Topic: Eligius Miners: [POLL] Proposed changes to Eligius Reward System (Read 11724 times)
Wow. So greater than 50% of people (more than 60%, actually) have voted in favor of "active mining" variant, but still no dice.
August 10, 2012, 04:02:32 PM
PPLNS has the same drawbacks as proportional except they're slightly offset for longer blocks. Can still hop on short blocks.
This is false, PPLNS is hopping-proof. You probably misunderstood how PPLNS works (or misimplemented it), most likely thinking it only rewards shares from the current round.I'm not sure what I've done to deserve your distrust, but I honestly spent some time thinking about these things.
Edit: Ok, I will stop derailing the thread. I'll be happy to continue discussing PPLNS in an on-topic thread such as PPLNS.
I like you sexy PPLNS talk...my thread or yours! Great stuff Meni...
August 10, 2012, 04:01:01 PM
Regardless of which MPPS variant you decide on, a hybrid PPS-SMPPS with a 2% fee would reduce the average 100 round maturity time by 20% and the average 200 round maturity time by 28%. The longer it goes, the lower the average maturity time until it would be on average very close to 1 round. You'd still have long runs of bad luck that would increase the time to payment maturity, but there would be no risk to Luke-jr and significant benefits to miners.
Of course, Eligius has been a free pool for so long there would be significant resistance to a 2% fee. What miners should realise is that they would have more btc sooner, and there is a significant time value of money in the current high interest btc market.
Of course, Eligius has been a free pool for so long there would be significant resistance to a 2% fee. What miners should realise is that they would have more btc sooner, and there is a significant time value of money in the current high interest btc market.
Brilliant!
August 09, 2012, 11:50:15 AM
When does the polling close and any changes that are going to take place take place? It's been running around 5 days now.
August 08, 2012, 06:51:32 AM
It could be possible to make some sort of Swap instrument,
that is valid for the next x blocks,
where you have a % fee that goes to the holders of this swap as payment for risk, and that any credit in unlucky times is financed from the pool of paid in coins by the buyers of the swap.
When there are lucky period money is added to the pool, when there are unlucky periods money is deduced from the pool.
at the end of the x blocks, buyers of the swap are paid back the remaining pool + the % fee.
Then a new offering is made for the next x blocks.
That way you finance a pool of money that can promptly pay out, and the risk of an unlucky period is taken by the buyers of this swap.
An there are probably investors ready since the pool has credibility compared to other investments opportunities in bitcoin.
that is valid for the next x blocks,
where you have a % fee that goes to the holders of this swap as payment for risk, and that any credit in unlucky times is financed from the pool of paid in coins by the buyers of the swap.
When there are lucky period money is added to the pool, when there are unlucky periods money is deduced from the pool.
at the end of the x blocks, buyers of the swap are paid back the remaining pool + the % fee.
Then a new offering is made for the next x blocks.
That way you finance a pool of money that can promptly pay out, and the risk of an unlucky period is taken by the buyers of this swap.
An there are probably investors ready since the pool has credibility compared to other investments opportunities in bitcoin.
August 06, 2012, 03:16:10 AM
Regardless of which MPPS variant you decide on, a hybrid PPS-SMPPS with a 2% fee would reduce the average 100 round maturity time by 20% and the average 200 round maturity time by 28%. The longer it goes, the lower the average maturity time until it would be on average very close to 1 round. You'd still have long runs of bad luck that would increase the time to payment maturity, but there would be no risk to Luke-jr and significant benefits to miners.
Of course, Eligius has been a free pool for so long there would be significant resistance to a 2% fee. What miners should realise is that they would have more btc sooner, and there is a significant time value of money in the current high interest btc market.
Of course, Eligius has been a free pool for so long there would be significant resistance to a 2% fee. What miners should realise is that they would have more btc sooner, and there is a significant time value of money in the current high interest btc market.
August 05, 2012, 11:33:26 PM
I hope that merely by time-shifting it and terming it as 'Extra Credit' that there is not somehow a perceived lesser moral duty to pay it out??
+1
August 05, 2012, 11:18:09 PM
From a purely moral standpoint, I think refusing to pay inactive addresses is wrong. It's due payment for past work, it shouldn't be pushed back indefinitely.
No, this is dealing with Extra Credit (EC), not unpaid rewards.Wait.. do I detect a certain sense of magnanimity in your attitude to this 'Extra Credit'?
Let's not forget that this EC is required to bring the earnings of this pool up to rough equivalency with other pools.
It's surely part of the 'reward' - just shifted in time to even out the luck.
I hope that merely by time-shifting it and terming it as 'Extra Credit' that there is not somehow a perceived lesser moral duty to pay it out??
(when (if!?) the overall pool luck eventually provides the necessary funds that is)
August 05, 2012, 02:58:37 PM
Yes, exactly. I don't think the entire CPPSBAM description was read or was somehow misunderstood...
I think the problem was putting two proposals in one discussion thread.
August 05, 2012, 02:54:33 PM
So under CPPSBAM, every time I point my miners to a new eligius address... my old address will effectively be an 'inactive miner' and although the EC credit is there - it's effectively lost to me unless I point some hashing power there again??
That would be correct.
Yuck.
August 05, 2012, 03:43:41 AM
As long as that is the case, perhaps we should take another look at MPPS? The only reason we went with SMPPS AFAIK was because it allows mobility between addresses.
use ESMPPS
August 04, 2012, 04:09:13 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong.
You aren't paid until you reach the threshold, and then you're only paid for what you mined up to that point. So, at any instant other than when you've just been paid, you're overdue an amount X, that's between 0 and the threshold (can be a bit more but let's forget about that). Statistically, you're overdue half the amount of the threshold on average, multiplied by the number of addresses.
You aren't paid until you reach the threshold, and then you're only paid for what you mined up to that point. So, at any instant other than when you've just been paid, you're overdue an amount X, that's between 0 and the threshold (can be a bit more but let's forget about that). Statistically, you're overdue half the amount of the threshold on average, multiplied by the number of addresses.
While it is true that if you split your mining between multiple addresses you will have to mine longer to reach the payout threshold. But even if you never reach the threshold, auto-payouts kick-in after a week of inactivity so that only means you'll get payed later, not less.
Ok. That will continue, right?
August 04, 2012, 04:01:30 PM
Where does rounding come into it?
By rounding I meant that fact, that you get paid in "chunks" (couldn't be otherwise). So creating an address is effectively not totally free, you'd be about -0.34 BTC on average just by having an extra address.
Sorry if I wasn't clear.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
You aren't paid until you reach the threshold, and then you're only paid for what you mined up to that point. So, at any instant other than when you've just been paid, you're overdue an amount X, that's between 0 and the threshold (can be a bit more but let's forget about that). Statistically, you're overdue half the amount of the threshold on average, multiplied by the number of addresses.
You aren't paid until you reach the threshold, and then you're only paid for what you mined up to that point. So, at any instant other than when you've just been paid, you're overdue an amount X, that's between 0 and the threshold (can be a bit more but let's forget about that). Statistically, you're overdue half the amount of the threshold on average, multiplied by the number of addresses.
While it is true that if you split your mining between multiple addresses you will have to mine longer to reach the payout threshold. But even if you never reach the threshold, auto-payouts kick-in after a week of inactivity so that only means you'll get payed later, not less.
Ok. That will continue, right?
August 04, 2012, 03:58:30 PM
May I suggest switching to proportional ?
You may not.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
You aren't paid until you reach the threshold, and then you're only paid for what you mined up to that point. So, at any instant other than when you've just been paid, you're overdue an amount X, that's between 0 and the threshold (can be a bit more but let's forget about that). Statistically, you're overdue half the amount of the threshold on average, multiplied by the number of addresses.
You aren't paid until you reach the threshold, and then you're only paid for what you mined up to that point. So, at any instant other than when you've just been paid, you're overdue an amount X, that's between 0 and the threshold (can be a bit more but let's forget about that). Statistically, you're overdue half the amount of the threshold on average, multiplied by the number of addresses.
While it is true that if you split your mining between multiple addresses you will have to mine longer to reach the payout threshold. But even if you never reach the threshold, auto-payouts kick-in after a week of inactivity so that only means you'll get payed later, not less.
August 04, 2012, 03:34:25 PM
From a purely moral standpoint, I think refusing to pay inactive addresses is wrong. It's due payment for past work, it shouldn't be pushed back indefinitely. It also punishes the creation of new addresses, which beats one of the selling points of mining here ("virgin coins"). There is already a "new address tax", there shouldn't be any more.
New address tax?
Yeah well, nothing significant, but whenever you create a new account you increase the cumulative rounding down. It's just a little, but it's something (you are on average (~0.67 BTC/2) * number_of_addresses overdue).
Correct me if I'm wrong.
You aren't paid until you reach the threshold, and then you're only paid for what you mined up to that point. So, at any instant other than when you've just been paid, you're overdue an amount X, that's between 0 and the threshold (can be a bit more but let's forget about that). Statistically, you're overdue half the amount of the threshold on average, multiplied by the number of addresses.
August 04, 2012, 03:21:20 PM
From a purely moral standpoint, I think refusing to pay inactive addresses is wrong. It's due payment for past work, it shouldn't be pushed back indefinitely. It also punishes the creation of new addresses, which beats one of the selling points of mining here ("virgin coins"). There is already a "new address tax", there shouldn't be any more.
New address tax?
Yeah well, nothing significant, but whenever you create a new account you increase the cumulative rounding down. It's just a little, but it's something (you are on average (~0.67 BTC/2) * number_of_addresses overdue).
Correct me if I'm wrong.
You aren't paid until you reach the threshold, and then you're only paid for what you mined up to that point. So, at any instant other than when you've just been paid, you're overdue an amount X, that's between 0 and the threshold (can be a bit more but let's forget about that). Statistically, you're overdue half the amount of the threshold on average, multiplied by the number of addresses.
August 04, 2012, 03:18:05 PM
From a purely moral standpoint, I think refusing to pay inactive addresses is wrong. It's due payment for past work, it shouldn't be pushed back indefinitely. It also punishes the creation of new addresses, which beats one of the selling points of mining here ("virgin coins"). There is already a "new address tax", there shouldn't be any more.
New address tax?
Yeah well, nothing significant, but whenever you create a new account you increase the cumulative rounding down. It's just a little, but it's something (you are on average (~0.67 BTC/2) * number_of_addresses overdue).
August 04, 2012, 03:14:44 PM
From a purely moral standpoint, I think refusing to pay inactive addresses is wrong. It's due payment for past work, it shouldn't be pushed back indefinitely.
No, this is dealing with Extra Credit (EC), not unpaid rewards.Ok.
It also punishes the creation of new addresses, which beats one of the selling points of mining here ("virgin coins"). There is already a "new address tax", there shouldn't be any more.
There is no "new address tax" right now... if there was, it wouldn't be a major downside to this proposal.I posted just a few minutes ago about that.
August 04, 2012, 03:11:43 PM
From a purely moral standpoint, I think refusing to pay inactive addresses is wrong. It's due payment for past work, it shouldn't be pushed back indefinitely. It also punishes the creation of new addresses, which beats one of the selling points of mining here ("virgin coins"). There is already a "new address tax", there shouldn't be any more.
New address tax?
Yeah well, nothing significant, but whenever you create a new account you increase the cumulative rounding down. It's just a little, but it's something (you are on average (~0.67 BTC/2) * number_of_addresses overdue).
August 04, 2012, 03:10:26 PM
From a purely moral standpoint, I think refusing to pay inactive addresses is wrong. It's due payment for past work, it shouldn't be pushed back indefinitely.
No, this is dealing with Extra Credit (EC), not unpaid rewards.It also punishes the creation of new addresses, which beats one of the selling points of mining here ("virgin coins"). There is already a "new address tax", there shouldn't be any more.
There is no "new address tax" right now... if there was, it wouldn't be a major downside to this proposal. Jump to: