Topic: [18 GH][0% Fee] A1BITCOINPOOL.COM 20 BTC BONUS PROPORTIONAL POOL - page 4. (Read 9328 times)
February 01, 2012, 08:32:18 PM
I'm having an issue with lifetime shares and working on fixing them. If you login your share total for the round is under the pool total.
February 01, 2012, 08:21:10 PM
So I dumped some hashes here, and the "top 30 lifetime shares" didn't change. It should have gone up a bit for my username.
January 31, 2012, 12:37:15 AM
you are still misquoting me in order to make your point... I was refering to THE math formula that would be in affect for x hasrate on prop and nothing else.
You are still falsely accusing me of things.The formula for what? For expected reward? For variance? For the probability that you will get more than 5 BTC reward in a block? For when there are no hoppers? For when everyone else are hoppers?
I'll assume you meant "the formula for expected payout per share in a proportional pool when there are no hoppers". Yeah, this one doesn't change according to your hashrate. If you clarify what it is you want, we can find a formula for that.
January 30, 2012, 10:07:00 PM
And, the choice between PPLNS and PPS has nothing at all to do with your own hashrate
I agree with everything but this. Ony in that you misquoted me. It was not pplns verse pps. It was Prop verse pps. And the reason for only really wanting to do it with atleast x amount of hash rate is just that for me the 'difficulty/luck gambling' is not worth it if I only have .1%(as example) of total hash power. Because on lucky rounds, which is what I'd be gambling for, my take would not be enough to make it worth the risk on long rounds. I know the math formula does not change for having more hash rate but on extremely short rounds, the variance time in individual shares combined with a low hash rate adds up. I've tested it before hopping was cool.Derek
There's no "the math formula".
you are still misquoting me in order to make your point... I was refering to THE math formula that would be in affect for x hasrate on prop and nothing else.
January 29, 2012, 03:34:53 PM
Almost 3.5 Million shares, and yet the block drags on.
YEAH OH YEAH, THE BLOCK GOES ON... Sorry, I couldn't resist.
YEAH OH YEAH, THE BLOCK GOES ON... Sorry, I couldn't resist.
January 29, 2012, 01:48:34 PM
And, the choice between PPLNS and PPS has nothing at all to do with your own hashrate
I agree with everything but this. Ony in that you misquoted me. It was not pplns verse pps. It was Prop verse pps. And the reason for only really wanting to do it with atleast x amount of hash rate is just that for me the 'difficulty/luck gambling' is not worth it if I only have .1%(as example) of total hash power. Because on lucky rounds, which is what I'd be gambling for, my take would not be enough to make it worth the risk on long rounds. I know the math formula does not change for having more hash rate but on extremely short rounds, the variance time in individual shares combined with a low hash rate adds up. I've tested it before hopping was cool.Derek
There's no "the math formula". Different things have different formulas. You are entitled to wanting a gambling aspects to your mining, and you can have formulas for what your bet will look like. But based on your other posts I think you are confused about how your hashrate affects your mining prospects. In particular, note that if your hashrate is low, the chance that you will not submit any shares in a short round and thus miss out on a jackpot, is completely offset by the fact that you could find more shares than average in a short round and win an even bigger jackpot. There is no reduction in expected payout per share for having low hashrate, only higher variance (which you might consider good if you like gambling).
January 29, 2012, 01:39:11 PM
I should have been more specific in that statement. When I said it was independent of the block reward, I meant that the block reward can be anything, it doesn't depend on it being 50 BTC.
January 29, 2012, 01:04:06 PM
And, the choice between PPLNS and PPS has nothing at all to do with your own hashrate
I agree with everything but this. Ony in that you misquoted me. It was not pplns verse pps. It was Prop verse pps. And the reason for only really wanting to do it with atleast x amount of hash rate is just that for me the 'difficulty/luck gambling' is not worth it if I only have .1%(as example) of total hash power. Because on lucky rounds, which is what I'd be gambling for, my take would not be enough to make it worth the risk on long rounds. I know the math formula does not change for having more hash rate but on extremely short rounds, the variance time in individual shares combined with a low hash rate adds up. I've tested it before hopping was cool.Derek
January 29, 2012, 11:37:48 AM
I'm probably going to switch to pplns. I was thinking about making n= 1/2 of the difficulty, or is that the high for n.
I didn't post anything in this thread so far, because I thought the OP here was pretty forthcoming and I didn't want to give you a hard time. But... Seriously? You start one pool with proportional. Everyone tells you that's wrong. You switch to PPLNS. You start another pool with proportional. Everyone tells you that's wrong. You say you've learned from your mistakes from the first pool and stand behind your decision for proportional. And now you switch to PPLNS again? WTF?PPS, PPLNS, SMPPS = guaranteed hop proof AND doesn't punish miners who disconnect.
SMPPS is not hopping-proof, and it has very serious problems regardless of whether one calls it hopping-proof or not.I'm obviously of the DGM persuasion and I know very little beyond the basics of PPLNS. I know Meni has done the math behind it and supports it as a valid, non-hoppable variety of payout schemes. As such, I trust his judgement in those matters far beyond my own.
PPLNS is probably a lot easier to implement than DGM I would imagine.
I should point out that that PPLNS has several variants, the naive variant which is what people usually refer to is approximately hopping-proof, but not completely. The hopping-proof variant I stand behind is what I call unit-PPLNS, which I think might be nontrivial to implement. Another good variant is shift-PPLNS, which can be made hopping-proof without too much trouble, and is suitable for a parallel architecture. But even the naive variant is much, much better than proportional.PPLNS is probably a lot easier to implement than DGM I would imagine.
Right, so it would be fine for DGM to use a $block_reward = 40 instead of 50...
But now that I think about it, even if you changed the block reward it wouldn't matter. The score is independent of the block reward, it just divides up whatever you feed it as the reward appropriately, according to contribution.
I don't know how it's currently implemented in EMC but the accurate implementation is to use the block reward when calculating the score to award a worker for a submitted share.But now that I think about it, even if you changed the block reward it wouldn't matter. The score is independent of the block reward, it just divides up whatever you feed it as the reward appropriately, according to contribution.
You can set block reward to 40 and hand out the rest in some other way. It's possible to change the jackpot value but you need to sum it up correctly.
Actually, I would prefer Prop. If it were not for the hopping thing, you have that little gambling itch covered where finding blocks quick, pays better.... I would probably only do that if I had 5GH+ at present dif though.
Hopping-proof methods like DGM and PPLNS depend on the pool's luck, so you can have your gambling cravings satisfied. And, the choice between PPLNS and PPS has nothing at all to do with your own hashrate - variance in PPLNS depends on the pool's hashrate, not your own.Attempts to patch proportional by penalizing disconnections do not work. They do very little against hoppers, and can punish honest miners.
January 29, 2012, 10:44:20 AM
Im staying mostly off because I wanna let someone else get the 20 btc bonus other then me. Also at the end of the round I'm going to PPLNS to make it more fair. Luck just is sucking real bad right now.
January 29, 2012, 10:29:09 AM
Which of course has nothing to do with the length of the block (expressed in shares).
That said, it seems the pool operator, who has the largest hashrate, is only mining part time on his own pool. Not that I blame him, it just shows that he himself realizes proportional is madness for unlucky blocks.
That said, it seems the pool operator, who has the largest hashrate, is only mining part time on his own pool. Not that I blame him, it just shows that he himself realizes proportional is madness for unlucky blocks.
January 28, 2012, 07:29:40 PM
Tell me about it. It just keeps going and going and going and going and going and going.
January 28, 2012, 07:15:00 PM
Inaba suggested that, I'm going to wait till after the round. It wouldn't be fair to do it midround.
if this round ever ends
January 28, 2012, 12:06:17 PM
I was not implying that at all. I am saying do whatever is required to cut your losses on this round and switch. If that means paying out the current shares as PPS and ending the round, then do it.
Just because you are at 3M+ shares now doesn't mean a block is hitting soon... it could go another 2 shares or another 9 million shares.
Just because you are at 3M+ shares now doesn't mean a block is hitting soon... it could go another 2 shares or another 9 million shares.
PPS would be expensive and not necessary.
He could just pay 50 Btc split prop w/ no bonus and award the bonus on first real block
January 28, 2012, 11:01:10 AM
I was not implying that at all. I am saying do whatever is required to cut your losses on this round and switch. If that means paying out the current shares as PPS and ending the round, then do it.
Just because you are at 3M+ shares now doesn't mean a block is hitting soon... it could go another 2 shares or another 9 million shares.
Just because you are at 3M+ shares now doesn't mean a block is hitting soon... it could go another 2 shares or another 9 million shares.
January 28, 2012, 10:49:24 AM
Inaba suggested that, I'm going to wait till after the round. It wouldn't be fair to do it midround.
January 28, 2012, 10:40:46 AM
I understand the psychological need to finish the block, but you need to weigh that against the hard numbers. You're better off cutting your losses now and not falling into the Gamblers Fallacy.
And just screw everyone that produced those 3+M shares? Im sure that will ensure a loyal following.
where did he suggest that?
January 28, 2012, 05:28:17 AM
Hop profitability; for instance someone with 200MH is not going to get enough shares before x%(40%?) of current difficulty shares to make it worth moving to another pool on prop.
That is wrong.
Yep. You get whatever your proportion of the overall hashrate is times the hopper efficiency increase. Eg a 200Mhps hopper on a 20Ghps pool will get a reward of 0.2/20*1.6*50btc instead of 0.2/20*50btc (1.6 is a typical real world hopper efficiency increase for a round).
The expected efficiency increase due to hopping is does not change when average hashrate changes.
January 28, 2012, 04:07:02 AM
I understand the psychological need to finish the block, but you need to weigh that against the hard numbers. You're better off cutting your losses now and not falling into the Gamblers Fallacy.
And just screw everyone that produced those 3+M shares? Im sure that will ensure a loyal following.
January 28, 2012, 02:51:45 AM
Hop profitability; for instance someone with 200MH is not going to get enough shares before x%(40%?) of current difficulty shares to make it worth moving to another pool on prop.
That is wrong.
Jump to: