Topic: Dragonmint B29 Decred Miner - page 2. (Read 779 times)

Thanks for the explanation of PPS vs PPLNS.. I still don't understand pool hopping completely, or orphan blocks though...

I will consider pointing my decred miner at luxor for sure.. I think I used to mine dcr at suprnova before.. guessing they were PPLNS

I like your sia pool but the decred pool fees need to go down to 1% at most. Anyone adding their b29 to the pool will be paying about $135 a month just to use the pool which is the cost for hosting at a data center.

Hi ReadyPlayer1, first of all thanks for the compliment on our support. We pride ourselves in our community, on Drift, Discord, and Twitter. I really suggest giving us another try, and comparing the payments after a week at each pool. You'll find that PPLNS and Proportional payments (Coinmine and Suprnova) are based on variance. Sometimes they pay more, sometimes alot less.

At Luxor, we pay PPS. I want to take this excerpt from our friends at SiaMining, that have this great descriptor comparing both:

Despite the similar names, PPS (Pay Per Share) and PPLNS (Pay Per Last N Shares) are two very different reward systems.


PPLNS is a modification of the proportional system. The proportional system is perhaps the most natural way to distribute rewards: whenever the pool finds a block, it distributes its value (minus a fee) to miners proportionally to how many shares they have submitted since the previous block. This naive approach is unfortunately easily exploitable by using a technique called pool hopping. PPLNS corrects this issue by considering only the last N shares submitted right before a block was found, and disregarding the rest. If the value of N is chosen appropriately, the system becomes resistant to hopping, but with one side effect: in order to receive fair retribution, in a PPLNS system miners must maintain a relatively constant hashrate at all times. Being a proportional system, PPLNS only rewards miners when a block is found and confirmed by the network, and since finding a block can take considerable time, rewards have a high variance. Additionally, from time to time the pool may find a block that never confirms because another block was found and confirmed before it. Such blocks, called orphans, have no value, and result in missed rewards for miners.


PPS rewards miners with a certain amount (the PPS rate) for every valid share submitted. This amount is determined based on the expected number of shares needed to find a block, and on the reward that finding a block would yield. Note that we say “expected” because mining is a random process, so we can know how many shares will be needed on average in the long run, but not how many will be effectively needed. Since shares are much easier to find than blocks, a miner typically finds several every minute, which drastically reduces the variance of rewards. It is therefore possible for a miner to reliably estimate his earnings, as they do not depend on the luck of the pool. Because miners get paid per share and can tally how many shares they submit, they can easily verify that the promised reward is given, making it impossible for the pool operator to cheat. For the same reason, PPS is completely immune to pool hopping. All in all, PPS arguably offers the fairest payouts for all miners, regardless of hashrate or frequency. The one downside to PPS is for the pool operator, who has to take on the risk of bad luck in finding blocks. To compensate for this risk, PPS pools traditionally charge a higher fee.

Everything else being equal (fee, difficulty, and block reward), in the long run both systems are expected to find the same amount of blocks, but since PPLNS cannot pay for orphaned blocks, PPS miners are expected to receive slightly higher payouts. There are several places on the internet where it is stated that PPLNS yields higher rewards than PPS. The only reason for this is that for a long time PPS pools have had much higher fees than their PPLNS counterparts. For instance DeepBit, which was once the biggest Bitcoin pool, used to charge 3% for PPLNS, but 10% for PPS.

At Luxor, we charge a flat 3% fee for PPS, which is very competitive in the market as of now.

Luxor is PPS compared to Coinmine or Suprnova which are PROP/PPLNS therefore, to compare payouts you need to account for luck.

Luxor has a 3% fee but covers short term luck variance, pays for orphans, rejects and donates 10% of their fees to the project.

On top of that, they provide excellent customer support and UI.

Accounting for all of the above Luxor might be the cheapest pool to be in.

You should give Luxor a shot!

Cheers!

Luxor is PPS and pays for orphans and rejects. Taking that into consideration they might be the lowest fee pool ...

I dont know much about Halong mining, I only know Halong Bay, just for fun haha. Btw, they said that Samsung is producing ASIC chips for upstart mining hardware manufacturer Halong Mining, new chip uses 10nm process. If it's the case, the new miner may have very good hashrate. But I would not purchase any device from this new manufacturer, also quoted "Cobra-Bitcoin who co-owns Bitcoin.org and BitcoinTalk has repeatedly said that he believes Halong Mining is a scam and that the Dragonmint T1 is really just a rebranded device actually manufactured by Innosilicon", according to this: https://www.ccn.com/samsung-is-developing-asic-chips-for-halong-mining-distributor-claims/

Halong Mining. I was skeptical but they're actually really good miners. Very stable - better than Bitmain IMO

Totally agree with you. I still think manufacturers they keep miners in few months, for example 3 months to mine, there's no reason that they should release it out to market when they could earn a lot with new asic miners especially the very first asic miner for DCR. Also, with delay in shipping, as we get the miner (should be 4 months after payment), the difficulty is too much, I even think ROI should be around 8 months. With asic miner, we could ROI earlier than that of GPU mining, but it's not that fast.

You're welcome.  BTW, where did you buy your miner?  It seems rare these days that anyone actually delivers a new asic that makes that much when it arrives.  Usually they announce it after they have been mining the hell out of it and then by the time they deliver it's a 6 month ROI (which means by the time you actually ROI it's been a year since the difficulty goes up all along).

So just for the record and in case you didn't know this already the pool doesn't know how many hashes any of the miners are doing.  When you look at your miner interface (I am unfamiliar with this particular miner but this is true for every miner) but when you look at the miner interface, it is reporting to you the number of hashes the miner is actually able to compute, so a real-time hashrate.  The pool on the other hand is only getting occasional submitted shares from the miners that are connected to the pool.  Vardiff (variable difficulty) which is what pretty much every stratum implementation is using now days, varies the difficulty based on how many shares a miner turns in with a specific goal in mind, usually something like 4 or 5 shares per minute.  So the more shares a miner submits, the higher the difficulty the pool will set for the miner until it reaches the point where it is getting 4 to 5 shares per minute from the miner.  The entire time, the pool is calculating the hashrate of the miner based on the number of shares it submits and the difficulty it has set for the miner.

So a miner that has a very high hashrate, will be able to find 4-5 shares per minute for a higher difficulty than a miner with a lower hashrate.  But there is variability and luck.  So any miner could in theory get a lucky streak and hit more shares of a given difficulty in a period of time than the hashrate would normally expect, in which case it will appear to be a higher hashrate than it is to the pool.  Bad luck also happens, which makes a miner appear to be lower hashrate than it is.

So the point is this, the hashrate you see on the poolside, for any pool and any miner, is a calculated value and that calculation is subject to variance and luck.  Over time though, the average on the poolside should be fairly close to what the miner interface reports.  So it's totally normal to see some fluctuation in what the pool says your hashrate is, what you want to pay attention to is the average.

So for example here is my hashrate according to the pool for 3 S9's (one with a dead board):  That 10 minute average of 39 is higher than my actual hashrate.  That 1-day average of 36 is very close to it.  The actual hashrate is  8.9 + 13.15 + 13.85 = 35.9

Good luck on that when all the miners are shipped out

They're expensive 

$10,000/e - but I should ROI in 3 or 4 months max

Gaaaaaah 3.5 decred a day? thats freaking awesome. how much did you pay for each machine? how loud/hot are they? i really want one now

Any other thoughts?

I've got one on Luxor and one on Coinmine.PL.

The Luxor customer support is amazing but i don't like the fees and its small size

Which pool you're mining at? I usually mine DCR at Suprnova pool. The net hash is already up like rocket now:

https://dcr.suprnova.cc/index.php?page=login

For your concern about fluctuable hashrate, it's quite normal if there is difference between the hashrate on the miner interface and pool statistic. As far as I know the miner program display a real-time hashrate, while the pool only calculate the average one based on number of shares in each time period which we could see on variable difficulty. So dont worry about that parameters.

I'm getting about 3.5 coins a day per machine

Although with the low pool hash rate...I don't know exactly

Really, I even dont realize that Decred was already mined by Asic miner. I heard that LBC (LBRY Credits) is going to be mined by Asic miner (or even somebody already mined it with asic miners), then I stopped dual mine ETH + LBC, and it's funny that I have just had checks, some of my rigs still were configured to dual mine ETH + DCR (LBC, and Sia).

How much decred you get per day? I'm waiting on my obelisk.