I simply read Meni's white paper which says the larger percent of the network the greater the risk. My real world numbers show that more then ten percent of the network would chew up the reserve far more quickly then under 1 % of the network would chew up the reserve number kano used. It quickly degenerated into a name calling and now it most likely will never be repaired.
Btw the pool decided to switch and survived so maybe kano was right about them not being able to sustain the payout long term.
Does not matter much as the damage is done.
Topic: [300 PH][BTC PPS 100%][EN/CN/RU] Sigmapool.com (Read 1816 times)
It's worth saying that the pool now charges 2.5% fees, and they moved from PPS to FPPS, but they didn't bother updating this in the forum, apparently just like most other pools they use the forum to get a kick-start and once they start making money they stop caring about the forum.
Which means they now operate in a less-risk environment and even by strictly following Meni's numbers they now require a lot less coins.
(6.25 *ln 1000) / (2*0.025) = 863 BTC to have a 0.1% chance going bankrupt, Meni's study is pretty accurate but very conservative, so as far as your debate with Kano I can't take sides because your approach is more of a real-life scnerio where it's very unlikely for a pool to not hit a block for 600 days while Kano's approach strictly counts on the reserve formula, now if I was to ever run a PPS pool I would certainly go by the book and apply Meni's math (which means I will never be able to run such a pool), but seeing pools like Sigma which most likely didn't have over 4000 coins when they started, it's a proof that the standards can be lowered, but as a miner I rather mine to a PPS pool which I know have a ton of reserves to reduce my risk.
Which means they now operate in a less-risk environment and even by strictly following Meni's numbers they now require a lot less coins.
(6.25 *ln 1000) / (2*0.025) = 863 BTC to have a 0.1% chance going bankrupt, Meni's study is pretty accurate but very conservative, so as far as your debate with Kano I can't take sides because your approach is more of a real-life scnerio where it's very unlikely for a pool to not hit a block for 600 days while Kano's approach strictly counts on the reserve formula, now if I was to ever run a PPS pool I would certainly go by the book and apply Meni's math (which means I will never be able to run such a pool), but seeing pools like Sigma which most likely didn't have over 4000 coins when they started, it's a proof that the standards can be lowered, but as a miner I rather mine to a PPS pool which I know have a ton of reserves to reduce my risk.
A year and a half later, the pool has not gone bankrupt and they now have close to 700PH, I wonder what went wrong with Kano's math. 
You are wrong he did the math perfectly.
But he misapplied the formula which I clearly explained to him which is the cause of him hating and attacking me.
The white paper of Meni Rosenfeld the creator of the formula that kano correctly applied states the bigger the pool is the greater the risk is.
Since the pool is only 700ph which is around .4% of the network they simply can't fall behind 4000 coins.
.4% = .576 blocks a day. back then it would be 7.2 coins a day. now it would be 3.6 coins a day
so in order to fall 4000 coins behind they would need to miss blocks 600 days in a row to get to lose 4000 coins back then
or 3.6 x 600 to lose 2000 coins now.
This is the start of my war with kano. Sad so sad.
A year and a half later, the pool has not gone bankrupt and they now have close to 700PH, I wonder what went wrong with Kano's math.
The mention of no fees has been removed from the website. I apologize to those who felt I should have done more and thank those who were instrumental in having this change made. Perhaps down the line we will get a more detailed description of how the pool rewards are distributed.
This is good news. But why did he not bother answering in this thread using his own account? He needs to clear legitimate doubts if he wants to gain the trust of the community. Not with slogans, but with transparency.
OgNasty is only a signature manager, the Sigmapool operator -SigmaPool- should have been the one addressed here.
The mention of no fees has been removed from the website. I apologize to those who felt I should have done more and thank those who were instrumental in having this change made. Perhaps down the line we will get a more detailed description of how the pool rewards are distributed.
they should have the detailed description up front, not down the road though. but yes, I do see that the zero fees has been removed.
The mention of no fees has been removed from the website. I apologize to those who felt I should have done more and thank those who were instrumental in having this change made. Perhaps down the line we will get a more detailed description of how the pool rewards are distributed.
"Personal attacks" ?
I have made an on topic claim about you regarding this pool, that you accepted payment about a lie for this pool.
It is even possible that you knew about it at the start - though your sig thread has been edited since then.
You did know about it when you posted here (since your first post subject states the lie)
You on the other hand have come up with many and various false "personal attacks" about me that also have nothing to do with this pool
I have made an on topic claim about you regarding this pool, that you accepted payment about a lie for this pool.
It is even possible that you knew about it at the start - though your sig thread has been edited since then.
You did know about it when you posted here (since your first post subject states the lie)
You on the other hand have come up with many and various false "personal attacks" about me that also have nothing to do with this pool
If you had an issue with the campaign, you could’ve sent me a PM alerting me. Saying I can be bought because I am willing to help users here by offering various services is ignorant and foolish. It was an unnecessary shot at me as I became aware of this issue. At least put up the 10 BTC to become a Donator here if you want to look down and speak negatively about my, “easy to buy "Legendary" account.”
I’ve been told the no fees claim would be removed from the website and am awaiting the update.
...
The personal attacks seem to stem from the belief that I should not give them an opportunity to address the community’s concerns before ending my involvement with their signature campaign.
"Personal attacks" ?The personal attacks seem to stem from the belief that I should not give them an opportunity to address the community’s concerns before ending my involvement with their signature campaign.
I have made an on topic claim about you regarding this pool, that you accepted payment about a lie for this pool.
It is even possible that you knew about it at the start - though your sig thread has been edited since then.
You did know about it when you posted here (since your first post subject states the lie)
You on the other hand have come up with many and various false "personal attacks" about me that also have nothing to do with this pool
I think they stem from you advertising for them before verifying the accuracy of their claims concerning their pool.
that being said, there should be no need for it get the way it did.
plain and simple Sigmapool is lying or not being clear or they are being deceitful - whichever way it wants to be said/spun.
that being said, there should be no need for it get the way it did.
plain and simple Sigmapool is lying or not being clear or they are being deceitful - whichever way it wants to be said/spun.
DING!
The personal attacks seem to stem from the belief that I should not give them an opportunity to address the community’s concerns before ending my involvement with their signature campaign.
I think they stem from you advertising for them before verifying the accuracy of their claims concerning their pool.
that being said, there should be no need for it get the way it did.
plain and simple Sigmapool is lying or not being clear or they are being deceitful - whichever way it wants to be said/spun.
i have clearly stated that i will tag the pool account if they do not remove the no fees lie as long as they don't reward the block fees, a few other members called out the same thing you did, the only difference between you and everyone else is that you took this matter personally and started to accuse campaign manager for being " easily bought" and then the whole personal drama started.
I believe if they are keeping transaction fees, it should be mentioned somewhere. Regardless of where people stand on the semantics of their advertising. If that does not become transparent, I will end my involvement with the campaign. I think that is reasonable. The personal attacks seem to stem from the belief that I should not give them an opportunity to address the community’s concerns before ending my involvement with their signature campaign.
You do realize there is still not a single list of corrections that people want to see this pool make? Any attempt I make to put one together is met with animosity and some jackass trying to inflate his ego. From my understanding, people want to see the removal of the "no fees" claim from the website and this thread as well as some sort of statement that they keep transaction fees from blocks and make users pay the network fees for withdrawals. Is that correct? If they do those three things, is this issue resolved? Will we all be happy?
what you claim to be "my understanding" is exactly what has been stated as necessary action on behalf of sigma so that they are not "lying" or "misleading" about their fees. It has been stated numerous times before you asked and several times after you asked what was needed.
... then I guess any time anyone on the forum points out on topic blatant deception and scams, their posts should be deleted since that's "personal drama"?
i have clearly stated that i will tag the pool account if they do not remove the no fees lie as long as they don't reward the block fees, a few other members called out the same thing you did, the only difference between you and everyone else is that you took this matter personally and started to accuse campaign manager for being " easily bought" and then the whole personal drama started.
notice that this is the pool's thread not the signature campaign's thread, anything you have to say to the campaign manager shouldn't be here, you guys turned this topic to a complete mess.
i am not siding any of you, i am asking you to be reasonable, this is not the right place to point fingers to one another.
Not sure if you are implying you don't understand that saying 100% PPS does NOT mean No Fee?
please quote a single word of me saying anything about whatever you mentioned in the above comment !
i stated that you started the personal drama, you know you did, i don't understand why are you going about me understanding 100% pps or not.
...
The thread already clearly stated from the first day that the "No Fee" was false.
Someone turns up who has accepted payment to repeat that false statement also implying that they didn't know this.
Yet their first post even clearly states the lie in the Subject.
"Re: [300 PH][BTC PPS 100%][0% FEE][EN/CN/RU] Sigmapool.com"
While I think complaining about users paying the Bitcoin network fee and trying to claim that is somehow the pool lying about charging fees is a bit of a stretch, keeping transaction fees should be noted somewhere if that is what is occurring.
...
...
There was nothing new about the fact that "No Fee" was false.
So yes indeed I did make (and have already stated that) there is clear issue, at the least, with him making that red bold statement above.
If you consider calling someone out (with an explanation) on accepting payment to lie about something specifically on the topic of a thread, as "personal drama", then I guess any time anyone on the forum points out on topic blatant deception and scams, their posts should be deleted since that's "personal drama"?
The "personal drama" that followed and was off topic was his constant failed attempts to trash me about various other false and unrelated things.
Thus I replied to each, though even then the majority of my replies are clearly on topic.
Not sure if you are implying you don't understand that saying 100% PPS does NOT mean No Fee?
please quote a single word of me saying anything about whatever you mentioned in the above comment !
i stated that you started the personal drama, you know you did, i don't understand why are you going about me understanding 100% pps or not.
Need I say more?
you made your points a few times in the same thread. so the answer is probably NO , you don't.
...
it was you who shifted the whole direction of this discussion to pure bullshit that benefits nobody, sorry ! i have nothing against you kano, but it's clear as day that it was you who started this drama.
...
Not sure if you are implying you don't understand that saying 100% PPS does NOT mean No Fee?it was you who shifted the whole direction of this discussion to pure bullshit that benefits nobody, sorry ! i have nothing against you kano, but it's clear as day that it was you who started this drama.
...
He ran a pool. Need I say more?
unless one of you deleted their comments then this is all i found
There's still the issue of running a PPS pool and the REQUIRED balance and fees to reduce the risk of it going broke and the losses for those mining if that happens.
Try to remember back 6 & 5 years ago how that went with MtRed and BitAffNet ... ... ... ... ...
However, "no fees" is a plain and simple lie and you know it.
A 100% PPS pool payout is keeping transaction fees.
Charging a payout fee for all payouts is also a fee.
There is no stretch, you clearly are only interested in being paid for a campaign.
So clearly you can be easily bought ...
a concern has been raised, he as a campaign manager replied and said he did contact sigma and asked them to solve that issue, what you did later was personally attacking him for "being easily bought".
it was you who shifted the whole direction of this discussion to pure bullshit that benefits nobody, sorry ! i have nothing against you kano, but it's clear as day that it was you who started this drama.
now i hope we all can move on from here and stay on topic.
While I think complaining about users paying the Bitcoin network fee and trying to claim that is somehow the pool lying about charging fees is a bit of a stretch, keeping transaction fees should be noted somewhere if that is what is occurring. I have sent Sigma a message asking him to make this point clear on his site, at the very least with an asterisk next to his 0 fees claim explaining his logic. Hopefully we see some more transparency here in the coming days/weeks, or I may shut down the signature campaign.
There's still the issue of running a PPS pool and the REQUIRED balance and fees to reduce the risk of it going broke and the losses for those mining if that happens.
Try to remember back 6 & 5 years ago how that went with MtRed and BitAffNet ... ... ... ... ...
However, "no fees" is a plain and simple lie and you know it.
A 100% PPS pool payout is keeping transaction fees.
Charging a payout fee for all payouts is also a fee.
There is no stretch, you clearly are only interested in being paid for a campaign.
So clearly you can be easily bought ...
a concern has been raised, he as a campaign manager replied and said he did contact sigma and asked them to solve that issue, what you did later was personally attacking him for "being easily bought".
it was you who shifted the whole direction of this discussion to pure bullshit that benefits nobody, sorry ! i have nothing against you kano, but it's clear as day that it was you who started this drama.
now i hope we all can move on from here and stay on topic.
Guys you turning the direction of discussion to personal b.s , a concern has been raised, and it's being handled. almost half of these comments are off-topics and should be deleted IMO.
Well considering how many of his posts include exactly that, trashing me, and thus me making justified replies to them, you'd probably have to delete most of the thread starting with and including his first reply to me, since my reply to his first post is on topic.As for Og, I trashed his first post since at the time he made the post it was STILL blatantly obvious it was a lie, and even clear in his post subject.
His campaign thread starts with a copy of the SigmaPool info so might even have said the same thing or similar (before being edited recently) as this thread said at the start.
I stated at the start of the thread that SigmaPool was falsely advertising 'No Fees' and they said
...
P.S. The 1% fee you are talking about is not a fee
...
So I replied to that again, which SigmaPool has ignored - their site still says "No Fee"P.S. The 1% fee you are talking about is not a fee
...
Any posts after that should know the pool fee statement is false if they don't understand how pool payouts work.
(and anyone who does understand how pool payouts work will know it's false)
Guys you turning the direction of discussion to personal b.s , a concern has been raised, and it's being handled. almost half of these comments are off-topic and should be deleted IMO.
Jump to: