This made me think:
Good news everyone! 43% is dead!
We no longer have to hop at 0.43*difficulty!
...
Of course in any given round, after total shares=diff, your shares are worth less than one. But over time the shorter rounds make up for it. Even with only 3 Prop and backup, your efficiency will always be about 1.83, unless you hop off *too soon*. With ten other pools you get about 250% over PPS - sound familiar?
tl;dr BOLD CLAIM: As long as you always hop to the pool with the lowest shares - regardless of hashspeed - you don't need to hop to backup at 0.43.
I tried several schedulers now and I thought about the following (new "--HopLowestSharecount" scheduler):
- mine the 3 pools with lowest sharecount at any moment (where 3 can be changed to a custom value with "--hop_ x_pools=3" parameter)
- forget about the 0.43 threshold
- It won't need back-up pools, it will always hop between the 3 pools with lowest sharecount and with 18 pools, that should work without problems
It's a bit like the OldDefaultScheduler and SliceScheduler, without the threshold.
That is bold to make
bold claims, and be incorrect at them. A share submitted after 43.3% of difficulty has elapsed in a proportional pool has a lower expected return than if that share was submitted to a 0 fee PPS or even-paying pool, or if a switch was made to solo mining. By mining from the start until 100% of
difficulty shares, you reduce your expected return from 28% to 22%. Considering the lag in statistics and delays switching into and out of a proportional pool, you should be triggering an earlier exit than that to maximize your expected earnings. By mining more pools, you have a higher chance of one of the pools being in the sweet spot, and can also choose the highest reward pool at a particular time, but that doesn't change the ultimate temporal valuation of a submitted share.
Indeed, you also shouldn't be 'slicing', shares should be submitted to the highest instantaneous reward pool only. I would have to scroll back 100 pages to see who came up with this stinker... The fallacy of reducing variation is why people are paying 7% for PPS (and 20% for credit cards), they can't see or comprehend the long-term.
