Let's do this.
agreed!!
Topic: [1050 TH] BitMinter.com [1% PPLNS,Pays TxFees +MergedMining,Stratum,GBT,vardiff] - page 302. (Read 837101 times)
August 10, 2012, 01:35:37 PM
August 10, 2012, 07:06:41 AM
I think the large 10Ghash+ people should donate the most, spread the wealth around. as they're getting the most benefit from the service if its stable, etc
haha
lol hahaand the small hashers are the ones that usually take the most support
ppl over 10Ghash generally have it sorted and are low maintainance.
August 10, 2012, 06:56:03 AM
I think the large 10Ghash+ people should donate the most, spread the wealth around. as they're getting the most benefit from the service if its stable, etc
haha
haha
August 10, 2012, 06:21:10 AM
Wellcome to BitMinter. To be fair, there is nothing wrong with a small fee. Graet invested a lot of time and money in his pool. I donate 2.5% BTC and all my NMC to DrHaribo. It's nice when something is free but someone has always to pay the bill to keep it running.
+1
And lol, its exactly the same settings as me.
Doc must be on his way to become a namecoin millionaire
August 10, 2012, 05:50:31 AM
Wellcome to BitMinter. To be fair, there is nothing wrong with a small fee. Graet invested a lot of time and money in his pool. I donate 2.5% BTC and all my NMC to DrHaribo. It's nice when something is free but someone has always to pay the bill to keep it running.
August 10, 2012, 05:20:50 AM
I just joined Bitminter after OzCoin was attacked and they said they're introducing fees
August 10, 2012, 02:07:19 AM
me too
August 09, 2012, 11:31:00 PM
So am I.
August 09, 2012, 03:28:25 PM
August 09, 2012, 09:42:24 AM
I'm all for it.
August 09, 2012, 06:35:27 AM
August 09, 2012, 05:40:02 AM
Let's do this.
August 09, 2012, 05:03:37 AM
So to give an example:
If you mine for one hour one day from 01:00 to 02:00 then pay for that work can come in until roughly 07:00. With the proposed change this work could get paid until 12:00. It's a bit annoying waiting longer to be paid but it also gives you a much more stable pay because the coins from a block get spread out across more proofs of work / time.
Put another way, currently when we create a block the miners who were active in the last 5 hours prior to that will get paid. With the proposed change miners who were active in the last 10 hours get paid. (number of hours varying with hashrate though)
It's the same amount of money and 24/7 miners probably won't notice anything. But it will help even out the tops and valleys of the reward graph which should be helpful for non-fulltime miners.
Interesting idea, organofcorti, varying N with hashrate automatically.
If you mine for one hour one day from 01:00 to 02:00 then pay for that work can come in until roughly 07:00. With the proposed change this work could get paid until 12:00. It's a bit annoying waiting longer to be paid but it also gives you a much more stable pay because the coins from a block get spread out across more proofs of work / time.
Put another way, currently when we create a block the miners who were active in the last 5 hours prior to that will get paid. With the proposed change miners who were active in the last 10 hours get paid. (number of hours varying with hashrate though)
It's the same amount of money and 24/7 miners probably won't notice anything. But it will help even out the tops and valleys of the reward graph which should be helpful for non-fulltime miners.
Interesting idea, organofcorti, varying N with hashrate automatically.
August 09, 2012, 04:23:46 AM
To clarify the clarification - it takes each share twice as long to receive it's complete payment.
I don't mine here (or at all any more) but I think it's a good idea. I think at this hashrate 2n is a good trade-off. In future though, you could maintain a particular level of variance for miners by reducing or increasing n with increases or decreases in average hashrate. This way the time based variance (which reduces with hashrate) could offset the score based variance.
edit: I think.
I don't mine here (or at all any more) but I think it's a good idea. I think at this hashrate 2n is a good trade-off. In future though, you could maintain a particular level of variance for miners by reducing or increasing n with increases or decreases in average hashrate. This way the time based variance (which reduces with hashrate) could offset the score based variance.
edit: I think.
August 09, 2012, 04:14:53 AM
Downside: it would take twice as long to get paid for work you did (10 hours instead of 5 hours at the current pool hash rate). A bit annoying for everyone perhaps.
Perhaps you should clarify that a bit; if you mine non stop, your payout isnt actually delayed, this only affects you when you just joined, hop, or throw a gpumax purchase at it. A non stop miner would still get paid immediately after each block, or after 120 confirmations, same as now.
Anyway, Im for lowering variability, but since Im not your typical nonstop miner, not sure my vote counts
. August 09, 2012, 04:09:59 AM
We've been running PPLNS with N = Difficulty since the pool was tiny and lately it has grown quite a lot. What do you think about using N = 2 x Difficulty?
This means doubling the size of a shift, which would have a couple of consequences.
Upside: variance for a proof of work would go down. This won't matter to 24/7 miners, but if you mine part time in the pool you would get much more stable pay. Same thing for a GPUmax run; less chance of a big return but also less chance of small or zero return.
Downside: it would take twice as long to get paid for work you did (10 hours instead of 5 hours at the current pool hash rate). A bit annoying for everyone perhaps.
Opinions? Questions? Write in the newbie thread if you don't have access to post here yet.
This means doubling the size of a shift, which would have a couple of consequences.
Upside: variance for a proof of work would go down. This won't matter to 24/7 miners, but if you mine part time in the pool you would get much more stable pay. Same thing for a GPUmax run; less chance of a big return but also less chance of small or zero return.
Downside: it would take twice as long to get paid for work you did (10 hours instead of 5 hours at the current pool hash rate). A bit annoying for everyone perhaps.
Opinions? Questions? Write in the newbie thread if you don't have access to post here yet.
August 05, 2012, 09:29:50 AM
Nicely done, streblo
Mini update on the website,
Updated description at https://bitminter.com/api
This should be backwards compatible. Also fixed some links going to other sites that are no longer operational.
Mini update on the website,
- Added pagination and block type filtering to /api/pool/blocks, also added block header hash to the data returned.
- Added pagination to /api/pool/shifts
Updated description at https://bitminter.com/api
This should be backwards compatible. Also fixed some links going to other sites that are no longer operational.
August 05, 2012, 04:47:16 AM
Bam! My first block, I'm honored 
https://bitminter.com/block/btc/192388
Edit: When it rains it pours: https://bitminter.com/block/nmc/68565
https://bitminter.com/block/btc/192388
Edit: When it rains it pours: https://bitminter.com/block/nmc/68565
August 05, 2012, 02:33:12 AM
Great I fully get it now
August 05, 2012, 01:27:36 AM
Just added some commands for MintBot in the IRC chat room: !help !mtgox !hashrate. More to come later. But have some more important things to implement first.
And yes, a solution for pesky namecoins will come too.
And yes, a solution for pesky namecoins will come too.
Very Cool! can't wait to see whats next.
Jump to: