for keeping all this going!
+1 for a mandatory fee of 1%. Least we can do is cover the costs of the servers and make sure things stay stable and can scale up as the pool grows.
Thanks!
+1 for a mandatory fee of 1%. Least we can do is cover the costs of the servers and make sure things stay stable and can scale up as the pool grows.
Thanks!
Make that three for the mandatory fee. You oughta' be getting paid for this, rather than paying for us to use this.
Thanks again for all the help over IRC and all the work you've put in to create this. I've got nothing but good things to say about the pool and it's members.
has the pps share rate dropped? the site says:
Current PPS Value 0.000029570125 BTC
edit
my bad difficulty just went up
Current PPS Value 0.000029570125 BTC
edit
my bad difficulty just went up
I have the required knowledge to help scale the server, it is just a lack of time to implement things at the moment. I was out of town this weekend when the server grew so much.
Right now it is all a DB scaling issue. So I can improve the front-end code to be less DB intensive, or spin up another server to handle website/stats/payout calculations. These all take time though, so I am trying to buy myself some by closing registrations.
Right now it is all a DB scaling issue. So I can improve the front-end code to be less DB intensive, or spin up another server to handle website/stats/payout calculations. These all take time though, so I am trying to buy myself some by closing registrations.
I am also thinking about the possibility of a mandatory fee in the future of 0.5% to 1%, but I am undecided.
My donations are set to 1%, so yeah.. I think you should set a mandatory fee to pay for the server.
I noticed your pool resets miner connections after 50sec (if I interpret that wireshark output correctly). I had poclbm set to request new work after 57sec, which caused the connection to drop and poclbm to reconnect every minute when I submitted no share between two getworks. I'm not sure what the default setting is, now I'm using 45sec and the connection is stable. If some miners use default ~50sec (with X-Roll-NTime), this could put some "easy to get rid of" load on the server, although probably not that much.
Have you tried reducing the priority of maintenance processes? (If those maintenance things like backups are still a problem.) I guess ionice could help.. Never tried that though.
Agreed here. Been extremely happy with my mining here on Ars and major props to BT for keeping all this going!
+1 for a mandatory fee of 1%. Least we can do is cover the costs of the servers and make sure things stay stable and can scale up as the pool grows.
Thanks!
+1 for a mandatory fee of 1%. Least we can do is cover the costs of the servers and make sure things stay stable and can scale up as the pool grows.
Thanks!
Jump to: