Topic: [350 GH/s] "Eligius" (experimental) pool: almost feeless PPS, hoppers welcome - page 7. (Read 116938 times)

The only truth to this is that you have an unpaid balance of 2.49442651 BTC on the US pool, which will be paid out as soon as possible when it is fixed, and an unpaid balance of 0.70262774 BTC on the Europe pool which does not meet the minimums required for payout.

Based on my mining activity with eligius approximately June 13th to June 16th, eligius underpaid me be around 5 BTC.
Approximately half is showing as needed to be paid, the other half is not credited at all.
How did he do it?
1) failing to pay out balance of >1 BTC on us server.
2) Pool split my mining work between eu and us servers, and not paying out the balance on eu server (<1BTC)
3) shorting my reward on rounds shorter than 90 minutes (while not increasing my reward for rounds longer than 90 minutes).

I will edit this post if luke-jr comes clean and pays up this debt.

Aside from shorting me, Eligius is really great, especially the statistics.

I'd recommend it for anyone who doesn't mind getting shorted and being forced to loan the pool money >1BTC.

Luke you really need to make that warning against mybitcoin bigger, i just lost 1btc for the same reason and the bastards refuse to do anything about it...

Pretty much 1500 to 0300 UTC

Thanks, I'll try to stop by IRC with a clear explanation in the next day or two.. when is 'prime time' for discussion?

that's excellent, thanks for taking the time to go through all that, added it to the wiki for others

EU still seems to be underreporting my hashrate by about 100MH/s, with no reported invalid shares. This does not seem right.

Update: And just like that, it's now reporting correctly...

What you described is a transitional proportional payout scheme.  Your payout is proportional to the amount of work that you did for any given block.

In your example, miner1 got 22.5 BTC (9*2.5).  That is 22.5 BTC for 30 minutes of work = 45BTC per hour.

If you compare to an unlucky block that takes 100 times as long to find:

* miner1 does 900 shares, mining the whole time
* miner2 does 100 share then leaves, spent 300mins doing this at the start of the round
* miner3 does 300 shares, working in the last 500mins of this block
* miner4 does 700 shares, mining the whole time, and finds the block after 3000mins
* total shares = 2000, each share is worth 50/2000=0.025

In this example miner1 still gets 22.5 BTC (900*0.025) except this time it took 100 times longer to get it.  Now it was 22.5 BTC for 3000 minutes of work or 0.45 BTC per hour.  Way less per hour because the block was very unlucky.

Traditional Pay-per-share (PPS) is a different system where you get paid by the number of shares you submit regardless of if a block is found.  The payout per share is determined by taking 50/difficulty.

Say difficulty is 20, so the price per share is 2.5 or 50/20.  In scenario 1, miner1 makes 22.5BTC in 30 minutes (9*2.5) or 45BTC per hour.  In scenario 2, miner1 makes 2,250 BTC in 3000 minutes or the same 45BTC per hour.  

In PPS, your pay per hour is always the same even in the short term, but the drawback is that the pool might go bankrupt if there are too many long blocks.  
In proportional, your pay per hour in any given 24 hours varies based on if blocks are lucky or unlucky and the drawback is that pool hoppers skip town on long blocks.  
In MaxPPS, your pay per hour in any given 24 hours may also vary if the pool is small enough that it isn't reliably finding multiple blocks per day, but the variation will lower than in proportional because the pool has withheld some of the payment you would have received from short blocks so that it can pay you more on long blocks.  The benefits are that the pool can't go bankrupt, and there is no longer any incentive for pool hoppers to switch to another pool on long blocks.

so what am i missing with this:
* miner1 does 9 shares, mining the whole time
* miner2 does 1 share then leaves, spent 3mins doing this at the start of the round
* miner3 does 3 shares, working in the last 5mins of this block
* miner4 does 7 shares, mining the whole time, and finds the block after 30mins
* total shares = 20, each share is worth 50/20=2.5
* miners get [9*2.5, 1*2.5, 3*2.5, 7*2.5] after block has 120 confirmations if it turns out to be invalid then shares go into current block solving round

having typed that out, I'm guessing that this is PPS...
how does this promote pool hoping?
if reward is only given after a block is found how is the operator out of pocket?

sorry if this has all been covered elsewhere - most everything else I've read regarding payouts is not as simple as what I have put above

Is EU having problems now? My stats page says 0.00 Khashes/sec, but guiminer reports 440+ Mhash/sec currently.

Update: now the site seems to be working again, but I am still waiting for the reported hashrate to get up to normal. It is currently reporting under 200Mh/s.

If I understand it, MaxPPS reduces variability in a way, but you still have to wait for a block to be found to get paid.  So, after you have been mining for a while, you could get to a point where you get 1BTC per day on average, but you still may have a day where you get nothing because a long block is happening.  It's just that if that block gets found after 2 days, you'll get 2 days worth of pay all at once (assuming you have banked some value from previous short blocks).  You "catch up" right away when a long block is found (again, assuming you have been present for some short blocks and have banked some value balance).

I personally think of MaxPPS as more like proportional, just without the pool hopping benefits.  That's a perfectly good thing.  

How odd, I checked more closely and noticed that my client hasn't been downloading new blocks for quite a while.

Thanks for checking blockexplorer bitcoin0918, I should have thought of that myself 

So from your new explanation, you're saying that this system:
a) reduces variation for miners and eliminates risk for pool operator;
b) will be much the same as proportion with time.

So say I mine for a week non-stop, I'd get very close to what I would have gotten under the old system? How about for a day non-stop? If this works as your explanation suggests and there are no downsides, then I personally have no complaints.

Reducing variability is why we go for big pools and if you can get reduced variability in a smaller pool, then I'm not tempted away to a larger one once a block is taking too long to solve. To me, this is a carrot, not a stick. I'm not relying on luck, since 'luck' is just a post hoc rationalisation of a low probability event.

For those interested, I've written up a more correct explanation (I hope) on Maximum PPS.

I'm still open to other ideas, if they can be demonstrated to be better. Please write up a wiki page and nominate them on IRC.

"HanSolo", your presence on IRC to discuss PPLNS has been requested by multiple people, if you have time.

Is this your transaction? It looks like you got 0.22btc:

http://blockexplorer.com/address/1DP5XtbkwF3xVoijHXfnq6RQ3fxYKrEp49

I mined on the eligius pool a little bit a couple of weeks back, using this address to check my stats:

http://eligius.st/~artefact2/eu/1DP5XtbkwF3xVoijHXfnq6RQ3fxYKrEp49

Now, I go there and it says no stats because I haven't mined for over a week, that's fair enough but shouldn't I have received any coins I mined by now?

It's fair in average. But not enough. People who can't for some reason (malicious or not) contribute at the end of a block end up getting nothing, whereas the score-based system still gives them a little something. While, technically, the method you suggested is fair, it can be very frustrating for an isolated miner that got absolutely nothing for his work.

I suggested a method that is hop-proof, by always offering the same expected return for the next share contributed, and riskless for the pool-operator. It's what (a couple messages after initial proposal) I labeled 'Pay-Per-Last-N-Shares' (PPLNS). It's not the same as proportional or straight PPS.

You suggested PPLNS was unfair but didn't explain why/how.

It's simple to implement, clear, hop-proof, and operator-friendly in the amount of risk (none) and running state required to calculate payout (very little).

If you make N small, some shares contributed wind up earning nothing.. but that's totally unpredictable and affects all shares equally, so there's no tilt towards any miner timing or scale there. It's perfectly fair in those dimensions. By making N arbitrarily large (but still constant and pre-advertised), you could make the likelihood any share pays zero arbitrarily small (if you think fairness requires every share get some token payment no matter how far removed from success).

I'm pretty sure PPLNS provides a disincentive to the 'withholding sabotage' as well.. anyone who's been mining for a while makes marginally more by submitting a found share, compared to waiting for someone else to.

And it doesn't require the operator holding a bunch of 'earnings' in reserve, in the meantime paying some amount that seems to be roughly minimum(pps(miner),proportional(miner)).

I could be wrong, but if so you haven't explained the problems.

And of course it's your pool, your rules. I'm just providing an honest assessment of how MaxPPS looks from the outside.

Come now, that doesn't instill confidence. It would be better to just keep the message vague and generic, rather than drive people away. Just my opinion.

Actually, mineco.in holds that distinction, although a very small pool atm.