Topic: Pool hopping... ethical or not? - page 6. (Read 25035 times)

Suppose there are a group of real miners, say coal miners. And they have a bonus system, people get paid not just a flat fee for hours worked, but they get extra money based on how much coal is found.

Now suppose you have a guy who discovers that a mine has just found a big coal vein. They'll mine lots of coal and it's easy work. He joins the miners and mines alongside them, reaping a share of the rewards. As soon as the vein is mined out, and the other miners get ready for the hard work to expose a new vein, he quits. He joins up with another group of miners who found a vein. More importantly, this was his plan from the beginning -- to join when profits were high, and leave as soon as the hard work had to be done.

He gets a higher share of the bonuses relative to the work the other miners have done. And, more importantly, he is supposed to be on the same side as the miners. They're supposed to be cooperating workers working the same mine with aligned interests, not predators taking advantage of each other. That is, he breaches the implied agreement to mine in good faith and contribute fairly to the group but instead exploits the group to earn himself a greater than fair share, leaving the group in the lurch when times are tough.

Now, tell me, do you not see anything unethical about that? And, if you really don't, how can I be sure to avoid dealing with you?

Unethical? rofl!

Unethical, is that a joke?
What is unethical in finding a job which pays the most for one hour of your work?

If there are many pools and they pay differently per share, than what's unethical in choosing a pool which pays the most? Prop pools offer more money for some shares and less money for other shares.
If a miner chooses to submit a share to a pool which pays less that other pools then it is not a honest miner - it is either a miner who doesn't care about money or just plain stupid.

It just happens that if everyone is willing to work for less, then everyone is actually paid the same for a single share in the long run, but there is nothing not ethical in not be willing to work for less. Everytime you submit a share to a PROP pool which has >= 43%*difficulty shares already submitted, you submit a share knowing that it will be worth less than 50/difficulty BTC. Pool hoppers don't steal from anyone. People who submit their shares for less then those shares should be worth are basically accepting underpayment.

As long as people are willingly submitting their shares for the EV less than their fair price and as long as PROP pools will offer more money for some other shares, hoppers will hop and submit shares where they are worth the most.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/mFlX7CT6NFY

I'm not changing the overall situation. The world isn't just black and white. There are many ways to arrive at the same outcome: be it leaving a pool or getting somebody killed. But the outcome alone isn't enough to make a judgement. Otherwise, they won't be need for trials: we'll all just pin the same punishment on whoever for whatever, nevermind what exactly happened.



Again, I'm not cherry picking any situation. It remains consistent regardless of what the action may be: The intentions matter in judging it.



Sorry, I guess it was still a bad example because I didn't know first degree murder and manslaughter gets the same punishment in your country. That would make it difficult to comprehend what I was trying to illustrate. Over here, premeditated murderers get executed, manslaughter gets jail time. The action is still punished, but the intentions will be taken into consideration and affect the punishment.

Similarly, that was my point. That premeditated hopping for profit vs giving up after sticking it out beyond point of loss would be viewed differently by the rest of the pool. At least by those of us who would consider intentions when making our personal judgment on an issue, instead of following a rule book that assigns only one possible judgment to any particular outcome.



I did not say they are not within their right to do so, nor are they are doing anything technically wrong. If you track back to my very first post on this, I stated that I can't really find a strong technical basis to say it's unethical. But subjectively it's another thing because despite the technical consequences, we know it's quite a different thought process and intention behind the two.

Again you are changing the overall situation to fit your own moral compass.

If you want to call something right or wrong, you simply cant go and cherry pick which situation is acceptable and then which isnt. It comes down to the same thing, even if the one gives you less of an edge. Its still an edge, and the long block pool is still losing a user who decided that hes not going to stay till the end.

If I decide to make that decision of leaving at 10% 20% 40% 50% 100% 300% or whatever percent, it was my choice not to stay with the pool for the full duration no matter how you try and sugar coat it.

I understand what point you are trying to make but it remains cherry picking the situation to fit your own "moral" compass.

Even by your own example, both people, premeditated or out of anger, would go to jail. The second case wont simply be excused and given slap on the wrist, its still a crime.

So far you seem to want to make a case that the person leaving because he got angry and dont want to waste more money mining for less value is doing it as his given right and doesnt do anything wrong. Guess what, people planning to leave at 43% is also doing it as their given right.

Sorry if the original example was not sufficiently close to hopping for you to see the point about original intentions,

A man who starts by planning to kill a person if the person does not cooperate within 41 minutes, would usually be considered as committing murder or whatever is the equivalent crime in your country. He planned to kill (or hop in our case) right from start.

A man who did not have the original intention to kill a person but does so after getting frustrated and angry from pleading and arguing for 4 hours, would usually be considered for manslaughter or whatever is the equivalent crime in your country. He did not plan to kill (or hop) right at the start.

Accidentally running down a pedastrian would suggest that the person would accidentally quit the long running block on one pool and join a new pool.

Ive never seen anyone so clueless to not knowingly leave a pool and knowingly join a new pool.

Nothing is accidental here, software hopping or manual hopping is the same thing except software hopping is more efficient.

The intention is what makes things different.

Somebody thinking "I'm only going to do this for as long as it's more profitable than other options" at the START, is different from another person who keeps trying until the real costs (not just the potential loss of profits) of doing is unacceptable.

It's the same difference between somebody who deliberately goes out and run down a pedestrian and somebody who accidentally runs over an pedestrian. Similar end result but the initial intentions (or lackof) make them ethically very different.

This is exactly the same as intentionally setting up to hop. People automating the hopping process is just wasting less time, why is it morally/ethically more acceptable to you to do the same thing yet less efficient ?

Anyone leaving, wether at 43% or at 150% is causing the same effect of shrinking a pools hashrate, the whole argument regarding poolhopping was related to honest(lol) miners sticking with pools through good and bad times yet you accept that its fair that users effectively poolhop manually when they choose to based on their own perception of what their mining time is worth.

Can you please provide an explanation? Sounds interesting but ... unlikely.

Bithopping increases difficulty.
So it does work for you for a short period...

I think most non-hoppers won't have problems with situations like that. Giving up after hanging on significantly beyond the point of maximum profits is not the same as intentionally setting up to hop the moment it's more profitable.

This is exactly how I feel. I really like triplemining but cannot afford to spend 160 hours for approx. .4 bitcoins.  I would be willing to forgo the the work I put in to ensure a quicker profit elsewhere.  The time I spent mining there is considered a sunk cost.  More money (time in this case) should not be invested based on time or money already spent on the project.  Fortunately I switched over to a different pool and have recouped some of the losses.  It would have been foolish to remain at triple while the hashrate continued to fall making it even more difficult to find a block.  Say I throw money down the toilet and then decide to stop one day and save it, I bet almost everyone would say I was smart, not unethical.

would yall hate hoppers less, if when yall got a really big block.. we hopped back and helped yall finish.. that is when we have nothing better to do?

right now the standard is to hop to a favorite backup pool, when none of the pool they monitor have found a block recently. There is a discussion about instead of going to the back up, hopping to the site with the most shares.. ie the people who havent found a block in the longest time


yeah i know we still suck..but would we suck less?

I don't mind hoppers..It's always personal choice..

Btw..is there any good Windows Hopping Sftw?

It really all depends on the point of view you take. It's not "getting away with something" if you haven't done anything wrong. What's wrong/right in this case is obviously subjective. A discussion is pointless... you won't convince me and i wont convince you.
The pool "market" (to not say competition again ) will regulate itself. Join the pool of your choice but don't blame operators who don't want to take action against pool hoppers.

i'm out, flame on. 

Don't hate the player, hate the game. 

The point was to show that the form of your argument is invalid. Showing that something benefits you and that you can get away with it doesn't show that it's rational to do it.

Pool hoppers see it as a competition to get the most from the cake. Other miners believe that it's a cooperative. That's the problem. If everyone understands it's a competition, that's fine. But otherwise, you expect that the guys on the same team as you are playing for the team, not themselves.

If you're going to repeat a refuted argument, you should first address the refutation. Showing that you can get away with something and also that you benefit from it doesn't show that it's rational if it's unethical. If you could kill your mom and benefit from it, would it be rational to do it? If you could cheat your business partner out of $5,000 and get away with it, is it rational to do it?

Yeah, like killing someone is in any way comparable to pool hopping. Compare apples to oranges.

With pool hopping you don't take anything out of someones personal wallet. Hoppers and Non-hoppers do not possess anything before the payout round of the pool. It's a competition to get the biggest slice of the cake and not from someones personal pocket. You take an offer the pool operator gives you.

If hopping is prohibited by the pool's TOS, it's a TOS breach and therefore stealing. If it's not in their TOS it's rational to take the advantage.

"implied agreements" are as the name says implied and therefore subjective. If the pool operator explicitly points out that pool hopping is not allowed, then pool hopping is of course an agreement breach.

It is relevant. The users are what makes a pool strong, "the force" is on their side. If you don't like pools that allow pool hopping, then don't use them. Join a pool that suites you best, show your protest by joining a pool that actively fights pool hopping.