Benchmark [P2Pool vs btcGuild vs Eligius] - page 5.

Sonny

hero member

Activity: 868

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Kaega on January 28, 2014, 11:50:54 AM

Quote from: roy7 on January 27, 2014, 09:17:07 AM

apparently you can charge a 3% fee and be the 2nd largest pool in the world

Now think of this: Essentially btcguild is getting 3% of the total hashrate for running the service so at 4,534 TH/s is ~136 TH. Throw that into any calculator without fixed costs as it's essentially "free" and realize running a successful pool is making someone very, very rich.

Why is there no fixed costs?
The pool operates need to maintain both the software and hardware, and need to deal with problems like DDoS.

roy7

sr. member

Activity: 434

Merit: 250

Quote from: Kaega on January 28, 2014, 11:50:54 AM

Quote from: roy7 on January 27, 2014, 09:17:07 AM

apparently you can charge a 3% fee and be the 2nd largest pool in the world

Now think of this: Essentially btcguild is getting 3% of the total hashrate for running the service so at 4,534 TH/s is ~136 TH. Throw that into any calculator without fixed costs as it's essentially "free" and realize running a successful pool is making someone very, very rich.

Certainly the very biggest pools make a lot of money, and the next tier of pools make a profit. Personally I'd like to set up a network of pool nodes around the world with latency based routing to get you automatically to the fastest one and such. But the problem is paying for 6-10 servers around the world gets expensive when it's unlikely you can attract enough miners to even break even.

Kaega

full member

Activity: 158

Merit: 100

Quote from: roy7 on January 27, 2014, 09:17:07 AM

apparently you can charge a 3% fee and be the 2nd largest pool in the world

Now think of this: Essentially btcguild is getting 3% of the total hashrate for running the service so at 4,534 TH/s is ~136 TH. Throw that into any calculator without fixed costs as it's essentially "free" and realize running a successful pool is making someone very, very rich.

roy7

sr. member

Activity: 434

Merit: 250

I agree that comparing to BTCGuild PPLNS would be much more useful. However, the end result should just be that P2POOL comes out ahead because of BTCGuild's 3% fee.

I thought about setting up a pool last year but decided there were already so many good ones, so what would be the point? I made a TRC pool instead. I've thought about doing it again recently, but I still come back to the fact there are multiple good pools and apparently you can charge a 3% fee and be the 2nd largest pool in the world. So you can't even try to compete for traffic by doing a lower fee.

raskul

sr. member

Activity: 434

Merit: 250

bitparking, as long as you are not expecting a steady rate of coins, you'll find long rounds followed by quick blocks... and merge mining with a range of other coins. bitparking. definately. Grin

Holliday

legendary

Activity: 1120

Merit: 1012

Quote from: eleuthria on January 15, 2014, 03:53:24 PM

It's up to miners to determine how much steady income, management interface, email alerts, etc., are worth to them.

Let's not forget the issues surrounding network centralization and what that may do to confidence in Bitcoin itself (the hand that feeds). We should also keep in mind that mining directly to an address you control has the advantage of requiring no third party trust. Many of us have been around long enough to see miners lose revenue because the traditional pool they mined on was hacked (I'm not suggesting this would happen at BTCGuild, only that it is not beyond the realm of possibility). I do hope the miners consider all of these issues when choosing how to deploy their hashing power.

eleuthria

legendary

Activity: 1750

Merit: 1007

Quote from: zerokwel on January 15, 2014, 03:41:11 PM

not really a ideal benchmark because of the differences of p2pool and PPS. as you could of been mining during a lucky time for the pool hence higher rewards. also got to factor in pool fees. for example next week the results could be much closer..

p2pool should always beat PPS on BTC Guild in the long run. That's the trade off you make for PPS: Steady income at a high fee vs extremely random income at low/no fee.

A much better benchmark is comparing BTC Guild PPLNS to p2pool. But even then, as zerokwel pointed out, luck is going to be what determines anything. In the extremely long run, p2pool will win (low fee). But BTC Guild will be MUCH more steady from week to week. It's up to miners to determine how much steady income, management interface, email alerts, etc., are worth to them.

zerokwel

sr. member

Activity: 464

Merit: 250

not really a ideal benchmark because of the differences of p2pool and PPS. as you could of been mining during a lucky time for the pool hence higher rewards. also got to factor in pool fees. for example next week the results could be much closer..

semaster

sr. member

Activity: 395

Merit: 250

Quote from: gmaxwell on January 15, 2014, 12:17:38 PM

What firmware do you have on those antminers? Your DOA rate is quite high.

Thanks for tip.
I updated firmware to the last current from https://github.com/AntMiner/AntGen1/tree/master/firmware
and now DOA is much less

gmaxwell

staff

Activity: 4284

Merit: 8808

What firmware do you have on those antminers? Your DOA rate is quite high.

semaster

sr. member

Activity: 395

Merit: 250

As I have a number of different mining hardware I decided to make some practical comparison of mining pools.

So I get two antMiners 180Gh each and pointed one of them to BTCGuild and other to p2pool node. Initial results of mining (180Gh) for period:
from 1 January till 14 January 2014: p2pool - BTC0.952269785 VS btcguild (PPS) - BTC0.77025336

Now is running continuous benchmark 6 antminers total 1080Gh on each pool:
14-31 Jan 2014: p2pool - BTC2.99025045 VS btcguild (PPLNS) - BTC5.0158
1-14 Feb 2014: p2pool - BTC3.2248 VS btcguild (PPLNS) - BTC2.7164 VS Eligius BTC2.5137
15-28 Feb 2014: p2pool - BTC2.5711 VS btcguild (PPLNS) - BTC2.4763 VS Eligius BTC2.0456
1-14 March 2014: p2pool - BTC1.1336 VS btcguild (PPLNS) - BTC1.7816 VS Eligius BTC1.7655
15-31 March 2014: p2pool - BTC2.0796 VS btcguild (PPLNS) - BTC1.7523 VS Eligius BTC1.7838
1-14 April 2014: p2pool - BTC1.0615 VS btcguild (PPLNS) - BTC1.1026 VS Eligius BTC1.2293
15-30 April 2014: p2pool - BTC1.2836 VS btcguild (PPLNS) - BTC1.2097 VS Eligius BTC1.2339
1-14 May 2014: p2pool - BTC0.7297 VS btcguild (PPLNS) - BTC0.7750 VS Eligius BTC1.0017
15-31 May 2014: p2pool - BTC0.9148 VS btcguild (PPLNS) - BTC0.7351 VS Eligius BTC0.7290
1-14 June 2014: p2pool - BTC0.4106 VS btcguild (PPLNS) - BTC0.5750 VS Eligius BTC0.5481
15-30 June 2014: p2pool - BTC0.9081 VS btcguild (PPLNS) - BTC0.6732 VS Eligius BTC0.5135
1-14 July 2014: p2pool - BTC0.6109 VS btcguild (PPLNS) - BTC0.3858 VS Eligius BTC0.4402
15-31 July 2014: p2pool - BTC0.6724 VS btcguild (PPLNS) - BTC0.4581 VS Eligius BTC0.4614
1-14 Aug 2014: p2pool - BTC0.4627 VS btcguild (PPLNS) - BTC0.2729 VS Eligius BTC0.2676
15-31 Aug 2014: p2pool - BTC0.2996VS btcguild (PPLNS) - BTC0.3578 VS Eligius BTC0.3613
1-14 Sept 2014: p2pool - BTC0.0878VS btcguild (PPLNS) - BTC0.2675VS Eligius BTC0.2782
15-31 Sept 2014: p2pool - BTC0.1344VS btcguild (PPLNS) - BTC0.1743VS Eligius BTC0.2068
1-14 Oct 2014: p2pool - BTC0.1764VS btcguild (PPLNS) - BTC0.1890VS Eligius BTC0.2478
15-30 Oct 2014: p2pool - BTC0.2102VS btcguild (PPLNS) - BTC0.1907VS Eligius BTC0.1767

Total from 1 Feb 2014: p2pool - BTC16.9718 VS btcguild (PPLNS) - BTC16.0933 VS Eligius BTC15.8041

Benchmark is goin on:
1080GH = 6 x AntMiners pointed to p2pool node - benchmark is running on Elizium node
1080GH = 6 x antMiners to Eligius.st
1080GH = 6 x antMiners to btcguild

Topic: Benchmark [P2Pool vs btcGuild vs Eligius] - page 5. (Read 27208 times)