Topic: bit pit - (LP, ESMPPS, 8-decimal payout, SSL, API, 0% fee, Almost 0% Stales!) - page 27. (Read 80771 times)

Thanks to everyone this morning, I appreciated your continued contribution to our pool.

Keep hashing, I'm brainstorming 

Yea.  I dunno, wish there was some sort of inbetween but I guess scoring is ok.  Doubt they could offer that much BTC reward per block without charging a fee.  Maybe 1 or less (not even sure if that's viable) per block, as something to distinguish themselves from other pools further.

seems we lost some power since the bounty has been claimed lol. maybe there is way to offer a reward (3-5 btc) always to whoever finds a block? maybe it would convince more people to mine here. and eithere method is fine with me on payment.

Pool hopping is very complicated, and honestly I don't fully understand a lot of the math behind it. However, conceptually what it does is take advantage of the fact that if you stop mining (on a proportional pool) you have a "residual" estimated reward. Apparently a pool hopper can work a little on pool A, stop, work a little on pool B, stop, and return to pool A again. The pool hopper executes this series of back and forth hopping in a specific timing as to always keep a residual amount of earnings in one pool while working another. So, yes, a pool hopper can actually get paid in excess of 100% of their "fair" value of work.

What this means for honest miners, is that in a proportional pool their is a risk that their reward may be lower than it should be. The risk is, of course, the result of pool hoppers. When they target a proportional pool all the honest miners at the proportional pool lose out on their earnings so the pool hopper can gain.

As a pool operator, it makes no difference to me. A pool operator himself is of little risk in either case. However, the miners are the ones that are potentially out.

However, as we saw with our first round a scoring system is not without it's downsides either.

There appears to be no perfect solution, just trade offs.

sorry i cannot understand what pool hoping means and why it is the absolute evil :p
to my simple mind a share is a share and as such it should be paid no matter what. It isn't like you can give at
the same share to different pools, is it?

Yes, that is actually what I have been working on since we solved that block. It may be tomorrow before it's completely done, it is getting very late for me and I probably should be going to bed.

However, until I get this screen completed, here is the block explorer link for our block: http://blockexplorer.com/block/00000000000006950d7082d8ac99606293d625fa5e502bd6fe648d0dd5646d45

We solved block 132211, and it currently has 28 confirmations.

Personally, I don't care what is used. There are enough pools out there with various scoring methods that people can pick one they like.

I think that as the pool admins you should use what you like best, announce what it will be, and then stick with it.

I, personally, have no problems with that. We made the assumption that a pool hopping proof scoring system would be preferable, but sometimes assumptions are incorrect.

I do not think lowentropy or I have a problem changing our scoring system. We just want to make sure that it's a group decision. I appreciate your input, hopefully others will comment as well so that a direction can be affirmed by as many of us as possible.

proportional like deepbit

was not me, congrats to the one who did, ill get the next one hehe

We reduced the decay factor, you estimated reward shouldn't fluctuate nearly as much.

There is still the open question of what everybody wants to do? Stay scoring, or switch to proportional. We've heard a couple of people's input, but would prefer more input before attempting a change like this. However, with a fresh round, it is the perfect time to consider such a switch.

Are there any changes being made to scoring this round?

Now I see the blocks found number, I spent probably 5 minutes looking for the stats page (the link must have been removed, IIRC before it went to a page that displayed "nothing here" or something like that.

Nothing wrong with that hash rate, that almost what I'm running at 

Also, if you solved the block you'd know on your console. Next to each of your workers it shows "Blocks found". Unfortunately, you were not the lucky winner.

Well, It must not have been me, I pretty much am only able to contribute Mhash's, no programming or development skills, and only 270-280 Mhash/s at that. I'm nearly a nobody in the Bitcoin world 

But if IWantCoins found the block, that's me and you can tell me.


Also, I personally didn't have a scoring problem with this round, mostly because I knew it was a new pool and even though I started mining there (I think Saturday Night) I still saw my estimated reward jumping from 1.5 to .5 BTC up and down several times. I figured it was just from new miners coming on and the percentage that I was contributing at any one time changing drastically. I still think I made as much, or probably more then I would have earned mining at any other pool. Plus, additionally I had a shot at 5 bonus bitcoins the chance at finding the first block was enough to convince me to mine here rather than staying at deepbit or slush.

Sounds gravy to me.  I think it's very important, considering all the recent events with BTC, to put a priority on privacy and security above all else.  And allow the opt-in for those who don't mind showing a little leg.

I'll show my leg for BTC 

The next round will hopefully be a lot shorter. The thing to remember is that we stayed below 4 GH/s (on average) until just this Saturday, so round 1's length looked "worse" than the hash rate would indicate reasonable.

Wow, that reminders me.... I need to write screens for round history.

It's seemed silly to write a screen we didn't need yet, now it seems rather urgent. lol.

As far as leader boards, that is now high on my list. However, for everyone's anonymity I was thinking about not showing usernames unless each user individually opted in to allowing their username to be shown. For a user who hadn't opted in to that, they'd simply be listed by their numeric user id on the leader board. How does that sound to everybody?

You beat me to it 

I am ecstatic, we solved one. For those interested, here is the block we solved: http://blockexplorer.com/block/00000000000006950d7082d8ac99606293d625fa5e502bd6fe648d0dd5646d45

We solved it after 1,294,502 shares. That guy was a though one!

I don't want to break the winner's anonymity, I'm not sure how everyone fills about me just blurting out screen names. If I were in the winner's shoes I'd be celebrating!

But, we do know who solved the block and is a valued member of the pool. We will be emailing him shortly to congratulate him and to make arrangements for him to receive his award.

I appreciate everyone who's help us! Now, on to round 2! 

Yea, hopefully this next round is shorter.  Last one was a war.