I just added 1T to mmpool last week -- and as you all know, we are in the middle of a 175+ hour round
~nh
~nh
Will add another 200 Gh tomorrow.
Topic: mmpool.org - 1.5% fee DGM/PPS - tx fees/vardiff/merge mine/tor - page 101. (Read 361844 times)
Will add another 200 Gh tomorrow.
Why would people withhold blocks, though? I mean, it doesn't hurt them, but it doesn't help them in any way, either. It's just being a dick.
Imagine a pool that is PPS only. Miners don't need to send solutions that solve blocks at all as they get paid per share. In fact they are incentivized not too. If blocks are found, difficulty increases and mining gets harder. So by not submitting the winning block they prevent difficulty from rising just that little bit. And they still get paid. It's win-win for them. Terrible for the pool of course. So it's also a useful attack to kill a rival pool. But if you're mining on a PPS pool, what is bad for the pool is also bad for you. You are mining on the pool, therefore, if the pool shuts down or switches to another payout system, you're affected.
I just added 1T to mmpool last week -- and as you all know, we are in the middle of a 175+ hour round
~nh
~nh
Nice to see Tor support. 
It's very nice. I think they are the only pool to offer this. At least the only one I've ever seen.
Nice to see Tor support.
5% is still okay in my book, but that's about the limit. LiteGuardian does 2% PPS, and it's not doing any hybrid.
The reserves a pool needs to handle the swings of PPS are too much for it to be a consideration. Combine that with the block withholding attack risk that can drive the pool bankrupt it's not worth it.I like mmpool with or without PPS, I'm just giving my opinion on PPS in general.
Oh, well yea, I agreed with you 100% with PPS in general.
Personally, I think PPS rates should be trailing; based on the pool's average rate at which they find blocks for one Difficulty Term.
I would first set my break-even, minimum PPS %, then choose an arbitrary number + % as the first control term. After the Network Difficulty adjusts, get the avg. Time between blocks on network and between blocks found in pool. I would see how the pools avg. Hashrate changed +/- then adjust the PPS n% higher, or lower.
Of course you would need an upper bound limit pool miners would agree too, but adjusting the PPS between let's say 1.25% and 5.05% could average out nicely for Pool managers and Devoted Miners.
My math is 'Pseudo Math' I would need time to write an actual formula, but that's my idea.
PPS with a variable fee based on luck. Interesting.
Why would people withhold blocks, though? I mean, it doesn't hurt them, but it doesn't help them in any way, either. It's just being a dick.
I noticed you added Tor support to the pool. Any chance for IPv6 support in the near future? The only other pool I know of that uses it is Slush's, but I really don't wanna switch to that pool. 
How much BTC/MHS/DAY getting from this merged pool?
Over a long enough time you should expect the same BTC/MHS/DAY rate from all pools minus their fees. The difference with mmpool is that hashrate is currently low enough that you may go days without payment and then get a big payment all at once.
Mmpools newly added PPS for BTC is a nice little bonus, bit without even factoring that into my decision for using them, their DGM payment method has to be my favorite. Yes, you won't get a payout daily, but when you do, like @TechByPC said, its a very handsome payout.
How much BTC/MHS/DAY getting from this merged pool?
Over a long enough time you should expect the same BTC/MHS/DAY rate from all pools minus their fees. The difference with mmpool is that hashrate is currently low enough that you may go days without payment and then get a big payment all at once.
How much BTC/MHS/DAY getting from this merged pool?
5% is still okay in my book, but that's about the limit. LiteGuardian does 2% PPS, and it's not doing any hybrid.
The reserves a pool needs to handle the swings of PPS are too much for it to be a consideration. Combine that with the block withholding attack risk that can drive the pool bankrupt it's not worth it.I like mmpool with or without PPS, I'm just giving my opinion on PPS in general.
Oh, well yea, I agreed with you 100% with PPS in general.
Personally, I think PPS rates should be trailing; based on the pool's average rate at which they find blocks for one Difficulty Term.
I would first set my break-even, minimum PPS %, then choose an arbitrary number + % as the first control term. After the Network Difficulty adjusts, get the avg. Time between blocks on network and between blocks found in pool. I would see how the pools avg. Hashrate changed +/- then adjust the PPS n% higher, or lower.
Of course you would need an upper bound limit pool miners would agree too, but adjusting the PPS between let's say 1.25% and 5.05% could average out nicely for Pool managers and Devoted Miners.
My math is 'Pseudo Math' I would need time to write an actual formula, but that's my idea.
PPS with a variable fee based on luck. Interesting.
Why would people withhold blocks, though? I mean, it doesn't hurt them, but it doesn't help them in any way, either. It's just being a dick.
Exactly what I thought.
What I came up with, and this is still accepting 'Block Withholding' as a non-issue for the time being, would make use of Miner's Time On Pool as @kjlimo stated. You would calculate the PPS system using a SINC function (The SINE Wave Graphs). In order to determine PPS the pool uses a Singal-To-Noise formula to reduces 'noise' in the Sinc-Wave or Hashrate Fluctuations; this would find a % adjustment for each individual miner's PPS. The adjustment would be bound to the Upper and Lower limits being determined by the original idea I had. In addition each miner's time needs to be pitted up against their hashrate vs. pool hashrate (This I am still working on)...
What we have would be:
-Global 'Luck' calculations
- Upper Bound & Lower Bound Limits
- A Running & Adjusting SINC-Function
- Measuring Pool's Averages Dependent On The Global Variables
- Signal-To-Noise Recalculations
- Pushing The Sine Waves Higher or Lower to reach a median
- Be the medium 5% higher than the true median or 1% lower than true; etc.
- Individual Miner 'Variance' Calculations
- Comprised of Time On Pool
- & Value Or Total Shares
(Might Be Bad)- Miner Variance Gives a +/- above or below the Pool's [(Calculated)(Re-Adjusted[ing]) PPS-SINC Function]
I feel like I'm off somewhere :/
Updated my email/sms/auto cashout/monitor helper site to use the new mmpool.org domain now. looks like everything working well, https://bitmonitor.usr.io/
You might want to update your sig.
Just added my 200 Ghash cents. Love the pool, reliable for years!
This pool is maintaining excellent availability (uptime).
Changing compensation methods is nice...and luck will come and go... and features and stats are neat...
...but consistently connecting to a well-performing pool is the most profitable solution for any miner.
My two satoshis: market the pool's uptime if you want to recruit to a higher hashrate.
Great job on uptime and communcation mmpool!
Changing compensation methods is nice...and luck will come and go... and features and stats are neat...
...but consistently connecting to a well-performing pool is the most profitable solution for any miner.
My two satoshis: market the pool's uptime if you want to recruit to a higher hashrate.
Great job on uptime and communcation mmpool!
You could give the extra payouts to the miners who have been there longer; that would work as a sort of referral program. If you get new people to join who are earning less than full PPS, then the existing miners get some benefit for finding new hash power to join the pool.
Length of time is a possibility but it becomes hard to differentiate between someone who jumped in and out of the pool over time. Maybe some form of fee discount/bonus for top share submitters over a rolling 24 hour (or whatever) period. With an option to include referred users share rate as part of yours to encourage referrals. This would make mining a little competitive to increase share rates which would help encourage people to stick with it. An argument against this approach is "Why not apply that average discount across the board" so fees are lower and encourage people that way. I do like the competitive mining/reward referral aspect though.
Why would people withhold blocks, though? I mean, it doesn't hurt them, but it doesn't help them in any way, either. It's just being a dick.
Imagine a pool that is PPS only. Miners don't need to send solutions that solve blocks at all as they get paid per share. In fact they are incentivized not too. If blocks are found, difficulty increases and mining gets harder. So by not submitting the winning block they prevent difficulty from rising just that little bit. And they still get paid. It's win-win for them. Terrible for the pool of course. So it's also a useful attack to kill a rival pool. What about something based on on the longer your mining at the pool the higher the PPS rate is. so if you just start its 5% of the normal pps rate. Then after 3 days its 100% or something.
You could give the extra payouts to the miners who have been there longer; that would work as a sort of referral program. If you get new people to join who are earning less than full PPS, then the existing miners get some benefit for finding new hash power to join the pool.
Granted it wouldn't be directly related to the people like the referral program, but perhaps that would make it less cutthroat for affiliate links like mmpool mentioned they didn't want affiliate links being blasted everywhere. We could just promote for the general good of the pool, and not be as concerned about direct compensation.
To be fair, I should admit I'm one of the long time higher hashers here, so feel free to call bullshit on me and say I'm being unfair, but I promote this pool every time I talk to anyone about mining at the meetup I run, and when I'm talking to future miners at bars, on the bus, etc....
What about something based on on the longer your mining at the pool the higher the PPS rate is. so if you just start its 5% of the normal pps rate. Then after 3 days its 100% or something.
Finally! Awesome!
5% is still okay in my book, but that's about the limit. LiteGuardian does 2% PPS, and it's not doing any hybrid.
The reserves a pool needs to handle the swings of PPS are too much for it to be a consideration. Combine that with the block withholding attack risk that can drive the pool bankrupt it's not worth it.I like mmpool with or without PPS, I'm just giving my opinion on PPS in general.
Oh, well yea, I agreed with you 100% with PPS in general.
Personally, I think PPS rates should be trailing; based on the pool's average rate at which they find blocks for one Difficulty Term.
I would first set my break-even, minimum PPS %, then choose an arbitrary number + % as the first control term. After the Network Difficulty adjusts, get the avg. Time between blocks on network and between blocks found in pool. I would see how the pools avg. Hashrate changed +/- then adjust the PPS n% higher, or lower.
Of course you would need an upper bound limit pool miners would agree too, but adjusting the PPS between let's say 1.25% and 5.05% could average out nicely for Pool managers and Devoted Miners.
My math is 'Pseudo Math' I would need time to write an actual formula, but that's my idea.
PPS with a variable fee based on luck. Interesting.
Good points. I wish I could record my thoughts. I've got some ideas, and will work something out tomorrow...
Jump to: