Topic: Pool hopping... ethical or not? - page 8. (Read 25041 times)

You miss the entire point of implied agreements. We don't want to spend twenty minutes negotiating to buy a candy bar, and that level of precise detail is not needed. All that is necessary is that you interact with others in good faith and deal with them fairly. That is the implied agreement.

The line is between acting in good faith and acting in bad faith. If you want to change pools because you don't like the pool, want to try another pool, or something like that, you entered and exited the pool in good faith. There's no problem. If you left the pool because you want to shift a disproportionate share of the work to the other miners, only to re-enter it when you claim a disproportionate share of the profit, that's bad faith. That's abusing the system to get a share greater than your fair share at the expense of your fellow miners.

Of course not. It's when you deal with others in bad faith and deal with them unfairly that you are acting unethically.

No. That's not true.

Entering a profit-making cooperative with others when times are good, taking a disproportionate share of the profit earned by the work of others, only to desert the cooperative as soon as hard work is necessary to make more profit, with the intent of re-joining the cooperative as soon as the hard work is done in time to get another disproportionate share of the profit is an inherently unethical practice.

This is completely out in the open.  No one is taking advantage of anyone else.  There's no misleading.  Only inaction on the part of those who do not hop and pool operators who choose to allow it.  What is the non-hopper's issue?  Inability to setup pool hoping?  That's their problem, no the pool hoppers.  What is the pool operator's issue?  To the operator, with all due respect, it's irrelevant from a technical or operational standpoint.  Keeping their pool's users who don't hop and don't like the idea happy is another matter and solely the operator's responsibility as it is up to the operator to act upon this issue or not.

Make the rules.  No rule = wild west. anything goes.

i am using a proxy, but i'm controlling the proxy on where to hop.

like i said, i keep the proxy running to monitor other pools, and if i deem it's profitable to hop, i'll hop. i'm not too keen on hopping after the pool reached more than 1mil share...i'd rather wait until they start again.
Last night i fell asleep while hopping via proxy, forgot to switch it, and i only got 0.1btc for 6 hours of work. bleh.

you have the time to do this manually? why not use a proxy? The python proxy Meni refers to is easy to set up and manage, and as he mentioned 200% of normal coinage certainly helps stay in the difficulty and electricity cost increases.

ಠ_ಠ

i normally hop only 1-2 pool, and it's more than enough.
with my current hashrate, hopping away from deepbit only cost me tiny fraction of work there, but can gain huge profit elsewhere. just gotta time it properly.

I don't think there's a "line", there are various courses of action each with its own degree of "unethicalness". But I think that if you start mining for a pool with the intention of obtaining payouts in proportion to the contribution, and then for whatever reason you decide the pool is not for you, you're free to go. The problem starts when the reason you joined the pool in the first place is to obtain a payout greater than your contribution. Clearly if you use hopping software to hop dozens of times a day then this is your intention.

As for the namecoin hopping, a major difference is the lack of a reference "fair" reward. For pooled mining as a phenomenon in the larger Bitcoin mining world, it is clear that the fair payout per share is pB, and that any amount above it is freeloading (remembering that every share submitted to a pool ultimately translates to increased security of the Bitcoin network). But Namecoin and Bitcoin between them are not part of a larger context which defines what the fair payout is. Furthermore, a decrease in a blockchain's difficulty generally means that its security is lesser now, and hence adding capacity to it is more beneficial. So it is acceptable for market forces to drive capacity to where it's most valuable.

...While creating value. Buying Bitcoins leaves the other party with dollars which he finds more valuable than Bitcoins, and buying mining rigs increases Bitcoin's security.

It relies on taking advantage of people who don't know any better. But as I said it's not black and white, and hopping is acceptable if it is accompanied by genuine attempts to educate the public.

You've still not addressed my question, you say that I've entered an agreement with business partners when I mine on a pool. But no one has made clear the parameters of that supposed agreement (other than what is laiad out in proportional payment structure)? When am I allowed to back out? When can I switch? Once I enter into this so called agreement am I bound to it forever? Can I never change my mind?

The problem with "implied agreements" is that there is no clear basis to them. Your side of the agreement is not the same as mine unless we explicitly state it as so. If I can switch pools after 24 hours, why not 12, or 6, or as often as I want? Where is the line, how are you defining it?

Just because something increases your personal gain and is complicated does not make it inherently unethical. Everything you do in bitcoin to enhance your stake diminshes someone elses. Hopping isn't stopping anyone else from doing anything, it is not some secret ploy, does not rely on deception or coercion or any other inherently unethical practice.

You always mine for the pool with the lowest number of shares in the current round. If all pools have >43.5%*difficulty you mine in a fair pool or solo. This is all done automatically of course, using something like the python pool hopping proxy.

If deepbit is half the network, average round length is 20 minutes. So when a round starts (if a block is found from an unknown source, it's probably deepbit), you stick around for 8 minutes which is plenty.

You don't hop one pool, you hop between all proportional pools simultaneously.

Those who earn x2 or so of the normal income will disagree that it's irrelevant.

Umm, that's exactly what happens when someone pool hops. The pool hopper gets an above-average return for his shares and everyone who sticks with the pool gets a below-average return. Without the pool hopper, everyone gets more or less the same return per share.

If you count all shares across different rounds together, then this is definitely what's happening, you get 40 x (your shares/total shares) while the hopper gets 60 x (his shares/total shares)

And with the expectation that this arrangement will lead to the same ratio when calculated for pool work in total, not just within rounds. Just because people are ignorant and don't understand that you're scamming them doesn't mean it's ok.

"Aligned interests" means your interests (of obtaining a steady income, say) are aligned with those of others (that is, there are scenarios where the satisfaction of everyone's interests are improved). It has nothing to do with altruism.

Your peers in the pool are your business partners, you've entered a mutually beneficial agreement to reduce everyone's variance. By hopping you are defrauding your partners of their due reward.

if there is no rule banning hopping...

you go into a pool with the expectation of getting 50x (your shares/total shares) which is what you get and what hoppers get.

No on actually steals anything from anyone, they get 50x their shares/total shares just like anyone else.

If they dont like their resulting rewards, they can looks at different payout styles and I'm sure some people do try various pools and various payout styles to maximize their resulting rewards.

Everyone is following the rules... (as long as hopping isnt banned).. .

Everyone is getting paid by the rules as expected..

you are not getting 40x (your shares/total shares) while the hopper is getting 50(his shares/total shares) plus 10 (you shares/total shares). it just aint happening.

Every game has rules, some people have better strategies than me, when playing risk, some people use odds charts when playing texas holdem, as long as you are following the rules, there is nothing unethical about it at all. People just feel like it is wrong, they dont like to see others make more than them. I could feel like I should win risk texas holdem 50% of the time, but if I play the guy using the odds chart i will probably win a lot less. I can get mad, but if he didnt break the rules, then he didnt break the rules

or like them cars you make at boy scouts.. everyone puts the weight on the back, someone finds out that if you put the weight on front, he goes faster nd wins every time. the other kids can be upset that he used the same tools and same parts  and yet is going 20% faster in every race but the fact is he is still following the rules, if not tradition.


you assume people join a pool for aligned interests? and not to reduce their personal variance and get more frequent payouts? People arent aligned they are utilizing each others powers to make money right now. You see it all the tme "WHY DIDN'T I MINE SOLO" people upset they found a block and had to share it with teh pool. DOES THAT SOUND LIKE ALIGNED INTERESTS? It isnt. People arent in it for some kind of global effort, no they still want their BTC. Otherwise they would mine and donate it all back to the pool

um, jumping to pools with low hashing power rarely benefits me.
it's either i'm doing it for shit & giggles, or i forgot to turn off autopilot, and it hops into the smaller pool.
they're barely profitable anyways..except for eligius. they're not too bad if your hopper jumps there.

This is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about. This guy is ignorant about the consequences of pool-hopping, and we should educate him, not take advantage of him. But I agree that we've tried talking and it didn't work, so it's the time to educate by action.

This is (the reverse of) the gambler's fallacy. Unless there's something wrong with how a pool is run, a track record of longer than expected blocks has no bearing whatsoever on the length of future rounds.

hmm.
i keep a program running on my 2nd monitor, telling me how many shares that particular pool has done. i can tell you, not all pools starts processing a new block at the same time..
sometimes, it can look very tempting to jump to a pool when they start a new block, but when the pool has a track record of finishing a block for an extended time...i might or might not jump to it...or just jump a partial of my hashpower.

i can't really say exactly how much i gained, but it's pretty damn good. no more getting pissed off because of one block takes 1.5 day, and only get 0.3btc

Just to get the thread back on track, if I pm you my hopping efficiencies for the month will you believe? And then go on from there? This is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about. If this guy doesn't care if I hop even after being told it will lose him coins, then how can it be unethical to hop?

Please stop being delusional or claiming pool hopping doesn't work without posting a mathematical proof or at least a well thought through example. This thread is about something different that if pool hopping works or not (a hint: if it didn't work at all, why would some people here be so upset about the whole thing?).

since it's really super late at night and I had to go to work earlier before finishing most of those documents/explanations/proofs, is the basic theory that the difference in pool profitabilities mind-block is based on the drop or gain in that particular pool during that process of finding a block?  Cuz that would sort of make sense.

EDIT: well I got curious and read more of it and kinda get it now but the theory doesn't seem to hold water even now.  Any given moment in time results in an equal chance of anyone finding a block weighted by H/s.  So your payout proportionate to everyone else's is lower if you all started at the same time or started slightly later.  So if you all start at once and you've been going for a long time and you decide it's just not going well for that pool in that round, you jump to another pool which hasn't been processing for as long and have an equal chance of getting the block but for a higher reward.

...but every single pool starts processing a new block at the exact same time since everyone's working on the same chain and everyone knows when blocks are completed.  And if there "is no progress" then a smaller pool wouldn't be "farther" from creating a block and there would be no point in pool hopping.

Not at all. People playing poker all know that they are competing with each other, that their interests are averse to each other, and that each one must protect themselves form being taken advantage of by the other. The expectation of good faith and fair dealing certainly doesn't include ignorance about the odds of the game. That is nothing like a mining pool where many miners believe their interests are aligned.

But there is nothing like that in poker. The games works better when everyone knows the odds.

Have you read the math behind it and are disagreeing, or are you just saying that it doesn't "feel" right? If you have a problem with the math, point out the error in the proofs or formulate a proof that it doesn't work. If it's feel alone, well, you can either try it empirically or ignore it.

It "seems logical" to me, in fact I had considered such a thing way back when deepbit and slush were basically it for pools, when I noticed that on some rounds the amount of time I spent mining a block on deepbit would have given me more profit on PPS than prop, but on quick rounds prop was a much higher yield, and so if I could simply run a script that automatically dropped me over from one scheme to the next based on some calculation I could come out with more coin than normal on average. Obviously not possible directly due to delayed stats, but pool hopping I gather is essentially the extension of my idea to the modern system with multiple pools. You make a big return on short rounds, so if you hop around on average you will come out slightly ahead.

EDIT: Sniped by meni.

I still don't consider this unethical, for where do you draw the line? For example, BTCGuild is currently in a 24 hour slump, with a -40% expected return. Am I bound to forever mine on BTCGuild, because I have some hash there and there is some unwritten unspoken implied agreement? Or if I see that the pool is having a poor run, am I allowed to move over to say deepbit, and when BTCGUild starts to do better move back? Where are you drawing the line? 24hours? 12hours? 6? 2? 1? What is the distinction between being efficient and unethical? Do I have to wait until a block is completed on a pool to leave that pool then wait til a block is completed on the new pool to join? To me there is no agreement other than what has been written in the rules of proportional payout, and pool hopping is merely the extreme extension of following the luck.
I've seen no response to the question of coin hopping either in regards to namecoin, which is a near-perfect analogy of poolhopping which many anti-poolhoppers participated in.

I still don't do it (except namecoin hopping), but I see no problem with it.