Topic: Vladimir's essential self-defence guide for Bitcoin Miners - page 6. (Read 13274 times)

Apologies then, Vladimir.

Don't I remember you being (personally) pro hopper at some point? I can't find the post so I could be wrong.


Mind posting your proof? With chart porn if you please. I'd like to see what you have that proves hopping isn't an issue. Might be able to use it in some arguements with prop pool ops.

I'm especially interested in you showing me how it's possible to hop PPS, and why prop hopping won't work.

No I said it based on the mathematics.
Yes I've already written two PHP pages that use the same mathematics at that first page coz it is very simple maths.

I'd not bother with a PHP page like the 2nd page coz the maths is just about PPS or it's wrong.

Again read my simple example.
In the paper he says that any % will work, so I've given a 50% example that DOESN'T work.
So clearly either it is only about PPS or it's wrong.
(I can see how it would work with PPS)

How about "don't let one miner take over 80% of the hashpower of one pool" vlad?

Forget that one?  Ooops

I'm guessing you didn't actually read through the paper (I had only skimmed before, but went back and read it).  It clearly talks about proportional payout pools, shares are mentioned a lot (I'm guessing that's why you're thinking it's talking about PPS), but it's definitely dealing with prop payout.  The shares are mentioned as being used to pay prop. for shares submitted/total block shares.

Again:

The paper at that link seems to be all about PPS.
My questions specifically said "based on share%"

I read the first page and found it matched exactly my two php web pages (yes I was surprised to see similar wording I use for my page "Pool Failure Calculator" page http://tradebtc.net/bitprob.php - he obviously wrote the paper long before I wrote that 2nd PHP page, but I had never seen this paper before today)

In a share% payment, your shares % slowly drops after you quit while mining continues until a block is found ...

My issue is that I see hoppers doing the 43.5% on a share% pool and wonder WTF they are doing?
They clearly do not understand mathematics.

To prove the point I will state the simplest example:
If you mine with a share% of 10% at a site for 50% of the expected time to find a block, then, your shares will be worth on average 5% instead of 10% (since your % will slowly drop, after you leave, to 5% until the block is found)
During this time you can go to another pool with the same hash rate and do the same thing ... and thus get a total of 10% ... which is what you would have got to start with

Adjusting the numbers actually gives the same results - I just used simple numbers to calculate so that anyone should be able to understand it.

Edit: fixed a wording there that wasn't right (i.e. not what I was thinking

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/optimal-pool-abuse-strategy-proofs-and-countermeasures-3165

Self defence against hopping? WTF?

Firstly: I don't hop, I will never hop (coz it doesn't change anything), small non-PPS pools should like hoppers (especially if the hoppers would not be present otherwise)

In PPS if the share value is fixed, then hopping makes no difference at all - just find the pool with the highest PPS value

CAN ANYONE give me a mathematical proof that hopping is any of the following:

1) Bad for a pool that pays out blocks based on share%
2) Advantageous for a hopper in these pools

I can think of no statistical proof at all.

The only mathematical side effect that I can think of is the effect it has on the standard deviation of the pools block finding rate.

But this is obvious:
When the Gh/s rate of a pool is low (e.g. under 100Gh/s) the standard deviation is higher ... and it is not linear.
As the Gh/s drops the probability of failing to find a block in a given time increases more than linearly i.e. when the hoppers leave.
As the Gh/s increases the probability of failing to find a block in a given time decreases more than linearly i.e. when the hoppers arive.
(e.g. check my calculator on that subject in my sig: http://tradebtc.net/bitprob.php )

Everyone who I have asked says "oh it is" - but cannot prove it (coz it is false)

The first step to understanding why people say it is, but it isn't, is to understand this wikipedia page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy

Now unless someone can apply the Monty Hall Problem to hopping, I cannot even see it as anything but a fallacy.

I would place it under the heading of an attempt at taking control of something for which there is actually no control - and that makes people feel better thinking they have control over something rather than being at the whim of statistics

Well written...but one forum is enough for me

According to that shouldn't people be pool hopping?

.