Topic: [ANN] profit switching auto-exchanging pool - www.middlecoin.com - page 478. (Read 829908 times)

Well it just explains absolutely everything I and some others have been trying to, no biggie don't worry about it, you aren't interested after all.


You obviously don't understand statistics at all, that is the whole point of an average - to predict future values based on past values. And the larger the sample size the better an average is at doing so.

Very true. 

I've been on edge lately and for that I apologize.

Maybe I will ask my wife for a blowie later to remedy this problem...

The picture is blocked on my work computer.  Not really interested in it, though

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_work

If you have a 100KH/s "rig" then you have 100,000 chances every second to submit a share.  Difficulty isn't important.  Average time is just a measurement of past success, and is not a good prediction of future success in this instance because the past is a small percentage of the total picture.

And to borrow from Mr. Lottery's words, let's review what a target is as well...


I understand the math, but you guys are just overthinking it based on a few hours of data from the pool and projecting those miniscule "averages" as if they are solid fact.  Get a few years of data and then maybe you can make a good projection.  It's equivalent to projecting a MLB hitters run average based on his first game (less than 1% of the duration of the season).

You are just being very undude past few days. Go and have a chillpill.

You shouldn't use quotes to put words in people's mouths.

I actually think from your post that you don't know what the word average means.  No sense in going around in circles.  Just join a lower difficulty pool since that is what will make you happy.

I like how you just ignored all of the math in my post.

Better rig = more profits

Lower difficulty = same profits

Unless your sample size is 8-12 hours like most of the complainers seem to mine before saying the difficulty is too high and they should be mining LTC.

Average: calculated by adding a group of numbers together and dividing the total by the amount of numbers

You're basing your views on a short period of time. Just because someone won the lottery with a single ticket in no way means everyone who buys one ticket is going to win the lottery. It means ONE person did on their first try.

Learn what averaging is:

Average block time is 30s
Someone finds block in 15s. To equal this out, a block will statistically take 45s.

If you're submitting blocks every minute or so (on *average* -- seriously, you need to look that word up) on a block that has a 30s block generation time *on average* -- again, look this word up -- you're getting screwed.

This is basic mathematics. Just because you want to use this flawed vision that "it doesn't matter because it's just the lottery" is irrelevant. It is what it is.

Take some classes on statistical probability and maybe you'll start to understand what words like "average" mean and how they relate to things, because as it is you're pushing your ignorant ideas on to others who know better. Math doesn't lie; people do.

Wow... we'ere all stupid and get a better rig... But if we need a better rig aren't you admitting we are correct? Theres no need for that kind of crap.


I threw some number in excel to try and discover how the faster coins effect the miner based on their hashpower. Feel free to try and pick it apart, i may have made a mistake but I think this illustrates exactly what a lot of us are talking about. By lowering the difficulty, you would push the slower miners stats to look closer and closer to how the fast miner looks in my chart.

Now obviously there are downsides to a diff to low for the fast guys, which is why I think variable diff is the only good solution.

https://i.imgur.com/BqV8Hg3.png?1


As you can see, there is an exponential curve forming. Meaning, as the coins approach very fast block change speeds, and as hash rate goes down, you begin to see some extreme losses, if the curve continued it would approach 100%.

Edit: Couple things I dont like the wording on now: When I said "Time for 1 share" it really should say "time for block change". I also should have been more clear that "average loss per block change"  ALSO means something more like "average time to find a share". Hope that clears confusion.

Just because it AVERAGES a certain time does not mean that it MUST TAKE that same time.

Example:
Calculations say that you should get a block once every 2 hours.  You mine for 6 hours and hit 3 blocks.  Every single block hits EXACTLY 120 minutes apart.  This is typical behavior of mining, right?  No?  Well hell, how could that be?!

Sorry dude but you are completly wrong (for this pool).

There is a BIG Difference while using 128 diff <> 512 diff.

Just example numbers: A 600khs Card needs avg. 20sec to generate a >512 diff share.
Unfortunately the Pool is mining a Coin with ~10-15sec blocktarget.

As soon as a new Block is found your current work instantly gets USELESS and your card starts hashing on the new block.
(10sec ++ of work lost, 0khs submitted to the pool due high share-diff)

If we had this pool working on ~32diff the card would have been able to create some x32 Diff-shares and
sumbit them to the pool.

There should be a vardiff adjustment while swiching to coins with fast block-target.
I mined for ~1 day here and just saw my cgminers reporting stales and 'work restart from pool'.

RIG is a 3x7950's machine running avg. @ 2130kh. It is submitting a ~1970WU on litecoinpools,
here i get sth like 1500WU which underlines my argumentation.

Just my 50cents

Hell!  I don't know anything about it either, but I can definitely say I know more than some of these people posing theories that don't make a lick of sense!

LOL..  That is why I dont talk about this subject..  Because I dont know anything about this subject..  LOL

im taking about the LTC/BTC exchange not to USD as i would sell my LTC for a higher price on ebay not shitty exchange prices

lol you guys are stupid... that is all there is to it... get a better rig and stop complaining.

Have you ever loaded up CGMiner with a 400KH/s rig on Middlecoin and instantly saw a share submitted?  I have.

If you don't know why that is important then just go pitch a fit and cry about the difficulty.  It took me a few ah-ha moments to figure it out, but if you can't understand it after the beautiful explanation by metamine, then you never will get it.

As far as ranlo's theory goes... just stop.

No hashrate allows you to submit shares precisely at a given interval.  A 400KH/s rig could submit two 512-difficulty shares within a few seconds of each other.  A 1MH/s rig could go a full minute without submitting a share.

ya-dee-ya-da... go mine Bitcoin, dummies

The issue is that it is random, you don't get blocks every 10 seconds.  Every second, you have a 10% chance of getting a block.

If you have 10% of the hashing power, you have a 10% chance of getting the block.

It is not a race between the fast and the slow miners, where the slower miners always lose.  It is like a dice roll where you win if a 1 comes up.

Someone who rolls the dice faster will get more 1's, but the slower thrower will still get 1's.

Latency can matter.  If 2 people win at the same time, then the one who submits first wins the block (but that only matters when a block is found).

Having said that, when a switch happens, the pool should still accept shares for the old chain. 

What would happen here?

- miner finds a LTC block
- pool switches to some other chain
- miner submits LTC block to pool

Would that count as a rejected block?

The fast miner will deliver 6 shares in the time the slow miner submits 1 share, so your comparison is flawed in itself...

Mining speed is measured in khash/s and every hash can be a winner, independent of your total hashing output.

Difficulty affects variance, not the amount of accepted shares in the long run.

Connection speed between your rig and pool server and pool server and the coin network influences your reject percentage.

I concur.

Your "concept" is highly flawed. If you submitted 10x 512-shares and 40x 128-shares, they WOULD be equal. But here's how it works:

Scenario A:

128 A 07:41
128 A 07:42
128 A 07:43
128 A 07:44
128 A 07:45
128 A 07:46
128 A 07:47
128 A 07:48
128 R 07:49

Scenario B:

512 A 07:44
512 R 07:49

What's the difference here? With A you got 8x 128 submitted on time. That gives you a share count of (128*8=1024). With B, you got 1x 512 submitted on time. That gives you a share count of (1*512=512).

Therefore, while your GPU's worked at the SAME speed, you got half the share count.

Now, on things like LTC where the block time is large anyways, this is not such a big problem. But let's look at a fast-block coin:

Scenario A) fast miner:

512 A 08:13 B1
512 A 08:13 B2
512 R 08:14 B3
512 A 08:14 B4
512 A 08:14 B5
512 R 08:14 B6

Now a slow miner:

512 R 08:14 B1
512 R 08:15 B2
512 R 08:15 B3
512 R 08:16 B4
512 R 08:16 B5
512 A 08:17 B6

The fast miner got credit for 4/6 blocks. The second miner got credit for 1/6 blocks. Therefore the slower miner is being screwed out of the vast majority of all earnings. For 5/6 of these blocks, the slow miner got absolutely nothing, despite using power and wear&tear on their GPU.

Ok, I have been away for a bit, and it seems like there has been continued debate about the difficulty. It seems like the pool owner is getting frustrated with it, based on the new message on the FAQ. He deserves nothing but praise for his efforts on this pool. Seriously. However, I don't think this debate is going away.

*The way I see it is the more the pool moves on to the next block or switches coins, the more small miners are effected. The amounts are fake for the sake of illustrating the point.

If it takes me 1 minute to get a share, when a new block/switch happens I am going to lose a random amount of hashing power equivalent to between 0 seconds and 60 seconds.

If it takes someone else 10 seconds to get a share, when a new block/switch happens they will lose an amount of hashing power equivalent to between 0 seconds and 10 seconds.

Therefore, over time, the small miner is hurt. Somebody that is a math ninja could probably chart this out and graph it, but there is the principle.

Assume for the sake of argument all the coins have the same difficulty. Say we have a new block or switch coins 100 times per day. (in reality its probably thousands). Smaller miner will lose, statistically, 30 seconds per switch of hashing power. That's 50 minutes. Big miner will statistically lose 5 seconds per change. That's a little over 8 minutes.... forget about the minutes, since my numbers are fictitious, yet the principle still applies.

Again, I read the pool owners message on the FAQ, not trying to ruffle feathers and I certainly commend him for the improvements to this pool so far. However, I can't ignore this and pretend it doesn't have some effect.

*Edited for clarity