Yeah, I'm pretty sure that is right, but I doubt the 150% claim. Just like I doubted the 10% claim for deepbit. He did the math again and said the miners at deepbit were .2% lucky.
Of course those statements do not contradict each other. I'm just trolling QFT. |
|
|
|
150%? I think you might need to check your math
This has been discussed ad inifitum. Im not going to second guess people like Meni Rosenfeld on this. Theoretically there is no upper limit to how much you can increase your profitability through hopping, and you could achieve over 200% provided you have an infinite number of pools to hop. How much is possible in reality, taking in to account the hashrate and number of hoppable pools, stales, latency etc, well, Im not saying thats 150% but whatever it is, Im sure you would be in a better position to tell us. |
|
|
|
So someone paying 117% would by your math just lose money hoping? I did not look into these number (photo wont load). Just asking.
No, you can not conclude that. And you should (and probably do) know that. You have to take in to account the amount of shares submitted by hoppers compared to constant miners. A hopper could easily extract 150% profit while costing the combined constant miners "only" 10%. It purely depends on the ratio. Moreover, hoppers can hop multiple pools. |
|
|
|
I just analyzed Bitclockers stats and posted the results here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=61985.msg737310#msg737310No need to for any regression analysis there me thinks lol Short story: poor (/idiot) constant miners there are paying 10-12% to the hoppers, +2% fees to the pool. I also tried calculating that for deepbit using second intervals, but either I screwed up somewhere or its statistical noise with pool luck and stales being a bigger factor, as I ended up getting about 0.2% better than expected earnings for constant miners. |
|
|
|
Does the extra hashing power from the hoppers help to find blocks that the pool wouldn't have found otherwise
Of course. The amount of blocks found is proportional to the average hashrate. evening the rewards out in the end? Of course not. the hoppers benefit from the short blocks, while not suffering nearly as much from the long ones. Its a zero sum game, if someone wins, someone else has to lose. Hoppers win, constant miners therefore lose in a proportional pool I read something to this effect in a pool hopping thread and was curious as to your opinion. Is there some way to use your data to find out? I already calculated the cost for non stop miners. On bitclockers they lose 10-12% compared to 100% PPS or hop proof pools. Oh, I just checked, there is also a 2% fee on top of that lol! So they lose 12-14% compared to say, bitminter. |
|
|
|
I just parsed bitclockers' last 98 blocks (I eliminated 2 blocks that had to be wrong, probably pool being offline) since December 29  Ouchie. I also did the math. An non stop miner that produces 100 shares per minute would actually have earned 195.8 BTC.Average earnings, so what youd expect if there was no hopping would have been 215.5 BTCTBH, the penalty wasnt quite as bad as I had thought, its still a ~10% penalty. When I focus only on the last 50 blocks since mid January, that rises to a little over 12% the non stop miners there are giving to the hoppers.. Ill try to calculate hoppers' profits when I get back |
|
|
|
Oh, I wanted to add something about p4man's claims about pool hopping at deepbit. I will say point blank I am not involved in this and I'm pretty damn sure GPUMAX is not either.
Quote possible you didnt get around their anti hopping measures (looking at the stats, I dare say others did), but deepbit isnt the only proportional pool in town. It might be the only one trying to counter it. For instance BitClockers seems to "enjoy" 6-700GH worth of hoppers for ~200GH of nonstop miners. Ouch! http://bitclockers.com/statisticsThat amount seems to line up fairly well with your quoted numbers: ABC is 400G
I'm 200G
Clipse is 60G
GPUMAX is at least 120G how much more I don't know. Interesting that you'd know those btw. ABC and CPUmax may advertise it, but Clipse doesnt afaik. |
|
|
|
My best guess is that its used for poolhopping. I recently looked at the stats of deepbit and found that ~10% of their hashrate is from hoppers, despite their anti hopping mechanisms: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=62975.0There are many other proportional pools, most of them I think dont even take any measures against hoppers. As for the things that concern me most about these schemes: - GPUMax sells their miners hashing power to the highest bidder. There are legit uses for this, like pool ops testing their pool or kickstarting a new one, desperate to solve a long block etc, but at the end of the day, there is no telling who will buy it and how it will be used; if gpumax becomes big enough, in combination with DDoS, 51% attacks might one day become feasible and actually cheap. - The other 100+% pps pools might contribute to this, possibly unknowingly. I think everyone agrees they redirect their hashing power elsewhere, wherever that is, without full disclosure and trust of the unknown recipient of their hashing power, there is no telling it doesnt end up with the some person also buying hashrate at GPUmax. - Clipse has been lying about how he uses his hashpower. For a long time he insisted it was for some scheme to easier convert fiat in to bitcoins and be less reliant on exchanges (while in reality, in his scheme he would clearly become more reliant on exchanges since he would need to convert 15% more fiat money to btc). I notice he has finally changed his post now and removed the lies, but the fact he did doesnt not exactly fill me with confidence. My position is that I will not rent out my hashing power without knowing exactly how its used. But exploitation of proportional pools is something I have less problems with. Someone is going to do that anyway, you have to be a retard to mine there (and not hop). IT would be good if we could somehow reach those miners and explain to them they are giving non trivial % of their revenue to hoppers, but in the end, its their own fault for not doing any reading. Id only object if pools proclaim to be hop proof when they are not. |
|
|
|
I can't register an account as it seems. I don't have OpenID and I don't want it. :/
Why not? On every pool you have to sign up and create an account anyway. Why would you trust a pool with that data more than an OpenID provider? If you are truly paranoid, you can even make your own openid provider. |
|
|
|
Do you really not understanding why we are asking this
No. But if you like lots of blank space, here you go":  I even resisted the urge to add to -100.000 I guess what you really wanted me to show was this:  While what you really should see is this:  I can stretch and zoom it any other way you want, it keeps showing a little under 10% hopping. |
|
|
|
Bitclockers would be a great one. Their stats are fun to watch. A new block starts and they will jump to 700 - 900 GH/s, then like clockwork at ~40% their hashrate plummets to 100 - 150 GH/s. Those poor miners making up the 150 GH/s are getting raped like a two bit whore.
Eeeck. I think this chart on their own website already shows what you mean:  Im having a vague idea when they found blocks looking at that. Ill see if I can plot it against their blocks tomorrow. I got a feeling its indeed not going to be pretty  |
|
|
|
]I was talking about monitoring all the hoppers, not the total/average hashrate.
Okay, but even so, the hoppers might just have "pooled together" now. |
|
|
|
Now that's an interesting observation/comment. Months go when I was arguing with Meni about hopping I was putting forward proposition that smaller pools might be more vulnerable, and larger pools would be more stable. Therefore I would expect the smaller pools to show more pronounced changes and trends.
I guess what really proves hopping is the % difference in hashrate, regardless of it being a small or big pool. But with a small pool, it might be difficult to get enough data points, without spanning such a long time that all sorts of things might factor in. But hey, I dont mind trying. What other proportional pools do you know that we could look at? |
|
|
|
I don't think that it's related to 115% pools because I'm monitoring all the hoppers (in the process of developing automatic detection) and there were no any changes in their volume when those projects appeared.
Well, maybe I misunderstood you, but if some miners moved from deepbit PPS to these 115% proxy pools that are hopping deepbit and others, you wouldnt expect to see a big difference in hashrate. Youd might lose some hashrate on the longer blocks, potentially win some at the beginning of blocks or on short blocks from miners that didnt mine at deepbit before. Not very conclusive IMO. If you are saying these proxy pools registered at deepbit and you are monitoring their behavior.. then that begs the question why on earth they would pay 115% to redirect the hashrate to a pool that pays out 97%, if its not for hopping? |
|
|
|
Automation; it would be cool the get home and from your android device "touch" a button that will open your gate, give you illumination, turn on your TV or radio on your favorite station and power up your system, just to find yourself wasting time in front of the PC 30 seconds later.. I dont want to have to touch any button! I want bluetooth or NFC to unlock the front door for me. I never understood that. Just about every car built in the last decade has at least remote control central locking, and I have yet to see a private house front door that opens with anything other than a key. Seriously.. think about it. 5+ years ago I had a keyless go system in my car so I didnt even have to press a button to open the doors. Just be close to it. Why isnt that a standard feature on houses ? |
|
|
|
|
Give cgminer a try.
Even cgminer will spill shares to your backup pools now and then, particularly when receiving a long poll, but its only a few % and it does reconnect to the primary pool if it went down and comes on again.
Having fan/clock/voltage control and a few web management interfaces is a good reason to try cgminer as well.
|
|
|
|
ok, if you take the max at 55,000 and a decline to 50,000, then you get 10%. I wonder if the noise in the chart over-states it. Might only be from 53k to 51k. Either way, it's useful to have a snapshot of data.
The data covers just over 100 blocks that where shorter than 10 minutes. Im sure someone will soon calculate 95% probabilities, but I dont think noise is likely to explain it. It could be over- or understating it though, thats for sure. My main point is they are being hopped, Im fairly confident the data proves that. Even if its just 5%, I wonder if that couldnt match the hashrate of those 115% PPS fake pools. Add to that they all seem to suffer from high stales, and Im getting quite certain thats whats going on. They are probably not just hopping deepbit, but deepbit are obviously the biggest one, and perhaps the easiest to show it for. |
|
|
|
Missing the definitions of the different axes, I assume Y = average hash speed and X = block duration.
Yeah, its in the text. The point about graphing the Y axis from zero would better show how much (or little) decline there is. For instance, is deepbit losing 5% or more from hoppers, or less. It is hard to tell given the way it is presented. Speed never drops to zero. As i said over and over, its just blank space at the bottom. Or top, why not add a lot at the top? The chart is fairly clear I think, from the sampled data there seems to be about 10% hopping. Anyway for those who want to play with the data and make their own charts (incl from zero), here is the spreadsheet http://www.mediafire.com/?ebamgh0fmkrrl45Its in ODS format (open office). Charts are on the second sheet. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
