Pages:
Author

Topic: Old simplecoin thread - page 40. (Read 99808 times)

sr. member
Activity: 406
Merit: 250
June 08, 2011, 04:14:56 PM
Well... you never know when you are going to find a block though. So you can't know when to rejoin. It's just good to be there right before it is found.

That works, unless you can use the current difficulty to estimate when the least profitable middle-third of the current round will occur, and then skip out on it.

Disclaimer: I am terrible at probability and combinatorics.  It's all magic quantum woo to me.

Maybe, if the round was just one block. Plus, it's always possible to solve a block in less than the estimate.
legendary
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072
Crypto is the separation of Power and State.
June 08, 2011, 04:09:50 PM
Well... you never know when you are going to find a block though. So you can't know when to rejoin. It's just good to be there right before it is found.

That works, unless you can use the current difficulty to estimate when the least profitable middle-third of the current round will occur, and then skip out on it.

Disclaimer: I am terrible at probability and combinatorics.  It's all magic quantum woo to me.
sr. member
Activity: 406
Merit: 250
June 08, 2011, 03:34:24 PM
First public source released! http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=13164.0
sr. member
Activity: 404
Merit: 250
June 08, 2011, 03:14:22 PM
So if i understand correctly, a simple situation would be this:

If Person 2 joined the pool at when the weighting was 5.
And the number means how many shares have been submitted at that weighting (would decrease within a given time period).

Person 1                     Person 2       Share Weighting (Decreases with time until block is solved)
         1                                                               10
         1                                                                9
         1                                                                8
         1                                                                6
         1                             3                                 5
         1                             3                                 4
         1                             3                                 3
         1                             3                                 2
         1                             3                                 1

Person 1 submitted 10 shares. Has a total weighting of 55.
Person 2 submitted 15 shares. Has a total weighting of 45.
This means that Person 1 minimises their losses (or even equals or gets more than) Person 2 as he started mining earlier in the pool, and so the weighting starts canceling out the fact that Person 2 has a higher share of the reward.

No, that's what the scoring is meant to prevent.
Share # Person a (Pool Hopper) Person b (loyal member) Share weight
1          1mh                          1mh                            1
100       1mh                          1mh                            1.1
10000    1mh                          1mh                            2
100000   0mh                         1mh                            4
1000000 0mh                          1mh                            10

Please note these numbers are purely made up, but they might help get the point across. Since you never know when a block will end and pool hopping exploits the start of a new block, it causes anyone trying to cheat to not get a disproportionate reward on short rounds.

The share weights are not 1-1, and reset with each block, creating a constant sliding scale. Your rewards should be the same or better than a proportional share if you are not trying to exploit pool hopping.

Doesn't this just change the incentive for pool hoppers from exploiting the first half of the round, to exploiting the second one?

*joins for first 1/3 of round, hops pools, re-joins for last 1/3 of current difficulty*  Tongue

Well... you never know when you are going to find a block though. So you can't know when to rejoin. It's just good to be there right before it is found.
legendary
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072
Crypto is the separation of Power and State.
June 08, 2011, 03:08:55 PM
So if i understand correctly, a simple situation would be this:

If Person 2 joined the pool at when the weighting was 5.
And the number means how many shares have been submitted at that weighting (would decrease within a given time period).

Person 1                     Person 2       Share Weighting (Decreases with time until block is solved)
         1                                                               10
         1                                                                9
         1                                                                8
         1                                                                6
         1                             3                                 5
         1                             3                                 4
         1                             3                                 3
         1                             3                                 2
         1                             3                                 1

Person 1 submitted 10 shares. Has a total weighting of 55.
Person 2 submitted 15 shares. Has a total weighting of 45.
This means that Person 1 minimises their losses (or even equals or gets more than) Person 2 as he started mining earlier in the pool, and so the weighting starts canceling out the fact that Person 2 has a higher share of the reward.

No, that's what the scoring is meant to prevent.
Share # Person a (Pool Hopper) Person b (loyal member) Share weight
1          1mh                          1mh                            1
100       1mh                          1mh                            1.1
10000    1mh                          1mh                            2
100000   0mh                         1mh                            4
1000000 0mh                          1mh                            10

Please note these numbers are purely made up, but they might help get the point across. Since you never know when a block will end and pool hopping exploits the start of a new block, it causes anyone trying to cheat to not get a disproportionate reward on short rounds.

The share weights are not 1-1, and reset with each block, creating a constant sliding scale. Your rewards should be the same or better than a proportional share if you are not trying to exploit pool hopping.

Doesn't this just change the incentive for pool hoppers from exploiting the first half of the round, to exploiting the second one?

*joins for first 1/3 of round, hops pools, re-joins for last 1/3 of current difficulty*  Tongue
sr. member
Activity: 371
Merit: 250
June 08, 2011, 02:45:47 PM
AAh, I see why I couldn't find it, it read "Miner Pool", when it is called "Mining Pool"! Tongue

Nice! I look forward to looking at it and becoming confused Smiley
sr. member
Activity: 406
Merit: 250
June 08, 2011, 02:42:34 PM
Open source, ok, where is the source of this "Miner Pool"?

Please don't claim that it is open source, if it is not.

Funny you mention that, I'm uploading it to a public github now! Wink

It was based off Xenland's Miner Pool which was also opensource. He and I have spoken about cross-licensing, and came to an agreement. I'm comfortable enough now with the source too that it is on it's way shortly!

Miner Pool is here : http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=10617.0
sr. member
Activity: 371
Merit: 250
June 08, 2011, 02:39:19 PM
Open source, ok, where is the source of this "Miner Pool"?

Please don't claim that it is open source, if it is not.

edit:, oh it's changed since yesterday, now it reads "SimpleCoin" in the about. Still no source that I can find... People shouldn't be asking "how is your reward calculated", if it was all open source. They would already know.
newbie
Activity: 12
Merit: 0
June 08, 2011, 02:19:43 PM
So if i understand correctly, a simple situation would be this:

If Person 2 joined the pool at when the weighting was 5.
And the number means how many shares have been submitted at that weighting (would decrease within a given time period).

Person 1                     Person 2       Share Weighting (Decreases with time until block is solved)
         1                                                               10
         1                                                                9
         1                                                                8
         1                                                                6
         1                             3                                 5
         1                             3                                 4
         1                             3                                 3
         1                             3                                 2
         1                             3                                 1

Person 1 submitted 10 shares. Has a total weighting of 55.
Person 2 submitted 15 shares. Has a total weighting of 45.
This means that Person 1 minimises their losses (or even equals or gets more than) Person 2 as he started mining earlier in the pool, and so the weighting starts canceling out the fact that Person 2 has a higher share of the reward.

No, that's what the scoring is meant to prevent.
Share # Person a (Pool Hopper) Person b (loyal member) Share weight
1          1mh                          1mh                            1
100       1mh                          1mh                            1.1
10000    1mh                          1mh                            2
100000   0mh                         1mh                            4
1000000 0mh                          1mh                            10

Please note these numbers are purely made up, but they might help get the point across. Since you never know when a block will end and pool hopping exploits the start of a new block, it causes anyone trying to cheat to not get a disproportionate reward on short rounds.

The share weights are not 1-1, and reset with each block, creating a constant sliding scale. Your rewards should be the same or better than a proportional share if you are not trying to exploit pool hopping.

Oh right, i get it Smiley thanks for explaining!
sr. member
Activity: 406
Merit: 250
June 08, 2011, 01:54:05 PM
So if i understand correctly, a simple situation would be this:

If Person 2 joined the pool at when the weighting was 5.
And the number means how many shares have been submitted at that weighting (would decrease within a given time period).

Person 1                     Person 2       Share Weighting (Decreases with time until block is solved)
         1                                                               10
         1                                                                9
         1                                                                8
         1                                                                6
         1                             3                                 5
         1                             3                                 4
         1                             3                                 3
         1                             3                                 2
         1                             3                                 1

Person 1 submitted 10 shares. Has a total weighting of 55.
Person 2 submitted 15 shares. Has a total weighting of 45.
This means that Person 1 minimises their losses (or even equals or gets more than) Person 2 as he started mining earlier in the pool, and so the weighting starts canceling out the fact that Person 2 has a higher share of the reward.

No, that's what the scoring is meant to prevent.
Share # Person a (Pool Hopper) Person b (loyal member) Share weight
1          1mh                          1mh                            1
100       1mh                          1mh                            1.1
10000    1mh                          1mh                            2
100000   0mh                         1mh                            4
1000000 0mh                          1mh                            10

Please note these numbers are purely made up, but they might help get the point across. Since you never know when a block will end and pool hopping exploits the start of a new block, it causes anyone trying to cheat to not get a disproportionate reward on short rounds.

The share weights are not 1-1, and reset with each block, creating a constant sliding scale. Your rewards should be the same or better than a proportional share if you are not trying to exploit pool hopping.
newbie
Activity: 12
Merit: 0
June 08, 2011, 01:40:44 PM
Sigh, my estimated earnings are still randomly decreasing and jumping about.
Is the score calculation still flawed?

I'll do my own calculations to determine how accurate it is.

Edit:
50(13535/441462)=1.533 BTC
My earnings are showing as 1.203 BTC  Huh

I am trying to iron-out the cheat-proof estimate. It's crazy logarithmic math. Payouts are also no longer 100% proportional. They are weighted towards miners who spend even time in the round. So, if you're not trying to pool-hop, you will be paid slightly more than those who are.

Even if your estimate is off: the final payout will be correct. The final payout calculations are too complex and strenuous to run often enough for estimates.

Could you explain the entire formula for calculating how we are paid? Then we can review it and fully understand how the reward system works.

Also, with the current method, doesn't that mean the lower-power contributers (below 500 MH/s) are unfairly being disadvantaged relative to the high-power hashers, so long as the high-power hashers are present (or accepting shares while the low-power hashers are too)?

No, hashrate has nothing to do with the scoring weight. It's weighted towards when you participate.

Think of it as proportional scoring but also proportional to the length of the round you participated in.

The actual proof and discussion is here if you want the technical details (http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=4787.0)



So if i understand correctly, a simple situation would be this:

If Person 2 joined the pool at when the weighting was 5.
And the number means how many shares have been submitted at that weighting (would decrease within a given time period).

Person 1                     Person 2       Share Weighting (Decreases with time until block is solved)
         1                                                               10
         1                                                                9
         1                                                                8
         1                                                                6
         1                             3                                 5
         1                             3                                 4
         1                             3                                 3
         1                             3                                 2
         1                             3                                 1

Person 1 submitted 10 shares. Has a total weighting of 55.
Person 2 submitted 15 shares. Has a total weighting of 45.
This means that Person 1 minimises their losses (or even equals or gets more than) Person 2 as he started mining earlier in the pool, and so the weighting starts canceling out the fact that Person 2 has a higher share of the reward.
sr. member
Activity: 406
Merit: 250
June 08, 2011, 01:27:12 PM
Well, looks like I'll lose just a tiny bit from this first round..... Since tx fees are mandated by the client, every cashout costs me .01 btc.

So, since I want to keep this pool free... Should I take the estimated tx fee out on cashout or should it make accounts go negative for the actual cost?

I run this for you, so I'm open to suggestions.
sr. member
Activity: 406
Merit: 250
June 08, 2011, 01:06:41 PM
Sigh, my estimated earnings are still randomly decreasing and jumping about.
Is the score calculation still flawed?

I'll do my own calculations to determine how accurate it is.

Edit:
50(13535/441462)=1.533 BTC
My earnings are showing as 1.203 BTC  Huh

I am trying to iron-out the cheat-proof estimate. It's crazy logarithmic math. Payouts are also no longer 100% proportional. They are weighted towards miners who spend even time in the round. So, if you're not trying to pool-hop, you will be paid slightly more than those who are.

Even if your estimate is off: the final payout will be correct. The final payout calculations are too complex and strenuous to run often enough for estimates.

Could you explain the entire formula for calculating how we are paid? Then we can review it and fully understand how the reward system works.

Also, with the current method, doesn't that mean the lower-power contributers (below 500 MH/s) are unfairly being disadvantaged relative to the high-power hashers, so long as the high-power hashers are present (or accepting shares while the low-power hashers are too)?

No, hashrate has nothing to do with the scoring weight. It's weighted towards when you participate.

Think of it as proportional scoring but also proportional to the length of the round you participated in.

The actual proof and discussion is here if you want the technical details (http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=4787.0)

full member
Activity: 168
Merit: 100
June 08, 2011, 12:58:39 PM
Sigh, my estimated earnings are still randomly decreasing and jumping about.
Is the score calculation still flawed?

I'll do my own calculations to determine how accurate it is.

Edit:
50(13535/441462)=1.533 BTC
My earnings are showing as 1.203 BTC  Huh

I am trying to iron-out the cheat-proof estimate. It's crazy logarithmic math. Payouts are also no longer 100% proportional. They are weighted towards miners who spend even time in the round. So, if you're not trying to pool-hop, you will be paid slightly more than those who are.

Even if your estimate is off: the final payout will be correct. The final payout calculations are too complex and strenuous to run often enough for estimates.

Could you explain the entire formula for calculating how we are paid? Then we can review it and fully understand how the reward system works.

Also, with the current method, doesn't that mean the lower-power contributers (below 500 MH/s) are unfairly being disadvantaged relative to the high-power hashers, so long as the high-power hashers are present (or accepting shares while the low-power hashers are too)?
sr. member
Activity: 406
Merit: 250
June 08, 2011, 12:48:04 PM
Sigh, my estimated earnings are still randomly decreasing and jumping about.
Is the score calculation still flawed?

I'll do my own calculations to determine how accurate it is.

Edit:
50(13535/441462)=1.533 BTC
My earnings are showing as 1.203 BTC  Huh

I am trying to iron-out the cheat-proof estimate. It's crazy logarithmic math. Payouts are also no longer 100% proportional. They are weighted towards miners who spend even time in the round. So, if you're not trying to pool-hop, you will be paid slightly more than those who are.

Even if your estimate is off: the final payout will be correct. The final payout calculations are too complex and strenuous to run often enough for estimates.


Yes its fixed now! Thank you very much Cheesy

I had to rewrite all of the Miner Pool code I was using. The new code should be more reliable.
newbie
Activity: 12
Merit: 0
June 08, 2011, 12:38:05 PM
Just refreshed my stats, getting this error now: Notice: Undefined variable: roundEstimate in /var/www/includes/leftsidebar.php on line 54 Est. Earnings: BTC

Yes, sorry about that, just upgraded to the latest version of my framework.

Yes, your earnings estimates are way off. I'll be fixing them shortly.

Everyone should now be able to cashout, no more donatePercent issues (Really think it's fixed this time).


Firstly, Happy Birthday!

Secondly, im afraid im still seeing the error "Notice: Undefined index: donatePercent in /var/www/accountdetails.php on line 95" when i try to change my cashout address, it just remains the same.

 Huh Back to the drawing board. I'll get it.

UPDATE: Error should be gone, should be working now!


The error is no longer showing, but i still can't seem to change my payout address. Maybe its just a problem with my account?

same problem

Yes its fixed now! Thank you very much Cheesy
full member
Activity: 168
Merit: 100
June 08, 2011, 12:34:17 PM
Sigh, my estimated earnings are still randomly decreasing and jumping about.
Is the score calculation still flawed?

I'll do my own calculations to determine how accurate it is.

Edit:
50(13535/441462)=1.533 BTC
My earnings are showing as 1.203 BTC  Huh
legendary
Activity: 1611
Merit: 1001
June 08, 2011, 12:28:39 PM
Just refreshed my stats, getting this error now: Notice: Undefined variable: roundEstimate in /var/www/includes/leftsidebar.php on line 54 Est. Earnings: BTC

Yes, sorry about that, just upgraded to the latest version of my framework.

Yes, your earnings estimates are way off. I'll be fixing them shortly.

Everyone should now be able to cashout, no more donatePercent issues (Really think it's fixed this time).


Firstly, Happy Birthday!

Secondly, im afraid im still seeing the error "Notice: Undefined index: donatePercent in /var/www/accountdetails.php on line 95" when i try to change my cashout address, it just remains the same.

 Huh Back to the drawing board. I'll get it.

UPDATE: Error should be gone, should be working now!


The error is no longer showing, but i still can't seem to change my payout address. Maybe its just a problem with my account?

same problem
newbie
Activity: 12
Merit: 0
June 08, 2011, 12:26:16 PM
Just refreshed my stats, getting this error now: Notice: Undefined variable: roundEstimate in /var/www/includes/leftsidebar.php on line 54 Est. Earnings: BTC

Yes, sorry about that, just upgraded to the latest version of my framework.

Yes, your earnings estimates are way off. I'll be fixing them shortly.

Everyone should now be able to cashout, no more donatePercent issues (Really think it's fixed this time).


Firstly, Happy Birthday!

Secondly, im afraid im still seeing the error "Notice: Undefined index: donatePercent in /var/www/accountdetails.php on line 95" when i try to change my cashout address, it just remains the same.

 Huh Back to the drawing board. I'll get it.

UPDATE: Error should be gone, should be working now!


The error is no longer showing, but i still can't seem to change my payout address. Maybe its just a problem with my account?
sr. member
Activity: 406
Merit: 250
June 08, 2011, 12:25:17 PM
"Yes, your earnings estimates are way off"

high or low?

They were both at the time that was posted. It should be somewhat close now. I'm monitoring closely.
Pages:
Jump to: