Topic: Which is the best pool for mining? - A guide for choosing the right pool - page 3. (Read 161068 times)

Within a difficulty "set" PPLNS can't be hopped.  When difficulty changes if the change is very large (30%+) there is a small window where the pool could be hopped in theory.  However there are two real world issues that make this useless:
a) difficulty changes only occur once every 14 days
b) the window isn't always present and last only till block is solved at most

When I pool hopped I had some PPLNS pools setup in my config.  The software never found a viable hop point.  Even on difficulty changes the PPLNS pools were either <100% efficiency or when they did present a "bonus" other pools were worth even more.

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.

1) look at all shares in last N
2) multiply each share by difficulty when submitted
3) take product of number of shares * difficulty
4) total is miner's weighted share count
5) do the same for whole pool
6) miner share = (miner's weighted share count) / (pool's weighted share count)

You could normalize the numbers by dividing difficulty by difficulty of first share.  This has no effect on the math it simply makes the numbers smaller and more easily understood.

For example:
In last 2 million shares
you submitted 100,000 shares at difficulty of 1,378,309 worth 1.000 shares each.
you submitted  80,000 shares at difficulty of 1,202,890 worth 0.873 shares each.
Total weighted shares submitted: 169,818.31 shares

Hi DrHaribo,

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

Indeed if PPLNS can be abused by pool hoppers I certainly need to do some research and switch to a better reward system. After all, stopping pool hoppers was the reason I went with PPLNS.

Could you please point me to some evidence or explanation of these facts so I can do my research properly? Or perhaps you can explain how it works yourself.

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

I think numbers speak louder than anything else. So I think this can be a useful demo that comes up with some solid figures which can be referenced later on. I request everyone to offer constructive ideas.

There is no disagreement mate. We all know that PPLNS / Prop suck and that PPS is really the only viable pool system. Only solo is better when you have the power. People using Prop / PPLNS deserve to be cheater by pool hoppers, have a ton of variance and cheated by pool operator. Sheep do your research !

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. Since there has been a lot of disagreement with PPLNS and intermittent mining and long-term results, i am thinking round-robin setup in cgminer can simulate the intermittent nature of mining. Please suggest:

 * Pool(s) for each category (PPLNS/PPS/Prop)
 * Mining software most suitable for this test run (cgminer seems best to me)
 * What should be the total time frame for the test run - i mean, what time frame is long-term enough to average out the different variance levels?
 * 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
 * Any other suggestions...

Once set up, I will publish the API key for each pool account so that anyone can monitor the progress.

Ideas?

THAT was the most pathetic insult ever...... I FEEL LIKE YOU SCAMMED ME out of a proper insult. I am going to have to report this.

No, we don't think you're stupid, we just think you're a tool.  A great tool, mind you... but still a tool.  You do good work, though, so it's ok.  You pay 5%!  The best tool around!

I wasn't trying to plug PPLNS. My only goal in this thread was to correct mistaken beliefs about PPLNS so they don't end up in a guide for newbies. I don't want miners scared away from my pool based on things that are simply not true.


This makes perfect sense. I think the big demand in some internet communities that everything should be given away for free may not be healthy in the long run. Certainly this seems wrong for the bitcoin community. I mean, bitcoin is about money. Hello?

Anyway, that's getting off topic...

It's a good thing having a concise guide that covers important issues about mining. When I started I found it all pretty confusing at first.

OMFG....EVERYONE posts that I am stupid for paying 5% when I suggest a STABLE PPS POOL, then follow it up with a FREE PPLNS 'plug'.

ME:
I pay 5% Fees to mine PPS.

THEM:
You are crazy, use a FREE PPLNS Pool.

ME:
I like having my money available in real time.

THEM:
I would rather save the 5% Fee and wait as long as it takes.

ME:
...and risk not having the FREE pool around, or enough miners to cover your payout ?

THEM:
well, I consider that acceptable loss, and will be less than spending 5% now.


If people didn't have such a hardon for PPLNS and tout it as being the greatest thing going (mostly pool OPs as it were), then perhaps I wouldn't have such a big chip on my shoulder AGAINST IT.

I like paying for a service, because it ensures that the service will stay financially viable and give enough incentive for the OP to maintain the pool, hopefully with a few sheckles in his/her pocket for doing so.

You always seem to get what you pay for....nothing free is ever good in my books.
The only thing in life that is free and any good is pussy......and if you have ever been married, then you will agree that even that is hardly free.....lol

Not once in the last couple weeks have I named my pool and I most likely WILL NOT name it (to keep me from looking like a fan boy).
I simply stated that I pay 5% and it is the best 5% spent in BTC mining.....and worth every bitcent.

That's why I need help understanding these things.


Looks like I forgot to add one thing to the list:

• Being wrong, admitting it and improving oneself is the most terrible thing a person can do

Noone is saying you're crazy. PPS has the lowest possible variance: none. If you want to pay extra for that, that's your choice. Many users prefer PPS even if they have to pay a little extra, and I may implement it in my own pool when I just get the time for it.

There's also nothing wrong with supporting your favorite pool - it costs time and money to run a pool. Even though I run a zero-fee pool myself, I agree with you that there are more important things when choosing a pool than whether it has a tiny fee or none.

Nobody said that but here you go ...

I'm sure it is a fine system, but frankly I am sick and fucking tired of being told that I am somehow crazy for paying 5% for the opportunity to mine at the pool of my choosing currently, because I prefer PPS....and somehow PPLNS is the 'Payment System Of The Gods'....and is FREE...blah...blahty fuckin' blah....

PPLNS is a fine system.  Over the long run a user gets the same rewards under PPLNS as they would under proportional, while having a system that can't be hopped.  Intermittent miners will receive a higher than normal variance, but it can swing either way (massively positive if they stop just as the pool hits a string of luck, massively less if they stop and the pool never finds a block before they expire).

You are an idiot.

Ya just had to run to your Girl friend's defence, after he was caught with his foot in his mouth above.

You forgot - PPLNS is for chickenshit Pool OPs that can't afford to run a proper PPS setup and skirt the issue by offering NO FEES......LMAO.

Some scary facts have surfaced in this thread. Let me summarize:

• PPLNS & score-based systems make it easier for a greedy pool op to steal from miners by adjusting a timeout or decay rate
• PPLNS can be abused by pool hoppers to steal from other miners
• PPLNS is prone to bad luck
• There is proof somewhere that new reward systems steal from unsuspecting miners
• Meni Rosenfeld's mathematical formulas are biased opinions
• PPLNS is more problematic than most reward systems
• When a group of people make new bitcoins they can't all be winners

If Meni Rosenfeld's research is all wrong and those points above are true, I seriously need to consider other reward systems. At least we are finally getting this properly documented for all newcomers to see.

Can you guys help me out by explaining the logic behind the points above?

Its called I was wrong.  It is a common myth, I am not the only one who has accepted and repeated it without evidence. 

I was corrected and learned from it.  Thanks for the links I will be sure to edit them to not continue to spread incorrect information.

Love that PPLNS








Anything else to add ?

There's no timeouts in PPLNS. And there's no way to set N that gives the pool op any more money. With zero-fee PPLNS the reward system is only about deciding what percentage of the money to give to each miner - you pay out 100% in any case. It only affects the pool op this way: if you create a fair system, you get more miners.


You forgot to add: prone to good luck, short rounds and big payouts. But seriously, no reward system is prone to good or bad luck. On average you will have average luck and get average pay.


What? There's no way to improve expected income by pool hopping a properly implemented PPLNS pool. Not without being able to predict the future.

There is a lot of superstition in this thread.