fahhem
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 10
Ignore


April 20, 2011, 11:23:29 PM 

Hey guys,
I'm working on starting up another pool to increase the options available, but I'm not as knowledgeable about the implementations so I'm hoping somebody could help me out.
How should I go about calculating the pool performance (Mhashes/s and GHashes/s) from the number of valid getworks (the ones that result in a hash smaller than the minimum difficulty)? From some basic math, I've figured it's 4*valid_getworks GHashes/s, but I'd like confirmation (or rebuttal).
I'm using scorebased payout according to slush's pool but I'm willing to change that if users are interested in another cheatresistant/proof method.
Thanks!







Transactions can optionally carry transaction fees. Whoever mines the block which ends up containing your transaction will get the fee. The Bitcoin client will sometimes force you to pay a fee when it thinks that no miner will accept your transaction otherwise. Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.


grndzero


April 20, 2011, 11:32:21 PM 

I don't see a need to startup another pool using the same strategy as someone else. There's already 2 proportional and 2 score based. You might want to have a look at this http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4787.0 HolyFire thinks he's got a method that is better against cheating than the current pool strategies in place. I don't know whether it is or isn't, but he might help you implement it.

Ubuntu Desktop x64  HD5850 Reference  400Mh/s w/ cgminer @ 975C/325M/1.175V  11.6/2.1 SDK Donate if you find this helpful: 1NimouHg2acbXNfMt5waJ7ohKs2TtYHePy



fahhem
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 10
Ignore


April 21, 2011, 01:53:42 AM 

Yeah, I was looking at that earlier. I'll contact him for the proof he mentioned.
Does anybody know the correct calculation for GHashes/s based on getworks? Or is there another way to calculated it?




[Tycho]


April 21, 2011, 02:48:39 AM 

Yeah, I was looking at that earlier. I'll contact him for the proof he mentioned.
Does anybody know the correct calculation for GHashes/s based on getworks? Or is there another way to calculated it?
You can't calculate hashing luck from getworks. Anyone can request them at any rate.

Welcome to my bitcoin mining pool: https://deepbit.net  Both payment schemes (including PPS), instant payout, no invalid blocks ! ICBIT Trading platform : USD/BTC futures trading, Bitcoin difficulty futures ( NEW!). Third year in bitcoin business.



fahhem
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 10
Ignore


April 21, 2011, 03:56:03 AM 

Yeah, I was looking at that earlier. I'll contact him for the proof he mentioned.
Does anybody know the correct calculation for GHashes/s based on getworks? Or is there another way to calculated it?
You can't calculate hashing luck from getworks. Anyone can request them at any rate. That's why I qualified it with valid getworks earlier, those are getworks that are also submitting previous work with a valid hash.




[Tycho]


April 21, 2011, 04:02:20 AM 

Yeah, I was looking at that earlier. I'll contact him for the proof he mentioned. Does anybody know the correct calculation for GHashes/s based on getworks? Or is there another way to calculated it?
You can't calculate hashing luck from getworks. Anyone can request them at any rate. That's why I qualified it with valid getworks earlier, those are getworks that are also submitting previous work with a valid hash. Multiply to 71. That will be some kind of guesstimation.

Welcome to my bitcoin mining pool: https://deepbit.net  Both payment schemes (including PPS), instant payout, no invalid blocks ! ICBIT Trading platform : USD/BTC futures trading, Bitcoin difficulty futures ( NEW!). Third year in bitcoin business.



fahhem
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 10
Ignore


April 21, 2011, 04:14:06 AM 

Multiply to 71. That will be some kind of guesstimation.
How did you arrive at that number? I read something about each getwork being 2^x hashes worth of work, but I forgot what x was and can't find that post again. It may have been 2^18 or 262,144 hashes, which would mean 4 getworks is 1MHashes of work? That seems to match slush's stats (deepbit doesn't say how many getworks there are).




dbitcoin


April 21, 2011, 04:18:37 AM 

Multiply to 71. That will be some kind of guesstimation.
How did you arrive at that number? I read something about each getwork being 2^x hashes worth of work, but I forgot what x was and can't find that post again. It may have been 2^18 or 262,144 hashes, which would mean 4 getworks is 1MHashes of work? That seems to match slush's stats (deepbit doesn't say how many getworks there are). 1 minute timedelta (60sec) hashrate = (shares_per_timedelta * (2 ** 32)) / timedelta) to Mhash/sec: hashrate / 1000000 ~71,5




fahhem
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 10
Ignore


April 21, 2011, 04:24:25 AM 

Multiply to 71. That will be some kind of guesstimation.
How did you arrive at that number? I read something about each getwork being 2^x hashes worth of work, but I forgot what x was and can't find that post again. It may have been 2^18 or 262,144 hashes, which would mean 4 getworks is 1MHashes of work? That seems to match slush's stats (deepbit doesn't say how many getworks there are). 1 minute timedelta (60sec) hashrate = (shares_per_timedelta * (2 ** 32)) / timedelta) to Mhash/sec: hashrate / 1000000 ~71,5 where did you get the shares_per_timedelta from? It looks like you answered my question indirectly. Each share is one valid getwork and 2**32 hashes, so therefore valid_getworks * (2**32) / (10**9) = GHashes/s. Thanks!




geebus


April 22, 2011, 01:04:48 PM 

Multiply to 71. That will be some kind of guesstimation.
How did you arrive at that number? I read something about each getwork being 2^x hashes worth of work, but I forgot what x was and can't find that post again. It may have been 2^18 or 262,144 hashes, which would mean 4 getworks is 1MHashes of work? That seems to match slush's stats (deepbit doesn't say how many getworks there are). 1 minute timedelta (60sec) hashrate = (shares_per_timedelta * (2 ** 32)) / timedelta) to Mhash/sec: hashrate / 1000000 ~71,5 where did you get the shares_per_timedelta from? It looks like you answered my question indirectly. Each share is one valid getwork and 2**32 hashes, so therefore valid_getworks * (2**32) / (10**9) = GHashes/s. Thanks! It works like this... Minutes_to_Average = 5 Delta = 60 * 5 Current_Shares = The total number of shares submitted in the round Shares_Before_Delta = Shares submitted before Deltaseconds ago Total_Hash/s = (((Current_Shares  Shares_Before_Delta) * 2^32) / Delta) Ghash/s = (((Total_Hash/s / 1000) / 1000) / 1000)

Feel like donating to me? BTC Address: 14eUVSgBSzLpHXGAfbN9BojXTWvTb91SHJ



fahhem
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 10
Ignore


April 24, 2011, 08:01:56 AM 

It works like this...
Minutes_to_Average = 5 Delta = 60 * 5
Current_Shares = The total number of shares submitted in the round Shares_Before_Delta = Shares submitted before Deltaseconds ago
Total_Hash/s = (((Current_Shares  Shares_Before_Delta) * 2^32) / Delta)
Ghash/s = (((Total_Hash/s / 1000) / 1000) / 1000)
I was inclined to believe this was true, but upon further thought, I don't think so anymore. Each share is simply some hash that's below the minimum difficulty. There can be 0, 1, 2, or more of these hashes in a single getwork response. While a getwork response is worth 2**32 hashes of work, a share isn't necessarily worth that much. Looking at how other pool calculate their hash speeds, it seems they assume each getwork has, at least on average, a single valid share. Is there a way to find which getwork created a share? That way, I can disregard doubleshare getworks and have a more realistic pool measure.




xenon481


April 24, 2011, 01:30:11 PM 

Shares and GetWorks are completely and utterly unrelated.
There is an expected number of hashes that you have to calculate on average before you find a share. The expected number of hashes is dependent upon the difficulty. All current pools use a difficulty of 1, so the expected number of hashes per share on average is 2^32.
It is only a coincidence that the number of possible hashes in a GetWork is also 2^32. There is absolutely no causation between the two.

Tips Appreciated: 171TQ2wJg7bxj2q68VNibU75YZB22b7ZDr



fahhem
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 10
Ignore


April 24, 2011, 06:04:33 PM 

Shares and GetWorks are completely and utterly unrelated.
There is an expected number of hashes that you have to calculate on average before you find a share. The expected number of hashes is dependent upon the difficulty. All current pools use a difficulty of 1, so the expected number of hashes per share on average is 2^32.
It is only a coincidence that the number of possible hashes in a GetWork is also 2^32. There is absolutely no causation between the two.
Ohh ok, so it's based on the difficulty. Thanks!




