Block creation will eventually become more stable and predictable

FreeMoney

legendary

Activity: 1246

Merit: 1014

Strength in numbers

Quote from: Atheros on July 12, 2011, 11:28:17 PM

I'm not completely familiar with pools but I've just read that "Proportional pools try to combat [pool hopping] by not immediately publishing when a new round has begun but this is not 100% effective. " In this pool, you would want to mine all the time. However all of the miners would be at a disadvantage in this pool because no one could do 'miner-pause behavior'. Individuals would be smart to abandon this kind of pool and do solo mining or a type of pooled mining where miners can all benefit from miner-pause behavior. If no one comes up with a fair way to do pools AND miner-pause behavior, then large miners would never want to be in a pool.
But I don't know much about pools yet. I don't know how they keep track of the work miners do.

That's right. The answer is to use the current power method instead of the persistent shares. The very first pool did this, but that didn't win out for psychological reasons. People hate not getting paid because they disconnected for a minute, but it doesn't really matter since it evens out so fast. Serious profit maximizing miners will move to current power pools as soon as this effect starts to show.

Atheros

sr. member

Activity: 249

Merit: 251

Quote from: opticbit on July 12, 2011, 11:00:30 PM

how would pool hopping play into this,- jumping after the first 43.5%...

I'm not completely familiar with pools but I've just read that "Proportional pools try to combat [pool hopping] by not immediately publishing when a new round has begun but this is not 100% effective. " In this pool, you would want to mine all the time. However all of the miners would be at a disadvantage in this pool because no one could do 'miner-pause behavior'. Individuals would be smart to abandon this kind of pool and do solo mining or a type of pooled mining where miners can all benefit from miner-pause behavior. If no one comes up with a fair way to do pools AND miner-pause behavior, then large miners would never want to be in a pool.
But I don't know much about pools yet. I don't know how they keep track of the work miners do.

opticbit

hero member

Activity: 695

Merit: 502

PGP: 6EBEBCE1E0507C38

how would pool hopping play into this,- jumping after the first 43.5%...

Atheros

sr. member

Activity: 249

Merit: 251

Thank you for your replies, especially FreeMoney and Meni Rosenfeld.

So it seems definite that this will happen to large degree provided that the thermal cycles are not damaging to the hardware. If a secondary equally rewarding use of computing power exists then this behavior, which I will call "miner-pause behavior" will definitely happen. Block generation will slowly switch from being a homogenous Poisson process to a non-homogenous Poisson process. We should be able to calculate the exact amount of time after a block is found that it is worth it for miners to start mining but the fact that people pay different amounts for electricity, including 0, would make it quite complicated to estimate at this time.

I accidentally worded that very officially. :-|

Meni Rosenfeld

donator

Activity: 2058

Merit: 1054

Quote from: imperi on July 12, 2011, 02:03:46 AM

Google "Poisson distribution". Get educated.

Read the OP. Then make an on-topic comment.

Block finding is a non-homogeneous Poisson process with rate parameter proportional to the worldwide hashing power dedicated to finding a valid block. If it was homogeneous, time between blocks would follow the exponential distribution. The OP is suggesting that, due to the financial incentives of the miners in a post-minting world, the hashrate will drop after every block and gradually climb back, making the time between blocks distribution less variable than the exponential.

phillipsjk

legendary

Activity: 1008

Merit: 1001

Let the chips fall where they may.

There is something that may mitigate this somewhat: Most power plants can't start and stop instantaneously. Nuclear power is the slowest and often only used for baseload for that reason. Industrial miners using solar/wind power would face storage or transmission losses if they elect to wait before trying to process a block.

I think even the fastest power plants have a turn-around time of at least a minute.

Jaime Frontero

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

Quote from: ctoon6 on July 12, 2011, 02:09:21 AM

Quote from: Jaime Frontero on July 12, 2011, 02:05:12 AM

Quote from: ctoon6 on July 12, 2011, 02:02:32 AM

as long as you don't have more than a dozen, it would probably not waste much electricity at all.a fan does not have much mass so starting it would would not be too much burden.

it's not just the fans on the GPUs.

put a Kill-A-Watt on a miner sometime, and compare the power draw in the first five minutes of operation to the draw at steady-state.

write up a lab report for me and ill belive you. you fail to state the state the "miner" was in before you started the meter. stopping and starting a mining operation, as long as all the data stays in ram, and the gpu just stops doing numbers, hardly any energy would be wasted by not mining, other than keeping all the equipment idle. with 3-5 gpus the savings would be great because you only have 1 set of ram, cpu and mobo and 3-5 gpus that won't be working. with only 1 or 2 gpus on a mobo i could see it as being a waste, but with 3-5+ i could see it working assuming the original assumption was correct.

i have two GPUs/mobo. the reason for that is that it's a much more cost effective build. the PSU to run a couple of 5870s doesn't scale at twice the dollars to running four - that PSU is much more than twice as expensive. ditto for a two PCIe-slot mobo vs. a four (really five) slot mobo. and etc.

hardware cost doesn't scale arithmetically - it scales geometrically.

so yes, i can see it working for a 3-5 GPU setup too. but the upfront costs would be ridiculous. talking about the comparatively minuscule differences in profitability due to starting and stopping vs. not starting and stopping would be a waste of time - if one took all costs into consideration.

FreeMoney

legendary

Activity: 1246

Merit: 1014

Strength in numbers

Another cool effect is that you'll actually be able to get faster service with a higher fee even once the fee you were going to pay guarantees inclusion. If you pay .001 you'll get in for sure, but if you pay .1 maybe you'll make the difference for 10000 miners and decrease your expected wait by 30 seconds. There probably will be some roughly known point at which all available hashing power is on and extra won't help or at least give greatly diminishing returns. So watching the basket of fees will be part of excellent fee strategy.

FreeMoney

legendary

Activity: 1246

Merit: 1014

Strength in numbers

Quote from: Jaime Frontero on July 12, 2011, 01:56:54 AM

Quote from: FreeMoney on July 12, 2011, 01:43:54 AM

Quote from: Jaime Frontero on July 12, 2011, 01:32:44 AM

block creation is perfectly stable and predictable. it was designed that way.

but it was designed by someone with a long-term vision, and you simply can't look at it in the short term.

Um, it is not perfectly stable and anyone reasonable looks both short and long term. Are you missing the point of the original post?

you mean this:

Quote

The result is that almost all miners individually, acting rationally, would stop mining after a block is found and simply go about routing and keeping track of transactions until enough fees accumulate to warrant the electricity to search for a block.

?

no. i don't think i'm missing it - i just don't think it's valid.

on a practical level, no miner does this. it's a ridiculous amount of effort.

and on a strictly financial level, i suspect it's more expensive (in terms of both electrical power and wear on equipment [starting and stopping fans, etc.]) to do this. do you turn off the engine of your car, waiting at a stoplight (some new hybrids - which are designed for that - excepted)? no. you use more gas starting an engine than you use in 30-60 seconds of idle.

i just can't see starting and stopping my miners six times an hour as a particularly efficient strategy. even if i were to write a script to automate it, it would still - i offer - use more power and degrade the equipment more than would be offset by any tiny, theoretical profit.

How about in 140 years? Do you think people will mine if they get 0BTC for finding a block? Or maybe they'll wait until there is a fee offered causing the effect the Atheros is talking about.

ctoon6

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 251

Quote from: Jaime Frontero on July 12, 2011, 02:05:12 AM

Quote from: ctoon6 on July 12, 2011, 02:02:32 AM

as long as you don't have more than a dozen, it would probably not waste much electricity at all.a fan does not have much mass so starting it would would not be too much burden.

it's not just the fans on the GPUs.

put a Kill-A-Watt on a miner sometime, and compare the power draw in the first five minutes of operation to the draw at steady-state.

write up a lab report for me and ill belive you. you fail to state the state the "miner" was in before you started the meter. stopping and starting a mining operation, as long as all the data stays in ram, and the gpu just stops doing numbers, hardly any energy would be wasted by not mining, other than keeping all the equipment idle. with 3-5 gpus the savings would be great because you only have 1 set of ram, cpu and mobo and 3-5 gpus that won't be working. with only 1 or 2 gpus on a mobo i could see it as being a waste, but with 3-5+ i could see it working assuming the original assumption was correct.

Jaime Frontero

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

Quote from: ctoon6 on July 12, 2011, 02:02:32 AM

as long as you don't have more than a dozen, it would probably not waste much electricity at all.a fan does not have much mass so starting it would would not be too much burden.

it's not just the fans on the GPUs.

put a Kill-A-Watt on a miner sometime, and compare the power draw in the first five minutes of operation to the draw at steady-state.

imperi

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 101

Google "Poisson distribution". Get educated.

ctoon6

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 251

as long as you don't have more than a dozen, it would probably not waste much electricity at all.a fan does not have much mass so starting it would would not be too much burden.

Jaime Frontero

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

Quote from: FreeMoney on July 12, 2011, 01:43:54 AM

Quote from: Jaime Frontero on July 12, 2011, 01:32:44 AM

block creation is perfectly stable and predictable. it was designed that way.

but it was designed by someone with a long-term vision, and you simply can't look at it in the short term.

Um, it is not perfectly stable and anyone reasonable looks both short and long term. Are you missing the point of the original post?

you mean this:

Quote

The result is that almost all miners individually, acting rationally, would stop mining after a block is found and simply go about routing and keeping track of transactions until enough fees accumulate to warrant the electricity to search for a block.

?

no. i don't think i'm missing it - i just don't think it's valid.

on a practical level, no miner does this. it's a ridiculous amount of effort.

and on a strictly financial level, i suspect it's more expensive (in terms of both electrical power and wear on equipment [starting and stopping fans, etc.]) to do this. do you turn off the engine of your car, waiting at a stoplight (some new hybrids - which are designed for that - excepted)? no. you use more gas starting an engine than you use in 30-60 seconds of idle.

i just can't see starting and stopping my miners six times an hour as a particularly efficient strategy. even if i were to write a script to automate it, it would still - i offer - use more power and degrade the equipment more than would be offset by any tiny, theoretical profit.

Serge

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Atheros on July 12, 2011, 01:28:00 AM

Quote from: Serge on July 12, 2011, 01:14:03 AM

There is no "acting rationally" in social behavior driven by individual greed of each participant. You may stop, guy next to you will be in the race trying to get ahead of you.

By "acting rationally" I did indeed mean acting selfish and greedy and making rational decisions to increase your own profits.

it simply will not happen how you describe it. we don't have to go far in history for examples. take current political and economic systems in the world. are our countries (governments) acting rationally and in the best interests of their citizens or hugely driven by special interest lobbying groups looking after their corporate sponsors? is news media presenting real news or rationalizing and dramatizing everything to point that it isn't objective news anymore but a show to pump ratings? I tend to think we live in the age of idiocracy especially here in the US and the reason for all of this is human greed. I seen whole industry destroying itself driven by individual greed, if any one wonders, I'm talking about online porn industry. There is no acting rational in mass driven by greed and profits, can't see it working like that.

FreeMoney

legendary

Activity: 1246

Merit: 1014

Strength in numbers

Quote from: Jaime Frontero on July 12, 2011, 01:32:44 AM

block creation is perfectly stable and predictable. it was designed that way.

but it was designed by someone with a long-term vision, and you simply can't look at it in the short term.

Um, it is not perfectly stable and anyone reasonable looks both short and long term. Are you missing the point of the original post?

Jaime Frontero

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

block creation is perfectly stable and predictable. it was designed that way.

but it was designed by someone with a long-term vision, and you simply can't look at it in the short term.

Atheros

sr. member

Activity: 249

Merit: 251

Quote from: Serge on July 12, 2011, 01:14:03 AM

There is no "acting rationally" in social behavior driven by individual greed of each participant. You may stop, guy next to you will be in the race trying to get ahead of you.

By "acting rationally" I did indeed mean acting selfish and greedy and making rational decisions to increase your own profits.

Serge

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1000

There is no "acting rationally" in social behavior driven by individual greed of each participant. You may stop, guy next to you will be in the race trying to get ahead of you.

FreeMoney

legendary

Activity: 1246

Merit: 1014

Strength in numbers

This is great. I got chills back when I first realized. I think we'll start to notice it to a small degree in 10 years when 6.25 is the base reward. The free electricity people won't stop, but a good number of people will and we'll be able to see it in slightly more even times between blocks.

Actually, it probably depends on what it does to hardware to change the load on it constantly. If that's bad for hardware then we probably won't notice it for longer.

Secondary uses for hashing power will influence things too. Even if you have free electricity you might switch between bitcoin and namecoin based on the accumulated fees waiting on each.

Topic: Block creation will eventually become more stable and predictable (Read 2435 times)