Topic: Re: Mining pools list - page 51. (Read 784 times)
Thanks everyone! I've updated Bitparking, 50BTC and Itzod.
pool.itzod.ru sets diff automatically to value from 2 to 128 with x2 steps.
50BTC has user define diff from 1 to 64. i 've just made a worker there 
Bitparking is now "no fee" on DGM. This is to compensate for the extended time it's taking to implement paying out transaction fees to miners.
Updated. Please post any corrections or errors.
This is a thread for miners and pool ops to ask and answer questions abut mining related issues. It might be best to post a new topic.
what would be the first steps to start your own mining pool?
This is a thread for miners and pool ops to ask and answer questions abut mining related issues. It might be best to post a new topic.
what would be the first steps to start your own mining pool?
Hi organofcorti,
Now that it's live, can you please update BTCGuildPPLNS to 'Yes' for Merged Mining?
Thanks!
Now that it's live, can you please update BTCGuildPPLNS to 'Yes' for Merged Mining?
Thanks!
Done!
Hi organofcorti,
Now that it's live, can you please update BTCGuildPPLNS to 'Yes' for Merged Mining?
Thanks!
Now that it's live, can you please update BTCGuildPPLNS to 'Yes' for Merged Mining?
Thanks!
Is this really true? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=54673.msg2439241#msg2439241
Do some or all PPS pools have higher than expected fees because of rounding errors?
One of the problem with 50BTC is the rounding of the payout per share. Before, when the difficulty was lower, and earned 500+ Satoshi per shares (ahh, anyone remember those days!), it wasn't making such a difference. But now, with difficulty of ~15,605,633, you see that 50BTC gives a payout per share of 155 Satoshi, when in reality it should be ~155.39 Satoshi. That mean you're letting away an extra 0.25% per share. That is basically equivalent to a fee of approx 3.25%. And it's the same for all per-share difficulty. Whatever you set it to, the payout is a multiple of the base difficulty.
Do some or all PPS pools have higher than expected fees because of rounding errors?
All pools require rounding at some point in the process. It depends on which point in the process and how deep they go into decimals for how that affects users.
BTC Guild PPS rounds down at the 16th decimal place for display, and the satoshi level when sending a payout (required obviously). However, all shares are stored in a way that the payout amounts are calculated live without rounding until the final number. This means there is no rounding done on individual share payout rates, so instead of losing out on rounding per-share, you will never be behind a full satoshi in total.
BTC Guild PPLNS method does require rounding, which is rounded DOWN at the 14th decimal place.
Is this really true? https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2439241
Do some or all PPS pools have higher than expected fees because of rounding errors?
One of the problem with 50BTC is the rounding of the payout per share. Before, when the difficulty was lower, and earned 500+ Satoshi per shares (ahh, anyone remember those days!), it wasn't making such a difference. But now, with difficulty of ~15,605,633, you see that 50BTC gives a payout per share of 155 Satoshi, when in reality it should be ~155.39 Satoshi. That mean you're letting away an extra 0.25% per share. That is basically equivalent to a fee of approx 3.25%. And it's the same for all per-share difficulty. Whatever you set it to, the payout is a multiple of the base difficulty.
Do some or all PPS pools have higher than expected fees because of rounding errors?
I must say that this information is volatile and not relevant for a global pool list. It is valid and good information to have, and I'm happy to contribute to it, but perhaps we should make a separate post with these details, not try to incorporate this in the main list.
Why not being open and provide all the data so that users are informed? It seems that the data requested will be usefull for the community.
The Mining List already has a lot of data in it - putting in another column means removing another one, and I think they're all useful.
Also, editing the bbcode tables is a hassle. It's easy to break them, and this sort of data is apt to change regularly. It would be better for this data to be in a separate thread, so that the Mining Pools list is not adversely affected. Plus I don't really have time.
If you want to try your hand at it, I'll be happy to give any advice I can.
Seems like a great idea to have this data in a separate thread. It will be nice also that the pool operators provide it so that the community can benefit from it.
I must say that this information is volatile and not relevant for a global pool list. It is valid and good information to have, and I'm happy to contribute to it, but perhaps we should make a separate post with these details, not try to incorporate this in the main list.
Why not being open and provide all the data so that users are informed? It seems that the data requested will be usefull for the community.
The Mining List already has a lot of data in it - putting in another column means removing another one, and I think they're all useful.
Also, editing the bbcode tables is a hassle. It's easy to break them, and this sort of data is apt to change regularly. It would be better for this data to be in a separate thread, so that the Mining Pools list is not adversely affected. Plus I don't really have time.
If you want to try your hand at it, I'll be happy to give any advice I can.
I must say that this information is volatile and not relevant for a global pool list. It is valid and good information to have, and I'm happy to contribute to it, but perhaps we should make a separate post with these details, not try to incorporate this in the main list.
Why not being open and provide all the data so that users are informed? It seems that the data requested will be usefull for the community.
Updated. Please post any corrections or errors.
Updated. Please post any corrections or errors.
Just a small update for bitparking. It stopped paying orphans today so the "Pay Orphans" column should be "No".Fixed - thanks for letting me know.
Updated. Please post any corrections or errors.
Just a small update for bitparking. It stopped paying orphans today so the "Pay Orphans" column should be "No".
Updated. Please post any corrections or errors.
I must say that this information is volatile and not relevant for a global pool list. It is valid and good information to have, and I'm happy to contribute to it, but perhaps we should make a separate post with these details, not try to incorporate this in the main list.
That's the idea, a separate list and hopefully stickied. I'm not keen to have anything too changeable in the main mining pools list - bbcode tables are terrible things to edit.
I must say that this information is volatile and not relevant for a global pool list. It is valid and good information to have, and I'm happy to contribute to it, but perhaps we should make a separate post with these details, not try to incorporate this in the main list.
Regarding the fee rules thread I think the table should contain the following settings for each pool:
Only other thing that would be interesting would be some stats that the pool operators might collect:
Average min priority to be included.
Average fee to be included.
etc...
Everyone agree with this list?
- bitcoind version - the version they are using to build/validate blocks
- blockminsize - this is the minimum block size they will create (I assume always zero?)
- blockmaxsize - this is the maximum block size they will create (default is 250k)
- blockprioritysize - this is the size dedicated to low priority/fee tx's (default is 27k)
- mintxfee - the minimum tx fee to include in majority of block (default 0.0005)
- mintxrelayfee - not sure this is relevent to pools as they already have the tx??
- Other - any other unique/special features of their tx selection process
Only other thing that would be interesting would be some stats that the pool operators might collect:
Average min priority to be included.
Average fee to be included.
etc...
Everyone agree with this list?
Sounds good, although feedback from pool ops is paramount since we need their input. We'll see how it goes here - if you get no responses I'll post a thread addressed to the pool ops.
Jump to: