Topic: [ANN] profit switching auto-exchanging pool - www.middlecoin.com - page 470. (Read 829908 times)

Soo... anyway. Someone might be interested in this. I took h2o's json and made a page you can click on for your individual stats.

http://middlepage.gurutech.ws/stats.php
You can just put in your address like this
http://middlepage.gurutech.ws/stats.php?id=1P4yWhXx7FKtWiGJYZuX5CNEm126iSFuZg
or just click the link and bookmark that. I may have to take it down if boss don't want it there.

Look. When i throw an example analogy together, I have to pick some numbers as an example.


If you want to prove/disprove what I'm saying take the variables... the block find time... the fast and slow share times...

They are averages. So, generate 100 sets of numbers, that are random amounts within one standard deviation of each (they are averages after all, we can trust a standard deviation of them).

After those 100 sets, tally up everyones shares. Tell me if slow guy has more or less than 1/60th of the shares. He should have right around 1/60th, according to most of you... But I'll bet he has significantly less.

That's not what I was saying at all. I'm not talking about one block. I am talking about probability over a thousand, a million blocks. Is this going to hurt me more times than it will help me, over 10,000 blocks?

If there ever was a pool that needed variable diff, its one that mines a wide range of coins that have vastly different block solve times... In addition to the traditional problem of varied hashrates - which itself is enough for a lot of pools to implement vardiff.

It doesn't make sense? No kidding, eh?

I think you've missed my point. You're claiming that people are losing shares because the block changes before they can find the next valid share. That is to say, at some point during the next block they come by a hash that would have yielded a share on a previous block, but is now useless. By this logic, you might as well be upset about all the hashes you zip by that would have given you a share on the next block as well.

Liquid... Just give up. Some people dont know anything about how mining works.
That your current hashes always rely on the last block found...

You are wasting your time.
And people are wasting their energy (powercosts) if they think its efficient to mine on a pool where they lose like ~25% of their raw hashrate.

The idea of that pool is great, the auto exchange also.
But vardiff is missing to make that thing make sence.

This doesn't make any sense. All the hashes that DID solve a share would be worthless on any other share, too.

I just though of something. What about all those future shares those poor fast people lose! Some poor guy gets a useless hash that would have solved the next block, if only he had waited a few more seconds to submit it. Why, over time the number of wasted hashes that would have yielded shares on the next block must be exponential, but instead they were wasted in the stupid past and present. In fact, how sad to think of all the wasted hashes that would have solved an infinite number of future shares if only people held off on submitting them.

I should make a graph on just how many future shares people lose due to premature hashing.

Its an AVERAGE. Every time he he gets it quicker he necessarily gets it just as later another time. Otherwise it wouldn't be the average anymore.

Edit:

To your other point, about it not cointing towards not next "game" (block)

When a block changes, the whole thing resets. Everyone starts from scratch. He is once again up against the same probabilities, the same as everyone else. His guess will be useful for the next game, but so will everyone elses. Just as his very next guess could be a winner, anyone elses could too... no advantage over anyone else.

I'll play your game and assume for the sake of argument that the average occurs at set intervals - it doesn't at all, just because the guy gets an average successful guess of once per minute it in no way means that he was "going" to get it in ten seconds just because 50 had already elapsed - but even if it did, if it's just a guess anyways why would it be any less valid for the next card? He wasn't homing in on the correct number, his guesses are random. It is just as likely he will get a guess on the next card in those next ten second if we assume average=interval (which it does not).

Your analogy only works if you are SOLO mining.

The correct analogy, following your setup would be something more like this.

You have 100 people each trying to guess a number from 1-10000 on a card.

As soon as somebody guesses the number, the game is over for that round (the block is solved).

However, if anyone comes within say, 10 numbers of the true number, they get a 'ticket'.



The problem is, every one is guessing at different rates. One person might guess at a rate of once per minute. Another person might guess at a rate of once per second. Rate of guesses spans that entire range amongst the 100 people.


Now, say a researchers watches people play this game for 1000 sessions. He compiles his data, and finds out that on average, the number is guessed in 5 minutes.


Therefore, on average the guy who guesses once a minute gets 5 guesses. He is not going to get within 10 very often. But, you wouldn't expect him too right? After all, he is 60 times slower than the fastest guy, so you'd expect him to get 1/60th of the tickets that the fast guys does.


Lets say that a correct guess occurs in 4 minutes, 50 seconds. Slow guy only got 4 guesses. Had the guess happened 10 seconds later, he would have gotten one more guess in.

He lost 20% of his guesses.


Fast guy got 290 guesses. He was working on his 291th guess when the number was solved. He too, lost one guess. But instead of losing 20% of his guesses, he only lost 0.0035% of his guesses.


If you mapped this out over all 100, an EXPONENTIAL curve would form. This exponential curve could then be reverse engineered into an equation, that would tell you exactly what percent of guesses you would expect to lose.




One last way of thinking about it... if it takes you an average of 30 seconds to find a share... say you don't make it in time, block changes...your most likely range to be sitting at when the block change happens might look something like 15-45, or using the same deviation, 5-15 for the faster miner. Which amount of time would you rather go unrewarded? But guess what, the block was found, everyone gets paid... its just that the fast guy is getting some of your cut, but cause maybe hes 10x faster and got in 19 shares when you only got in 1. Had you got 2, and he got 20, all would be fair, but statistically you are going to get screwed over time.


Edit: Thought of one more


Would you rather flip one coin to see if you get an entire pie, or get nothing? Or would you rather have 7 pieces secured and be flipping a coin to see if you do or do not get the 8th piece?

This represents being "on the bubble", hoping you get your "next" share in before the block change. If you manage to get your whole pie, and the other guy manages to get his 8th piece, its all the same. But what if you both fail? If you both fail, you get nothing. The other guy still got 7 pieces.

You had 512 diff. He had 64.

(note to people who are going to pick that apart - I know its mathematically possible for the first guy to get 2 pies, 3 pies 4 pies. I know its possible for the second guy to get 3 slices, 10 slices, or 45 slices. But, for every time such a thing happens, we can count on the opposite happening with the same frequency. That is why we can trust probability. Given enough time, probability always takes us to the answer we expect. Everyone keeps talking about variance. Well there's your variance! As more time passes, are variance goes down and the whole pie guy WILL get screwed).

Not to beat a dead horse too badly, but if anyone was interested, ranlo's deceptively "same odds" dice variation is actually anything but. For a set of 10 rolls, the odds of the same number occurring in the set are as follows:

zero times: 16.15%, once: 32.3%, twice: 29.07%, three times: 15.5%, four times: 5.43%, five times: 1.30%, six times: 0.22% seven times: 0.025%, eight times: 0.00186%, nine times: 0.000083% and ten times: 0.0000017%.

The actual average payout for the guy who gets $1 for every four is $1.67 per ten-roll game. Guy two, who needs to roll four fours for $4 (I don't think I've ever used the "for" sound in my head that many times before), contrary to being 20% worse off as ranlo suggested, is actually averaging $0.23 per game: about 86% worse off. How fortunate that mining doesn't work like that at all.

I had assumed that you wouldn't be willing to do that, I'm just curious if you have any stats showing original anticipated BTC value vs the actual sale value over time?

Because I can't resist the prospect of getting flamed, here is my analogy.

A guy writes down a number from 1-100 on the back of a postcard.  You guess what that number is, and if you choose the correct number, you win.  You keep guessing as fast as you can.

Every 30 seconds, the guy tears up the postcard and creates another one with a new number.

Can we agree that your previous guesses have no bearing on your chances of choosing the correct number now?  Same when a block changes.

Expanding the analogy to include difficulty makes no difference. You now need to choose a number from 1-500, so it's going to take you longer to find a correct answer. But when the guy tears up the postcard and writes down a new number, your previous guesses does not effect your new guesses.

BTW: I am all for lowering difficulty to reduce *variance*, and I'm sure there is some flaw in that analogy, so flame away

Where does the pool pay the singleminer from?

Edit: it will only affect variance of income of lowhashrate rigs slow singleminers.

Let me bold you this one before i go to bed.

That proves that lowering diff affects singleminer income for cases with fast block coins.

Edit: And edit that I meant lowhashrate rigs slow singleminers.

Shares don't earn anything for the pool, only blocks found by the pool do.

I still dare you to answer my case!

Imagine we go diff 1, you will have many shares acceppted in those 30 secs, or even 10 secs. That proves that lowering diff affects singleminer income for cases with fast block coins. End of proof.

I'm not willing to have several thousand dollars worth of volatile coins.

I wish there was a way to short coins. Or an options exchange, like vircurex used to have. Then I could do what you suggested without having to actually have the coins.

We finally exhausted ranlo ;-) But don't worry dear zealot: someone else will soon stand up to enlighten us dumb, illogical folks about how we're screwed by nothing else but a high, hardcoded difficulty on this pool. Is Liquidfire out of the running yet?

h2odysee, keep up the good work on all things that matter for the profit.