After a few days, it is safe to say, that merged mining implementation works really well.
Already over 20 nmc blocks where found, distributed on double geometric method and converted to btc for payout. This should be a nice boost for your mining rewards.
We recently added luck graphs for each blockchain, if you are interested:
https://yourbtc.net/content/luck-bitcoin
https://yourbtc.net/content/luck-namecoin
Topic: [204 GH/s] yourbtc.net closing it's doors on 2011-12-08 - page 7. (Read 19910 times)
Also, at the current rate, are you breaking even with a 2% donation from miners or would that need to be increased?
If you check out http://yourbtc.net/content/overview-bitcoin you'll see that the actual donation is much less than 2%.
But isn't that just because some of you have changed your donation to 0%?
Also, at the current rate, are you breaking even with a 2% donation from miners or would that need to be increased?
If you check out http://yourbtc.net/content/overview-bitcoin you'll see that the actual donation is much less than 2%.
and it should be done purely to pay for server costs and for your time.
I disagree. A fee should also be taken for the risk. It doesn't have to be a high fee if planned properly.I don't doubt that, for DGM, the best approach in the long term would be to change a fee to offset the intrinsic pool operator risk. In the reasonably short term (order months - sorry I wasn't clear) I think it will be tough for a small pool that needs income to survive. In this context it might make sense to start requiring a fee but I feel such a fee should be used as efficiently as possible. I'd rather see it all spent on the server and operator's time and have the parameters of DGM tweaked so that the risk is covered by donations. This will mean higher share variance for a lower fee and I must admit I'm biased towards such models.
That said, if this pool started charging a fee to offset pool operator risk I'd still continue to use it so I'm probably best ignored.
and it should be done purely to pay for server costs and for your time.
I disagree. A fee should also be taken for the risk. It doesn't have to be a high fee if planned properly.Can someone explain why the risk is greater for urstroyer at higher hashrates? Just because there are more members and if the pool gets unlucky then a percentage of the payout comes from his pocket (which could be a large amount if we are going through lots of blocks)?
Yes, that's basically it. With more miners there's more money passed around and more to lose if the pool gets unlucky. More formally, the variance of the number of blocks found is proportional to the hashrate. But the relative variance is inversely proportional to the hashrate, so with proper planning more hashrate is a good thing.
Also, at the current rate, are you breaking even with a 2% donation from miners or would that need to be increased?
Can someone explain why the risk is greater for urstroyer at higher hashrates? Just because there are more members and if the pool gets unlucky then a percentage of the payout comes from his pocket (which could be a large amount if we are going through lots of blocks)?
Sorry, I'm still catching up on the mathematics of all of this
Sorry, I'm still catching up on the mathematics of all of this
Registration still open until the pool reaches 100 Ghash/s.
Thats the point were i have to figure out if current donations are enough to compensate the risk i'am taking to keep paying rewards if pool runs unlucky.
Thats the point were i have to figure out if current donations are enough to compensate the risk i'am taking to keep paying rewards if pool runs unlucky.
If you are running into problems with pool risk at large hashrates then perhaps you can tweak the parameters of DGM (making it more PPLNS like) so that you have less risk.
I would imagine that a fee should be brought in at some point and it should be done purely to pay for server costs and for your time. At the moment you (and arguably gigavps) are providing a free service and you're simply not going to be able to sustain this on donations alone.
Registration still open until the pool reaches 100 Ghash/s.
Thats the point were i have to figure out if current donations are enough to compensate the risk i'am taking to keep paying rewards if pool runs unlucky.
Thats the point were i have to figure out if current donations are enough to compensate the risk i'am taking to keep paying rewards if pool runs unlucky.
Very kind of you to use the word "We" there.
Every share helps.
We may end up getting a few more shares in the near future. RFCPool.com has just closed and this small pool was PPLNS. I doubt all of these miners are going to suddenly change to PPS+fee or Proportional. However, I expect many will be looking specifically for PPLNS and so will go to mineco.in or simplecoin.us rather than here.
Ah well, there's always hope.
Very kind of you to use the word "We" there.
Every share helps.
Wow!!! We just knocked down two blocks in 30 minutes! 
Let's keep'em coming.
Let's keep'em coming.
Very kind of you to use the word "We" there.
Wow!!! We just knocked down two blocks in 30 minutes!
Let's keep'em coming.
Let's keep'em coming.
While I agree the circumstances are a bit unusual, I have had multiple dealings with urstroyer and know that he is doing everything in his power to make sure the pool runs smoothly and wants the pool to succeed.
To be sure, I do not doubt urstroyer's integrity one whit. I only meant to highlight what is almost certainly a technical problem. I care far more about the reputation and apparent professionalism of the pool than I do about any personal lost income.
I'm glad it appears to be fixed and hope that this pool proves itself solid in the next few weeks.
This very long round could be a result of a bug at recent psj release which only affected nmc blockchain.
See this post here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.599834
If there was a technical issue, it's clearly fixed now.
Payed out 20 BTC on my own and several nmc blocks found before frontend was finished (transaction loyality bonus). I think it should cover it really well.
See this post here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.599834
If there was a technical issue, it's clearly fixed now.
Payed out 20 BTC on my own and several nmc blocks found before frontend was finished (transaction loyality bonus). I think it should cover it really well.
I'm glad to see things seem to be back to normal.
However, Namecoin block 25574 was remarkably unlucky (1304912 shares all at difficulty 156504.39 puts this block in the top 0.024% of unlucky blocks). Of course, such poor luck can happen but such an extreme example occuring at the same time as the reward system was changed and the pool was having problems with stats is too much to ignore.
Have you checked for any missing Namecoin blocks? Do you keep a log of the nonces for shares (or is such a log automatically kept by PoolServerJ)?
While I agree the circumstances are a bit unusual, I have had multiple dealings with urstroyer and know that he is doing everything in his power to make sure the pool runs smoothly and wants the pool to succeed.
Backround script for share calculation messed up.
Its running smooth again. Every submitted share was credited, no worries. Got some blocks!
Its running smooth again. Every submitted share was credited, no worries. Got some blocks!
I'm glad to see things seem to be back to normal.
However, Namecoin block 25574 was remarkably unlucky (1304912 shares all at difficulty 156504.39 puts this block in the top 0.024% of unlucky blocks). Of course, such poor luck can happen but such an extreme example occuring at the same time as the reward system was changed and the pool was having problems with stats is too much to ignore.
Have you checked for any missing Namecoin blocks? Do you keep a log of the nonces for shares (or is such a log automatically kept by PoolServerJ)?
Backround script for share calculation messed up.
Its running smooth again. Every submitted share was credited, no worries. Got some blocks!
Its running smooth again. Every submitted share was credited, no worries. Got some blocks!
Is something wrong with the site? My hashrate is stuck at Hashrate: 1.46 GHash/s. Hm... it seems to me top 20 is also frozen. Is it just me?
The pool server is accepting shares but it looks like one of the jobs for calculating the hash rate is stuck. Just keep mining and I'll ping urstroyer on IRC.
Is something wrong with the site? My hashrate is stuck at Hashrate: 1.46 GHash/s. Hm... it seems to me top 20 is also frozen. Is it just me?
In the future, PPS pools won't be literally "specified payment per share", but rather "specified fraction of share's value per share". That is, pB(1-f) given immediately per share where f is known and fixed, p changes every two weeks and B is variable.
Agreed. By PPS I was referring to a fixed amount per share. I agree that a variable share value would make sense and that this could well be considered PPS (the miner has variance no worse than that forced by share difficulty and the pool takes the risk for a fee). I have a similar ambiguity/confusion problem with the term PPLNS. Ah well.
If the thermal cycle cost is higher than the electricity cost, and there are really no other profitable things to do, they will probably keep mining 24/7 after all.
True but that's an interesting 'if'. There are many ways the market might address this oscillation.
Jump to: