Topic: [CLOSED] RFCPool.com - page 6. (Read 22121 times)
rfcpool is now supported by MiningMonitor.com !
What happened to my reward overnight??? It went from 3.9 btc to 2.4btc. How come?? I didnt stop mining at all?
Hi, don't worry, Caesium adjusted "N" to double what it was before (now 1*difficulty), making the "window" for payouts longer. So, your estimated payout is still ramping up - and the abrupt change of the "ramp steepness" moved you a little back. On the other hand, if you stopped mining, the payout estimate would ramp down slower.The old value for "N" was suitable for a freshly started PPLNS scheme, but now that we've been running for a while it was sensible to increase it. We will probably increase it more in the future (up to a few times what it is now), but abrupt changes aren't good so we will look at gradually ramping N to the new value
Hiya.
What happened to my reward overnight??? It went from 3.9 btc to 2.4btc. How come?? I didnt stop mining at all? All of a sudden it seems that people who were below me in the eligible shares list have had a lot added to there balance, why is this? I dosnt even look as though they have turned there miners back onto Rfcpool!
Thanks
What happened to my reward overnight??? It went from 3.9 btc to 2.4btc. How come?? I didnt stop mining at all? All of a sudden it seems that people who were below me in the eligible shares list have had a lot added to there balance, why is this? I dosnt even look as though they have turned there miners back onto Rfcpool!
Thanks
As of now, rfcpool distributes the block fees in each generated block to our miners.
Additionally, PPLNS N has been changed to difficulty*1. This makes our per-share value comparable to pure PPS pools (but remember, we are not pure PPS).
Additionally, PPLNS N has been changed to difficulty*1. This makes our per-share value comparable to pure PPS pools (but remember, we are not pure PPS).
Could you do me a favour please and just explain to me how the new payment system works.
PPLNS is simple. At the moment N=902850 (half of the current difficulty), so when we find a block, the latest 902850 submitted shares get paid (50 BTC / 902850) = 0.00005538015932406342 BTC per share. If the round is shorter than 902850 shares, then latest shares from the previous round(s) get paid again until we reach 902850 shares into the past. If the round is longer, then the oldest shares from the start of the round will not get paid.This means that:
- if you mine constantly, your earnings will average the same as on PPS (but in the short term, luck is a factor)
- pool-hoppers don't earn anything extra
- if you stop mining for a while, your payout from future blocks starts shrinking (because the "payment window" keeps moving forward, and less and less of your shares are in it), but you may still get paid from multiple future blocks if the rounds are short
- when you start mining, your rewards from future blocks ramp up similarly as they ramp down when you stop
- there is no unfair penalty for intermittent mining on average, but the pool's luck does affect how much you get
The difference PPLNH makes is that instead of the last "N" shares, every share from the last "N" hours gets paid (not a fixed sum, but so that we spread the 50 BTC evenly to all shares submitted in the last 48 hours for example). Otherwise it's the same: old shares can get paid multiple times if short rounds follow, or not get paid if long rounds follow.
The exact choice of "N" shares or hours doesn't matter on average, but the larger it is, the less pool luck affects the payouts, but it also takes longer for the payouts to start or stop coming.
Fantastic.
Thanks Rennex thats just what I was after, it seems like a very fair way to pay.
Thx Rennex. Concise and helpful.
Could you do me a favour please and just explain to me how the new payment system works.
PPLNS is simple. At the moment N=902850 (half of the current difficulty), so when we find a block, the latest 902850 submitted shares get paid (50 BTC / 902850) = 0.00005538015932406342 BTC per share. If the round is shorter than 902850 shares, then latest shares from the previous round(s) get paid again until we reach 902850 shares into the past. If the round is longer, then the oldest shares from the start of the round will not get paid.This means that:
- if you mine constantly, your earnings will average the same as on PPS (but in the short term, luck is a factor)
- pool-hoppers don't earn anything extra
- if you stop mining for a while, your payout from future blocks starts shrinking (because the "payment window" keeps moving forward, and less and less of your shares are in it), but you may still get paid from multiple future blocks if the rounds are short
- when you start mining, your rewards from future blocks ramp up similarly as they ramp down when you stop
- there is no unfair penalty for intermittent mining on average, but the pool's luck does affect how much you get
The difference PPLNH makes is that instead of the last "N" shares, every share from the last "N" hours gets paid (not a fixed sum, but so that we spread the 50 BTC evenly to all shares submitted in the last 48 hours for example). Otherwise it's the same: old shares can get paid multiple times if short rounds follow, or not get paid if long rounds follow.
The exact choice of "N" shares or hours doesn't matter on average, but the larger it is, the less pool luck affects the payouts, but it also takes longer for the payouts to start or stop coming.
First block has been confirmed and first payments for it sent out - we're officially back in business
Still looking for opinions on what to set N to. We now have diff*0.5 shares since relaunch so old shares are rolling out of the payment window. Current view is to set it to diff*2 once we reach that figure, then probably leave it for the time being. If you would hate this, shout here.
Still looking for opinions on what to set N to. We now have diff*0.5 shares since relaunch so old shares are rolling out of the payment window. Current view is to set it to diff*2 once we reach that figure, then probably leave it for the time being. If you would hate this, shout here.
Hiya.
Could you do me a favour please and just explain to me how the new payment system works. I was fine with PPS because even my maths could cope with that haha.
Simple terms please, I mean whats N and you mentioned something about H in an earlier post im confused
Just the basic workings would be great Caesium please
First block has been confirmed and first payments for it sent out - we're officially back in business
Still looking for opinions on what to set N to. We now have diff*0.5 shares since relaunch so old shares are rolling out of the payment window. Current view is to set it to diff*2 once we reach that figure, then probably leave it for the time being. If you would hate this, shout here.
Still looking for opinions on what to set N to. We now have diff*0.5 shares since relaunch so old shares are rolling out of the payment window. Current view is to set it to diff*2 once we reach that figure, then probably leave it for the time being. If you would hate this, shout here.
Thanks alot guys for clearing it up... was just a little curious even tho its not necessarily any of my business.
To be very honest i am dissapointed to say the least, but i have spoken to Caesium and I understand what has happened.
In the past Caeseum and Ycros (from Ozcoin ) have collaborated to overcome issues both pools have faced, with a "pre-established" working relationship it was easy to ask Caesium to join the team.
Best of luck to RFCPool and their relaunch
Thats prety much it. Better go put something in ozcoin forum too
In the past Caeseum and Ycros (from Ozcoin ) have collaborated to overcome issues both pools have faced, with a "pre-established" working relationship it was easy to ask Caesium to join the team.
Best of luck to RFCPool and their relaunch
Thats prety much it. Better go put something in ozcoin forum too
Nice to have you back ChrisLandin
AnnihilaT, yeah I think we're still up in the air about that. Graet was lookng for more coders, I was at a dead end at the time so agreed, but then a day or two later my arm was bent far enough by old rfc regulars to reopen it.
Clearly this leaves us in a bit of an ambiguous situation - it's a slight conflict of interest to work on two pools at once, however me and Graet do get on well so if he's just after a bit of extra sysadmin help from time to time then I'm still happy to fulfill that, but the majority of my time (besides going on real, actual paying contract coding work I do for a living) will be on rfcpool.
AnnihilaT, yeah I think we're still up in the air about that. Graet was lookng for more coders, I was at a dead end at the time so agreed, but then a day or two later my arm was bent far enough by old rfc regulars to reopen it.
Clearly this leaves us in a bit of an ambiguous situation - it's a slight conflict of interest to work on two pools at once, however me and Graet do get on well so if he's just after a bit of extra sysadmin help from time to time then I'm still happy to fulfill that, but the majority of my time (besides going on real, actual paying contract coding work I do for a living) will be on rfcpool.
Hey Caes,
First off, nice to see you back!
Its maybe none of my business but Graet from OZcoin publically announced you were joining their team a few days back... can you comment on how this ties in with rfcpool being back up and what exactly you are doing with ozcoin?
Im just curious (as a fellow pool op) whats going on in general with the other pool ops
Cheers,
Anni
First off, nice to see you back!
Its maybe none of my business but Graet from OZcoin publically announced you were joining their team a few days back... can you comment on how this ties in with rfcpool being back up and what exactly you are doing with ozcoin?
Im just curious (as a fellow pool op) whats going on in general with the other pool ops
Cheers,
Anni
Glad to see you guys back Cas.
Ive shifted my miners back now after the unfortunate break.
Looking forward to making some btc.
Cheers to Jezzz for the heads up also
Ive shifted my miners back now after the unfortunate break.
Looking forward to making some btc.
Cheers to Jezzz for the heads up also
For clarity:
rfcpool just found a block after 688718 shares (excluding stales, which are obviously worthless).
N was set to diff*0.5 (902850) so obviously if you do the maths you'll see that our total payout for that block would have been under 50 BTC (clearly we weren't going to include blocks 10 and below in the calculations, they were rewarded under Prop/PPS separately)
For this reason, N was set to 688718 as a one-off, meaning that the full 50 BTC was paid out. If you were watching your estimated reward in our stats, you'll see a big jump in the final rewards table for this block now: https://www.rfcpool.com/stats/block/11
These rewards will be added to your balances shortly, I'm just checking scripts over first.
N has been set back to diff*0.5 now. If you check your estimate reward in My Account, you can see that the next payout, at the moment, will include shares from block 11 and the new ongoing one.
Hope this answers any pending questions.
rfcpool just found a block after 688718 shares (excluding stales, which are obviously worthless).
N was set to diff*0.5 (902850) so obviously if you do the maths you'll see that our total payout for that block would have been under 50 BTC (clearly we weren't going to include blocks 10 and below in the calculations, they were rewarded under Prop/PPS separately)
For this reason, N was set to 688718 as a one-off, meaning that the full 50 BTC was paid out. If you were watching your estimated reward in our stats, you'll see a big jump in the final rewards table for this block now: https://www.rfcpool.com/stats/block/11
These rewards will be added to your balances shortly, I'm just checking scripts over first.
N has been set back to diff*0.5 now. If you check your estimate reward in My Account, you can see that the next payout, at the moment, will include shares from block 11 and the new ongoing one.
Hope this answers any pending questions.
No, it shouldn't matter - N being at 0.5 right now isn't set in stone, it's just to get us going; I didn't want N too high at first because it would then take ages for the initial reward estimates to ramp up.
Using H instead will just avoid having to tweak N when the pool hashrate varies.
Sorry, was up late when i wrote that and i didn't really explain myself well. what i meant was that pplnh will need tweaking when the hashrate varies won't it? if hashrate varies significantly you'll have very short rounds which makes the h comparatively larger. I just don't see any advantages over pplns unless it's to make calculations easier.
Good to see you guys back.
Yep, lessons learnt, new reward system, backend scripts being tidied up, etc.
Main issue at the moment is what to set the 'N' in PPLNS to. It's 0.5 but subject to change, considering PPLNH with a 48 hour H actually. Maybe I should do a poll for this?
Main issue at the moment is what to set the 'N' in PPLNS to. It's 0.5 but subject to change, considering PPLNH with a 48 hour H actually. Maybe I should do a poll for this?
I wonder how pool hopping would affect pplnh? If you were to get slashdotted and got a boost of 200Ghps with a pplnh set for 20Ghps, you'd have much shorter rounds which apart from the "no reset at boundary". This would make h a lot larger than n=0.5. Would that matter?
No, it shouldn't matter - N being at 0.5 right now isn't set in stone, it's just to get us going; I didn't want N too high at first because it would then take ages for the initial reward estimates to ramp up.
Using H instead will just avoid having to tweak N when the pool hashrate varies.
Welcome back rfcpool!
Yep, lessons learnt, new reward system, backend scripts being tidied up, etc.
Main issue at the moment is what to set the 'N' in PPLNS to. It's 0.5 but subject to change, considering PPLNH with a 48 hour H actually. Maybe I should do a poll for this?
Main issue at the moment is what to set the 'N' in PPLNS to. It's 0.5 but subject to change, considering PPLNH with a 48 hour H actually. Maybe I should do a poll for this?
I wonder how pool hopping would affect pplnh? If you were to get slashdotted and got a boost of 200Ghps with a pplnh set for 20Ghps, you'd have much shorter rounds which apart from the "no reset at boundary". This would make h a lot larger than n=0.5. Would that matter?
Jump to: