Topic: [NEW POOL & MINER] - BitcoinPool.com - Jump In! ~NO FEES~ :) - page 6. (Read 101960 times)

I agree. Basically there's no way to prove it except for saying you got lucky and pulled it off once or twice.

If someone could do this reliably then they would be predicting when blocks would be found on more than 1 site then they might as well build a massive solo rig and do it for themselves rather than losing money in pools.

They're not weighted toward the end, it's that they favor later shares. So, after a period of time, the shares are reduced in value, whether submitted at the start of the round, middle of the round, or end. After time, the shares are worth less than they were at time of submission. Likewise, if switching to bitcoinpool after a lengthly chunk of the round had already occurred, your shares would be worth a minuscule portion of the total payout, unless you had a blazingly fast mining setup.

So, essentially, you're gambling twofold. One, that you're going to be able to switch to bitcoinpool from slush's pool and have slush's pool solve the block before your shares devalue, and two, that you're going to be able to generate a large enough share base on bitcoinpool to award a payout, also assuming that they will solve the block in short time.

All of this is likewise being assumed off of the hash speed of the pool, which isn't a good figure for assuming the speed at which a pool can solve a block because of fluctuations in the user base. Calculations on average time to solve assume that you're constantly working, at a fixed average hash speed, and mining on complete and consecutive pieces of work until an answer is found. Thats not how pool mining works. You may have 10 users with a combined speed of 1Ghash/s, but there may only be 2 people hashing every nonce in the getwork while the other 8 are working off of only a portion before moving on to the next work. That fact alone will flaw the estimate of block solve time... and unless you're calculating your pool solve time estimates with fuzzy logic to incorporate the human factor, you're always going to be off.

It's a gamble, and not a mathematically proven theorem... and without thousands of solved blocks worth of "pool hopping" data, there would be no way to even have remotely enough data to actually prove it, so you're left with speculation.

Likewise, pool speeds are based off of a submissions-over-time calculations, not a live and exact representation of pool speed. I could hash at 1 Gh/s, but take 20 getworks before I found an answer. As far as the hash speed of the pool is concerned, I'm mining slowly because I submitted few shares in x-amount of time.

The only validity to the pool hopping exploit I can see is if you could put yourself in a position where you started off at Bitcoin Pooled Mining (BPM) and had a decent chunk into it and bailed toward the end for Bitcoin Pool (BP). From what I have read, and I could be wrong or outdated info, shares at BPM are weighted more heavily toward the end so if you had a decent stake in the current block at BPM and managed to switch over to BP at the beginning of a new block to establish a stake there too. Both blocks would have to terminate rather quickly and at about the same time for it to work and not have the shares get ate up at BPM.

It's possible, but highly unlikely considering you would have to get lucky with the timing on both sites.

I agree.  Trying to trap people into our pool with weighted shares seems unfair to those who have this exact problem (boxes crashed).  We can't sit in front of our miner 24/7 to make sure it's running.  Punishing those who had a technical failure of some sort seems dumb to me.

Everyone keeps saying it's mathematically proven that pool hoping works.  Yeah, I read that paper too, but has anyone proven this in real life?  Has anyone successfully done it and made more than what they would make on average if they were mining solo?  Did they test it for 24 hours, 3 days, 7 days, a month?  Or did everyone go "ahhh, I see big formula's so it must be true."?

Unless someone can do it, record all their data, and prove they make more by doing it, I don't see it being a viable cheating method.

I didn't say it was worse, I said I fucking refuse to do it.

I assume you are referring to hopping from BitcoinPool to Deepbit, not from BitcoinPooledMining to Deepbit. The quote makes that unclear.

And delayed stats does make it harder to implement pool hopping, but it is still fairly easy to do by just estimating the pool's speed and watching the hash chain either in your Bitcoin client or on BlockExplorer.

Deepbit at least has a 1 hour delay in stats so it's hard to poolhop from him to another, but it is easy from yours to his, and then if no blocks are found in the hour then you hop to solo

Perhaps a delay of a few hours in showing stats would be smart?

Who said that?


Fail. Attacker can switch between solo and pool, or better, between you and deepbit. Anything what is needed by attacker is count of round shares of at least one pool.

Everything you just said is mathematically provable (and proven with a white-paper and everything) to be false. Pool-hopping doesn't do some mythical magic that gets you more shares, it is a mathematically proven strategy to maximize your total payout over time above the theoretical limits by exploiting mathematical inefficiencies in the markets which are pools. Mathematical inefficiencies that don't naturally exist with just solo-mining.

And the fact that some other pools are Score based doesn't make your Share based pool (specifically it's miners) any less vulnerable to the attack. First, there are only two Score based pools. Tycho's pool is also Share based like yours. Second, the vulnerability still exists even if you were the only Share based pool; the attack would merely lead to 20-30% payout gains instead of the significantly higher possible gains with multiple Share based pools in existence.

Only reason why I COULD be in favor of a new method would be to attract more people, but I don't think it will happen, so I am in favor of leaving it as it is also

Then by all means forget the consensus and go with whats reasonable u cant please everybody but u can run your shop in a way that you agree with. Were not giving you anything to run the pool so run it as fair as possible. Also the whole .0001 btc to get the payments out the door? to hell with that too..who cares if the payment comes in 12 hrs late honestly you wouldn't put a .40 stamp to mail a 5 dollar check to 100 people jus so we get it a day earlier would u? esp when u can mail it for free?

I say leave it also. I've been with this pool for a few days, earned more BTC than the other pools I tried, and I found my first block. Unless you have a way for me to get more BTC, I say leave it.

I agree, but the general consensus being conveyed by people is that by hopping pools you can somehow magically make your card yield more results, and in hand, higher payouts. The fact of the matter is, with every other pool doing score based systems, we're protected against pool hopping because of the fact that anyone hopping from one of those pools into ours loses the money they would have earned while on the other pool. Likewise, leaving ours, their payout is reduced due to everyone else submitting shares.

The fact of the matter is, you can't cause your card to generate more than your expected daily payout. It will always be the same based on hash speed, whether it's a share based, score based, or solo mining effort.

I think you should leave it for now. As the pool gets bigger I don't think it will be as big a problem.

I think you should leave it the way it is. I understand i have a very large share of the pool and some may disagree with me but the way it is is fair period point blank. If a miner chooses to mine for your pool for 2hrs then another pool for 2hrs and solo for two hrs its their right. They still put in X amount of shares that would have to have been sifted through by any other miner so they get paid for their work. Last night i went to bed all of my miners cruching away 2.1ghash i was in that round for over a day. I wake up this morning two of my rigs are down and im olny at .9 and we hit twice during that time. And a third a couple hrs later. I was paid for the work i did for that long round and much less for the round that went on during while my rigs were down but it was still fair pay. now what if i only had one rig and it went down for one night? i dont get paid for a 32 hr round that i crunched away for 26? you do that and u have some very unhappy miners. If a miner chooses to jump pools then they take a gamble with their own money. its like the stock market one day ur up and one day ur down u can try to go in the direction of the market and move around alot or u can sit and be patient and watch ur money grow. thats just my take on it..keep it going the way it is Geebus youve made a niche for yourself offering something different if people want a diff. based share system theyre are other pools for that. Mimic what other pools are doing and we have no reason to be here at all and the 70% eff is total crap too because your saying if we dont use ur miner we wont get paid and that will turn people off as well...sorry for being so long winded ive been watch alot but not really saying much

I'd be fine with that, bigger share for me.

It's the exact same situation that score based pools are in. You're attempting to predict when the pool will solve a block and it's a gamble.

I could do it this way... Any user under 70% efficiency wont be paid.

couldn't you poolhop out of the pool at the beginning and come back at XX% of difficulty or something?

Well said, I've been in this pool for a week now and I love it.

i for one would like a score based system, not slush's, the more complicated one that is cheat proof.