Topic: Pool hopping... ethical or not? - page 12. (Read 25041 times)

Pool hopping is the practice of moving your miners between multiple different pools based on which pool has completed the least number of shares towards its current block. By doing this you increase your chances of getting overpaid on so-called "short blocks" while simultaneously ensuring that you're never stuck on an unlucky pool as they spend many times longer than average working on a so-called "long block"

It's controversial because, in theory, hoppers are "stealing" coin from people who remain dedicated to the pool by participating only when it suits them rather than when it helps the pool. There are a number of methods pools can and have used to combat hopping, such as using a non-proportional or time-shifted algorithm or even by refusing to publish or simply delaying their stats to make it more difficult to find how far into a block they are.

On the other side, it's also argued that pool hoppers bring considerable hashing power to bear on whatever pool is luckiest at the moment, which both allows these pools to publish higher overall hashrates (thus attracting more miners) and increases their chance to have "short blocks" a more substantial portion of the time. I'm not sure if any meaningful analysis has been done to show whether the increased number of blocks found from hopping outweighs the amount of coin the hoppers "steal" from the pool.

In any case, it is on the pools to allow or prevent hopping and it is on the user to select a pool with a payout system appropriate for his or her mining style.

could someone explain to me what pool hopping is?

And since there would inevitably be guys who envy the fact such a guy is getting laid, however disagreeable his methods, they start to copy the methods. Sounds like Bitmole's got a winner for the best fitting (so far) analogy.

Such a guy wouldn't be highly looked upon -- by women OR men. So I guess that's a good analogy. Such a guy would be deserving of ALL KINDS of names and epithets. And the more guys became like him, the more horrible the world would be.

DING DING DING! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!

I don't think that's a good analogy because the lazy person doesn't choose to live in the communist society specifically because it gives an advantage to lazy people. I think taking the whole bowl of candy is a much better analogy.

There is no need to break into anything - pool hopping is rather comparable to first checking several online shops for the cheapest current prices and then buying there. Interestingly, a lot of "steady customers" of some (web)shops then start to complain that these people are cheating and everyone should buy at only one shop. Ever. With the only reason given, that the shop they are buying from sometimes is more expensive than others and they are so good customers that they STILL buy there, so they are definitely BETTER HUMANS than these immoral people that dare to first look where to buy. How can they be so selfish?! Surely hell will break loose...


Luskily it's 2012 soon anyways with the end of the world and stuff...

Yes, it would be like taking the whole bowl of candy on Halloween when someone puts out a bowl of candy on their front porch -- expecting each trick-or-treater to take just one or two pieces (possibly indicated explicitly with a sign).

There are many members here that have no morality -- that take whatever they can get away with. The only thing stopping them from breaking into your house and stealing your stuff is the presence of police officers.

If TSHTF (EMP attack, epidemic, nuclear attack, etc.) this country would be a real hell-hole. So many people without morality, completely selfish, dog-eat-dog...

No. Pool hopping in unethical because it breaches the implied contract between the miner and the pool. There is no such implied contract between stockholders. It's like seeing a "free, take one" sign and taking them all.

Yes, as there are many more opportunities to work somewhere where this is NOT possible (at least not without giving "job hoppers" a statistical advantage) as there are job-hop-exploitable companies.

Also it's now known for half a year how pool hopping works. Still new pools (even btcguild!) open up with proportional payout and then act "surprised" that they get hopped.

All in all, no pool writes on its page:
* No botnets welcome
* Pool hopping not allowed

As a result many pools get already used by botnets, get pool hopped etc. and operators seem to just treat the symptoms mostly.

If you (since February) mine 24/7 in a proportional pool, you KNOW that you will loose BTC to pool hoppers in theory (and since ~2 months in practice).

no poll option of "i don't care, i just need the $."?

How are the two similar? From what I understand (not being an stocks player), shorting is when you sell what you don't have because you believe it's going to drop so when you cover your position, you pay less than what you sold it for. Basically, the other person thinks the reverse and both of you are gambling you're the one who's right, isn't it?

Pool hopping is more like somebody going "Heck, this job's taking too long for the money I expect to get, I'm going to work for that company now but expect to get paid more than the rest of you when you guys finally get the job done." Sure everybody else has the option to job hop too, but is that really right even if there's no "law" against it?

I read it differently as 62.6% don't do it (subjectively not in favour of hopping), but almost half of this 62.6% don't have a technical reason against it (objectively not against it).

Perhaps, we would have a clearer picture if the poll had been
1. It's ethical
2. It's not unethical (i.e. Don't think it's good but there's no legalistic reason to judge it as bad)
3. It's not ethical

Even I can get behind this idea.  I'd be more than willing to donate some time to the development of it.  Question is, would people use it?

Non pool hoppers in proportional pools' logic:
"Oh look, I found a penny on the street! I'll just stop and wait until the next one appears and get RICH!"
 

Again: Pool hoppers earn 100% fair. They just earn more than others, because others are mining when it means mining at a loss too.

75 total votes at this moment, 29 say it's unethical and 46 say it's ethical: that's 61.3% in favor of hopping and 38.6% against. I wouldn't call it the world's strongest majority, it's not quite 2/3rd majority even and 75 votes is not exactly a statistically significant sample of all miners, but so far I'd call it "gray area" and qualify that with "but there are somewhat more for than against"

I'll go out on a limb and claim that since about 2/3 don't do it, despite about half of that not thinking it's unethical, that as perhaps objectively most of us don't find a technical reason against it (like in my personal case) but subjectively feel it's not the right way to do things.

Pretty much like there isn't any rule that says we can't be nasty to newcomers so technically/objectively nothing wrong if somebody be nasty to newcomers. But most of us wouldn't deliberately be nasty to those who come after us because individually, we just don't feel it's right even if there isn't an explicit rule against it.

This is actually a pretty decent idea. The pool-hopping scripts I've played with so far all have "backup" pools that are mined when none of your other pools are under the magic 43% mark. I doubt it would be that tough to change the logic up a bit to mine whatever pool has the highest share count during these times instead and I'm sure it would make us all the more welcome at already hopper-friendly pools (or pools which are undecided). I'd be happy to see such a change. I'll see if I can bash it out myself and I'll also suggest it to those who control the code for the major projects.

We don't need grasshoppers... We need miners...