[20 gh] NMCBit pool 3% fee prop 6.6% PPS - page 8.

johnj

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 100

Quote from: DavinciJ15 on November 01, 2011, 08:09:03 PM

Quote from: johnj on November 01, 2011, 07:34:11 PM

Davincij,

I currently use your pool as a backup pool. Although the end fee is kinda high (~10%), you've put a lot of hard work in and I don't mind showing my support for good folk like you. I understand the 7%pps is for your protection from variance, and the 3% is because shit ain't free.

That being said, what are the odds of you switching to a smpps type payout?

SMPPS gives you the same thing as proportional since the your payment per share moves up and down with just not as much as proportional. All it does is smooths out proportional payments and thus what's the point go prop?

I'm asking because I don't see the attraction.

Ahh, I may be using the wrong term - I was under the impression that SMPSS all but removed variation. Such as Luke-Jr's pool.

The attraction I was aiming for was if somehow we could reduce that 7% from the pure pps system.

But perhaps I'm misunderstanding how those other payout methods work. In either case I'll support your pool.

bitlane

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 250

I heart thebaron

Quote from: DavinciJ15 on November 01, 2011, 06:29:20 PM

I have enabled it try it now. My time out is time=23.661 ms from my house.

I actually have a lower PING to you, than the other Pool I used......

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
coinserver4.nmcbit.com
Reply from 107.20.142.218: bytes=32 time=79ms TTL=51
Reply from 107.20.142.218: bytes=32 time=86ms TTL=51
Reply from 107.20.142.218: bytes=32 time=81ms TTL=51
Reply from 107.20.142.218: bytes=32 time=76ms TTL=51

Ping statistics for 107.20.142.218:
   Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
   Minimum = 76ms, Maximum = 86ms, Average = 80ms
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
My 'other' Pool (repost from previous page)
Reply from 1xx.x0.xx.1xx: bytes=32 time=94ms TTL=55
Reply from 1xx.x0.xx.1xx: bytes=32 time=91ms TTL=55
Reply from 1xx.x0.xx.1xx: bytes=32 time=95ms TTL=55
Reply from 1xx.x0.xx.1xx: bytes=32 time=89ms TTL=55

Ping statistics for 1xx.x0.xx.1xx:
   Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
   Minimum = 89ms, Maximum = 95ms, Average = 92ms

DeathAndTaxes

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1079

Gerald Davis

Quote from: DavinciJ15 on November 01, 2011, 08:09:03 PM

Quote from: johnj on November 01, 2011, 07:34:11 PM

Davincij,

I currently use your pool as a backup pool. Although the end fee is kinda high (~10%), you've put a lot of hard work in and I don't mind showing my support for good folk like you. I understand the 7%pps is for your protection from variance, and the 3% is because shit ain't free.

That being said, what are the odds of you switching to a smpps type payout?

SMPPS gives you the same thing as proportional since the your payment per share moves up and down with just not as much as proportional. All it does is smooths out proportional payments and thus what's the point go prop?

I'm asking because I don't see the attraction.

PROP = I have too many Bitcoins I enjoy being robbed blind by poolhoppers (speaking as an ex-poolhopper).
SMPPS = I want to keep fees low so I accept slightly higher volatility but still want my fair share.

DavinciJ15

hero member

Activity: 780

Merit: 510

Bitcoin - helping to end bankster enslavement.

Quote from: johnj on November 01, 2011, 07:34:11 PM

Davincij,

I currently use your pool as a backup pool. Although the end fee is kinda high (~10%), you've put a lot of hard work in and I don't mind showing my support for good folk like you. I understand the 7%pps is for your protection from variance, and the 3% is because shit ain't free.

That being said, what are the odds of you switching to a smpps type payout?

SMPPS gives you the same thing as proportional since the your payment per share moves up and down with just not as much as proportional. All it does is smooths out proportional payments and thus what's the point go prop?

I'm asking because I don't see the attraction.

johnj

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 100

Davincij,

I currently use your pool as a backup pool. Although the end fee is kinda high (~10%), you've put a lot of hard work in and I don't mind showing my support for good folk like you. I understand the 7%pps is for your protection from variance, and the 3% is because shit ain't free.

That being said, what are the odds of you switching to a smpps type payout?

DavinciJ15

hero member

Activity: 780

Merit: 510

Bitcoin - helping to end bankster enslavement.

Quote from: bitlane on November 01, 2011, 05:37:52 PM

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on November 01, 2011, 05:32:10 PM

I am sure there is a way to prove it mathematically but for me writing up a command line simulator seems easier.

Then I will bow out and give way to the skillz Wink

....because anything more than a simple bat file or spreadsheet and I will be in WAY over my head...LOL

You are not over your head we all have to start at the beginning. You learn every day someone is kind enough to spend the time and teach you. Most people don't.

I appreciate everything you have done to point out this issue to me, most people would have said nothing and left the pool. You took the time to inform me of a problem and it means a lot to me.

Thank you.

Davinci

DavinciJ15

hero member

Activity: 780

Merit: 510

Bitcoin - helping to end bankster enslavement.

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on November 01, 2011, 05:32:10 PM

Quote from: bitlane on November 01, 2011, 05:25:30 PM

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on November 01, 2011, 05:10:30 PM

How much variance one should see in 24 hours I am not sure. I think there is something beyond standard variance just be aware variance does exist.

I admit, I am definately aware of it....but just not +/-20% worth using PPS (or so I would hope....lol)

Yeah I am not sure what the standard deviation would be over say 1 hour, 6 hours, 24 hours, 7 days, 30 days, etc. If someone is interested they could write up a simple simulator. I am sure there is a way to prove it mathematically but for me writing up a command line simulator seems easier.

The 20% deviation is over 2016 shares.

DavinciJ15

hero member

Activity: 780

Merit: 510

Bitcoin - helping to end bankster enslavement.

Quote from: bitlane on November 01, 2011, 04:50:00 PM

Quote from: DavinciJ15 on November 01, 2011, 02:22:56 PM

Mining for a bitcoin you a variance has high as 20% in ether direction. Thus your test needs to be carried out over a long period of time to be valid as one pool you can have many shares found fast and another be unlucky and find shares slower.

Doesn't that kinda defeat the sole purpose of PPS mining ? I don't see how a variance of up to 20% would ever come into play, especially with PPS and the fact that current mining software has built-in work-unit timeouts (60secs by default in CGMiner). I just don't see it.....

Quote from: DavinciJ15 on November 01, 2011, 02:22:56 PM

I will run my test if I find nothing I will assume it's a latency issue. Can you give me the ping time for my pool and the comparison pool?

Unfortunately I am unable to ping anything on/inside your domain. No reply, all timeouts....obviously security on your end.

However, quick ping stats to the 'other' server (with a bit of anonymity to keep this from looking like a You vs. Them competition):

Quote

Pinging xxx.xxx [1xx.x0.xx.1xx] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 1xx.x0.xx.1xx: bytes=32 time=94ms TTL=55
Reply from 1xx.x0.xx.1xx: bytes=32 time=91ms TTL=55
Reply from 1xx.x0.xx.1xx: bytes=32 time=95ms TTL=55
Reply from 1xx.x0.xx.1xx: bytes=32 time=89ms TTL=55

Ping statistics for 1xx.x0.xx.1xx:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 89ms, Maximum = 95ms, Average = 92ms

Hope that helps, atleast a bit.....as again, your servers do not respond to my pings.

I have enabled it try it now. My time out is time=23.661 ms from my house.

bitlane

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 250

I heart thebaron

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on November 01, 2011, 05:32:10 PM

I am sure there is a way to prove it mathematically but for me writing up a command line simulator seems easier.

Then I will bow out and give way to the skillz Wink

....because anything more than a simple bat file or spreadsheet and I will be in WAY over my head...LOL

DeathAndTaxes

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1079

Gerald Davis

Quote from: bitlane on November 01, 2011, 05:25:30 PM

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on November 01, 2011, 05:10:30 PM

How much variance one should see in 24 hours I am not sure. I think there is something beyond standard variance just be aware variance does exist.

I admit, I am definately aware of it....but just not +/-20% worth using PPS (or so I would hope....lol)

Yeah I am not sure what the standard deviation would be over say 1 hour, 6 hours, 24 hours, 7 days, 30 days, etc. If someone is interested they could write up a simple simulator. I am sure there is a way to prove it mathematically but for me writing up a command line simulator seems easier.

bitlane

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 250

I heart thebaron

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on November 01, 2011, 05:10:30 PM

How much variance one should see in 24 hours I am not sure. I think there is something beyond standard variance just be aware variance does exist.

I admit, I am definately aware of it....but just not +/-20% worth using PPS (or so I would hope....lol)

DeathAndTaxes

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1079

Gerald Davis

Quote from: bitlane on November 01, 2011, 04:50:00 PM

Quote from: DavinciJ15 on November 01, 2011, 02:22:56 PM

Mining for a bitcoin you a variance has high as 20% in ether direction. Thus your test needs to be carried out over a long period of time to be valid as one pool you can have many shares found fast and another be unlucky and find shares slower.

Doesn't that kinda defeat the sole purpose of PPS mining ? I don't see how a variance of up to 20% would ever come into play, especially with PPS and the fact that current mining software has built-in work-unit timeouts (60secs by default in CGMiner). I just don't see it.....

There is always variance. Each individual hash has roughly a 1 in 2^32 chance of being a valid share (1/4294967296).

On average you will find one share every 4294967296 hashes but you won't find one share every 4294967296 hashes. There is still a random element, you could find two shares back to back or not find any shares in 40 billion hashes.

How much variance one should see in 24 hours I am not sure. I think there is something beyond standard variance just be aware variance does exist.

bitlane

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 250

I heart thebaron

Quote from: DavinciJ15 on November 01, 2011, 02:22:56 PM

Mining for a bitcoin you a variance has high as 20% in ether direction. Thus your test needs to be carried out over a long period of time to be valid as one pool you can have many shares found fast and another be unlucky and find shares slower.

Doesn't that kinda defeat the sole purpose of PPS mining ? I don't see how a variance of up to 20% would ever come into play, especially with PPS and the fact that current mining software has built-in work-unit timeouts (60secs by default in CGMiner). I just don't see it.....

Quote from: DavinciJ15 on November 01, 2011, 02:22:56 PM

I will run my test if I find nothing I will assume it's a latency issue. Can you give me the ping time for my pool and the comparison pool?

Unfortunately I am unable to ping anything on/inside your domain. No reply, all timeouts....obviously security on your end.

However, quick ping stats to the 'other' server (with a bit of anonymity to keep this from looking like a You vs. Them competition):

Quote

Pinging xxx.xxx [1xx.x0.xx.1xx] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 1xx.x0.xx.1xx: bytes=32 time=94ms TTL=55
Reply from 1xx.x0.xx.1xx: bytes=32 time=91ms TTL=55
Reply from 1xx.x0.xx.1xx: bytes=32 time=95ms TTL=55
Reply from 1xx.x0.xx.1xx: bytes=32 time=89ms TTL=55

Ping statistics for 1xx.x0.xx.1xx:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 89ms, Maximum = 95ms, Average = 92ms

Hope that helps, atleast a bit.....as again, your servers do not respond to my pings.

DavinciJ15

hero member

Activity: 780

Merit: 510

Bitcoin - helping to end bankster enslavement.

Quote from: bitlane on November 01, 2011, 01:44:57 PM

So, assuming all of the above to be accurate, my NMC earnings would have to have been OVER 12.56% of total daily BTC to break even.

Mining for a bitcoin you a variance has high as 20% in ether direction. Thus your test needs to be carried out over a long period of time to be valid as one pool you can have many shares found fast and another be unlucky and find shares slower.

With that said I would prefer your test gave my pool more than 13.67 hours but I will assume there is still a problem. If you are willing to work with me to resolve it.

I will run my test if I find nothing I will assume it's a latency issue.

Can you give me the ping time for my pool and the comparison pool?

bitlane

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 250

I heart thebaron

Here are the last set of figures, NOT INCLUDING NMC (as it seemed pointless considering the BTC share gap):

NMCBIT (merged mining, but NO NMC added to totals) 9.6% total fees:
13.67hrs = 41507 total BTC shares = 1.5612433725 (1.60952925 minus 3%)
= 3036.36 BTC Shares/Hour @ (PPS-3%) 0.000037613977648747 = 0.1142095771734067 BTC/hr Earnings = 2.741029852161761 BTC/day/24hrs (all fees accounted for)

COMPARISON POOL (no merged mining) 5% total fees:
25.50hrs = 84389 total BTC shares = 3.33079136 (0.0000394694967.../share)
= 3309.37 BTC Shares/Hour @ 0.00003946949672652 = 0.1306191683817773 BTC/hr Earnings = 3.134860041162655 BTC/day/24hrs (all fees accounted for)

2.741029852161761 BTC/day/24hrs (all fees accounted for) ...VS... 3.134860041162655 BTC/day/24hrs (all fees accounted for)
= = = = = = = = = = = = (equals) = = = = = 12.56% or 0.393830189 Daily loss average on BTC.

***NO NMC WAS USED TO OFFSET ANY BALANCE**

So, assuming all of the above to be accurate, my NMC earnings would have to have been OVER 12.56% of total daily BTC to break even.

DavinciJ15

hero member

Activity: 780

Merit: 510

Bitcoin - helping to end bankster enslavement.

Quote from: bitlane on November 01, 2011, 01:12:22 PM

It still could be a route issue or connectivity though, right ? if you recall, coinserver4 helped me out immensly, in comparison to the main server.

Anyways, the NMCBIT data I used was the first 13hrs 40 mins (13.67 hrs) of BTC block# 22, at which point, I switched things over to compare and the 24hr data I showed above. I will paste the 25.5 hr data from my current pool test as well, as it will be ready in about 10 mins.

I will also PoolServerJ on all the different Amazon locations once I have an upgrade process in place. This means you will be able to connect to west coast server. I will also look into auto switching the nearest server so you don't need to select one near you.

bitlane

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 250

I heart thebaron

It still could be a route issue or connectivity though, right ? if you recall, coinserver4 helped me out immensly, in comparison to the main server.

Anyways, the NMCBIT data I used was the first 13hrs 40 mins (13.67 hrs) of BTC block# 22, at which point, I switched things over to compare and the 24hr data I showed above. I will paste the 25.5 hr data from my current pool test as well, as it will be ready in about 10 mins.

DavinciJ15

hero member

Activity: 780

Merit: 510

Bitcoin - helping to end bankster enslavement.

Quote from: bitlane on November 01, 2011, 12:56:17 PM

Quote from: DavinciJ15 on November 01, 2011, 11:57:46 AM

I look forward to viewing your results and I will be working on determining if your statements are true by setting up PSJ without merged mining and repeating the same tests.

Well, in all fairness, my 'statement' is really only a share per hour comparison between what I specificlly get from 2 different pools.

Over a period of 13.67 hrs, I received an average of 3010 valid shares per hour on one.

Over a period of 24.00 hrs, I received an average of 3320 valid shares per hour from the other (was 3330/hr @ 14hrs, current at posting this, 3210/hr after service disruption & maintenance by pool OP).

As far as them being true.....the data and payouts speak for themselves, part of the data you already have access to.

Keep in mind finding a share also has to do with luck and you will see a variance in a 1 hour test. With that said I'm going to assume your issue is legitimate as I have felt the same way about the amount of BTCs I earned, but since I have always mined proportional it's not the same.

I am going to do an upgrade of PoolServerJ to Merged-mined version tonight if all goes well I will run some tests. I would wait and upgrade after the test but the new version will help improve the pool's luck.

Regards

Davinci

bitlane

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 250

I heart thebaron

Quote from: DavinciJ15 on November 01, 2011, 11:57:46 AM

I look forward to viewing your results and I will be working on determining if your statements are true by setting up PSJ without merged mining and repeating the same tests.

Well, in all fairness, my 'statement' is really only a share per hour comparison between what I specificlly get from 2 different pools.

Over a period of 13.67 hrs, I received an average of 3010 valid shares per hour on first pool.

Over a period of 24.00 hrs, I received an average of 3320 valid shares per hour from the other pool (was 3330/hr @ 14hrs).
(current previous '24hr running total' at posting this, 3210/hr after service disruption & maintenance by pool OP)

As far as them being true.....the data and payouts speak for themselves, part of the data you already have access to.

DavinciJ15

hero member

Activity: 780

Merit: 510

Bitcoin - helping to end bankster enslavement.

Quote from: bitlane on November 01, 2011, 11:33:46 AM

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on November 01, 2011, 11:21:58 AM

Did that pool have merged mining? It not, then just speculating it could be something on the backend setup that was causing higher than normal stales or delays in issuing work.

That's a good possibility. The NMCBIT stales were also well within acceptable ranges (under 1%) yet the overall valid shares were approx 11.5% lower, compared to the other pool I use as reference (which I am currently mining on & monitoring for fresh data). With everything said and done (using a bit of past as well as current 'other' pool data), I actually profited 8.5% less on NMCBIT (with merged mining) than I would have if I had used the other pool in question, which is not even doing merged mining at the moment.

Again, everything 100% same, except for Pool address.....

My 24hr monitoring of the 'other' pool ends in about 20mins, so I will recalculate everything then and report back.

I look forward to viewing your results and I will be working on determining if your statements are true by setting up PSJ without merged mining and repeating the same tests.

To help you figure stuff out I do a targeted 24hr query if you give me the times and miner usernames used for your test thus giving you accurate sums to compare.

Regards

Davinci

Topic: [20 gh] NMCBit pool 3% fee prop 6.6% PPS - page 8. (Read 63735 times)