Pages:
Author

Topic: Analysis of Bitcoin Pooled Mining Reward Systems - page 2. (Read 36536 times)

donator
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1054
There is no pool that matches this category [Equalized SMPPS (ESMPPS)] exactly. So the leaves SMPPS as the best category?
Thanks
I don't understand the question. SMPPS and ESMPPS are among the worst methods that exist.

There was an ESMPPS pool once. I don't remember its name.
member
Activity: 69
Merit: 10
There is no pool that matches this category [Equalized SMPPS (ESMPPS)] exactly. So the leaves SMPPS as the best category?
Thanks
donator
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1054
Bumping this - soooo many new users would benefit from understanding payout methods (and more than a few wannabe poolops)

Thanks for sticvkying mods Smiley
I'll take this opportunity to reference the latest development in this area, Multi-PPS.
vip
Activity: 980
Merit: 1001
Bumping this - soooo many new users would benefit from understanding payout methods (and more than a few wannabe poolops)

Thanks for sticvkying mods Smiley
donator
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1054
There is now also a PowerPoint presentation about this subject, prepared for the conference in San Jose. I had to make it fit in an half-hour slot so not a lot of material is covered.
full member
Activity: 193
Merit: 100
Hi Meni, thanks for your great work!

I think p2p mining is an interesting subject to study.
donator
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1054
The work is now complete, but not quite finished. I might still add new content as time permits, and there's a bounty for helping me improve it.

Thanks to everyone who have given me their support.
donator
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1054
Chapter 7 is finished.

Pool ops, please pay special attention to section "Score cashout". It describes a nice pool feature which I think shouldn't be too difficult to add.
donator
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1054
Chapter 5 is complete. Took me less time than I expected. (Let's hope the quality isn't too much adversely affected.)
legendary
Activity: 3583
Merit: 1094
Think for yourself
I too have just found this thread.

I have gotten irritated lately by folks promoting/attacking payout methods and/or pools without providing any or few objective facts.

I had since been hoping someone knowledgeable would start a thread for each payout method and attempt to explain them from the purely objective standpoint and then, after sufficient background has been established, delve into the more subjective pro's and con's for each without trashing pools or a persons freedom of choice.

I will d/l your pdf's and review them before I jump into anymore conversation here.
Thanks,
Sam
donator
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1054
True, but in the case of exahash hoppers that leave at 0.43*D, you do lose the ability to submit any shares to the very short and more profitable rounds - which has an impact on your per round earnings. Of course as you say these unsubmitted shares cannot count to an expected share value, which is what you were deriving in the appendix. What I'm want to determine - or find out if i'm wrong -  is the real world effect of the unreal  Wink exahash hopper on average per round earnings of the fulltime miners, and from there determine the effect of a finite hooper boost to hashrate. I've gotten results in simulation that agree with your expected values per share - I want to make sure my expected earnings per available round - compared to a fulltime miner at an unhopped pool - are also correct. I apologise for being unclear - it's way too late for me to be doing this.
Is what you want to calculate "average per round of the total earnings which go to honest miners"?

This has no effect whatsoever on what really interest miners, which is how much they get in relation to what they would average solo (which is 56.5%). And if you want to calculate this quantity, then it has very little to do with the calculation in the appendix. In a round of length X the amount awarded to continuous miners is B * max (1 - (0.435*D)/X, 0)). Calculate the average of this over an exponentially distributed X and you'll get your answer.
donator
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1007
Poor impulse control.
Hey Meni,

I've been going over Appendix B, the section related to the loss in earnings for full time miners. I might have this wrong, but the figure you derive fro expected share reward, 0.565..., seems only to take into account rounds that the miners can submit to - did I follow that correctly? So if we take into account all the rounds<0.435*D, then the figure I get is 0.565*(1-probability of rounds under 0.435*D)=0.565* 0.6472645= 0.3662109.

So full time miners would expect to earn as little as 36.6% of their usual reward if they were unable to submit shares in any round less than 0.435*D and can only submit (total round shares-0.435*D) in any round longer than 0.435*D.

I'm hoping I have this right, but if not could you show me where I went wrong? Cheers.
No. The efficiency is (total reward)/(total value of shares submitted). They do not submit any shares to <0.435*D rounds (by assumption these rounds take 0 time) so these rounds don't add to either the numerator or denominator.

The appendix calculates the average reward for every share submitted (by considering the reward in a random time), not for hypothetical shares which were not submitted.

Think of this. Let's say you're mining in some pool (doesn't really matter if it's a fair or proportional pool). Suddenly a Exahash/s miner joins the pool and in a split second finds 1000 blocks, then leaves. Do you lose anything from these 1000 blocks you had not chance to submit work to? No, you didn't do any work in this time and didn't get any reward, it doesn't affect you at all.

True, but in the case of exahash hoppers that leave at 0.43*D, you do lose the ability to submit any shares to the very short and more profitable rounds - which has an impact on your per round earnings. Of course as you say these unsubmitted shares cannot count to an expected share value, which is what you were deriving in the appendix. What I'm want to determine - or find out if i'm wrong -  is the real world effect of the unreal  Wink exahash hopper on average per round earnings of the fulltime miners, and from there determine the effect of a finite hooper boost to hashrate. I've gotten results in simulation that agree with your expected values per share - I want to make sure my expected earnings per available round - compared to a fulltime miner at an unhopped pool - are also correct. I apologise for being unclear - it's way too late for me to be doing this.

donator
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
Who told you about the exahash farm I am building?  It is very efficient because the waste heat is used to generate steam for a turbine which powers the exahash farm.  Grin
donator
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1054
Hey Meni,

I've been going over Appendix B, the section related to the loss in earnings for full time miners. I might have this wrong, but the figure you derive fro expected share reward, 0.565..., seems only to take into account rounds that the miners can submit to - did I follow that correctly? So if we take into account all the rounds<0.435*D, then the figure I get is 0.565*(1-probability of rounds under 0.435*D)=0.565* 0.6472645= 0.3662109.

So full time miners would expect to earn as little as 36.6% of their usual reward if they were unable to submit shares in any round less than 0.435*D and can only submit (total round shares-0.435*D) in any round longer than 0.435*D.

I'm hoping I have this right, but if not could you show me where I went wrong? Cheers.
No. The efficiency is (total reward)/(total value of shares submitted). They do not submit any shares to <0.435*D rounds (by assumption these rounds take 0 time) so these rounds don't add to either the numerator or denominator.

The appendix calculates the average reward for every share submitted (by considering the reward in a random time), not for hypothetical shares which were not submitted.

Think of this. Let's say you're mining in some pool (doesn't really matter if it's a fair or proportional pool). Suddenly a Exahash/s miner joins the pool and in a split second finds 1000 blocks, then leaves. Do you lose anything from these 1000 blocks you had not chance to submit work to? No, you didn't do any work in this time and didn't get any reward, it doesn't affect you at all.
donator
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1007
Poor impulse control.
Hey Meni,

I've been going over Appendix B, the section related to the loss in earnings for full time miners. I might have this wrong, but the figure you derive fro expected share reward, 0.565..., seems only to take into account rounds that the miners can submit to - did I follow that correctly? So if we take into account all the rounds<0.435*D, then the figure I get is 0.565*(1-probability of rounds under 0.435*D)=0.565* 0.6472645= 0.3662109.

So full time miners would expect to earn as little as 36.6% of their usual reward if they were unable to submit shares in any round less than 0.435*D and can only submit (total round shares-0.435*D) in any round longer than 0.435*D.

I'm hoping I have this right, but if not could you show me where I went wrong? Cheers.
donator
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1054
I really like chapter 6.2.*. Haven't found that much information about this topic anywhere yet. Even countermeasures are described.

Awesome work Meni like always, you are a gift!
Thanks. Most of the content of section 6.2 actually goes back more than half a year. PS the lie-in-wait attack was named by me and I'm the only one talking about it, but I didn't invent it, I picked it up from a comment on slush's pool's thread.
full member
Activity: 142
Merit: 100
I really like chapter 6.2.*. Haven't found that much information about this topic anywhere yet. Even countermeasures are described.

Awesome work Meni like always, you are a gift!
donator
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1054
I just noticed this thread.  Great work Meni.  This is a fascinating document.
Thanks!
vip
Activity: 447
Merit: 258
I just noticed this thread.  Great work Meni.  This is a fascinating document.
donator
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1007
Poor impulse control.
Probably should be (total submitted shares*exp(C))/(C).

Oops! I posted that too late at night. You are right of course.
Pages:
Jump to: