 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: « 1 [2]
|
Unfortunately, you should only do that if you really want to hurt the pool. Assuming it uses the same rounds for both proportional and PPS it will receive less than it pays you for the shares when the block is finally solved. The PPS part only averages out right for the pool owner when the PPS users put at least the same hashing power in short rounds as in long.
But if they put less effort, then there is less shares to pay for. To hurt PPS pool you would actually need to not submit the winning shares. |
|
|
|
Variance alone does not make a pool hoppable. Only unfair payout system does. Otherwise, good luck with hopping a roulette in the casino - it also has large variance  |
|
|
|
It is not the hopper's fault that there are miners who submit shares with low EV. It is, however, the hopper's fault that there are miners who submit a disproportionate number of shares with low EV. That wouldn't happen if there were no hoppers. (Unless you had some kind of crazy reverse hopper who specifically chose to disproportionately submit shares with low EV.) True. But submitting shares with low EV is already a mistake They are forcing you, because someone has to sell shares to the pool for cheap or the pool will stall. And the hoppers aren't doing it. They don't force any one particular person to do it, but they force someone to do it. (Or the pool dies.)
Daaa. If the pool uses crappy reward system then let it die or change the reward system to be fair. There are other pools with fair reward systems. If you are ok with getting low EV then don't complain about hoppers, if you are not ok with the low EV, then nothing easier, switch to a fair pool. |
|
|
|
|
Effective share value = BTC pool balance / number of shares submitted to the pool
Expected share value = 50/difficulty
Efficiency = Effective share value / Expected share value
This formula does not take into consideration luck involved with mining.
|
|
|
|
|
After several days of hopped mining my efficiency for different pools are as follows: 102%, 113%, 57%, 180%, 145%, 109%, 143%, 100%.
Your number may be higher or lower, who knows. But this should give you some information.
|
|
|
|
Consider 2 miners. One hopper and one non-hopper. Imagine that both of them have 1GH/s. It takes both of them 4s to generate a share. Now one goes gives that share to a pool which offers a lot for it, but the other gives that share to a pool which offers less. What is immoral in that? As I explained, pool hopping breaches the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing between miners. And really, the pool does not offer less for a share because of hoppers. It there were no hoppers that pool would still offer less for that share. That is incorrect. The pool really does offer less for a share because of hoppers. The expected payout per share is based on how many shares have already been accumulated towards the current block. The lower that number, the higher the payout per share. Now, consider a pool's hash rate. The more pool hoppers the pool has, the more the pool's hash rate will go up when there are fewer shares accumulated and will go down when there are more shares. The share count resets to zero when the pool finds a block, which is determined only by the average hashing power. So more pool hoppers means more of that average hashing power comes out at low share counts and less at high counts. This means the pool spends more time at high share counts than it does at low share counts. For a non-hopping miner, the average payout per block is solely depending on the average share count. This goes up with more pool hoppers because the hash rate goes down when the share count is high, leading to more time spent at the higher count. I do see a lot of defense of pool hoppers based on misunderstandings of the mathematics. The analogy to coal miners sharing a vein is apt. The more mine hoppers in this case, the less time the miners spend mining a vein (because there are more people mining then, so it goes faster) and the more time the miners spend trying to expose a new vein (because there are fewer people mining then). Well you are right, that in a pool with pool hoppers miners will be paid less if there won't be pool hoppers. But this is only because the pool hoppers will compete with miners over the hot deals, while they will leave "bad deals" intact. Since you mentioned math lets agree first on some facts, ok? 1) When the block is still being solved, share submitted with sequence number 100 has higher expected payout value than share submitted with sequence number 100000. (Proof draft: When submitting share number 100 or 100000, there is still the same expected number of shares needed to solve the block, that means the total number of shares will be higher in the latter case) 2) When there are no hoppers, miners submit shares, where some of them have expected value > 50 / difficulty and some of them have expected value < 50 / difficulty. In the long run, the expected value of all shares together will average to 50 / difficulty. 3) With hoppers: hoppers do not submit shares with expected value < 50 / difficulty. However they submit shares with expected value > 50 / difficulty. That means 24/7 miners will receive less shares with expected value > 50 / difficulty. That way, those shares submitted with EV < 50 / difficulty by 24/7 miners will no longer be offset by the highly paid shares and in the long run such miner will receive less than 50 / difficulty per share. However it is not hoppers fault, that there are miners who submit shares with low EV. Seriously, if you found ounce of gold and sold it for 1/3 of it's market price and later you tried to sell other ounce of gold for higher price than market price without success, would you really blame other people for your loss? Hoppers are not forcing you to sell your shares to the pool for cheap. If you sell it for cheap, than it is purely your own responsibility and don't talk about covenant. We don't run a charity here and we will not skip hot deals just because you are doing bad deals with your shares. |
|
|
|
Where my argument is invalid? Or di you mean that you argument was invalid and mine just similar?  Consider 2 miners. One hopper and one non-hopper. Imagine that both of them have 1GH/s. It takes both of them 4s to generate a share. Now one goes gives that share to a pool which offers a lot for it, but the other gives that share to a pool which offers less. What is immoral in that? And really, the pool does not offer less for a share because of hoppers. It there were no hoppers that pool would still offer less for that share. |
|
|
|
Since stories about miners are popular, let me post one to One day, after working hard in a mine together for a whole day, two miners go to a market. Each of them has 1 ounce of gold. At the market the average price is $1/ounce of gold. Bob offers however $2/once and Steve offers $0.1/once. both miners goes to Bob and sell their gold. Next day is similar. After working hard in a mine together for a whole day, the same two miners go to a market. This time Bob offers $0.1/ounce and Steve offers $2/ounce. First miner goes to Bob, but second miner goes to Steve to sell his gold. After that first miner says to the other one: - "Why did you go to Steve, instead of Bob ?!" - "Because Bob was paying crap today" - "But yesterday we both went to Bob!" -  - "I thought that we were friends. But you left me when the times are tough!" - - "You are an immoral cheater! If we go to a war and we will be on the same side, then I'll shoot you!" - |
|
|
|
|
JoelKatz. But what prevents other miners from your description to change to a better mine, when they are done with easy money?
But ok, if someone joined them, was acting as if he is there to stay longer and everyone was cooperating with that assumption, investing in him both emotionally and with money, but the guy deceived them - then yes it is unethical.
Now, what it has to do with mining a bitcoins and Hoppers? Nothing. JoelKatz, btc miners are not really cooperating with each other. Not at all. We are actually competing - for very limited resources which is 50 BTC/10 minutes. More miners, less money.
Mining pools are not real mines, where miners become buddies and they have to trust each other with their lives. A pool is just a proxy which pays you more often than if you mined solo, by reducing the variance.
When you submit the share to a pool you know, how much is it's expected value. If it is really small, then whose fault it is that you are submitting share to such a mine. Definitely not mine fault or none of the hoppers.
The PROP payout system is broken and unfair. But you are the only person who takes a responsibility for giving away your share to a pool which will pay less for it. The pool also takes responsibility for misinformation - name "proportional" is very misguiding and pool should clearly inform you that sometimes it will pay you less.
Now, why do you expect me to go submit a share for a less amount of money to some pool just because you are submitting such a share for less money? I'm declining to submit shares for less than 50/difficulty. I value my time and my hardware. I'll be happy to submit the share to the pool which offers the most for it and educate other people to do the same. But if you decide to submit your share for less, it is your choice and don't blame hoppers. I don't deceive anyone, I openly admin that I work for the pools which offer the most money, and there is nothing unethical about it.
|
|
|
|
|
Unethical, is that a joke?
What is unethical in finding a job which pays the most for one hour of your work?
If there are many pools and they pay differently per share, than what's unethical in choosing a pool which pays the most? Prop pools offer more money for some shares and less money for other shares.
If a miner chooses to submit a share to a pool which pays less that other pools then it is not a honest miner - it is either a miner who doesn't care about money or just plain stupid.
It just happens that if everyone is willing to work for less, then everyone is actually paid the same for a single share in the long run, but there is nothing not ethical in not be willing to work for less. Everytime you submit a share to a PROP pool which has >= 43%*difficulty shares already submitted, you submit a share knowing that it will be worth less than 50/difficulty BTC. Pool hoppers don't steal from anyone. People who submit their shares for less then those shares should be worth are basically accepting underpayment.
As long as people are willingly submitting their shares for the EV less than their fair price and as long as PROP pools will offer more money for some other shares, hoppers will hop and submit shares where they are worth the most.
|
|
|
|
I don't have the numbers from the top of my head, but in the bithopper thread there is quite a lot posts about theoretical/real world statistics and about variance and options how to reduce it. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=26866The thread is quite long and not very organized, so it might be rather time consuming to search through it. However you have a good chance of finding some answers to your questions there. |
|
|
|
|
Some numbers from simulation I mentioned above:
- Miner submitted total of 70,000,000 shares. Used pools with share submission ratios: 210, 165, 11, 55, 5, 2.5 times higher the tested miner ratio.
- Miner submissions were not accounted towards the block completion (it might have had some impact the smallest pools).
- Difficulty: 1890362. Share value as in PPS: 2.644996e-5.
- Standard deviation and variation calculated on the average share value for batches of shares of size 21600. (1GH/s * 1 day)
- OldDefaultScheduler: Average share value: 5.453634e-5. Standard deviation: 6.54271e-5. Variation: 4.2807e-09
- DefaultScheduler: Average share value: 5.316599e-5. Standard deviation: 5.39707e-5. Variation: 2.91284e-09
- HybridScheduler (<20% OldDefaultScheduler, > 20% DefaultScheduler): Average share value: 5.02669e-5. Standard deviation: 4.86141e-5. Variation: 2.36333e-09
In all cases the standard deviation of "daily" average was comparable to the to the average share value, which I'm not exactly sure how to interpret. Does it even make any sense?
|
|
|
|
|
And a side question:
Since we cannot identify the owner of block in any way other than checking the stats on a pools website or by guessing, then what prevents the pool operators from not admitting that their pool actually found a block and take the income to themselves?
|
|
|
|
A slice is simply a amount of time allotted to mining on a given pool, so its slices time, keeps track of slices and uses that to switch between 2 eligible pools
Are slices size calculated based on amount of shares the pool already have or they are just equal? Did anyone run simulation on some sample pools with OldDefaultScheduler and DefaultScheduler to see what is the different in efficiency and variation/standard deviation ? I tried to run a simulation on it, but the efficiency numbers I got (I will share them when I get back home) for those schedulers were very close - and the difference was smaller than standard deviation on average daily efficiency). That result is actually surspised me since, I'd think that mining in a pool which is 20% instead in a pool which is 2% done should have a big difference in the estimated share value. The deviation was something like 2x smaller for the DefaultScheduler compared to OldDefaultScheduler. If my numbers are wrong and in fact there is a big difference in efficiency for those schedules, it might be interesting to simulate a hybrid scheduler like this: a) If there is a pool with number of shares less than < some_fixed_ratio * difficulty (i.e. some_fixed_ratio = 20%) then use OldDefaultScheduler b) otherwise, use DefaultScheduler In theory it should have smaller variance than OldDefaultScheduler and better efficiency than DefaultScheduler. In practice, well, who knows |
|
|
|
I guess it is more likely that you will mine for 100 days and not find the block at all. And it sucks exactly the same way |
|
|
|
|
I've similar problem in my laptop. Normal hash rate is 120Mh/s, but when it turns of the display it drops to 60Mh/s. I tried changing all power settings to use always best performance but it didn't help.
I ended up with a workaround with - very dark screen dim (instead of turning off) and changing the close lid setting to not go to sleep (it will turn of screen without a hash rate loss).
I also would appreciate if If someone could point to the right way to deal with this thing.
|
|
|
|
Argh the wait is killing me. Was going to join a PPS pool but couldn't post, so I had to make an account. Spent 8 hours reading here yesterday without an account - now mindlessly wandering around reading Bonkers posts about leaving fridge open to cool the room  That's the idea! Or maybe I should move the fridge to my room and keep my right in there. Still not too sure which noise is more annoying, the one from the fridge or from the rigs. |
|
|
|
Does slush payout a full 8 decimals yet?
The main thing i look for in a pool are low (read:no) fees, automatic payouts, and full account payouts (all 8 digits to the left of the decimal)
2% fee. Smallest is 0.01 This is also for deepbit. Only the smaller ones have full payout. Ninjacoin.com is paypershare, so you get a fixed amount for every valid share you submit, which means no variance etc and you dont have to wait for a block to be solved to get paid! Ars bitcoin is also a nice PPS pool. No fees, friendly interface and steady payout without variance. https://arsbitcoin.com/index.php |
|
|
|
Hello. Another newb in the block I started mining a week ago or so and slowly building some mining farm. |
|
|
|
|
