Which is the best pool for mining? - A guide for choosing the right pool - page 2.

DrHaribo

legendary

Activity: 2730

Merit: 1034

Needs more jiggawatts

Quote from: kislam on November 22, 2011, 06:49:02 AM

Please add a cumulative graph comparing total earning over time for both methods, or at least a weighted average trend line for the PPLNS reward. Otherwise it is not readily apparent how the rewards from two methods compare over time...

That's exactly what I was missing, thanks! Added: https://bitminter.com/stats/rewards

I removed the first shifts (proofs of work are grouped in shifts, each of size difficulty/10). I started recording these before I switched to PPLNS, so the first ones naturally had no rewards.

This is just 46x difficulty worth of proofs of work. We are a small pool, and it wasn't always PPLNS, so we don't have that much data to go on yet.

You can see some bad luck in the beginning put us below average. Then a nice streak of good luck put us at about twice the expected earnings. From there up until now it's been pretty average. Right now we are having a really bad block, which is the reason for no earnings towards the end. Luckily we had some short blocks just before that.

Obviously the big lucky streak at the beginning takes a while to even out. Ending at 29 rather than 23 BTC is a big difference.
Since switching to PPLNS we made 58 blocks rather than the expected 46. Too small sample size maybe? Any other pool ops have some data?

kislam

member

Activity: 74

Merit: 10

Quote from: DrHaribo on November 22, 2011, 04:06:39 AM

Quote from: kislam on November 13, 2011, 10:27:32 AM

Simulations are one thing, real life data is quite another.

I added a new statistics page at my pool showing real life data: http://bitminter.com/stats/rewards

You can see how actual payouts compare to the expected average income per share (basically 0% fee PPS). I can probably improve this with some stats for "all time average" and "average last X time", but I think it is already useful. There are also charts of the pool's luck here: http://bitminter.com/stats/luck

Quick way to get some data without taking months to run a test.

Please add a cumulative graph comparing total earning over time for both methods, or at least a weighted average trend line for the PPLNS reward. Otherwise it is not readily apparent how the rewards from two methods compare over time...

cablepair

hero member

Activity: 896

Merit: 1000

Buy this account on March-2019. New Owner here!!

very nice

DrHaribo

legendary

Activity: 2730

Merit: 1034

Needs more jiggawatts

Quote from: kislam on November 13, 2011, 10:27:32 AM

Simulations are one thing, real life data is quite another.

I added a new statistics page at my pool showing real life data: http://bitminter.com/stats/rewards

You can see how actual payouts compare to the expected average income per share (basically 0% fee PPS). I can probably improve this with some stats for "all time average" and "average last X time", but I think it is already useful. There are also charts of the pool's luck here: http://bitminter.com/stats/luck

Quick way to get some data without taking months to run a test.

organofcorti

donator

Activity: 2058

Merit: 1007

Poor impulse control.

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on November 15, 2011, 08:07:42 PM

There is no significant variance over a 30+ day period when using a pool.

There is a significant amount of variance based on the pool hashrate though. What pool hashrate is giving you insignificant variance after only 30 days? Actually it probably makes more sense for me to ask what number of round it takes for you to notice variance being insignificant, I'd be interested to know if it tallies with my own observations.

As far as SMPPS hopping goes, I've had average maturity time decreased by half a round on average. Not helpful on a big pool, but very handy on a small one.

bulanula

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on November 15, 2011, 08:07:42 PM

If I had 50GH/s I wouldn't.
Likewise if my electrical bill came once a year I wouldn't.

However I don't have 50GH/s and my electrical bill comes once a month. As I state I could care less about hourly or daily or even weekly variance. However I would like to get revenue each month to pay the electric bill.

There is no significant variance over a 30+ day period when using a pool. A pool also has the advantage of merged mining, and ability to consolidate hashing power towards a single wallet. If pools didn't exist I likely would use an internal pool for my rigs anyways. Given the number of free, donation, or low cost pools I simply don't see the benefit of doing all that work myself.

I think one can also solo MM but I don't know the exact steps to get that working 100%.

DeathAndTaxes

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1079

Gerald Davis

If I had 50GH/s I wouldn't.
Likewise if my electrical bill came once a year I wouldn't.

However I don't have 50GH/s and my electrical bill comes once a month. As I state I could care less about hourly or daily or even weekly variance. However I would like to get revenue each month to pay the electric bill.

There is no significant variance over a 30+ day period when using a pool. A pool also has the advantage of merged mining, and ability to consolidate hashing power towards a single wallet. If pools didn't exist I likely would use an internal pool for my rigs anyways. Given the number of free, donation, or low cost pools I simply don't see the benefit of doing all that work myself.

bulanula

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on November 15, 2011, 04:27:54 PM

Quote from: kano on November 15, 2011, 04:21:40 PM

Quote from: bulanula on November 15, 2011, 03:40:59 PM

Quote from: teukon on November 14, 2011, 02:31:47 PM

Quote from: kislam on November 13, 2011, 10:27:32 AM

Quote from: paraipan on November 13, 2011, 08:19:35 AM

you don't have to, we have ppl around that can simulate any situation over a long period of time...

Simulations are one thing, real life data is quite another. I am disappointed by the (lack of) response from the PPLNS proponents/supporters, though. This test could potential prove their very important point that PPLNS reward method does not negatively impact the intermittent miner over the long run, compared to other methods.

No takers?

The simulations are really only suitable for illustrating a particular reward system, it is mathematics that establishes whether or not a reward system impacts intermittent miners.

A real data test will be difficult to perform for a number of reasons. I fear all that could be gleaned from such a test is which pool "currently" performs the best and say nothing conclusive about future performance or about reward systems.

I really don't know why anyone would bother with anything but a PPS pool ...

Want to be cheated by operator, long rounds, pool hoppers, variance then please go ahead and worship deepbit / slush and other such botnetmasters of pools.

Firstly, you have only stated 3 reasons there not 4.
long rounds=variance
And in that case, as long as the pools luck - %fee is less than the PPS pools %fee you will be ahead.

So you are left with trusting the pool operator and hoping that hoppers are not taking more than a small % of the pools total (again less than the % difference charge between the pools) ...

Actually it is more like 1: Variance.

Pool hopping is a non issue as PPLNS, SMPPS, and double geo can't be hopped.

Trusting Pool operator never goes away. A PPS pool operator can cheat by either running away with the money or "stale share shaving" (reporting some % of valid shares as stale to reduce payout). If you don't trust your pool operator well you are fucked either way.

So that leaves variance. Given the 5%-10% fee on most PPS pools I will gladly eat some variance to get 5% or more extra by not paying fees. The hourly variance may be significant but I don't care how much I make per hour. I care how much a make per month (when my powerbill comes). Variance is a non-issue on a month long timeframe.

If someone thinks less daily variance is worth it then they should pay the extra fee but thinking they "got" anything other than reduced payout for reduced variance is just denial.

If variance is not important then why bother to mine in a pool at all Huh

Inaba

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1000

Much more concise and elegantly put than I could have... but that's exactly my thoughts, Death Wink

DeathAndTaxes

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1079

Gerald Davis

Quote from: kano on November 15, 2011, 04:21:40 PM

Quote from: bulanula on November 15, 2011, 03:40:59 PM

Quote from: teukon on November 14, 2011, 02:31:47 PM

Quote from: kislam on November 13, 2011, 10:27:32 AM

Quote from: paraipan on November 13, 2011, 08:19:35 AM

you don't have to, we have ppl around that can simulate any situation over a long period of time...

Simulations are one thing, real life data is quite another. I am disappointed by the (lack of) response from the PPLNS proponents/supporters, though. This test could potential prove their very important point that PPLNS reward method does not negatively impact the intermittent miner over the long run, compared to other methods.

No takers?

The simulations are really only suitable for illustrating a particular reward system, it is mathematics that establishes whether or not a reward system impacts intermittent miners.

A real data test will be difficult to perform for a number of reasons. I fear all that could be gleaned from such a test is which pool "currently" performs the best and say nothing conclusive about future performance or about reward systems.

I really don't know why anyone would bother with anything but a PPS pool ...

Want to be cheated by operator, long rounds, pool hoppers, variance then please go ahead and worship deepbit / slush and other such botnetmasters of pools.

Firstly, you have only stated 3 reasons there not 4.
long rounds=variance
And in that case, as long as the pools luck - %fee is less than the PPS pools %fee you will be ahead.

So you are left with trusting the pool operator and hoping that hoppers are not taking more than a small % of the pools total (again less than the % difference charge between the pools) ...

Actually it is more like 1: Variance.

Pool hopping is a non issue as PPLNS, SMPPS, and double geo can't be hopped.

Trusting Pool operator never goes away. A PPS pool operator can cheat by either running away with the money or "stale share shaving" (reporting some % of valid shares as stale to reduce payout). If you don't trust your pool operator well you are fucked either way.

So that leaves variance. Given the 5%-10% fee on most PPS pools I will gladly eat some variance to get 5% or more extra by not paying fees. The hourly variance may be significant but I don't care how much I make per hour. I care how much a make per month (when my powerbill comes). Variance is a non-issue on a month long timeframe.

If someone thinks less daily variance is worth it then they should pay the extra fee but thinking they "got" anything other than reduced payout for reduced variance is just denial.

kano

legendary

Activity: 4634

Merit: 1851

Linux since 1997 RedHat 4

Quote from: bulanula on November 15, 2011, 03:40:59 PM

Quote from: teukon on November 14, 2011, 02:31:47 PM

Quote from: kislam on November 13, 2011, 10:27:32 AM

Quote from: paraipan on November 13, 2011, 08:19:35 AM

you don't have to, we have ppl around that can simulate any situation over a long period of time...

Simulations are one thing, real life data is quite another. I am disappointed by the (lack of) response from the PPLNS proponents/supporters, though. This test could potential prove their very important point that PPLNS reward method does not negatively impact the intermittent miner over the long run, compared to other methods.

No takers?

The simulations are really only suitable for illustrating a particular reward system, it is mathematics that establishes whether or not a reward system impacts intermittent miners.

A real data test will be difficult to perform for a number of reasons. I fear all that could be gleaned from such a test is which pool "currently" performs the best and say nothing conclusive about future performance or about reward systems.

I really don't know why anyone would bother with anything but a PPS pool ...

Want to be cheated by operator, long rounds, pool hoppers, variance then please go ahead and worship deepbit / slush and other such botnetmasters of pools.

Firstly, you have only stated 3 reasons there not 4.
long rounds=variance
And in that case, as long as the pools luck - %fee is less than the PPS pools %fee you will be ahead.

So you are left with trusting the pool operator and hoping that hoppers are not taking more than a small % of the pools total (again less than the % difference charge between the pools) ...

bulanula

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Quote from: teukon on November 14, 2011, 02:31:47 PM

Quote from: kislam on November 13, 2011, 10:27:32 AM

Quote from: paraipan on November 13, 2011, 08:19:35 AM

you don't have to, we have ppl around that can simulate any situation over a long period of time...

Simulations are one thing, real life data is quite another. I am disappointed by the (lack of) response from the PPLNS proponents/supporters, though. This test could potential prove their very important point that PPLNS reward method does not negatively impact the intermittent miner over the long run, compared to other methods.

No takers?

The simulations are really only suitable for illustrating a particular reward system, it is mathematics that establishes whether or not a reward system impacts intermittent miners.

A real data test will be difficult to perform for a number of reasons. I fear all that could be gleaned from such a test is which pool "currently" performs the best and say nothing conclusive about future performance or about reward systems.

I really don't know why anyone would bother with anything but a PPS pool ...

Want to be cheated by operator, long rounds, pool hoppers, variance then please go ahead and worship deepbit / slush and other such botnetmasters of pools.

teukon

legendary

Activity: 1246

Merit: 1011

Quote from: kislam on November 13, 2011, 10:27:32 AM

Quote from: paraipan on November 13, 2011, 08:19:35 AM

you don't have to, we have ppl around that can simulate any situation over a long period of time...

Simulations are one thing, real life data is quite another. I am disappointed by the (lack of) response from the PPLNS proponents/supporters, though. This test could potential prove their very important point that PPLNS reward method does not negatively impact the intermittent miner over the long run, compared to other methods.

No takers?

The simulations are really only suitable for illustrating a particular reward system, it is mathematics that establishes whether or not a reward system impacts intermittent miners.

A real data test will be difficult to perform for a number of reasons. I fear all that could be gleaned from such a test is which pool "currently" performs the best and say nothing conclusive about future performance or about reward systems.

urstroyer

full member

Activity: 142

Merit: 100

Quote from: bulanula on November 13, 2011, 01:46:13 PM

Quote from: Inaba on November 13, 2011, 01:44:47 PM

Can you add in DGM to your test? I would like to know how my pool compares in a real world scenario.

LOL. Never heard of double geometry stuff till now. How does it work ?

Double Geometric Method was born here:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/double-geometric-method-hopping-proof-low-variance-reward-system-39497

And here is some FAQ content:
https://yourbtc.net/faq-page

Inaba uses different parameter on eclipse than me on yourbtc. Maybe both could be considered in a test. Definitely interested too.

bulanula

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Quote from: Inaba on November 13, 2011, 01:44:47 PM

Can you add in DGM to your test? I would like to know how my pool compares in a real world scenario.

LOL. Never heard of double geometry stuff till now. How does it work ?

Inaba

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1000

Can you add in DGM to your test? I would like to know how my pool compares in a real world scenario.

DrHaribo

legendary

Activity: 2730

Merit: 1034

Needs more jiggawatts

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on November 13, 2011, 10:57:22 AM

The length of time of each "switch", the randomness, the "time away" doesn't matter. Just make sure you record the number of shares submitted to each pool, revenue generated and you can get the revenue per share.

Yeah, but make sure each reward system is tested under the same difficulty, otherwise the shares are not directly comparable.

Round-robin with cgminer sounds like a good solution.

DrHaribo

legendary

Activity: 2730

Merit: 1034

Needs more jiggawatts

Quote from: kislam on November 13, 2011, 06:56:27 AM

I am getting a new 5830 in the next few days. I propose to set up the card to mine round-robin at PPLNS, PPS and Prop pools over an extended period, just to see how the payments (after adjusting for fees if the pool charges any) stack up against each other.

Interesting idea. When choosing a proportional pool it may be best to choose one that isn't being pool-hopped, otherwise all it shows is how badly pool-hopping affects other miners. Your ideas for this test look fine, the only difficult thing is the time frame. Maybe report at intervals like DAT suggested.

Quote from: kislam on November 13, 2011, 06:56:27 AM

* Basis of comparing the earnings - OTTOMH i think it might be ok to compare average reward per share from each pool, but pls suggest better ideas

Yes, comparing payout per accepted proof of work (share) is the way to do it, I think. Disregard stales. Other reward models will lag behind PPS, so make sure the current block at the proportional pool has completed, and all your accepted proofs of work are no longer eligible for pay at the PPLNS pool. After that, either wait for blocks to confirm, or count in the unconfirmed balance.

Quote from: urstroyer on November 13, 2011, 09:14:35 AM

this should be of interest for you:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/pplns-39832

That's what I read before I implemented PPLNS in my pool. Meni Rosenfeld does some excellent work. Just like he suggests, I use a score for each proof of work equal to 1 divided by the difficulty at the time it is submitted. This is what I meant with "properly implemented" PPLNS earlier in this thread, just forgot to write that this time. Wink

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on November 13, 2011, 10:26:14 AM

To "solve" even this small (and mostly academic flaw) a PPLNS pool could record the difficulty of each share submitted. The split would then be weighted by difficulty.

Yes, that is what I do. Each accepted proof of work gets a score=1/difficulty. I should have said weighted PPLNS is hopper-proof.

DeathAndTaxes

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1079

Gerald Davis

Quote from: kislam on November 13, 2011, 10:27:32 AM

Quote from: paraipan on November 13, 2011, 08:19:35 AM

you don't have to, we have ppl around that can simulate any situation over a long period of time...

Simulations are one thing, real life data is quite another. I am disappointed by the (lack of) response from the PPLNS proponents/supporters, though. This test could potential prove their very important point that PPLNS reward method does not negatively impact the intermittent miner over the long run, compared to other methods.

No takers?

I am not sure what you are asking. A good PPLNS pool to use for a test? Try BitMinter.Com

How long do you need to test for to compensate for variance (luck) between pools?
You will want to submit a lot of shares to each pool. Honestly I would look at using at least 1 million shares per pool. Longer is always better. You could always report back at 2M, 5M, 10M shares.

The length of time of each "switch", the randomness, the "time away" doesn't matter. Just make sure you record the number of shares submitted to each pool, revenue generated and you can get the revenue per share.

kislam

member

Activity: 74

Merit: 10

Quote from: paraipan on November 13, 2011, 08:19:35 AM

you don't have to, we have ppl around that can simulate any situation over a long period of time...

Simulations are one thing, real life data is quite another. I am disappointed by the (lack of) response from the PPLNS proponents/supporters, though. This test could potential prove their very important point that PPLNS reward method does not negatively impact the intermittent miner over the long run, compared to other methods.

No takers?

Topic: Which is the best pool for mining? - A guide for choosing the right pool - page 2. (Read 161082 times)