Topic: A dream of having a new pool (Read 1658 times)

Thanks again for your clarifications.

Payout method has no bearing on the percentage of hash rate you contribute to finding a block.  Both scenarios above are correct for any payout system.  The different payout systems just distribute the payouts differently to discourage pool hopping.


Variable diff has no bearing on your percentage of hash rate you contribute.  The variable difficulty is ONLY to decrease the amount of network bandwidth required and to decrease the load on the pool.

Thanks again.

I assumed that you are referring to the methods used by the current pools, as the example on the second pool would not work on the idea I posted because the maximum hashrate for each miner is 1 Th/s.

I think I mixed up with the vardiff usage on the current pools. I assumed that there is a maximum limit of vardiff so that the miners with huge hashrates send more shares than the miners with low hashrates as there is minimum limit of vardiff.

Ok... let me see if I can break this down for you in a way you'll be able to get .

For the sake of this argument, we're going to assume there are 2 pools.  Pool 1 has 10,000 miners each with 100GH/s.  Pool 2 has 2 miners, one with 999.9TH/s and the other with 100GH/s.  We are also going to assume that each pool finds exactly 1 block a day, and the reward is exactly 25BTC per block.

When a block is found on pool 1, the pool must divide that 25BTC into 10,000 parts.  Therefore, each miner gets 0.0025BTC
When a block is found on pool 2, the pool must divide that 25BTC into 2 parts.  The miner with 999.9TH/s gets 24.9975BTC.  The miner with 100GH/s gets 0.0025BTC.

They are both equal.  Payout thresholds are completely irrelevant.  It doesn't matter how you break it down, 100GH/s expects to earn exactly the same coin on pool 1 and pool 2.

Yes, it is off the topic.  But it would be a very worthwhile discussion in the proper forum.

I hope that would be the reality. You can look it up yourself on how the US economy is actually being managed. But I will stop responding to this kind of comments as this is out of topic.

Um, it doesn't matter if it takes 9,999 miners or just one miner to make up the 1Phs minus your 100Ghs portion.  You will still have the same percentage of shares thus the same payout, IF a block is found.  No block no payout.

Ohhh... Come on. The people who invested thousands of dollars definitely choose to mine on the available pools or they even have their own pools. This idea is for the people who are impossible to compete with them. I thought I was quite clear on my first post.

Creating a pool with ONLY small miners will not solve enough blocks to make worth while for anyone.  Small miners have largely shutdown or upgraded hardware due to poor efficiency of small mining devices.

If you want to help decentralize the network then figure out a way to make P2Pool work on a large scale to include large and small hash rate miners.

Another way to help keep the network decentralized is to run a full Bitcoin node and have it in your miners failover list.

In the mean time rethink your ideas as they are now unworkable and contradictory.

My main problem is with you having the idea that the current pools are somehow unfair.  I think that notion of yours is what is unfair.

But keep thinking on how to make things better and good luck with it.

I wrote on the other thread that I usually make 10 mBTC per 2 weeks on Eligius pool and 1 mBTC per 2 days on Antpool with 100 Gh/s hashrate. Those are roughly equal to 0.7 and 0.5 mBTC per day respectively.

If I would mine together with all other 9,999 miners with the same 100 Gh/s, using this method I will definitely get 2.5 mBTC per day. And I will definitely get multiple of that per day as the pool hashrate is 1 Ph/s so it is likely to solve more blocks a day.

If there would be only 2 miners with 999.9 Th/s and 100 Gh/s, I would have to wait for a few days until my shares value reach the minimum payout threshold while the other miner would get the most payout every day while I am waiting. This is clear to me that I will make very less than on the previous example. Could you please explain why this would not be the expected result, John (I hope you still have the patience of the Saint)?

Capitalism works and has worked every time it has been tried.  Everyone in the US asserts control over the economy and every one could take part in the Political process if they chose to.  It is very sad that so many choose to not participate in it and/or are ignorant to how it works.

If everybody had the same thought like that, we can be sure where the Bitcoin network will be centralised in a few years. Perhaps what I mentioned is very close to communism. But communism idea is practically dead. And I don't think capitalism works either. For instance, how many percent of the US citizens control the economy and politic in the US? I have read this article a few months back and I found that quite interesting.

What I was looking for is a way to keep the idea of Bitcoin network decentralisation going. And I know that this idea is not for people with huge hashrates, that is why I clearly stated that in the beginning.

This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.  So you think the people who spent thousands of dollars on modern and high speed equipment shouldn't get paid more than the people running 2-year old bargain bin ASICs and/or GPUs?  This isn't elementary school where just participating will get you credit.

I think you're missing the point here.  Small time miners get small time payouts - no matter what you may wish to happen.  You simply aren't going to get a bigger slice of the pie unless you get more hash.  Let's say you do start some kind of pool with an upper limit on hashing power.  So, you've got a pool with 10000 miners each having 100GH/s.  Do you somehow think that you, as one of those 100GH/s users is somehow going to make more than you would as the same user on a pool that has 2 miners, one has 999.9TH/s and you, with 100GH/s?  The simple answer is you are going to make the same.

You are hoping for the impossible.

That's not Proportional payout system.  That is Communism.  Nobody here will take part in such an unfair payout scheme.  Everyone wants to be paid for the work they do not to subsidize lower hash rate miners.

Thanks for the clarification.

However, on the pool that I would like to have, the share is being used to get the proportional BTC reward for the miners. So I hope all miners will approximately get the same payout for the same mining period, regardless of their hashrates. The different will be that the miners who mine in longer time will get more payout than the ones who mine in shorter period. Has this kind of method been used so far? More importantly, does that make sense?

Every single pool that uses difficulties greater than 1 (AKA: all of them) multiplies your share submissions by your difficulty.  So yes, you'll submit 4 times more work at 128 diff, but it would be the same payment as somebody submitting a single piece of work at 512.  Minimum difficulty has zero effect on your payout over any reasonable period of time.

I promise you that I will get as much information about the where about of Nexious if I would be able to chat with him.

Because I would submit more shares on lower difficulty. Or am I wrong on this?

Yes. Inability to set minimum difficulty to below 512 is not the only reason why I want to have my own pool. Only miners with hashrates above 1 Th/s get the benefits from all available pools on the planet now. The miners with hashrates lower than 1 Th/s only get dust payout. So I think I have listed the requirements for this reason.

All miners including the pool hoppers must have the same opportunities to mine. However, the pool hoppers must also understand the impact of what they are doing, hence the penalty should be applied to them. But the penalty must be applied so that it will still make them come back to the pool. I am not sure though if the penalty that I mentioned would be able to manage that.

On all pools now, most rewards go to the miners with huge hashrates. So the miners with low hashrates only get dust payout. I thought it would be good for the miners with low hashrates if the gaps between all miners are quite close, so their payout would still be higher than what they would get on the other pools.

I am not sure how to explain this using the right terms. But this is what has been done already by Eligius pool for years, where the miners' addresses are being included into the transaction so their payouts are being done automatically as soon as the new block is found, without the need to execute the payout manually. The different is that on Eligius, the list is taken from the miners that their shares value exceed the threshold, sorted base on how long they are waiting to be paid out. I thought it would be fair to pay the miners listed on the previous hour before the new block is found, so they do not need to wait for days to get the payout.

First of all, I am quite sure that in reality the pool will not find a new block every hour. It would be great if that would happen but that is not realistic.

If you assumed that the pool will find new block every hour, then yes the scenario that you mentioned applies here. But even if that would happen, it is easy to detect the dormant miners as their shares will always 0 in the next hours until they mine again.

All other active miners will always have the shares recorded because they keep submitting the shares before the next recording hour is reached and they payout is done based on the record of the previous hour. For instance, the shares of a miner recorded at h hour is X and the pool has not found a new block at h hour. The pool finds a new block in between h and h+1 hours. At this time, his total share is X+Y, where Y is the shares mined after h hours. That miner will get the payout of X share value and he stills has Y shares and counting which will be recorded on the next hour.