Topic: [HAVELOCK] PETAMINE - 1,150 TH/S HASH RATE (1GH/S per Unit) - page 31. (Read 565829 times)

Way I figure it...all I need to do is hold the partial penny worth of dividends my cryptx shares are earning me and wait till BTC hits the 75-80K range...then I should just about break even

Still way cheaper than CEX.io...

Edit:  Was there any math behind that chart, or were you just trying out your new french curve???  It looks awful nice...

The diff increase there is 1% daily.
I'm a PETA investor. not sure what fear, uncertainty or doubt I am throwing into the arena or what benefit I would get from doing so. That term seems overused though.


There is no particular significance to the number 35. In the first chart with solo mining with 0.01% of net hashrate the 50% reward point is around 32BTC, in the second mining with 10% of a 0.1% pool it's around 35BTC.

That just means that's the earnings outcome approx half of the miners would expect to see. (or if you could go back and repeat the experiment under 'lab conditions', that's the outcome you'd expect 50% of the time)


What you write in last paragraph is pretty much correct. (Hope your next question will not be, why is chance of reward > 75.6 greater than 0)  

PETA is now way over valued going into the difficulty change.   If I hadn't already sold I'd be selling at .0031 for sure!   I'm amazed that there is so much demand.  For the BDD haters, PETA is way over the price of B.Mine now and it pays a lot less dividend than B.Mine.

@Anotheranonlol:  Sorry, still don't understand what you are trying to say.  What is the significance of the number 35?
Please show your work, i.e. the math involved.
ty

*Just to make sure we're on the same page, each difficulty adjustment=2016 blocks, each block=25 BTC, 15 difficulty adjustments=756000 BTC mined by 100% of the network, 75.6 BTC mined by .01% of the network.  If you were mining in a 100% pool (as in "entire network"), the odds of you receiving 75.6 BTC should be 100% (vertical line @ 75.6 in your chart). 

You don't provide the difficulty increases you used to create those charts. Again, just trying to throw fud into the arena.

While I have no doubt that there is a ton of hidden hashing power that has yet to come online, we appear to have hit a lull. Its likely because people are dumping their money into the scrypt asics, so therefore less money being put into sha256. Add to that btc being way underpriced for the amount of difficulty increases we have seen and its possible that we will be treading water until something large enough to make a splash hits the news.
I have no idea what that would be, newegg and dell both taking bitcoin to me is ginormous news, I personally loathe dell as an IT guy their computers suck, but newegg is the go to place for anything tech related. Is it going to take an amazon announcement to finally get us moving again?

Why on earth would i drop the % of the pool that is % of the network and only leave in % of the network of the whole? When the actual point is to demonstrate the effect the size of the pool you are working on has on your expected earnings.

 Should you join a pool with a higher % of network hashrate variance is reduced and earnings are more predictable. Absolutely common knowledge.  The idea is not for people to not read the numbers at all and get scared by squiggly lines- I've posted the numbers above that you say are incorrect. Once again it is not implying in reality you are guaranteed to earn less with a smaller pool as simulations are not reality it simply means you've got a higher chance of doing so. (and also higher chance of earning more) Are you disputing that?

^
Not my chart, Anotheranonlol's.
The numbers are unambiguous.  Each line represents the same amount of hardware: .01% of network's total.  Which can be expressed a  "10% of .1%," "1% of 1%," etc., etc.

The math behind those curious lines, and the significance of the number 35...  I'm stumped.

Anotheranonlol, share with the rest of the class?

It was your standard ambigous chart with #s that have no relation to each other. These type of charts are used all the time to confuse people. Fox news here in murica is known for it, they will use a standard bar chart representing X versus Y. X is 1000 and Y is 2000 but the bars are nearly the same height. The idea is that people wont read the #s and just see the bars. It works well to keep the populace uninformed and freaked out about shit that doesn't really matter.

If you wanted to give some real info instead of spreading fud you would drop the % of pool that is % of network. Just stick with your % of the network as a whole. Unless your in a really small pool or solo mining with very little hardware you are going to earn on average what the math says you will.
Using the #s you did was FUD plain and simple.

Lol.

Yes, ghash is doing well, but better can be done. If they still have grandiose plans/ideas, I would rather see petamine/cryptx as a competitor/equal to ghash rather than riding their coattails.
P2Pool is somewhere that cryptx/petamine can really shine, yes, p2pool apparently doesn't play well with bitfury hardware, BUT, cryptx could devote some serious developer time to it and make a serious contribution to p2pool in the process. As others have stated being THE LARGEST mining operation on p2pool would put petamine squarely in the spotlight it might also spark some renewed interest in p2pool. P2Pool does have some scalability issues at the moment, from what I have read it would not work as efficiently if a significant % of the network switched over, but again this is something that peta could help fix.

Amazing how the dividends keep decreasing!

The math there is correct. The chart isn't supposed to be scary. It's just a representation of simulations.
Doesn't mean you will earn more or less on a smaller pool, just that you have a higher chance for both.. This is common knowledge.

About the chips in use in Peta's miners - BitFury BF864C55 I was told they do not play 100% well with p2pool. (not talking about the simple jobconnect fix) Some other issue with restart/job cancellation and fast new work, I can't confirm that and have never tested personally but maybe that is a reason to delay a move also.


He was implying because the retrospective luck of p2pool globally is good (past week, month and 3 month intervals)
it makes sense to immediately switch..because we too will enjoy this luck in future.

I like to use bitcoin per gigashare approach a la organofcorti, and ghash is doing reasonably well, most importantly not a lot of variance.

I was being sarcastic. I agree with your last line.

What makes no sense? The "luck" I posted for p2pool? Or what anon is saying about not moving to p2pool?
The luck is simply a measure of how profitable p2pool has been versus standard mining. Over the long long term by design it will be more profitable.
However, that being said, it would be prudent to be ready to switch back to a standard pool the minute that the 90 day "luck drops below 100% so that potential earnings aren't being lost.

Your math has some serious issues.

It is NOT prudent to solo mine unless you have 1%+ of the network. While peta has that at the moment, they wont in short order.

You should educate yourself on p2pool before you dismiss it with scary charts that mean absolutely nothing.
P2Pool was designed to be more efficient than standard mining. How? Instead of getting a fresh bite of the apple every 10 minutes, every share you submit is eligible to be part of a block. I am feeling generous so I will copy/pasta an earlier post of mine on the subject.
P2Pool has broken the 1phs barrier, add to that the "luck" being good at the moment, and it should act like a gravity well pulling more hashrate towards it and for the time being the luck and therefore the earnings.

Found this thread on p2pool. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/a-guide-for-mining-efficiently-on-p2pool-includes-fud-repellent-and-faq-153232

I think this covers it. From that thread.

What matters for good P2Pool results: low latencies

On average a miner on a classic pool needs to react to a new coinbase every 10 minutes. Every 10 minutes a miner on any pool can submit a share based on a block that isn't the last one anymore. This is wasted effort: it doesn't help generate the next block in the chain and the pool suffers from this. Most pools reject such work and ignore it when they compute miners' rewards.

Miners are often separated from their pools by long-distance networks with tens or hundreds of milliseconds of latency. This means that every 10 minutes a miner on a normal pool is wasting its efforts for at least tens or hundreds of milliseconds. This is why there are rejects even on properly tuned classic setups: for 10ms of latency between miner and pool on average you should expect 0.01/(60*10) = 0.0016%:

Latency   Expected rejects
10ms   0.0016%
100ms   0.016%
1s   0.16%

Conclusion: on a traditional pool, relatively high latencies aren't such a big deal.

On P2Pool, the tracking of the proof of work is implemented by a sharechain which mirrors several properties of the Bitcoin blockchain:

    A share is a proof of work with a given difficulty
    A share uses the previous share in its input to make a sharechain like blocks do to build the blockchain
    It builds on a block template given by a Bitcoin node: a share hitting the Bitcoin difficulty can become a block too
    It's difficulty is dynamically adjusted to maintain a fixed average rate of share generation (one every 30 seconds)


The last point means that having a low latency is more important for a P2Pool miner than a miner on a traditional pool. Pay attention to the fact that a share being submitted too late to enter the sharechain can still produce a block so it's not wasted work (high reject rates are not a problem for global income on P2Pool unlike rejects on traditional pools). This said as the rejected share isn't in the sharechain it won't count as a proof of work for the purpose of distributing the pool's income.

block solving is inhomogenous poisson process and you are gonna get noise and variance anyway..p2pool 7 + 30 day luck is good, but wind can change & on long enough timescale it's not prudent to focus on short term statistics unless you like to gamble, graph i posted is monte-carlo simulation smoothed with 10m trials

Solo mining with 0.01% of the hashrate, 50% chance to get < 32 BTC, 10% chance of > 65 BTC and beleive it or not 5% chance of getting 0..

instead if the same miner joined a pool that controls 0.1% of total net hashrate (they have 10% of that pools workers)  90% chance of earning > 26BTC, 50% chance of earning > 35BTC  10% of earning > 44BTC

  as you can see above p2pool like setup has a higher chance of higher earnings, it also has higher chance of lower earnings. whereas variance is reduced on a larger pool meaning less chance of low earnings, less chance of high but more predictable overall and therefore more suitable for investors wanting stable returns.  

Totally makes no sense.

Makes no sense to move to p2pool, aside from trying to capitalise short term on the ghash '51% attack" hype. which has largely faded away, and besides been widely misinterpreted..