do what you please but you will ruin a nice guide in the process. Some people have personal agendas and you should take that into account when adopting their "corrections". Just my personal opinion.
How dare he ruin a guide with facts.
Topic: Which is the best pool for mining? - A guide for choosing the right pool - page 6. (Read 161082 times)
November 09, 2011, 10:48:33 AM
How dare he ruin a guide with facts.
November 09, 2011, 10:45:41 AM
So given you accept that average reward is the same then for the sake of bias free article why not modify you parapgrah about rewards.
On average the reward will be the same but your paragraph only talks about instances where reward will be lower there is an exactly equally chance the reward will be higher so it makes no sense to talk about a scenario (naming Slush pool specifically) where a miner might get a lower reward. You could name both scenarios, and scenario of getting the average reward but why not get rid of all that.
I would recommend simply indicate that average reward for any fair pool is the same (unless the pool can be hopped). I would even add a sentence where the belief that PPLNS or score based pools "punish" miners is an urban legend. In long run each miner will receive the same value for their shares.
Then in a separate section talk about variance. Conflating the two and talking about only the downside scenario simply reinforces this mistaken belief about pool rewards.
On average the reward will be the same but your paragraph only talks about instances where reward will be lower there is an exactly equally chance the reward will be higher so it makes no sense to talk about a scenario (naming Slush pool specifically) where a miner might get a lower reward. You could name both scenarios, and scenario of getting the average reward but why not get rid of all that.
I would recommend simply indicate that average reward for any fair pool is the same (unless the pool can be hopped). I would even add a sentence where the belief that PPLNS or score based pools "punish" miners is an urban legend. In long run each miner will receive the same value for their shares.
Then in a separate section talk about variance. Conflating the two and talking about only the downside scenario simply reinforces this mistaken belief about pool rewards.
I plan to, but unfortunately don't have the time right now to revise it in a way that will do it justice, so I have edited the OP to request the reader to also read post#15 for clarifications.
do what you please but you will ruin a nice guide in the process. Some people have personal agendas and you should take that into account when adopting their "corrections". Just my personal opinion.
November 09, 2011, 10:16:51 AM
So given you accept that average reward is the same then for the sake of bias free article why not modify you parapgrah about rewards.
On average the reward will be the same but your paragraph only talks about instances where reward will be lower there is an exactly equally chance the reward will be higher so it makes no sense to talk about a scenario (naming Slush pool specifically) where a miner might get a lower reward. You could name both scenarios, and scenario of getting the average reward but why not get rid of all that.
I would recommend simply indicate that average reward for any fair pool is the same (unless the pool can be hopped). I would even add a sentence where the belief that PPLNS or score based pools "punish" miners is an urban legend. In long run each miner will receive the same value for their shares.
Then in a separate section talk about variance. Conflating the two and talking about only the downside scenario simply reinforces this mistaken belief about pool rewards.
On average the reward will be the same but your paragraph only talks about instances where reward will be lower there is an exactly equally chance the reward will be higher so it makes no sense to talk about a scenario (naming Slush pool specifically) where a miner might get a lower reward. You could name both scenarios, and scenario of getting the average reward but why not get rid of all that.
I would recommend simply indicate that average reward for any fair pool is the same (unless the pool can be hopped). I would even add a sentence where the belief that PPLNS or score based pools "punish" miners is an urban legend. In long run each miner will receive the same value for their shares.
Then in a separate section talk about variance. Conflating the two and talking about only the downside scenario simply reinforces this mistaken belief about pool rewards.
I plan to, but unfortunately don't have the time right now to revise it in a way that will do it justice, so I have edited the OP to request the reader to also read post#15 for clarifications.
November 09, 2011, 10:09:59 AM
... and get lucky on Slush pool for example and submit a share right after normalization...
But renormalization is just some internal maintenance, it doesn't affect anything, even variance :-). I think that relation between score renormalization and reward is yet another myth :-).
I mean - absolute numbers in score are meaningless. Everything important is YOUR SCORE / POOL SCORE. And they're both renormalized in the same way. Pool renormalization is something similar like 50 / 100 == 5 / 10 => after renormalization, there are lower numbers, but nothing is affected.
November 09, 2011, 10:05:19 AM
I think this comes from an unconscious focus on the negative. If there is a chance to sometimes earn more than expected and sometimes less, people only see the risk of sometimes earning less.
That's exactly what I see every day - majority of people have very strong aversion to any risk, that's the reason why majority of people are sticked on PPS pools, even when they're losing in long term because of higher fees. But they feel much more comfortable and safe, because they eliminated any possible risk.
November 09, 2011, 10:01:18 AM
So given you accept that average reward is the same then for the sake of bias free article why not modify you parapgrah about rewards.
On average the reward will be the same but your paragraph only talks about instances where reward will be lower there is an exactly equally chance the reward will be higher so it makes no sense to talk about a scenario (naming Slush pool specifically) where a miner might get a lower reward. You could name both scenarios, and scenario of getting the average reward but why not get rid of all that.
I would recommend simply indicate that average reward for any fair pool is the same (unless the pool can be hopped). I would even add a sentence where the belief that PPLNS or score based pools "punish" miners is an urban legend. In long run each miner will receive the same value for their shares.
Then in a separate section talk about variance. Conflating the two and talking about only the downside scenario simply reinforces this mistaken belief about pool rewards.
On average the reward will be the same but your paragraph only talks about instances where reward will be lower there is an exactly equally chance the reward will be higher so it makes no sense to talk about a scenario (naming Slush pool specifically) where a miner might get a lower reward. You could name both scenarios, and scenario of getting the average reward but why not get rid of all that.
I would recommend simply indicate that average reward for any fair pool is the same (unless the pool can be hopped). I would even add a sentence where the belief that PPLNS or score based pools "punish" miners is an urban legend. In long run each miner will receive the same value for their shares.
Then in a separate section talk about variance. Conflating the two and talking about only the downside scenario simply reinforces this mistaken belief about pool rewards.
November 09, 2011, 09:56:10 AM
OK, clarifications are in order. Both Rosenfeld and DrHaribo are correct. It was too hasty of me to outright declare that score-based and PPLNS pools are not suitable for intermittent miners. I request miners to read up on the links Rosenfeld has provided.
What I did mean, however, is that the high variance is potentially a deal breaker in these cases. Although the total reward over time averages out, for the intermittent miner, the uncertainty associated with high variance can be a real annoyance. If the intermittent nature is out of the miner's control, he/she is already frustrated with the unpredictable downtime, and the variance adds to the chagrin. If they are intermittent by choice, they would (i assume) look for some certainty for rewards when the do mine. That's why I think a reward system like PPS is more suitable (psychologically) for the intermittent miner where they know exactly how much they are getting paid for the x hours they mined today.
PS: Rosenfeld, both your links point to the same file, please correct that.
PPS: note for newbies (and some other users) -- please take a close look at the comments made by Rosenfeld, DrHaribo, Eleuthria and Slush and see how nice they were in making corrective remarks. They basically found faults with what I wrote and were so very civil about pointing them out. I keep seeing comments from some users in different parts of this forum that could really do with some maturity. Being nice doesn't hurt, you know.
What I did mean, however, is that the high variance is potentially a deal breaker in these cases. Although the total reward over time averages out, for the intermittent miner, the uncertainty associated with high variance can be a real annoyance. If the intermittent nature is out of the miner's control, he/she is already frustrated with the unpredictable downtime, and the variance adds to the chagrin. If they are intermittent by choice, they would (i assume) look for some certainty for rewards when the do mine. That's why I think a reward system like PPS is more suitable (psychologically) for the intermittent miner where they know exactly how much they are getting paid for the x hours they mined today.
PS: Rosenfeld, both your links point to the same file, please correct that.
PPS: note for newbies (and some other users) -- please take a close look at the comments made by Rosenfeld, DrHaribo, Eleuthria and Slush and see how nice they were in making corrective remarks. They basically found faults with what I wrote and were so very civil about pointing them out. I keep seeing comments from some users in different parts of this forum that could really do with some maturity. Being nice doesn't hurt, you know.
November 09, 2011, 07:23:07 AM
What you need to know in reality is how the above methods impact your rewards. If you are a casual miner who mines occasionally or if you run a rig that for some reason cannot maintain a stable connection with the pool (bad internet, hardware problems, miner freezing up, etc. etc.), then score-based and PPLNS pools are not for you. These pools punish the miner who, for whatever reason, does not or cannot maintain a stable mining operation at the pool for the entire duration of the round.
That's a myth. PPLNS and score-based are perfectly fine for intermittent miners, their average reward will not be affected.Yes, can this part of the text please be revised?
I use PPLNS in my pool and it's pretty common for people to think that if they mine intermittently they will get paid less than expected average pay. If you write that in a guide it will be even more difficult to explain to newbies how it actually works. It's true some shares are not paid, but sometimes shares are paid 3x over. The variance there evens out over time, and variance does not mean less total rewards.
I think this comes from an unconscious focus on the negative. If there is a chance to sometimes earn more than expected and sometimes less, people only see the risk of sometimes earning less.
PPLNS has higher variance than PPS, not lower rewards. Same thing with score-based methods.
November 08, 2011, 11:53:05 PM
eligius.st
November 08, 2011, 11:49:46 PM
What you need to know in reality is how the above methods impact your rewards. If you are a casual miner who mines occasionally or if you run a rig that for some reason cannot maintain a stable connection with the pool (bad internet, hardware problems, miner freezing up, etc. etc.), then score-based and PPLNS pools are not for you. These pools punish the miner who, for whatever reason, does not or cannot maintain a stable mining operation at the pool for the entire duration of the round.
That's a myth. PPLNS and score-based are perfectly fine for intermittent miners, their average reward will not be affected.Proportionate pools are also a prime target for pool hoppers, which can reduce the actual reward you earn, if the pool operator hasn’t taken measures to guard the pool against hoppers.
The only countermeasure is using a hopping-proof method like PPLNS, geometric and double geometric. Other proposed "countermeasures" generally hurt honest miners more than they do hoppers.For correct information about reward systems, please see Summary of mining pool reward systems and Analysis of Bitcoin pooled mining reward systems.
November 08, 2011, 10:25:22 PM
Nothing about security? I think that should be a high priority for everybody.
How do you verify that a pool has good security? And by security, do you mean whether your money is safe with them? Pooled mining largely depends on the trust people put in pool operators. You should, no doubt, only mine at pools that are well-reputed. It's fairly easy to read up on the comments about a certain pool in this forum to get a feel for that pool's integrity. November 08, 2011, 09:37:27 PM
Why I use the pool that I use: (all points SPECIFIC TO ME, YMMV)
Out of curiosity, what pool do you use? 
November 08, 2011, 08:52:48 PM
Before considering a payment method, one should find a pool that they can actually connect to, work with well....with a high submitted share rate, as well as low stales.
A pool can pay out 2x as much as another, but if you can only submit 70% total shares to that pool vs another...and your stale rate is double digits, then you are not doing yourself any favors.
Why I use the pool that I use: (all points SPECIFIC TO ME, YMMV)
- highest hourly submitted share rate (for my setup anyways, total shares submitted. YMMV).
- lowest stale share rate.
- incredible uptime.
- history (been around a while).
- charges a fee (yes, I am a FAN OF PAYING A FEE as I know the pool will be taken care of and will be around in a month).
- transparency (lot of data, past, present).
- stable performance.
I have tried so-called FREE/NO FEE Pools and made LESS...FAR LESS than I do at the Fee-Based PPS Pool that I currently use.
In short:
Take care of your own stats (and know them) before you go shopping for the 'best mining pool rate'.
A pool can pay out 2x as much as another, but if you can only submit 70% total shares to that pool vs another...and your stale rate is double digits, then you are not doing yourself any favors.
Why I use the pool that I use: (all points SPECIFIC TO ME, YMMV)
- highest hourly submitted share rate (for my setup anyways, total shares submitted. YMMV).
- lowest stale share rate.
- incredible uptime.
- history (been around a while).
- charges a fee (yes, I am a FAN OF PAYING A FEE as I know the pool will be taken care of and will be around in a month).
- transparency (lot of data, past, present).
- stable performance.
I have tried so-called FREE/NO FEE Pools and made LESS...FAR LESS than I do at the Fee-Based PPS Pool that I currently use.
In short:
Take care of your own stats (and know them) before you go shopping for the 'best mining pool rate'.
November 08, 2011, 07:48:26 PM
Nice guide, thanks!
One thing I'd like to add on the backup pool section is that when choosing 1st backup pool it's worth considering one of the PPS pools out there. At least for me when I'm mining on a stable pool for a day I still get up to 40 or so shares submitted to my 1st backup pool, for some reason or another. And if that pool was score based or proportional, I'd get diddly squat for my shares, but on PPS pool I'm getting at least something. And given time it all adds up. =)
One thing I'd like to add on the backup pool section is that when choosing 1st backup pool it's worth considering one of the PPS pools out there. At least for me when I'm mining on a stable pool for a day I still get up to 40 or so shares submitted to my 1st backup pool, for some reason or another. And if that pool was score based or proportional, I'd get diddly squat for my shares, but on PPS pool I'm getting at least something. And given time it all adds up. =)
November 08, 2011, 04:25:31 PM
Nothing about security? I think that should be a high priority for everybody.
November 08, 2011, 01:59:33 PM
Good info kislam, thanks!
November 08, 2011, 01:04:41 PM
Well, that part about rewards in score system still isn't perfect, but better than original version, thanks 
.
. November 08, 2011, 12:44:00 PM
Edited to reflect corrections/comments from Eleuthria and Slush.
@slush, I simply love your pool, man. You're among my top three, especially since your heroic efforts during the DDoS and server migration problems
I mention 'only' for the payout method because i would like to have both options
@slush, I simply love your pool, man. You're among my top three, especially since your heroic efforts during the DDoS and server migration problems
I mention 'only' for the payout method because i would like to have both options
November 08, 2011, 12:30:59 PM
Hm, I see "slush" 4x in the text, so I feel I should reply.
*headdesk* *headdesk* Why you don't write that I *benefit* those who connect before round finish? That you can earn much more just for few seconds of mining? Texts such this are one-sided and I really don't understand why all those people are so much concerned about this point. This "feature" of score based systems is not here for punish anybody for unstable connection or whatever. No matter when you disconnect and connect to the pool, your average payout will be the same. It's fact and a lot of text has been written about it, not just by me.
Only? So typical case - "setup wallet, threshold and forget" is worse than need to clicking every few days to manual payout? Pool allow you to withdraw even 0.01 from your account, to 8 decimal places. Payouts are done every 15 minutes, if you are really hurry, just setup threshold 0.01 and wait few minutes.
Quote
These pools punish the miner who, for whatever reason, does not or cannot maintain a stable mining operation at the pool for the entire duration of the round. If mining with slush, for example, getting disconnected for just 5 minutes will reduce your score to virtually zero and if they find a block at that time, you get paid nothing, even though you mined with them for the last 4 hours.
*headdesk* *headdesk* Why you don't write that I *benefit* those who connect before round finish? That you can earn much more just for few seconds of mining? Texts such this are one-sided and I really don't understand why all those people are so much concerned about this point. This "feature" of score based systems is not here for punish anybody for unstable connection or whatever. No matter when you disconnect and connect to the pool, your average payout will be the same. It's fact and a lot of text has been written about it, not just by me.
Quote
Some pools, like slush, only give you the option for automatic payouts
Only? So typical case - "setup wallet, threshold and forget" is worse than need to clicking every few days to manual payout? Pool allow you to withdraw even 0.01 from your account, to 8 decimal places. Payouts are done every 15 minutes, if you are really hurry, just setup threshold 0.01 and wait few minutes.
November 08, 2011, 12:30:49 PM
Nice guide, spotted one error though. Deepbit does not pay for invalid shares, they pay for invalid blocks.
Jump to: