Author

Topic: Eligius: 0% Fee BTC, 105% PPS NMC, No registration, CPPSRB - page 262. (Read 1061452 times)

full member
Activity: 220
Merit: 100
Ok... thanks.
legendary
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1022
Anarchy is not chaos.
It's down for me too...  hopefully my shares ares still being accepted.  I'm not home now so I can't check.


The pool appears to be fine. It's just the stats page again. I'm connected and hashing away.
full member
Activity: 220
Merit: 100
It's down for me too...  hopefully my shares ares still being accepted.  I'm not home now so I can't check.
hero member
Activity: 854
Merit: 500
Website seems to be down this morning with 504s

Shares still being accepted.

legendary
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1022
Anarchy is not chaos.
Well, I tried an alt-coin switching pool (tompool) and made less than half. Once again Eligius wins out.

While all the stuff about the payout system is interesting, it has been my real world experience that I make more coin here, even setting a 1 percent donation as automatic. I'll probably still play around some as I go, but at least for bitcoin, Eligius is by far the best pool I've tried. Second was BTCguild, and I make more here.

Yes its great pool, but despite we putting some donations its shame the greatest pool can't keep the stats working a week without a problem ...

Noted, but the coin flows even when the stats page is playing with itself. And it improves a bit every time, it seems. It does get annoying, but I keep coming back. Can't be that bad, apparently.
member
Activity: 98
Merit: 10
I ran simulations of multiple reward systems against real-world data (Eligius shares database/blocks) prior to implementing CPPSRB.  (I've rerun this a few times since then, but not recently.)

While I admittedly do not know how to boil it down to a single equation, I'm pretty good at simulation Smiley

I took short and long term averages and % deviations from maximum/expected PPS for various time frames accounting for individuals as well as pool-wide earnings with multiple reward systems.  While PPLNS (with various different N's) ended up pretty close to CPPSRB's % deviation quickly, CPPSRB always tended to win by at least a few %.

Over the longer term and taking into account the real world data (where some miners were not consistent for example) PPLNS left some miners with substantially higher variance than others, while CPPSRB managed to iron this out quite well in most cases.

In my simulations CPPSRB kept more miners closer to 100% PPS than PPLNS did over almost all time frames, short and long.

-wk

This is why many of us are thankful you are involved at the level you are with Eligius.

Many many many thanks again for your efforts!
newbie
Activity: 8
Merit: 0
Well, I tried an alt-coin switching pool (tompool) and made less than half. Once again Eligius wins out.

While all the stuff about the payout system is interesting, it has been my real world experience that I make more coin here, even setting a 1 percent donation as automatic. I'll probably still play around some as I go, but at least for bitcoin, Eligius is by far the best pool I've tried. Second was BTCguild, and I make more here.

Yes its great pool, but despite we putting some donations its shame the greatest pool can't keep the stats working a week without a problem ...
donator
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1007
Poor impulse control.
Merni Rosenfeld derives the reward variance for PPLNS on page ten here: https://bitcoil.co.il/pool_analysis.pdf

Man, that was a really interesting read!

What about the "lie in wait" attack?

I didn't know that attack until 10 minutes ago. Seriously I've learned things today.

Maybe one day Meni will add CPPSRB to his analysis paper.

I believe it is briefly described on page 22; under the name "pay-once-PPLNS". He does not do a thorough analysis of it like the other methods though.

CPPSRB is closer in nature to SMPPS than PPLNS, and from what I remember he had no plans to add it in.
full member
Activity: 157
Merit: 100
Merni Rosenfeld derives the reward variance for PPLNS on page ten here: https://bitcoil.co.il/pool_analysis.pdf

Man, that was a really interesting read!

What about the "lie in wait" attack?

I didn't know that attack until 10 minutes ago. Seriously I've learned things today.

Maybe one day Meni will add CPPSRB to his analysis paper.

I believe it is briefly described on page 22; under the name "pay-once-PPLNS". He does not do a thorough analysis of it like the other methods though.
legendary
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1022
Anarchy is not chaos.
Well, I tried an alt-coin switching pool (tompool) and made less than half. Once again Eligius wins out.

While all the stuff about the payout system is interesting, it has been my real world experience that I make more coin here, even setting a 1 percent donation as automatic. I'll probably still play around some as I go, but at least for bitcoin, Eligius is by far the best pool I've tried. Second was BTCguild, and I make more here.
legendary
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
If there were lots of CPPSRB pools then you could engage in hopping to the ones with the smallest backlogs I guess. Wink

Exactly. The algorithm is not hop proof. Given multiple CPPSRB pools you should hop to the one with the largest buffer, failing that the smallest share log.


donator
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1007
Poor impulse control.
My math-fu isn't at organofcorti's level. I wouldn't even being to try. Wink

Maybe one day Meni will add CPPSRB to his analysis paper.

Oh, I figured you'd try simulating something. I did the same for proportional pools a while back, before I knew Meni had already worked on the problem.
sr. member
Activity: 434
Merit: 250
My math-fu isn't at organofcorti's level. I wouldn't even begin to try. Wink

Maybe one day Meni will add CPPSRB to his analysis paper.
full member
Activity: 196
Merit: 100
If there were lots of CPPSRB pools then you could engage in hopping to the ones with the smallest backlogs I guess. Wink

I'd be interested to see how much you could shorten the expected time to maturity using this approach for an arbitrary number of CPPSRB pools.

Let us know how it turns out. Wink

Well, that's a much better answer than claiming that the issue doesn't exist! Wink
sr. member
Activity: 434
Merit: 250
If there were lots of CPPSRB pools then you could engage in hopping to the ones with the smallest backlogs I guess. Wink

I'd be interested to see how much you could shorten the expected time to maturity using this approach for an arbitrary number of CPPSRB pools.

Let us know how it turns out. Wink
donator
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1007
Poor impulse control.
If there were lots of CPPSRB pools then you could engage in hopping to the ones with the smallest backlogs I guess. Wink

I'd be interested to see how much you could shorten the expected time to maturity using this approach for an arbitrary number of CPPSRB pools.

donator
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1007
Poor impulse control.
I ran simulations of multiple reward systems against real-world data (Eligius shares database/blocks) prior to implementing CPPSRB.  (I've rerun this a few times since then, but not recently.)

While I admittedly do not know how to boil it down to a single equation, I'm pretty good at simulation Smiley

I took short and long term averages and % deviations from maximum/expected PPS for various time frames accounting for individuals as well as pool-wide earnings with multiple reward systems.  While PPLNS (with various different N's) ended up pretty close to CPPSRB's % deviation quickly, CPPSRB always tended to win by at least a few %.

Over the longer term and taking into account the real world data (where some miners were not consistent for example) PPLNS left some miners with substantially higher variance than others, while CPPSRB managed to iron this out quite well in most cases.

In my simulations CPPSRB kept more miners closer to 100% PPS than PPLNS did over almost all time frames, short and long.

-wk

Thanks for putting in the work, wk. I reckon you should put your data on Eligius' website, maybe publish it as an experiment to make it more replicable? Or maybe you have a pool to run Smiley
full member
Activity: 196
Merit: 100
If there were lots of CPPSRB pools then you could engage in hopping to the ones with the smallest backlogs I guess. Wink

Or just hop to PPLNS whenever the backlog is less than zero. Wink

(In reality there are other factors which are probably more important, though. Not the least of which is fees.)
legendary
Activity: 1223
Merit: 1006
PPLNS variance is higher than CPPSRB.  

Is this from simulation or analysis? Merni Rosenfeld derives the reward variance for PPLNS on page ten here: https://bitcoil.co.il/pool_analysis.pdf

For PPLNS, the variance is 1/(network mining difficulty)*(Bitcoin block reward)^2 * 1/N

(N is the "N' in PPLNS)

What is the variance you've calculated for CPPSRB (analytical or otherwise)? Did you take into account the varying maturity time for CPPSRB compared with the more predictable maturity time for PPLNS?

Cheers, wk - I've been interested to know this for ages.



I ran simulations of multiple reward systems against real-world data (Eligius shares database/blocks) prior to implementing CPPSRB.  (I've rerun this a few times since then, but not recently.)

While I admittedly do not know how to boil it down to a single equation, I'm pretty good at simulation Smiley

I took short and long term averages and % deviations from maximum/expected PPS for various time frames accounting for individuals as well as pool-wide earnings with multiple reward systems.  While PPLNS (with various different N's) ended up pretty close to CPPSRB's % deviation quickly, CPPSRB always tended to win by at least a few %.

Over the longer term and taking into account the real world data (where some miners were not consistent for example) PPLNS left some miners with substantially higher variance than others, while CPPSRB managed to iron this out quite well in most cases.

In my simulations CPPSRB kept more miners closer to 100% PPS than PPLNS did over almost all time frames, short and long.

-wk
sr. member
Activity: 434
Merit: 250
If there were lots of CPPSRB pools then you could engage in hopping to the ones with the smallest backlogs I guess. Wink
Jump to: