Topic: [EXPERIMENTAL] poclbm-autohop: Yet Another Automatic Pool Hopper (Read 10125 times)

I can't think of any reason PPLNS would be more dangerous than any other system. Assuming you can trust the operator, it is both hopping-proof and much more resilient to long periods of bad luck than any of the PPS variants.

If you can't trust the pool operator, then all systems have potential for abuse.


I had avoided adding bitcoinpool completely because of its Draconian measures designed to fight pool hoppers (rather than changing reward systems). Of course, as hopping becomes more prevalent, you can expect more pools to go down this road. Hopefully, they'll have to become so awful that users won't want anything to do with them, but I don't have high hopes in that regard. Users seem willing to tolerate a lot of abuse.

BitMinter switched to a variation of PPLNS today, so if you were pool hopping us you may want to remove us from your setup.

We'll still be paying 5% extra for over 40 more blocks, so we can be a good default, though.

Looks like it stopped updating again...

PPS/variation and prop is the most fair reward system and pplns is the most dangerous reward system and you miners should run away from pplns, maybe just maybe you need a slap to learn a lesson

Everyone should read this

pplns is the most dangerous reward system and you miners should run away from pplns

After much consideration and review of how our anti-pool hopping system is looked upon by members of the Bitcoin community, we have chosen to change the way in which it is working.

In the Past:
If a user participated in less than 50% of the round, their shares would be reduced by 10%, unless a donation was set, in which case, no penalty was applied.

This allowed for our users with legitimate disconnects, or reasons for being unable to mine during long rounds to avoid being hit with a penalty.

Some people seem to belive that this is a negative aspect of the anti-hopping system due to the easily cheatable nature of the system and the fact that pool hoppers are still given a large incentive to exploit our pool.

From Now on:
If a user participates in less than 50% of the round, their shares will be reduced by 50%, regardless of donation. 50% of the penalty fee will be directed toward the donations account and will be applied to server costs and future monthly contests. The other 50% of the penalty will be removed from the total shares for the round, which will in-hand cause the value of all remaining shares in the round to increase.

Example -

100,000 shares are in the round.

User A has 5000 shares and is NOT a hopper. Their estimated earnings before penalties are applied is 2.5 BTC.

User B has 5000 shares and IS A hopper. Their estimated earnings before penalties are applied is 2.5 BTC.

Once penalties are applied, User B's shares are reduced to 2500 where 1250 has been credited to donations and 1250 has been removed from the round. After the penalty is applied, User B's unconfirmed earnings are 1.265 BTC and User A's unconfirmed earnings are 2.5316 BTC.

At this time, any donation currently set on your account will remain in place. Donations will be processed prior to any penalties. As a reminder, donations are entirely voluntary and are not required to use this pool.

We will use this new method of calculating penalties for a one week trial period, at which time we will decide whether or not it is effectively deterring pool hopping and effectively rewarding loyal members of the pool.

Regards,

BitcoinPool Staff

PPS/variation and prop is the most fair reward system and pplns is the most dangerous reward system and you miners should run away from pplns, maybe just maybe you need a slap to learn a lesson

Motivation

Many mining pools are still using the inherently unfair proportional payout system. My primary intent is to encourage pool operators to migrate their pools to fair systems. It seems as if the only way this will happen is if miners themselves see that the proportional system is unfair. (Unfortunately, the fair systems often seem unfair at first glance, making explanations more difficult.)