Topic: █▓▒░-< [ZPOOL.CA][BTC Multipool] The miners multipool >-░▒▓█ Paid 925+ BTC - page 2. (Read 217685 times)

So where did the 20% go? (third time I ask this question, never answered)

I'm asking for data, I only repeat myself when the same lame unsupported speculations are posted over and over. And I always explain
the basis for my speculation with the available data. You don't do that. It's always it could be this or it could be that but never why it
could be.

Time for speculating is over, WE NEED DATA, another repetition.

I spent 20 years doing exactly this kind of problem solving. The only difference was I had all the tools I needed then. When I had a
theory I could prove it myself. I could collect the data myself, analyse it, chnage the code, and retest. A Major part of that is
designing the tests and avoiding extraneous variables. I can't help it it you can't appreciate professional problem solving techniques.

The only black hole is what happens between the time a block is cleared and credited to the users. But unlike a cosmological black hole
someone can actually observe this one.

I can't say I know or understand how the internal exchanging works when you're mining in exchange mode and with an address that is !=BTC but perhaps the share of BERN you earned is converted to BTC and virtually bought back?

Anyway, if you want to discuss this further I'd appreciate if you'd start your own thread.

I'm happy to help anyone with technical issues, mining problems, payouts not sent etc...

Yes.

Something is happening.

Don't say what it is unless you can prove what it is.  I agree that a proper block share % on a same-as-mined coin should be 98% of that block assuming you have 100% of the total shares.    Don't fall short on this recognition.  But without a full dataset of proof on the block rewards, then yes... I am skeptical and look into every possible cause.  I don't irrationally focus and make claims that I have no full evidence of.   I speculate.


It's like trying to prove a black hole exists without the math behind it.... only pointing towards a dark speck at the sky saying... look... see for yourself.

It's rather annoying that you just sit and repeat what you seem to hold as a fact without proof.  You have yet to verify the pool works the way you believe it is coded.

NO I don't see what you are saying. It's BERN to BERN, it's not an estimate, it's actual. One BERN will always be worth
exactly one BERN. That's grade 1 math.

Edit: you're just throwing shit out there to see if it will stick.

Overwhelming a thin market with a large sell order is always a concern as it would drive the price down and would always have\
a negative bias on profit. That is why I'm focussed on the same payout coin example. There is not actual exchange at an external
market, there is no need for internal conversion or estimates of any kind. It's all apples, no oranges.

Do you plan on backing out these changes to test?

very little proof... a very small dataset....  Just a graph showing an estimated value becoming an actual value....

Let me expand:
What were the rest of the statistics for those specific payouts to the wallets?

How were the estimates derived mathematically?  What variables are in that calculation and in what order to provide this result?


SEE WHAT I AM SAYING YET?

See how I keep pointing out there's more variables than people choose to focus on.

I did read that sentence but did not respond. My main concern was bringing back old lame excuses that had already been
rejected by data and sound logic.

To my knowledge there has never been a case with 100% (98% after mining fee) of a block by one user. That may be another
issue to be explored but I digress.

My personal observations, without verbose rationalization.

On the graph, regardless of the algo, everytime the balance goes up the total goes down. Bigger coins produce more visible results.
The size of the drop is alway proprotional to the size of the balance increase and can be visibly estimated at about 1/4.

I specifically oobserved an LBRY block that was maturing. The BTC value fluctuated as it matured as expected due to exchange
price variations. I noted the value just before maturing to compare with the balance credit for that block. It was about 20% less.

Other users have reported similar losses with various algos and various payout coins. Some have posted their data and analysis
in great detail. I have reviewed their claims and they are consistent with my observations.

One user demonstrated the problem when getting paid in the same coin as mined. Here it is...
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/zpoolcabtc-multipool-the-miners-multipool-paid-925-btc-1260863

All reports have been in the 15 to 30% range, always negative.

The has been no contradictory evidence or claims presented, only empty speculation about price volatility, exchnage fees etc
that have no bearing on the problem.

That's proof enough for me.

Looks like they came in from these commits:

https://github.com/tpruvot/yiimp/commit/ccd8bed2e6cd4fcc850eb536dbbe24ae974bdf80#diff-86f0d24e76ca2ce4adc469e207e25336

https://github.com/tpruvot/yiimp/commit/ee51f1936a3b2070420af54987f6de84b6546630#diff-86f0d24e76ca2ce4adc469e207e25336


Looks to be only cryptopia and the now defunct safecex. Not sure the exact reason why that is like that, but I suspect it's do to the low volume of the markets and the inability to sell all the coins at the bid price, so the orders would be set under it, it allow it all to sell...

It would make sense that on a system where you can mine any coin and get paid out in any coin, that the coin value is converted through BTC. A lot of alt coins aren't very liquid though, so they don't move in price very often, but when they do the price movement can be dramatic.
Looking at the code snippet, the *0.98 looks like a hard coded 2% fee. So it does make me wonder if there is a possibility that since the yiimp developer does not use autoexchange, that there might be a double fee application error there.

EDIT: And when I say coin value is converted through BTC, I do not imply an actual coin exchange function. The alt coins are payed out of a reserve balance system.

you misread as I state that's an issue that needs looked at in my reply above.

so you are telling me that you are certain you were earning 100% block reward  (by share submission) and no other miners has delta hashrate left over from a previous connection at that same time as your test?

What joblo said. It's not pre-estimating when there is no conversion to BTC, or at least when there should be no conversion. The payout size is actually very well known. Take BERN for example. One block is 250 coins. If I have mined 10% of one block I should get 25 BERN if I ask to get paid in BERN. Judging by the code, that might not be the case. Instead, we may have two redundant conversions; one conversion from BERN to BTC, and then another one from BTC back to BERN.

It's also very possible that there is something funky going on with BTC payments as well, but that's a bit more complex with more variables.

There you go again. There is proof of a problem. It has been proven by many users mining both coins that need
to be converted and coins that don't. And no one has demonstrated a correct block or overpaid block. There I go repeating myself
again.

The only thing that's estimated is the converted value. No conversion, value is real. That's why I'm focussed on mining the same payout coin.
If the pool mines a block of a coin with a block reward of one and I get a 10% share of that block I earned 0.1 coins, period. It's not an estimate.
It has been shown that the value of a cleared coin matches exactly the percentage share of a block.

Yes I have done some speculation and have backed it up with the available data and reasoning. I get frustrated when the same unsupported FUD is
spewed repeatedly. I then have to repeat myself to refute the bad analysis to avoid people getting more confused.

The problem is now defined as precisely as possible with the data available to users. Any further speculation is based on
fantasy not reasoning. We need data! You say there's no proof, I disagree. Regardless the next step is to collect more data.

If you think I'm wrong, do your own test. Mine a pool with only one coin to a walltet of the same coin. Monitor the blocks that are found.
You will see the amount and estimate are the same and are exactly the correct percentage of the block reward. The value will not fluctuate
while the block is maturing because it is the same coin. Then note the cleared value and compare with what was credited to the wallet.
If you get the cleared value or anything close to it I'm wrong.

Again, you are holding an estimate, a 'non-static value' (a pending/pre-paid assumption before share paid) as a known integer(your random cash exchange montra above), a static known value. 

We understand that Share%*98% is what you should theoretically be paid.   But again.... Theory.  The path of the result is unknown to most.  Is the pool getting 2% of all mined blocks, then the rest is divvied up?  What order does it happen in?  How would the resulting estimate be a different number between those two events?

Yes.  Some logic will interfere.  It inherently does.  This is why programmers are highly paid.... because they can understand, and think on these types of levels.   But sometimes... people miss details.  They stick one calculation before the rest and it work fine in all but one or two instances.

These are called bugs.


Now if it's a real problem (not meeting 100% in all daily payouts between everything it needs to be), yes.  that is serious.  But there is no proof of a problem.    Just some symptoms with no cause or hysteresis of proof in them.

But there's a very real chance, an equal chance or possibly greater that it could just be a display problem via the code....  remember, it's pre-estimating.  I keep repeating this.  Over and over again.

Nobody is questioning fluctuating balances. What we wonder is where 20% go during payout. Riddle me this: If I offer you $10 (that is 10 USD, not $10 worth of pesos) to wash my windows, how much do you expect to get paid? $10 or $8? If I mine 10 coins of something I expect to see 10 and not 8 coins of that something in my wallet, excluding the pool fee. Now if i DO offer you $10 worth of pesos and I DO mine coin X and get paid in BTC I DO expect the balance to fluctuate a bit.

i think this pretty much says it all

**** Total Unpaid is a combination of your confirmed Balance and your fluctuating total pending. This value will rarely be constant.

you can guesstimate how many coins you should be getting with your hash rate and go from there.. with mine, zpool is a clear winner..

But you yourself are speculating on an estimate.  Something that has always been labeled an estimate.   Just trying to say, don't discount things that are plausible.  You are guaranteed nothing until the funds are cleared and in your balance.  Period.   The investigations should keep this well in mind.

You are pointing at a calculation you do not fully understand and saying: "This result must be 20% higher". But not saying WHY through the flow of diagnosis of that calculation.    Especially after being given a very plausible and equally speculative answer to your speculation itself.

The fact that it shows a higher credit before than after on a same payout coin is a main issue to investigate.  It could be merely a display issue for all anyone knows. 

Understand how I see it?

BTW: No hard feelings meant.  Not at all.
I'm not trying to prove anybody wrong, but I am trying to decisively make this stay on track and not a poop-shoot of potentially incorrect data.   The focus is objective analysis of the estimate and exchange code.

Speculation has its place but must be reasonable and verified with actual data. 20% exchange cost on every block is not reasonable,
not supported by any data so far and incapable of being explained is any plausible way.
I assume it's every block because no one has yet demonstrated either a correct block or an overpaid block, but several have
demonstrated underpaid blocks.

What you suggest is also cheating because exchange to an altcoin doesn't incur exchange fees because it's done internally.
There used to be a message stating that only BTC payouts had an exchange fee applied but I can't find that message anymore.

Just because one person doesn't have the coins exchanged... doesn't mean the pool doesn't calculate the split in exchange costs between all users who have shares on that block....  unless this is a known factor... which I believe it's still unknown.

Instead of repeating yourself try answering this question I asked 2 posts ago.


You're not helping with your off target speculation, particularly because it has already been rejected with data
already available to users. We now need data that isn't available to users, not more speculation.