Topic: why isn't p2pool more popular than it is? (Read 6844 times)
I had been using P2Pool for a long time but my internet is shit so my getblock latency is high and I was getting too many stales. Switched back to Eclipse until I find a solution. If there is one. The internet around here is shit even though my town claimed to have put fiber in back in the early 2000's. I'm pretty sure they just buried some twine and embezzled the money.
Reposting from the p2Pool thread:
Just finished a multivariate Augemented Dickey Fuller test on the p2Pool data shares per round data since Novemeber last year, to find if a trend has actually occurred.
p value for trend occurring: 0.96
p value for drift occurring: 0.99
p value for no trend or drift in data: 0.019
So (and check this out, kano
) there has been no trend in the data since Novemeber last year.
Why does it look like there has been some kind of cyclical trend? This is probably due to the method used to illustrate "luck". Any interpretation is likely to vary from actuality in some way, and I recommend you don't use luck charts in general for any important decision about mining.
I'll try to post boxplots and smoothing spline results later.
p value for trend occurring: 0.96
p value for drift occurring: 0.99
p value for no trend or drift in data: 0.019
So (and check this out, kano
) there has been no trend in the data since Novemeber last year.Why does it look like there has been some kind of cyclical trend? This is probably due to the method used to illustrate "luck". Any interpretation is likely to vary from actuality in some way, and I recommend you don't use luck charts in general for any important decision about mining.
I'll try to post boxplots and smoothing spline results later.
well, i can believe that stratum is causing problems after observing its slowness. this would cause much more problems on p2pool then anywhere else.
cgminer was set to realtime priority (and also minerd affinity was 6 of 8 cores) before anyone mentions that
cgminer was set to realtime priority (and also minerd affinity was 6 of 8 cores) before anyone mentions that
Should be interesting to see the figures after this block hits...those numbers are about to take a huge hit (they only update when a block is found).
Now you can say the probability of being within a range is likely, but the probability of producing a downward trend for a few months isn't very likely at all.
As my tutor at uni used to write: PLEASE SHOW WORKING.
The statement: "the probability of producing a downward trend for a few months isn't very likely at all" as it stands is simply not true - for example if average luck at the start of a trend was very high, a downward trend would not be unexpected. Saying "it isn't likely" doesn't make it so.
You need to define "trend" better.
Especially as the sample grows.
Anyway, I guess looking at the graph now, vs last time, it has indeed jumped up again (to almost expected) then had another slope down after that.
The line I am looking at is of course the red one (30 day moving average)
From Nov 28 to Jan 20 was indeed an obvious trend down. However, since it is supposed to be a 30 day average, you'd expect a drop somewhere 30 days after the spike that pushed it up so high on the 28th Nov - certainly by the 28th Dec
The line from Dec 20 to Dec 24 might suggest it was ~30days before that.
The jump back up by Jan 24 may indeed show the exact opposite - that the drop ~24 Dec was simply an unlucky couple of days that move out of the average by Jan 24.
Anyway, look at the 7 day average (green), it does indeed jump up an down all over the place as would be expected of some random statistic.
But lastly looking at the 90 day average, that has indeed been a clear downward trend since 18 Dec ... and I'd say 2.5 months of that would be considered unlikely ... no maths provided
Now you can say the probability of being within a range is likely, but the probability of producing a downward trend for a few months isn't very likely at all.
As my tutor at uni used to write: PLEASE SHOW WORKING.
The statement: "the probability of producing a downward trend for a few months isn't very likely at all" as it stands is simply not true - for example if average luck at the start of a trend was very high, a downward trend would not be unexpected. Saying "it isn't likely" doesn't make it so.
You need to define "trend" better.
I was good at math, I just couldn't be bothered with it.......girls & beer were more my thing.....lol
Kano, it seems we were pretty accurate with our forecast:
Forecast, lol. It was a guess and giggle at best.
One can really only forecast things of which one has some understanding. Sorry if that seems harsh, but I'd really prefer you present your uninformed opinions as exactly what they are. Please don't give them the weight of an understanding you don't have.
The LUCK graph STILL looks like a downward trend.
Now you can say the probability of being within a range is likely, but the probability of producing a downward trend for a few months isn't very likely at all.
As to why it has that downward trend? Well that's another question all together that of course I have no idea what the answer is.
... but ... I never did well at stats in university coz I hated it
Kano, it seems we were pretty accurate with our forecast:
Forecast, lol. It was a guess and giggle at best.
One can really only forecast things of which one has some understanding. Sorry if that seems harsh, but I'd really prefer you present your uninformed opinions as exactly what they are. Please don't give them the weight of an understanding you don't have.
Organofcorti,
Please, lighten up a bit. Didn't you see the smileys?
It was a good guess though eh?
Or was it an accurate guess? lol
Kano, it seems we were pretty accurate with our forecast:
Forecast, lol. It was a guess and giggle at best.
One can really only forecast things of which one has some understanding. Sorry if that seems harsh, but I'd really prefer you present your uninformed opinions as exactly what they are. Please don't give them the weight of an understanding you don't have.
So ... what's the probability of a luck graph showing a pretty close to linear drop for 60 days?
Could be taking my life by my own hands here........breathing life back into this thread....lol
Kano, it seems we were pretty accurate with our forecast:
http://p2pool.info/luck/ and still falling...also hearing murmurings in the ranks.
This is tragic, really. I want the old p2pool back!!
Still, the times -they are a changing.......(singalong)
Quote from: organofcorti
The dots are a measure of the weekly average luck. Higher dots are worse luck, lower dots are better luck. BitcoinPool for example has had abysmal luck. p2Pools luck doesn't look unusual.
does HHTT have worse luck than bitcoinpool?
No idea - I don't have easy access to the pool's data. Fireduck was going to look into making a csv available, but nothing came of it.
Quote from: organofcorti
The dots are a measure of the weekly average luck. Higher dots are worse luck, lower dots are better luck. BitcoinPool for example has had abysmal luck. p2Pools luck doesn't look unusual.
does HHTT have worse luck than bitcoinpool?
well, i was using the stratum miner thing and i found 3 of those blocks.
at 8000mhash
in like 10 days
and i got about 10 btc instead of 75 =/
at 8000mhash
in like 10 days
and i got about 10 btc instead of 75 =/
So ... what's the probability of a luck graph showing a pretty close to linear drop for 60 days?
Generally, or in p2Pool's case?
Also when you say "probability" do you mean for an arbitrary number of rounds or an arbitrary timeframe?
I'm just saying that the graph shows an interesting decline.
Even if every point along that graph is within expected luck, what is the probability of actually getting that graph as it looks?
It does look like a somewhat linear luck drop over 60 days.
But of course I've no idea if it is even possible to determine that probability (the reason for the
)The probability of getting a graph like that for 60 days is obviously not 100%
So either it's common to expect luck to drop in that manner (I doubt it) or even possible that there is something systematically wrong with the production of the graph (no idea) or ... ?
So ... what's the probability of a luck graph showing a pretty close to linear drop for 60 days?
Generally, or in p2Pool's case?
Also when you say "probability" do you mean for an arbitrary number of rounds or an arbitrary timeframe?
So ... what's the probability of a luck graph showing a pretty close to linear drop for 60 days?
LOL!! Pretty darn good I reckon mate......
So ... what's the probability of a luck graph showing a pretty close to linear drop for 60 days?
The End 
I agree completely, but do you see my point? Someone who doesn't understand it will obviously go with the pool who's luck "appeared" to be good. It's a very natural thing to do, and an easy mistake to make.
.. and why it's extremely important to be an informed miner, and understand luck better. Luck doesn't trend, and I can't think of any way p2Pool's luck could be affected negatively - unless the data itself was wrong.
(great info you do by the the way).
Why, thank you - and I encourage you to post questions rather than statements when there's something you don't understand. It's the only way to learn.
Jump to: