I've been mining with eligius for about a week now and I'm still baffled how the payout system works. I read the description but I guess it's just not sinking in.
When I started mining I was being paid some small amount per block, around 0.002 BTC/block. It's been slowly building up and is now 0.01378841 BTC/block.
I have a small mining rig running around 200 MH/s so I normally get about 0.12 BTC/day.
Where has all that mining effort been going? I'm up very little for the week but would have about 0.84 BTC at a normal pool. Am I missing something?
Sorry to sound cranky, I'm just trying to understand.
Topic: [OLD] Eligius: ASIC, no registration, no fee CPPSRB BTC + 105% PPS NMC, 877 # - page 142. (Read 458255 times)
June 27, 2012, 01:22:38 PM
June 24, 2012, 08:01:11 AM
I have no problem with rejects and stuff on my crappy connection.
Btw. how much in debt is the buffer? I just summed the balances and credits from balances.json and got 2400 (400 without credit). Is it right? It seems to me that we had not THAT bad luck.
Btw. how much in debt is the buffer? I just summed the balances and credits from balances.json and got 2400 (400 without credit). Is it right? It seems to me that we had not THAT bad luck.
June 23, 2012, 10:51:33 PM
Yeah mostly duplicates, but also some stales, both at an unusually high rate (it appears to be going down though).
June 23, 2012, 10:43:20 PM
Is there any reason why the reject rate is so high today? It's reaching epic proportions, and I am on the verge of switching pools.
They're all duplicate rejects I think. Which means those shares were already counted.Working on the issue, though.
June 23, 2012, 10:35:55 PM
Is there any reason why the reject rate is so high today? It's reaching epic proportions, and I am on the verge of switching pools.
June 21, 2012, 08:25:07 PM
Staying loyal to this pool. Luke's stance is AFAIK flawless, if these BFL coffee warmers ever ship I'm pointing them here.
Have some patience.
Have some patience.
June 21, 2012, 08:12:18 PM
Just curious. Any reason why the hash rate has been steadily declining?
Probably impatient miners. June 21, 2012, 08:09:48 PM
Just curious. Any reason why the hash rate has been steadily declining?
June 21, 2012, 08:01:06 PM
If it is so, is there a variant that miners that ceased their activity (did not submitted share for given round) will be paid last?
RSMPPS. itzod.ru uses that payout method.Bitpit also used that method. It meant that long term miners there ended up having shares that were never credited, but newer shares often were.
June 21, 2012, 07:48:40 PM
If it is so, is there a variant that miners that ceased their activity (did not submitted share for given round) will be paid last?
RSMPPS. itzod.ru uses that payout method.Bitpit also used that method. It meant that long term miners there ended up having shares that were never credited, but newer shares often were.
June 21, 2012, 03:02:19 PM
Sorry, I completely missed it. It's clear now, thanks!
June 21, 2012, 02:44:15 PM
If it is so, is there a variant that miners that ceased their activity (did not submitted share for given round) will be paid last?
RSMPPS. itzod.ru uses that payout method. June 21, 2012, 02:43:47 PM
One question. I looked at the algorithm and it seems that you'll get paid extra credit even if you stopped mining. Is it right?
Yes. I answered this in the post immediately above yours!If it is so, is there a variant that miners that ceased their activity (did not submitted share for given round) will be paid last?
Recent Shared Maximum Pay Per Share. (I mentioned this in that last post too...)Also, isn't this problem in ESMPPS? The veteran miners might be motivated to mine under new address to get paid sooner.
Using a new address doesn't have any influence on ESMPPS. The equalization is per-share, not per-address. June 21, 2012, 02:38:35 PM
Hey,
One question. I looked at the algorithm and it seems that you'll get paid extra credit even if you stopped mining. Is it right?
If it is so, is there a variant that miners that ceased their activity (did not submitted share for given round) will be paid last? I'm thinking of this because if the majority leaves the pool (honeslty, almost 200GH left the pool when bad luck broke in full), the others will be mining and paying them, and in the end it will take longer to get to positive numbers, leading to more miners leaving and sending the pool to grave.
If you'd delay those payments until every active miner has zero extra credit, those who are mining will more likely stay on the pool, since they'll be getting at least the expected PPS.
Also, isn't this problem in ESMPPS? The veteran miners might be motivated to mine under new address to get paid sooner.
I'm sorry if this is answered somewhere, as I haven't actually studied more to it than what is on eligius wiki. RTFM-like answer would suffice :-)
One question. I looked at the algorithm and it seems that you'll get paid extra credit even if you stopped mining. Is it right?
If it is so, is there a variant that miners that ceased their activity (did not submitted share for given round) will be paid last? I'm thinking of this because if the majority leaves the pool (honeslty, almost 200GH left the pool when bad luck broke in full), the others will be mining and paying them, and in the end it will take longer to get to positive numbers, leading to more miners leaving and sending the pool to grave.
If you'd delay those payments until every active miner has zero extra credit, those who are mining will more likely stay on the pool, since they'll be getting at least the expected PPS.
Also, isn't this problem in ESMPPS? The veteran miners might be motivated to mine under new address to get paid sooner.
I'm sorry if this is answered somewhere, as I haven't actually studied more to it than what is on eligius wiki. RTFM-like answer would suffice :-)
June 21, 2012, 11:21:06 AM
hmm.. so I have to keep mining with Eligius in order to get back to expected return.
No, Extra Credit is included in the pool's considerations whether you keep mining or not.I'm not particularly well versed in the mathematics of probability.. but isn't this a bit like the gambler's fallacy? ie just because I've tossed a run of 10 tails in a row doesn't mean I'm more likely to get a run of heads. Does the maths really say It'll come good for me?
Gambler's fallacy is the short-term; eg, just because you get 10 bad runs doesn't mean the 11th will be any better. For the long run, the law of large numbers says the average reward obtained from a large number of rounds should be close to the expected value, and will tend to become closer as more we mine.The problem with Ars was that it ran unmaintained for months and started mining only invalid blocks, then shut down completely. Why miners continued to use it after Burning Toad announced it was unmanned (heck, even now people still pop into the IRC channel saying they're having problems mining from time to time), I'm not really sure - but it does mean that so long as a pool is maintained, it should never completely die from impatient miners. That being said, some of the SMPPS variants handle new miners better, and may be worth switching to so we can resume growth...
June 21, 2012, 07:35:15 AM
hmm.. so I have to keep mining with Eligius in order to get back to expected return. I'm not particularly well versed in the mathematics of probability.. but isn't this a bit like the gambler's fallacy? ie just because I've tossed a run of 10 tails in a row doesn't mean I'm more likely to get a run of heads. Does the maths really say It'll come good for me?
It is possible that you have bad luck "forever" according to gambler's fallacy. Be aware that arsbitcoin had this issue with their payout scheme and towards the end all the miners were out a LOT of btc and the luck slowly got better but never recovered the massive negative state they had reached and then the pool shutdown and the miners never got it back.how can you call -1.138% Massive negative state...wondering what adjective you will use for itzod's -9.611%...
The problem with luck and poolwide hashrate is that generally when a pool is going through badluck swings alot of users jump ship and then once they do hit some good luck recovery spree there is either fewer GH available for the duration or fewer users who left then returns.
If you aggregate this process you end up with arsbitcoin as the result and that is the single reason I just dont think SMPPS is viable at all longterm unless you have a way to keep your starting avg hashrate longterm the same or higher. Any GH drop and usually its substantial during badluck period in effect slowly kills the negative buffer overtime with little hope to recover as we saw with arsbitcoin.
June 21, 2012, 06:46:34 AM
hmm.. so I have to keep mining with Eligius in order to get back to expected return. I'm not particularly well versed in the mathematics of probability.. but isn't this a bit like the gambler's fallacy? ie just because I've tossed a run of 10 tails in a row doesn't mean I'm more likely to get a run of heads. Does the maths really say It'll come good for me?
It is possible that you have bad luck "forever" according to gambler's fallacy. Be aware that arsbitcoin had this issue with their payout scheme and towards the end all the miners were out a LOT of btc and the luck slowly got better but never recovered the massive negative state they had reached and then the pool shutdown and the miners never got it back.how can you call -1.138% Massive negative state...wondering what adjective you will use for itzod's -9.611%...
June 21, 2012, 06:33:32 AM
hmm.. so I have to keep mining with Eligius in order to get back to expected return. I'm not particularly well versed in the mathematics of probability.. but isn't this a bit like the gambler's fallacy? ie just because I've tossed a run of 10 tails in a row doesn't mean I'm more likely to get a run of heads. Does the maths really say It'll come good for me?
It is possible that you have bad luck "forever" according to gambler's fallacy. Be aware that arsbitcoin had this issue with their payout scheme and towards the end all the miners were out a LOT of btc and the luck slowly got better but never recovered the massive negative state they had reached and then the pool shutdown and the miners never got it back.how can you call -1.138% Massive negative state...wondering what adjective you will use for itzod's -9.611%...
June 21, 2012, 06:09:01 AM
hmm.. so I have to keep mining with Eligius in order to get back to expected return. I'm not particularly well versed in the mathematics of probability.. but isn't this a bit like the gambler's fallacy? ie just because I've tossed a run of 10 tails in a row doesn't mean I'm more likely to get a run of heads. Does the maths really say It'll come good for me?
It is possible that you have bad luck "forever" according to gambler's fallacy. Be aware that arsbitcoin had this issue with their payout scheme and towards the end all the miners were out a LOT of btc and the luck slowly got better but never recovered the massive negative state they had reached and then the pool shutdown and the miners never got it back. 
June 21, 2012, 02:45:42 AM
Thanks for the explanation Krakonos.
I'm still unclear on whether the existing shares I've contributed really will increase in reward over time, or if it's just that in theory my 'luck' will get closer to the pink area in the end.
I'm still unclear on whether the existing shares I've contributed really will increase in reward over time, or if it's just that in theory my 'luck' will get closer to the pink area in the end.
Well, current shares would not (I think). But future shares would have higher value to compensate. Unfortunately I don't remember the correct math with extra credit, so I can't be sure.
You can see this when we hit more blocks in row, that your reward per share is significantly higher than expected with average luck. That's the pool repaying you extra credit :-).
(The Edit is because my browser decided to post in mid-sentece.)
hmm.. so I have to keep mining with Eligius in order to get back to expected return. I'm not particularly well versed in the mathematics of probability.. but isn't this a bit like the gambler's fallacy? ie just because I've tossed a run of 10 tails in a row doesn't mean I'm more likely to get a run of heads. Does the maths really say It'll come good for me?
Jump to: