Slush vs Deepbit - page 2. | Bitcointalksearch.org

[Tycho]

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 500

Quote from: Grinder on April 12, 2011, 04:15:19 AM

It is easier to take advantage of Tycho's pool by pool jumping, which may make the shares less worth on average than they would be on Slush's pool. What is your actual payout?

You can see average shares per block for current and previous difficulty spans on my stats page.
During current difficulty it's 15.3% better than expected, so shares aren't "less worth".

Grinder

legendary

Activity: 1284

Merit: 1001

It is easier to take advantage of Tycho's pool by pool jumping, which may make the shares less worth on average than they would be on Slush's pool. What is your actual payout?

slush

legendary

Activity: 1386

Merit: 1097

Quote from: sc8nt4u on April 12, 2011, 04:03:48 AM

must have less than 0.6% invalid blocks to break even with each other.

Pool had no invalid blocks until my last infrastructure upgrade (>400 blocks back). So invalid blocks per last 1000 rounds are going slightly down, I'm sure it will be under 0.6% in few more rounds

.

sc8nt4u

sr. member

Activity: 286

Merit: 250

UPDATED from https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.79971

Well I'm at around 110k shares per pool now and here are the results.

My average ping to Tycho's pool ranged between 100-110ms.
168 Stale Shares
112370 Shares Submitted
0.1495% of my shares are stale shares

My average ping to Slush's pool ranged between 140-160ms.
607 Stale Shares
111779 Shares Submitted
0.5430% of my shares are stale shares

Last 1000 blocks up to block 3140 on Slush's pool had 8 invalids or 0.8%.

Slush's Pool:

For every 50 BTC you make, 0.8% is lost to invalid shares and no one gets BTC
- (50.00 BTC * .008) = 0.4 BTC lost

From that 50 BTC, 2% is given to Slush
- (50.00 BTC * .02) = 1.00 BTC lost

From that 50 BTC, you will need to submit 0.543% more shares to account for the stale shares
- (50.00 BTC * .00543) = 0.2715 BTC lost

Total ~ 48.3285 BTC expected

Tycho's Pool

For every 50 BTC you make, 3% is lost to Tycho's pool fee
- 50.00 BTC * .03 = 1.50 BTC lost

From that 50 BTC, you will need to submit 0.1495% more shares to account for the stale shares
- 50.00 BTC * 0.001495 = 0.07475 BTC lost

Total ~ 48.42525 BTC expected

Looks like Slush's pool to break even with Tycho's pool, must have less than 0.6% invalid blocks to break even with each other.

Fiyasko

legendary

Activity: 1428

Merit: 1001

Okey Dokey Lokey

Thankyou Gusti!

gusti

legendary

Activity: 1099

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Fiyasko on April 01, 2011, 10:20:11 PM

any news yet on the comparitive perfromance of the pools?

Finished a 5 days testing on both, no negligible differences.

slush

legendary

Activity: 1386

Merit: 1097

Quote from: sc8nt4u on April 05, 2011, 08:35:33 PM

Last 1000 blocks up to block 2872 on Slush's pool had 13 invalids or 1.3%.

It's 12 invalids, the #116884 was temporarily marked as invalid because I had to check its generation by self. Now it is valid and reward is distributed between workers.

Quote

The largest determining factor in this discrepancy is that invalid blocks

I improved server infrastructure to process block distribution faster. Looks like it helped, last 150 blocks (where I made changes) are without single invalid block. Of course I didn't solved it 100%, some invalid blocks are normal, but the ratio should be much better.

[Tycho]

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 500

Quote from: Fiyasko on April 05, 2011, 09:30:35 PM

Are you willing to give an estimate of the total value ß gained from each? (you can use fake numbers if the ratios stay the same)

You can compare average number of shares per block in both pools for a long enough timespan.
Comparing reward per short period can't be precise enough since we had some days with luck ~30% more or less than average, so this can give more than 50% error.

But, of course, you can give your numbers.

Fiyasko

legendary

Activity: 1428

Merit: 1001

Okey Dokey Lokey

Are you willing to give an estimate of the total value ß gained from each? (you can use fake numbers if the ratios stay the same)

sc8nt4u

sr. member

Activity: 286

Merit: 250

Well I'm at around 30k shares per pool and here are just a few thoughts so far.

My average ping to Tycho's pool ranged between 100-110ms.
51 Stale Shares
32171 Shares Submitted
0.159% of my shares are stale shares

My average ping to Slush's pool ranged between 140-160ms.
199 Stale Shares
31756 Shares Submitted
0.626% of my shares are stale shares

Last 1000 blocks up to block 2872 on Slush's pool had 13 invalids or 1.3%.

Slush's Pool:

For every 50 BTC you make, 1.3% is lost to invalid shares and no one gets BTC
- (50.00 BTC * .013) = 0.65 BTC lost

From that 50 BTC, 2% is given to Slush
- (50.00 BTC * .02) = 1.00 BTC lost

From that 50 BTC, you will need to submit 0.626% more shares to account for the stale shares
- (50.00 BTC * .00626) = 0.313 BTC lost

Total ~ 48.04 BTC expected

Tycho's Pool

For every 50 BTC you make, 3% is lost to Tycho's pool fee
- 50.00 BTC * .03 = 1.50 BTC lost

From that 50 BTC, you will need to submit 0.159% more shares to account for the stale shares
- 50.00 BTC * 0.00159 = 0.0795 BTC lost

Total ~ 48.42 BTC expected

TL;DR Slush's pool is expected to pay out 48.04 BTC per 50 BTC generated, while Tycho's pool is expected to pay out 48.42 BTC. The largest determining factor in this discrepancy is that invalid blocks are paid out in Tycho's pool and accounts for a 1.3% loss in BTC in the last 1000 blocks from Slush's pool [Blocks 1872-2872].

[Tycho]

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 500

Quote from: zoro on April 05, 2011, 02:07:12 PM

i had a comparison between pps and proportional in deepbit. pps gave me less!

That's pretty expected since PPS price equals to 10% fee and proportional's fee is 3%

Quote from: zoro on April 05, 2011, 02:07:12 PM

the good think about deepbit is the payout also for invalid blocks! i wonder if any losses can occur to this pool by this method!

You can check it at pool statistics history if you are talking about some other pool.

Thanks :)

zoro

full member

Activity: 226

Merit: 100

i had a comparison between pps and proportional in deepbit. pps gave me less!
but i think this is a matter of luck. if many blocks are found by the pool, pps is out of the question!
the good think about deepbit is the payout also for invalid blocks! i wonder if any losses can occur to this pool by this method!

EPiSKiNG

legendary

Activity: 800

Merit: 1001

Quote from: gigabytecoin on April 04, 2011, 01:27:14 AM

Quote from: EPiSKiNG on April 03, 2011, 05:07:59 PM

Just got home, and noticed that one of the computers was running about 100MH/s slower than the other for some reason...

Looks like since Friday at about 8PM (both started at the same time), I received 18.19 BTC from slush's pool and 21.46 from deepbit... Given that I didn't have a way to check the MH/s average on slush's pool, and that when I got home, it was running a bit slower than the other machine, I have to say my results are inconclusive...

-EP

I would have to agree.

Which computer was running 100mh/s slower? deepbit or slush's?

Upon more analysis, slush's was actually about 40mh/s slower than the box I had on deepbit's (I think it had to do with the AMD platform vs Intel)

-EP

nster

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

Quote from: zoro on April 04, 2011, 03:23:16 PM

could you please perform a comparison between pps and slush?
i find it logical for a larger pool to give more if it has more possibilities to find blocks than a smaller pool.
but pps is totally independent from block finding

Your logic is not logical. in smaller pools, you get a bigger share of the block, but you find blocks less frequently, compared to larger pools. In the end, the size only affects the consistency of the payouts.

PPS is not something people with GPUs should use IMO. 10% fee will take a fair share of your BTC. The proportional of deepbit is nice though, as it is 3% fee, which is reasonable considering it is the 2nd largest pool and the one with most features.

gusti

legendary

Activity: 1099

Merit: 1000

Quote from: gusti on April 04, 2011, 04:04:19 PM

Quote from: zoro on April 04, 2011, 03:23:16 PM

could you please perform a comparison between pps and slush?
i find it logical for a larger pool to give more if it has more possibilities to find blocks than a smaller pool.
but pps is totally independent from block finding

just switched to pps on deepbit
until this moment, Slush's is 23% up
let's see if numbers run closer from now on.

Sorry, my mistake, I was taking unconfirmed figures on Slush's.
I can say now that figures on both pools are very similar, maybe 2% difference.
I will extend the test to confirm that.

gusti

legendary

Activity: 1099

Merit: 1000

Quote from: zoro on April 04, 2011, 03:23:16 PM

could you please perform a comparison between pps and slush?
i find it logical for a larger pool to give more if it has more possibilities to find blocks than a smaller pool.
but pps is totally independent from block finding

just switched to pps on deepbit
until this moment, Slush's is 23% up
let's see if numbers run closer from now on.

sc8nt4u

sr. member

Activity: 286

Merit: 250

Quote from: gusti on April 04, 2011, 12:01:12 PM

I'm also comparing both pools, running a 5970 against each it for the last 3 days.
Swaping cards once a day, to lower any divergence error.
At this moment, Slush's is giving me 20% more compared to Deepbit, on the total reward.

I have a 5970 per pool too and it's been the case so far, but I'm only through about 20k shares for each pool.

zoro

full member

Activity: 226

Merit: 100

could you please perform a comparison between pps and slush?
i find it logical for a larger pool to give more if it has more possibilities to find blocks than a smaller pool.
but pps is totally independent from block finding

gusti

legendary

Activity: 1099

Merit: 1000

I'm also comparing both pools, running a 5970 against each it for the last 3 days.
Swaping cards once a day, to lower any divergence error.
At this moment, Slush's is giving me 20% more compared to Deepbit, on the total reward.

nster

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

Quote from: gusti on April 02, 2011, 07:43:28 PM

Quote from: [Tycho

1) The message about cooling was an obvious joke,
2) One of slush's bitcoinds was not working all the night which caused 502 error on site, so no lies here (this didn't affected mining).

I'm using both your pool and Slush's at this moment, both are ok.
Anyway, opposite to Slush, you are always bashing your competition.
Not good for your own reputation, I think. Wink

what are you talking about >.> As far as I have seen, he does not bash the competition at all. and he is right, Slush's WEBSITE was down. Mining was fine. WEBSITE WEBSITE WEBSITE NOT MINING.... WAS WAS WAS = PAST TENSE

He was not bashing the competition, just stating the facts, and Slush himself would not deny this, I bet it was even talked about it in his thread.

Topic: Slush vs Deepbit - page 2. (Read 26405 times)