Topic: Too pool or not to pool? That is the question..+ a poll & poolings effect on BTC (Read 7464 times)

I am going to take a walk and think.... been on this PC too much today..

The amount of miners doesn't effect payout? That does not make any sense. Wouldn't the of the #ofminers to poolhashrate have an effect on the payouts?

Edit: I see how it doesn't , with the current way the pools are run.

One option is simply to raise the difficulty.

I've been thinking about increasing the difficult by 16 bits, in one of my pool server projects.

From side of the miners? Yes. There is no reason to ban CPU users and build "GPU clusters".

There is only one exception; 1000 GPU users will make less pool load per ghash than CPU users. But this does not cut miner's income, it is just the problem of the pool operator.

To explain it better. There are two variables in the game - miner's hashrate and pool hashrate.

a) Miner hashrate affect his income. Less individual hashrate - less payouts.
b) Pool hashrate affect the frequency of payouts. Less pool hashrate - less steady payouts.

There is nothing more behind that. Pool hashrate, type of miners in the pool or anything else does NOT affect miner's income. So I don't see any reason for making "GPU only" clusters. Only potential reason might be the pool (server) load, but it can be done by another solutions than by banning  CPU users.

You saying a pool of 1000 5970's is not more effective than 1000 CPU miners?

All these pools cater to the low end user a.k.a CPU miner, I am imagining a pool that would cater to the higher end user.

What kind of 'effectivity' are you talking about? Why it should be more "effective" to join my CPU miner to pool full of CPU miners? Or 5970 to pool full of 5970? It would be great if you can do the math showing improvement in pool clusters like this...


I probably don't see the improvement in your model.

That's still limiting membership, and those at the lowest level of a tier might get more than the unlimited pools, but those towards and right below the next tiers would get less and have no reason for joining the pool. So the only people who would benefit would be those closest to the minimal hashrate for that tier

The only way to resolve that is to make more tiers, and more tiers, until: You have a pool that pays based on how fast they go on a sliding scale. Then you have to worry about how much they mine. You don't want a person mining for 1 minute to get paid the same as someone who mined for 2 hours. So you scale based on how much work has been done, or shares. Since the hashrate determines how much work is done, it's an accurate way to measure participation and reward everyone equally.

And then you end up with a pool like everyone else.

Making a pool limited by hashrate essentially gives the same rewards as other pool, only for the fact that unless you got enough speed in those few amount of people to make 130Ghash, they're better off joining Slush's pool, or BitcoinPool. A slower pool, faster miners would get more shares. A faster pool, the faster miner gets less shares per block, but gets more blocks. A pool could get 1 block a day, and the miner gets 1BTC per block, or a pool could get 10 blocks a day, and the miner gets 0.1BTC per block. At the end of the day, they still have 1BTC.



A more beneficial idea would be limiting the daily amount of users, and using a ultra-mining computer to almost guarantee 1 block per hour, and distrobute 50% of that to all the daily miners, and the other 50% based on share. As long as you don't run the ultra-miner too long and only if there hasn't been a block generated in that hour, it shouldn't affect the difficulty too much.

What you are describing is a socialist pool. Good luck with that here.

Ok over 200mhash/s may be too high for now.

I just feel like there has to be a better way to run a pool. What about 10 tiers , starting at 50mhash up to 500mhash in increments of 50 so you would attract the larger range of users. The tiers each having higher payouts as you go up so not to turn off the more powerful users, but each whichever tier you are in you will get the same as everyone else in that tier. Maybe I am getting ahead of myself considering I am new here but I think if a few people put their heads together we could come up with something more attractive and efficient than the current pool models. The eventual goal will not be to have the largest pool, but the most powerful pool with a smaller amount of members.

If anyone would like to actually work on creating a completely new model for a pool , whether you like my ideas or not , ,let me know, it is worth a shot.

A pool which guaranteed the exact same payout to all members, regardless of hash rate, will attract members with the lowest possible hash rate and deter potential members with higher hash rates. Say you're the operator of this hypothetical pool, and you set a minimum hash rate of 300 MHash/s - that keeps out miners with anything slower than one 5870, but equally someone with one or more 5970s will prefer to use a different pool - what's the point in using your pool if they're guaranteed to get paid the same as a miner using only a 5870? Might as well use a different pool and get paid more.

Your proposal would work, but it would have the side-effect of limiting pool membership to owners of one particular GPU. Personally, I'd prefer to belong to a big pool (i.e. one that doesn't limit membership) as the payouts will be more frequent.

I think if such a pool was created (every second I am thinking of more details to have it make more sense) it would kick ass.

The rules would be very simple though.

You must meet a minimum hash rate to join, not something low either I am talking over 200mhash/s .
You get equal amount as everyone else.
As long as each account meets the minimum hash rate you can have as many as you like. (Not sure about this yet)
Payouts only occur when blocks are solved.

Why wouldn't this work?

I just made some edits , everyone no matter their individual hash rate gets the same payout. This is why minimum hash rate to join is very important.

Each member gets 0.5 BTC only of they all have exactly same hashing speed. If some member has faster rig, it will get bigger reward than others with slower machines.

If a member from pool #1 switches to pool #2, he will get same amount of BTC per day, as in #1 pool.

I understand what you said , and agree , now I'll break it down for you....

TWO POOLS
BOTH POOLS ONLY PAY OUT WHEN A BLOCK IS SOLVED (no matter what your individual hash rate is you get the same payout as the next guy)
Both Pools have the SAME EXACT overall combined hash rate of their members .
pool #1 has 100 memebers
pool #2 has 100,000 members
both pools solve a block...
Pool #1 distributes the block between its 100 members so each member gets 0.5 BTC
Pool #2 distributes the block between its 100,000 members so each member gets 0.0005 BTC

Since their hash rate is the same they should solve blocks at the same rate. (I know their is the whole "lottery aspect to it" this is just theory)




THIS is why I say a pool with equal payout to all members with a minimum hash rate to join but NO maximum member rate would in theory be the most efficient and optimum way to run a pool...
It is very simple... am I missing something , because this is elementary math here....

Sorry, but it looks like you don't understand correctly how mining works. Or i don't understand your question :)
If you have 1 GH/s hashing rate, you will receive EQUAL payout per day/week/month in any pool if those pools are working normally.

If there is a pool with 50 users of 1 GH/s each and other pool with 500 users of 0.1 GH/s, their total speed will be the same. And the miners in first pool will get 10x more bitcoins because they are mining 10x faster.
And if there are a pool with 25 users of 1 GH/s and 250 users of 0.1 GH/s, first ones will get 10x more than slow ones, same as if they were in different pools.

Well I hope you voted, not just for my poll for that other thing too...

If the pool was "pay per share" I agree with you. If it was not in theory a pool with 100 members with a 50 ghash/s rate compared to a pool with 1000 members with the same rate the first pool should pay out more because they are solving the same amount of blocks and have to pay it out to lesser amount of people therefore each person would get more BTC. Just like if I two people were mining solo and one has 10x the hash rate he should in theory get 10x as much because 1 pool = 1 miner.


Oh and if anyone if interested I decided to test out pooling on BITPENNY for around 12hours @ 80 mhash/s and got 0.5 btc  for around 850 shares. So you can do some math and figure out what you would get back with your hash rate on that pool. Hope it helps , if it does DONATE ME SOME BTC     

LOL; it's voting day today here in Egypt on the constitution changes. Everyone is saying "please vote", even on TV. It's funny seeing it here too .

It will only be interesting for users that don't understand how mining works.

Let's say that 1000 CPU users make a pool, then their hash rate will be only 1-10 MH/s total and it will create blocks much slower than other pools.
There are no any advantages for CPU users in such pool.

Yes, but each user will receive same reward in both pools. If a user with high hashing rate will go from one pool to another, his payout will be exactly the same. Same goes for "slow" user.