Topic: [DEAD] DeepBit.net PPS+Prop,instant payouts, we pay for INVALID BLOCKS too - page 319. (Read 1601343 times)

I might be wrong, but as far as I can tell, when you use proportional, the shares you made with proportional stay proportional. Same with PPS.

It did some quick math and it seems like PPS is more profitable than Proportional. This is because the chance of success for finding a block does not seem linear from the average of 55590.2 hashes. I seems like outliers for requiring more hashes can go far out to 200,000+ hashes, but you can never solve this in less than 1 hash. The distribution seems geometric? I haven't done math and statistics so someone more familiar in bitcoin hashes please explain how the search and block hits work.

From my calculations, if the average block takes 58061 or more hashes to solve, PPS becomes better than Proportional. For those who want to cheat the system, they just need to start each new block with Proportional. If the block isn't solved in 58061 hashes, they can immediately switch to PPS to maintain maximum payout. Once there is a jump in balance, they would know that a new block is started on and switch back to Proportional. I sorry to air this exploit, but it must be known to close this loophole. The good news is this approach requires tedious monitoring of the account page.

For me I believe the nonlinear distribution in solve times means that the average block is found in more than 58061 hashes. Right now I'm keeping my system as PPS since I'm lazy. However, if someone knows how the statistics of the bitcoin hashes work, please explain it in more detail.

Hahha. Just noticed that myself!

Tycho-
Either should work. See usage:

HAHA I just copy pasta that to my command line and have been running for days. The port doesn't need to be specified since 8332 is default. The -p switch is already declared if you put your password before "-p 8332" so it doesn't do anything anyway; you can remove -p 8332 in its entirety.

Thanks for pointing this out.
Sadly there is no any info about that miner. Should it be --port 8332 or something else ? Are you sure about -r 8332

Thanks for posting :)

Tycho-
I just noticed on your index page you list the syntax for a couple of miners. Should the Diablo syntax be -r 8332? You have -p 8332.

Thanks

Hello everyone, I've made a GUI miner for poclbm and it works great with deepbit. If you don't like messing around with the command line and want a convenient miner, you should give it a try. Screenshot:



The thread for it and download link is here.

If you like it please consider a donation, I don't charge anything for my work because I want to see Bitcoin be successful, but donations would help convince my wife I'm not crazy for spending time on this

thanks all for your responses    I stay on proportional 

I just now realized that the .:D:. in the title bar stood for Deepbit.  Thought it was an emoticon for a while now >_>

Guess I should have clarified that - I forgot that the 3% was mandatory in this pool.

How's the test of the pool coming along? I see the hash/s rate is going up rapidly.

Right, over time PPS should add up to being 90% of theoretical while Proportional is 97% of theoretical. A difference of ~7%, not 10%.

No, it should not being 10% less because there is 3% fee for proportional. And sum wildly depends on luck.

From what I've heard, PPS should end up being ~10% less than proportional, because you're transferring the risk of not finding a block to Tycho.

Thanks Tycho your pool works fine   What is the best performance? Pay-Per-Share or Proportionnal ?   

It sends first request without authorization field in http headers each time and tries to authorize only after receiving pool's answer about required login. I'll try to ask ufasoft to fix this behavior, but he uses external library that works that way, so i'm not sure if it will be better than now.

No longer getting the error, but getting 0 Mhash/s. In the past, that's only happened when username/password are wrong. After typing each in several times, and copy/pasting them straight from the account section, I'm still not getting any hashes.

Edit: It works, but takes some time to start showing work. Timed it to be exactly 60 seconds each time before the hash rate shows up. Not sure if this is on my end, or the pool's end.

Just tried with vesion 0.3.2 and everything works fine. You should use http://deepbit.net:8332, not just the domain name. "The filename, directory name, or volume label syntax is incorrect" is surely not pool's error but miner's one, ask ufasoft about this.

I'll put in a plug for the GUI front-end of m0mchil's poclbm miner here