Pages:
Author

Topic: Eligius pool POLL: New minimum payout - page 2. (Read 5097 times)

newbie
Activity: 40
Merit: 0
June 10, 2011, 05:36:45 AM
#9
Hmm. So I read the protocol description for a "tx" (transmit bitcoins) message from the Wiki.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_specification#tx

...where it explains some fields of the "tx" message thusly:

Code:
1+ 	tx_in count 	var_int 	Number of Transaction inputs
41+ tx_in tx_in[] A list of 1 or more transaction inputs or sources for coins
1+ tx_out count var_int Number of Transaction outputs
8+ tx_out tx_out[] A list of 1 or more transaction outputs or destinations for coins

...and if you then skip forward to "Example tx message", you should find a sample like this:

Code: ("sample tx message")
Message header:
 F9 BE B4 D9                                       - main network magic bytes
 74 78 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00               - "tx" command
 02 01 00 00                                       - payload is 258 bytes long
 E2 93 CD BE                                       - checksum of payload

Transaction:
 01 00 00 00                                       - version

Inputs:
 01                                                - number of transaction inputs

Input 1:
 6D BD DB 08 5B 1D 8A F7  51 84 F0 BC 01 FA D5 8D  - previous output (outpoint)
 12 66 E9 B6 3B 50 88 19  90 E4 B4 0D 6A EE 36 29
 00 00 00 00

 8B                                                - script is 139 bytes long

 48 30 45 02 21 00 F3 58  1E 19 72 AE 8A C7 C7 36  - signature script (scriptSig)
 7A 7A 25 3B C1 13 52 23  AD B9 A4 68 BB 3A 59 23
 3F 45 BC 57 83 80 02 20  59 AF 01 CA 17 D0 0E 41
 83 7A 1D 58 E9 7A A3 1B  AE 58 4E DE C2 8D 35 BD
 96 92 36 90 91 3B AE 9A  01 41 04 9C 02 BF C9 7E
 F2 36 CE 6D 8F E5 D9 40  13 C7 21 E9 15 98 2A CD
 2B 12 B6 5D 9B 7D 59 E2  0A 84 20 05 F8 FC 4E 02
 53 2E 87 3D 37 B9 6F 09  D6 D4 51 1A DA 8F 14 04
 2F 46 61 4A 4C 70 C0 F1  4B EF F5

 FF FF FF FF                                       - sequence

Outputs:
 02                                                - 2 Output Transactions

Output 1:
 40 4B 4C 00 00 00 00 00                           - 0.05 BTC (5000000)
 19                                                - pk_script is 25 bytes long

 76 A9 14 1A A0 CD 1C BE  A6 E7 45 8A 7A BA D5 12  - pk_script
 A9 D9 EA 1A FB 22 5E 88  AC

Output 2:
 80 FA E9 C7 00 00 00 00                           - 33.54 BTC (3354000000)
 19                                                - pk_script is 25 bytes long

 76 A9 14 0E AB 5B EA 43  6A 04 84 CF AB 12 48 5E  - pk_script
 FD A0 B7 8B 4E CC 52 88  AC

Locktime:
 00 00 00 00                                       - lock time

The commentary about the sample "tx" message speaks of the possibility of multiple "inputs" and multiple "outputs". This is where I got the idea about generated balances existing separately in the block chain (and of joining up multiple small balances, no matter if they were generated or received, being a more "expensive" operation, since it produces longer "tx" messages with really many "inputs", and I read elsewhere that fees are counted per kilobyte).

I'll try to find a simpler explanation of it, though, since I'm not really well aware of the Bitcoin protocol, and could be still misunderstanding this...

...especially with regard to the question of "how is it ensured that no fees are accrued from spending bitcoins earnt with generation fees". The likely explanations so far seem "generation fees all joined into a single output inside the block" and "they are under some pre-defined limit of value, and thus processed free of charge by most, if not all, miners".
newbie
Activity: 40
Merit: 0
June 10, 2011, 05:27:31 AM
#8
OK, thanks for pointing out the other possibility.

I'll try to dig a little in my transaction history, to see if it matches your description better (and then if I still don't undertand it sufficiently, I guess reading the wiki and protocol descriptions is what I should do next).



legendary
Activity: 2618
Merit: 1007
June 10, 2011, 05:22:44 AM
#7
As far as I understood it:

3 BTC total balance in total on account X

Every transaction between 0.1 and 3 BTC --> free, no matter how many tiny transactions there might be in this account.

Anyways, Luke-Jr even made a patch to Bitcoin that uses the Eligius fee model (always fees, but VERY small ones), so by just using a different Bitcoin Version I don't see real issues with this, as transactions should anyways be accepted latest when Eligius mines a block.
newbie
Activity: 40
Merit: 0
June 10, 2011, 05:05:41 AM
#6
To better clarify the considerations regarding fees, this is how I understand it. If someone knows better, please correct me! Thanks in advance. :)

Generation involves no fees.

However, if I remember it correctly, to transfer multiple balances created by separate generations, they must be joined together into a single transaction. It is my understanding that this process likely requires fees, and their size depends on the size of the transaction in kilobytes. I will try to demonstrate below:

Scenario 1:

miner generates 1.06220433 BTC <-- no fee
miner transfers 1.06220433 BTC to marketplace <-- no fee
miner sells 1.06220433 BTC <-- no fee

Scenario 2:

miner generates 1.06220433 BTC <-- no fee
miner generates 1.22000111 BTC <-- no fee
miner generates 1.81293888 BTC <-- no fee
miner transfers 4 BTC to marketplace <-- probably a 0.01 BTC fee
miner sells 4 BTC <-- no fee

(the transaction of taking 3 source balances and producing 2 result balances is sufficiently complex to require a fee for processing)

Scenario 3 (smaller payouts)

miner generates 0.17211322 BTC <-- no fee
miner generates 0.16623322 BTC <-- no fee
miner generates 0.16811342 BTC <-- no fee
miner generates 0.17211322 BTC <-- no fee
miner generates 0.16823322 BTC <-- no fee
miner generates 0.17411342 BTC <-- no fee
miner generates 0.19211322 BTC <-- no fee
miner generates 0.16723322 BTC <-- no fee
miner generates 0.17211342 BTC <-- no fee
miner generates 0.17212322 BTC <-- no fee
miner generates 0.16623322 BTC <-- no fee
miner generates 0.16611342 BTC <-- no fee
miner generates 0.16823322 BTC <-- no fee
miner transfers 2 BTC to marketplace <-- probably a 0.02 BTC fee
miner sells 2 BTC <-- no fee

(the fee size differs because the transaction complexity differs: 13 source balances and 2 result balances is more complex, and likely takes more kilobytes to describe)
legendary
Activity: 2618
Merit: 1007
June 10, 2011, 04:12:17 AM
#5
I'm an idiot and clicked before thinking about it. Please leave it at 1 BTC. I also do not want increased fees. Thank you!
There are 0 fees anyways on Eligius, as the payouts are done via generated transactions.

[Edit: As far as I understood it, as long as coins are generated at the same address, it shoudn't matter if they are 100* 1 Bitcent or 1*1 Bitcoin --> but if you switch accounts after each payout (for whatever reason?!) this might be a viable concern.]

I'm pro 16 bitcents (or 10 or 20 for that matter, to have a "nicer" number), as it would give faster/more regular payouts for smaller miners and also reduce the number of balances that need to be cached for max. 1 week. Didn't Eligius US fail yesterday because of this? Wink
newbie
Activity: 40
Merit: 0
June 10, 2011, 02:52:12 AM
#4
I don't have a strong opinion on the subject.

I voted "1 BTC", but I wouldn't mind it going either way.

There is a valid countrpoint to the way I voted: in future, 1 BTC is going to require much work to mine.

On the other hand, paying out too small amounts indeed increases fees -- when the miner finally wants to transfer their coins from the account which generated it, pretty much to anywhere else, they will have to create more complex transactions (more kilobytes), joining together many small amounts, and getting that into a block will cost fees.

I too suspect that perhaps a change in the "inactivity payout" would be of additional help. I imagine that if it were smaller, then if someone needed a payout (but was not close to reaching 1 BTC, or whatever the limit is at that point in future)... they could switch (e.g. from the US to the EU) server, and the server they left would send them a payout in X days (where perhaps, X could be less than 7).
newbie
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
June 10, 2011, 02:34:13 AM
#3
I'm an idiot and clicked before thinking about it. Please leave it at 1 BTC. I also do not want increased fees. Thank you!
full member
Activity: 140
Merit: 100
June 10, 2011, 01:11:33 AM
#2
The current method avoids more transaction fees. Besides, after one week of inactivity the rest is paid correct?

Maybe you should just lower that to 3 days for the impatient.

I certainly don't want more BTC being lost to transaction fee's for using your pool.
legendary
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1186
June 09, 2011, 10:33:30 PM
#1
Poll seems pretty straightforward. Please only vote if you mine on Eligius regularly, and actually understand the question.

Basically: should the pool pay you after you reach at least 0.16… BTC, or continue requiring a minimum of 1 BTC?
Pages:
Jump to: