Pages:
Author

Topic: del (Read 4692 times)

c_k
donator
Activity: 242
Merit: 100
del
September 14, 2011, 04:48:50 AM
#52
Remember, Mark already had the access he has now before the whole CosbyCoin thing even happened.
Which is part of the problem, AFAIK it was never mentioned that Mark has access to any forum data.

By the way, do we know what kind of access he actually has? Can he host the site without having read access to people's PMs?

1.) You only had to ask the people involved, bro - they're human too you know Smiley

2.) If he supplies hosting for the site, think about it.

PS: what does it matter anyway? If you see some sort of problem with the way things are now, why don't you have a calm and constructive discussion with the owners of the site and try to organise something different?

Focus on the future, make a change and become the positive next step in the sites future history.
donator
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1054
September 14, 2011, 04:39:39 AM
#51
Remember, Mark already had the access he has now before the whole CosbyCoin thing even happened.
Which is part of the problem, AFAIK it was never mentioned that Mark has access to any forum data.

By the way, do we know what kind of access he actually has? Can he host the site without having read access to people's PMs?
c_k
donator
Activity: 242
Merit: 100
September 14, 2011, 04:34:01 AM
#50
Due to breach of trust and gross negligence by Sirius and Theymos who recklessly transferred my private and personal data on this forum to a Japaneze company without my permission I am leaving this forum and deleting all my posts. Goodbye.

See you at


Foreword: I have no beef with you, I've never spoken to you and I've never had any reason to disrespect you. Remember that.

Dude, put down the crack pipe and clearly read what has actually been said.

Nothing has been given to a Japanese (< correct spelling btw) company, the site is simply being hosted by Mark.

Mark so happens to work for a Japanese company, that doesn't mean the company he works for owns the information.

Remember, Mark already had the access he has now before the whole CosbyCoin thing even happened.

I could go on about how much of a douche you're making yourself look like, but I won't because it's not really constructive.
legendary
Activity: 1190
Merit: 1000
September 09, 2011, 11:59:26 AM
#49
@deepceleron  allot of words allot of stuff

Such a powerful rebuttal.
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1036
September 09, 2011, 06:34:35 AM
#48
It is not how it works my friend.
ok then tell me how it works since i dont get simple math

I will hope to enlighten you by using no fancy math. However, trolls gonna troll with their misinformation anyway.

The reduced earnings of full time miners would not be demonstrated by showing just one round. All shares per round will be paid equally per share to all miners.

It can be demonstrated as an example:

A miner has 2% of the total hash rate of the pool. That means the miner should make 1 BTC for every block solve. The miner mines a long block that took 3x difficulty. He submits 2% of the shares. The winnings are as expected, 2% of 50BTC = 1 BTC. The earnings per share are as expected (1/3 of the value they would have on an average round, since the round went so long).

So the last block took three times as long as average - variance will give us a matching lucky block 1/3 of difficulty for each unlucky block with 3x difficulty. In exact math you can't understand, for every round above the 90% percentile, we get a matching number of rounds below 10%. Our miner should expect 1 BTC from the short round also, and since it is short it makes up for the long round.

Now, lets say the pool size doubles just for the start of a round because an assload of hoppers jump on, when they know that the per-share reward will be high if a block is found early. Now the miner has only 1% of the hashrate of the pool. The block is found in 0.33x difficulty shares. Instead of 1 BTC for the short round, the miner gets 0.5 BTC. The earnings per share are as expected, but the miner was only able to submit half as many shares for the round as his hashrate would normally allow him. He gets shafted basically.

Over these two rounds, instead of 2 BTC he gets 1.5 BTC. The two rounds together were 3.33 the difficulty in shares, but the hoppers only significantly reduce the length of time the short round, so the two rounds together with hoppers at the start of each still take 3.0 the time. The full time miner makes less per time spent mining in the hopped pool.

The full time miner mines during unlucky rounds, and then the lucky rounds that would have made up for that time investment have hoppers stealing his expected earnings.

There is a profit motive for pool operators to turn a blind eye - it took a bit less time to solve the two blocks, so that means if the pool has a percentage fee or even an automatic donation percentage, it took less time for the pool op to earn those fees by encouraging pool hoppers to come over. This is a zero-sum gain across all pools though, because if hoppers couldn't hop anywhere, they would still have to mine somewhere.
donator
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1007
Poor impulse control.
September 09, 2011, 05:54:20 AM
#47
Out of curiosity... what would be the point of you hopping PPLNS or PPS variant pools (hypothetically speaking) ?

You could reduce your variance by hopping XXPPS (compared to a fulltime miner on XXPPS) making it closer to normal PPS but without a fee. You can look at it as either improving your variance or boosting your hashrate (compared to a fee'd straight PPS).
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
September 09, 2011, 05:35:50 AM
#46
@AnnihilaT if that avatar and that signature for a reason Tongue times have shown that PROP pool are what ppl like if you sum all prop pools is a large part of the network, if there was no PROP pool then i will hopp PPLNS/SMPPS pools
also this http://hoppersden.info/entries/13-did-the-evolution-failed-for-some-pools-or-did-we-failed

Hmmm... the link doesnt work for me... maybe you can quote the important parts of the text ?

Out of curiosity... what would be the point of you hopping PPLNS or PPS variant pools (hypothetically speaking) ?
donator
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1054
September 09, 2011, 04:04:03 AM
#45
@AnnihilaT if that avatar and that signature for a reason Tongue times have shown that PROP pool are what ppl like if you sum all prop pools is a large part of the network, if there was no PROP pool then i will hopp PPLNS/SMPPS pools
PPLNS, if implemented correctly, is hopping-proof, you can't gain anything from hopping it.
With PPLNS correctly implemented at MMC pool, for example, you and everyone else are welcome to hop on and off anytime you want. However, this will not harm other miners in the pool.
This statement might not be completely accurate.

Don't leave us hangin'! How could hopping negatively affect full time miners at a PPLNS pool? Or are you leaving that for when section 4. is published?

EDIT: or do you mean if PPLNS is not correctly implemented at that pool?
There's nothing to worry about. It's safe to mine in MMC. But I do not have complete knowledge of MMC's implementation so the people involved in it should discuss the specifics if they so wish.
legendary
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1020
September 09, 2011, 03:58:49 AM
#44
+1 to this whole discussion. every miner should at least be aware of the problem.

imho Vladimir and the people on his side are right.

hoppers gets more of the cake while non-hoppers get less ---> stealing. I would not call the hoppers unethical, though but the pools that let it happen.
donator
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1007
Poor impulse control.
September 09, 2011, 03:37:51 AM
#43
You may try lie-in-wait until oblivious shares are implemented.
But Meni, that wouldn't be ethical.
Of course. But as I've said elsewhere, I find hopping permissible since it could expedite the destruction of proportional pools, and the same applies here.

OK, let me try again:

Quote
But Meni, that wouldn't be ethical  Wink
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1001
-
September 09, 2011, 03:21:54 AM
#42
Due to breach of trust and gross negligence by Sirius and Theymos who recklessly transferred my private and personal data on this forum to a Japaneze company without my permission I am leaving this forum and deleting all my posts. Goodbye.

See you at https://bitcoin.org.uk/
donator
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1007
Poor impulse control.
September 09, 2011, 03:12:17 AM
#41
@AnnihilaT if that avatar and that signature for a reason Tongue times have shown that PROP pool are what ppl like if you sum all prop pools is a large part of the network, if there was no PROP pool then i will hopp PPLNS/SMPPS pools
PPLNS, if implemented correctly, is hopping-proof, you can't gain anything from hopping it.
With PPLNS correctly implemented at MMC pool, for example, you and everyone else are welcome to hop on and off anytime you want. However, this will not harm other miners in the pool.
This statement might not be completely accurate.

Don't leave us hangin'! How could hopping negatively affect full time miners at a PPLNS pool? Or are you leaving that for when section 4. is published?

EDIT: or do you mean if PPLNS is not correctly implemented at that pool?
donator
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1054
September 09, 2011, 03:05:58 AM
#40
You may try lie-in-wait until oblivious shares are implemented.
But Meni, that wouldn't be ethical.
Of course. But as I've said elsewhere, I find hopping permissible since it could expedite the destruction of proportional pools, and the same applies here.
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1001
-
September 09, 2011, 03:00:56 AM
#39
Due to breach of trust and gross negligence by Sirius and Theymos who recklessly transferred my private and personal data on this forum to a Japaneze company without my permission I am leaving this forum and deleting all my posts. Goodbye.

See you at https://bitcoin.org.uk/
donator
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1007
Poor impulse control.
September 09, 2011, 02:54:51 AM
#38
You may try lie-in-wait until oblivious shares are implemented.

But Meni, that wouldn't be ethical.
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1001
-
September 09, 2011, 02:50:56 AM
#37
Due to breach of trust and gross negligence by Sirius and Theymos who recklessly transferred my private and personal data on this forum to a Japaneze company without my permission I am leaving this forum and deleting all my posts. Goodbye.

See you at https://bitcoin.org.uk/
donator
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1054
September 09, 2011, 02:40:34 AM
#36
@AnnihilaT if that avatar and that signature for a reason Tongue times have shown that PROP pool are what ppl like if you sum all prop pools is a large part of the network, if there was no PROP pool then i will hopp PPLNS/SMPPS pools
PPLNS, if implemented correctly, is hopping-proof, you can't gain anything from hopping it.
SMPPS is not hopping-proof but you can only decrease your variance by using it to hop, not increase your expectation. But I agree, I expect that when proportional dies, SMPPS will be the new proportional.
You may try lie-in-wait until oblivious shares are implemented.

sooner or later, the hoppers will somehow adapt to new hopping-prevention techniques.
To "hopping-prevention techniques", probably. To hopping-proof reward systems, no.
legendary
Activity: 1666
Merit: 1057
Marketing manager - GO MP
September 09, 2011, 02:22:05 AM
#35
ok I admit I don't... I'm out  Embarrassed  Lips sealed
donator
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1007
Poor impulse control.
September 09, 2011, 02:20:20 AM
#34
Nada, people would try to hop it "just because"

Really? You think people would waste hashes on a pool 'just because'? Hmmm. Pool hopping. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
legendary
Activity: 1666
Merit: 1057
Marketing manager - GO MP
September 09, 2011, 02:03:59 AM
#33
Nada, people would try to hop it "just because"
Pages:
Jump to: