Topic: [CLOSED] BTC Guild - Pays TxFees+NMC, Stratum, VarDiff, Private Servers - page 54. (Read 903150 times)

Take a look here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/benchmark-p2pool-vs-btcguild-vs-eligius-416933

It's a pretty good experiment showing the earnings across multiple pools.  It has the benefit of being long-running as well.  There are other options than GHash.io.  They all pay pretty comparably to what you're seeing here.

It aint about greed, it's about me not going to a pool with 3.2 Th/s which should earn 0.09x a day and settling for whatever I get even if it was something like 0.04. I'm not the only one with this school of thought but probably the only one to speak up and not fear people like you who think were greedy when it has nothing do to with greed.

I have noticed, that user 561818 is doing something, that could be described as pool hopping. So, taking into consideration, that he has more than 1PH/s, is it possible, that we are having these bad and good luck fluctuations because of him continuously disconnecting and connecting back?

Thanks!

I mean, I'd argue that under Section 200.3(c)(2) you're exempt as there's a strong case that you're merely a merchant purchasing hashpower in exchange for "virtual currency".

But still. I read this thing over and it sucks. I mean, it has some valid points but it's section 200.1(n)(1) that defines "Virtual Currency Business Activity" as "receiving Virtual Currency for transmission or transmitting the same" that's god damn ridiculous.

I happen to currently reside in New York and you bet your ass I'm submitting comment when it opens up on the 23rd. I have some weighty contacts in the NYC bitcoin community, and I'll be encouraging them strongly to submit comment and have others submit comments.

I want 200.1(n)(1) dropped entirely or made far more specific, and I want an additional exemption for mining pools.  

 ♫ "In ten years we're going to have one million lawyers..." ♫

Now we know what the surplus bastards are doing to earn a living.

Another greedy miner ready to join in on sinking the whole experiment for their short term gain, good work, I applaude thee.


A pool's size doesn't matter in the long run if there are no bad actors.  You're just tripping up on daily numbers.

Ya but none that will offer the same earnings. Some could argue bitminter is good and while they are. They have days where thy don't find blocks and with the 3.2 Ths I have I should be seeing around 0.09x. So while Ghash has their downfalls, I will always go to them as a backup for earnings.

Ive tried others like slush etc. and while some also argue that a pools size doesn't mean much in the way of earnings the bottom line is that it does. Ghash has the blocks found for people to earn around what they should be seeing with the hash they have available.

I'll go to everywhere, except GHASH.IO. There are lot of good guys still remaining. SLush, Eligius, p2pool, etc...

Well, if this ends up coming to fruition then I guess ghash will be getting a big bump from people because that's where I'll be going as I suspect others will too when the pool closes if it ever does.

Nevada currently, but this regulation would affect the pool if it has users in New York.  And I doubt a "I agree I'm not a resident of New York" checkbox would be enough.  Luckily this has 45 days of commenting, then review, and then there are 45 days after it's put into effect before it is enforced.  Quite frankly, if something even remotely close to what is currently open for comment goes into effect, the pool will probably be forced to close.

Living in the US makes trying to sidestep/ignore this a non-option.  I doubt they'd chase international pool owners, but depending on what country they're in, I wouldn't exactly assume they're safe (US doesn't have a history of respecting international borders when it comes to internet businesses).

Where are you / the pool based ?

I'm in PA.

And so it begins.  New York regulators are now proposing things which would make it essentially illegal for anybody to use Bitcoin in that state without being registered. It is so over-reaching that it would even catch things like the Bitcoin tipbot on reddit, which would be an illegally operating entity if it allows you to tip a New York resident.

http://www.dfs.ny.gov/about/press2014/pr1407171-vc.pdf

Good idea.

Genius!!!

+1

Simple and elegant

Would a simple solution be to only process automatic withdrawals from the hot wallet for accounts holding < X BTC, and anything over that gets sent to manual handling?
That way it is the person using the pool as a bank who is inconvenienced, rather than everyone else, but you aren't imposing any additional fees.

(haven't read all posts leading up to this, so apologize if it's already been said)

Howsabout instead just changing the terms on the guaranteed amount in any one users' wallet?  US banks have insurance on their deposit accounts up to a certain limit - 250k for example.  Just change the policy to guarantee up to only so much BTC - 25BTC, 50BTC, whatever.  This way if something happens they are guaranteed to get something, but anything over they will lose which is IMHO just deserved for not caring to deal with it on their own.

This gives an incentive for folks to move the money out without imposing additional fees, and also provides the pool operator a very easy calculation on what needs to be maintained in the hot wallet.  If you have a guarantee of say 25BTC, and a 100 user base, you know you need a max of up to 2,500 BTC in a worst case scenario.

In addition, post also a limit on how long inactive accounts will be guaranteed, as well as impose a fee there after a certain period of time.  Again, US banks do this by terming accounts "dormant" if they haven't been accessed in say 6 months or a year.  After that period elapses, they charge a monthly fee until the account is made "active" again by incurring another transaction.  This also gives an incentive for people to maintain their accounts properly, since it would hurt them in the long run.

You can make the horse drink which is what I sort of suggested to Michael but he shot it down as a form of theft.

I mean, if people want to use the pool as a bank, then why not charge them extra fees of say 2-5% if it's causing issues with the wallets when one persons like hey, I think I'll withdraw 10 BTC today which messes up withdraws for everyone else until Michael moves some funds around which is what his suggestion / complaint was about.

That is often the way of suggestions.  You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink, or so I'm told.

Terms and information posted. Then just leave it at that. If a user wants to keep a large amount of bitcoin in an online wallet that's their decision and will have to deal with the consequences of doing that. 100 bitcoin in a pool wallet, they deserve to lose it. Sorry.