 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »
|
|
i am facing problems with the pool last few days. intermittently my miner is falling back to backup pool. anybody else facing the same problem?
|
|
|
|
Please add a cumulative graph comparing total earning over time for both methods, or at least a weighted average trend line for the PPLNS reward. Otherwise it is not readily apparent how the rewards from two methods compare over time...
That's exactly what I was missing, thanks! Added: https://bitminter.com/stats/rewardsI removed the first shifts (proofs of work are grouped in shifts, each of size difficulty/10). I started recording these before I switched to PPLNS, so the first ones naturally had no rewards. This is just 46x difficulty worth of proofs of work. We are a small pool, and it wasn't always PPLNS, so we don't have that much data to go on yet. You can see some bad luck in the beginning put us below average. Then a nice streak of good luck put us at about twice the expected earnings. From there up until now it's been pretty average. Right now we are having a really bad block, which is the reason for no earnings towards the end. Luckily we had some short blocks just before that. Obviously the big lucky streak at the beginning takes a while to even out. Ending at 29 rather than 23 BTC is a big difference. Since switching to PPLNS we made 58 blocks rather than the expected 46. Too small sample size maybe? Any other pool ops have some data? Nice graph. The title is a bit misleading, though -- instead of saying "PPLNS vs. Expected Average" it should probably say "Pool earnings vs. expected average". The higher earning came from pool luck, not from the reward method. |
|
|
|
Simulations are one thing, real life data is quite another.
I added a new statistics page at my pool showing real life data: http://bitminter.com/stats/rewardsYou can see how actual payouts compare to the expected average income per share (basically 0% fee PPS). I can probably improve this with some stats for "all time average" and "average last X time", but I think it is already useful. There are also charts of the pool's luck here: http://bitminter.com/stats/luckQuick way to get some data without taking months to run a test.  Please add a cumulative graph comparing total earning over time for both methods, or at least a weighted average trend line for the PPLNS reward. Otherwise it is not readily apparent how the rewards from two methods compare over time... |
|
|
|
|
it just worked for me a while ago...
|
|
|
|
Instant payment is not working for me. Getting the message "debugging bear with us trying to validate bitcoin address" - what gives? following the forum link at http://bitclockers.com/forums/index.php?topic=422.0 wasn't much help since it's not resolved there either. only says that there are some problems with co-location providers. |
|
|
|
|
is the pool lagging again? my miners have failed over to backup a while ago...
kislam
|
|
|
|
you don't have to, we have ppl around that can simulate any situation over a long period of time... Simulations are one thing, real life data is quite another. I am disappointed by the (lack of) response from the PPLNS proponents/supporters, though. This test could potential prove their very important point that PPLNS reward method does not negatively impact the intermittent miner over the long run, compared to other methods. No takers? |
|
|
|
I am getting a new 5830 in the next few days. I propose to set up the card to mine round-robin at PPLNS, PPS and Prop pools over an extended period, just to see how the payments (after adjusting for fees if the pool charges any) stack up against each other. Since there has been a lot of disagreement with PPLNS and intermittent mining and long-term results, i am thinking round-robin setup in cgminer can simulate the intermittent nature of mining. Please suggest:
* Pool(s) for each category (PPLNS/PPS/Prop)
* Mining software most suitable for this test run (cgminer seems best to me)
* What should be the total time frame for the test run - i mean, what time frame is long-term enough to average out the different variance levels?
* Basis of comparing the earnings - OTTOMH i think it might be ok to compare average reward per share from each pool, but pls suggest better ideas
* Any other suggestions...
Once set up, I will publish the API key for each pool account so that anyone can monitor the progress.
Ideas?
There is no disagreement mate. We all know that PPLNS / Prop suck and that PPS is really the only viable pool system. Only solo is better when you have the power. People using Prop / PPLNS deserve to be cheater by pool hoppers, have a ton of variance and cheated by pool operator. Sheep do your research ! I think numbers speak louder than anything else. So I think this can be a useful demo that comes up with some solid figures which can be referenced later on. I request everyone to offer constructive ideas. |
|
|
|
|
I am getting a new 5830 in the next few days. I propose to set up the card to mine round-robin at PPLNS, PPS and Prop pools over an extended period, just to see how the payments (after adjusting for fees if the pool charges any) stack up against each other. Since there has been a lot of disagreement with PPLNS and intermittent mining and long-term results, i am thinking round-robin setup in cgminer can simulate the intermittent nature of mining. Please suggest:
* Pool(s) for each category (PPLNS/PPS/Prop)
* Mining software most suitable for this test run (cgminer seems best to me)
* What should be the total time frame for the test run - i mean, what time frame is long-term enough to average out the different variance levels?
* Basis of comparing the earnings - OTTOMH i think it might be ok to compare average reward per share from each pool, but pls suggest better ideas
* Any other suggestions...
Once set up, I will publish the API key for each pool account so that anyone can monitor the progress.
Ideas?
|
|
|
|
Move on all you want but you guide turned into little more than an unresearched biased filled blog about pools and features you happen to like. Which is sad. It could have been a useful resource for the forum and new miners.
Yes, I will move on. Reward system was just one of many parts of the guide and PPLNS is just one reward system of many. It seems like the only people complaining so much about errors are those who have vested interest in PPLNS. I don't have a problem with that, but I do believe my time is better spent elsewhere. Gotta draw the line somewhere. Condemn the guide all you want, but I know it will help newcomers make a little more sense of the quite daunting task of choosing the right pool for them. |
|
|
|
Pools exist to reduce a miner's variance without significantly affecting his expected payout and maturity time, and some reward systems do this better than others. Some systems make different tradeoffs between the three which are suitable for different miners.
Pools do _not_ exist to reduce a miner's variance, they exist to reduce the operator's variance. Over a long enough period, solo mining will earn the same as pooled mining for a fixed hash rate. The primary reason an operator sets up a pool is to reduce the time taken to find blocks by increasing total hash rate. A pool does not get set up with the target to benefit the miners. The operator has something to gain, if not fees then at least the higher frequency of finding blocks that pooled mining allows as opposed to solo mining. And please stop advertising your work so much. Your work is quite admirable, for sure (big fan, actually), and providing a link to it when applicable is perfectly fine. But it doesn't warrant posting twice in someone else's thread. Are you dense .. "Over a long enough period, solo mining will earn the same as pooled mining for a fixed hash rate." Variance is deviation from expected value. This has greater effect on shorter periods of time. Are you human ... Please come out from behind your technical terminology and mathematical models for a second and try to look at it from an average miner's point of view. Only time will tell which reward method wins out in terms of popularity. It may be that all pools only support PPLNS in the future, but there is also a non-zero, positive, non-negligible probability that everyone drops it because miners simply started avoiding pools with PPLNS. In the end, being the best or fairest reward method matters little if the end users are not willing to accept/adopt it. The majority is always right. We'll just have to wait and see... |
|
|
|
PPLNS pools could help by showing a lifetime revenue & lifetime shares and lifetime expected value. When people can see "hey I am getting within 1% +/- of PPS then it doesn't really matter if the payments are a little lumpy.
Why bother? Easier to just mine PPS instead. In fact, I am getting tired of all this hair splitting. This guide is NOT about one single reward method. Enough has been said about this one issue and miners can form their own opinions regarding which method is suitable for them. Moving on. |
|
|
|
Pools exist to reduce a miner's variance without significantly affecting his expected payout and maturity time, and some reward systems do this better than others. Some systems make different tradeoffs between the three which are suitable for different miners.
Pools do _not_ exist to reduce a miner's variance, they exist to reduce the operator's variance. Over a long enough period, solo mining will earn the same as pooled mining for a fixed hash rate. The primary reason an operator sets up a pool is to reduce the time taken to find blocks by increasing total hash rate. A pool does not get set up with the target to benefit the miners. The operator has something to gain, if not fees then at least the higher frequency of finding blocks that pooled mining allows as opposed to solo mining. And please stop advertising your work so much. Your work is quite admirable, for sure (big fan, actually), and providing a link to it when applicable is perfectly fine. But it doesn't warrant posting twice in someone else's thread. |
|
|
|
To clarify, when you say "expect" are you referring to the concept of "expected value" from the theory of probability or something more along the lines of "a high chance of receiving at least a certain amount".
From my recommendation of using PPS pools in this scenario it should be clear that I meant the latter.
If you are concerned about the latter it would be worth pointing out that mining for a few hours at a small PPLNS pool (say N = [difficulty]) has a definite, positive, non-negligible probability of paying out 0 BTC (similar to how a lottery ticket can end up being worthless). This is one aspect of PPLNS that many miners (even 24/7 miners) find psychologically difficult to handle and, consequently, I feel it is a fair criticism of the reward system.
I did not want to bring that up in order to avoid adding further technicality in this particular thread that attempts from the beginning to be non-technical. The PPLNS method also does away with the concept of rounds (or rather, it disregards round boundaries), which is another psychological hurdle for the average joe. Once a round is finished, if you have submitted shares, you expect (no relation to probability theory) to receive some reward. Fancy mathematics will have a hard time convincing the miner to wait for the long run when his rewards will average out. |
|
|
|
And please let off with the "Same Value in the Long Term" argument. While perfectly valid in statistical terms, it has little relevance to the intermittent miner since it's far more important to know how much reward he/she can expect to earn for a given period of mining.
Then say that. Don't say they punish people. A little bit of wording can go a long way. Also note my other points above. Scores decay exponentially if the miner is disconnected. How is that not punishing the disconnection? |
|
|
|
The average reward will even out over the long run, but that also means you will need to stick to that one pool over an extended period in order to reap the expected reward.
That's wrong. You could mine in a different score-based fair pool every day, and your total rewards will still converge to the average. That still defeats the point by restricting the miner to a small number of pools, which would have to be similar in nature, at least for the fee system. Good luck with that. zero-fee PPS
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. PPS needs to take a fee to maintain stability; and, conversely, PPS has a lot of advantages so it is reasonable to pay a fee for it. I think going forward we'll have stable 1%-2% fee PPS pools. zero-fee PPS pools do exist. Whether they are sustainable over the long run is another matter altogether and quite beyond the scope pf this discussion. Whether fees are reasonable or not can only be decided by the open market system. Users will not accept fees if they do not perceive getting adequate value for that fee (as long as there is a lower fee alternative available). proportionate pools do not have the intermittent issue
That's wrong. Even setting aside the hopping issue, proportional pools have higher variance than a PPLNS pool with the default parameters. So if PPLNS is bad for intermittent miners, so is proportional. I have already mentioned that proportional pools have higher variance than others, in the second line of the very paragraph you are talking about. |
|
|
|
Sad I thought the OP was going to update it to be objective and instead simply threw in even more confusing edge cases.
PPLNS don't punish intermittent miners.
PPLNS miners will receive same value per share in long run regardless of how they mine.
The "guide" is now not something link worth (when noob asks for info on pools) and instead just another worthless personal "belief" based on superstition and half truths.
Sad because the OP spent a large amount of time and was articulate but it was wasted because he couldn't get away from personal biases.
If you have taken the time to go back and check whether I have updated the guide to be objective, you should have at least read it carefully enough to notice that I have taken out PPLNS from the sentence about reward methods punishing intermittent miners. Please get your facts right before calling something worthless. And yes, there are personal biases - I have mentioned before that this guide is based on my personal experience with different pools, with an aim to make it easy to find a comfort zone for the newcomer. And please let off with the "Same Value in the Long Term" argument. While perfectly valid in statistical terms, it has little relevance to the intermittent miner since it's far more important to know how much reward he/she can expect to earn for a given period of mining. |
|
|
|
This might have already been said, but under Pool Reward Method you forgot DGM and SMPPS, which happen to be my favorite methods.
Also, are you planning on editing and maintaining this? There are quite a few instances where you talk about specific features of a certain pool. However, these things often change and you would have to come back in and modify a sentence here and there.
At the beginning of the guide I provided links which discuss all the reward methods and asked readers to read up on them before going through the guide. Also, I did mention SMPPS and also that there are other reward methods as well. |
|
|
|
|
OK, I have modified the pool reward method section. It now reflects my opinion regarding the suitability of reward method for a particular type of miner while trying to be un-biased. Please note that this guide focuses on finding the comfort zone for the miner. Highly technical mathematical proof has little relevance here - the primary goal of this guide was to actually avoid such technical discussion (which are available aplenty elsewhere in this forum) and offer an experience-based, subjective guideline to the newcomers who can get seriously confused with all the hype and over-the-top discussions. I have mentioned a few pools by name because that made it easier to explain with an example, and I don't believe the readers are naive enough to think they are the only pools to have the example feature.
If my guide hurts your pool in any way, sorry, that wasn't my intention at all. I am not affiliated with any pool and if your pool offers better value than others then you will win more users anyway.
|
|
|
|
So given you accept that average reward is the same then for the sake of bias free article why not modify you parapgrah about rewards.
On average the reward will be the same but your paragraph only talks about instances where reward will be lower there is an exactly equally chance the reward will be higher so it makes no sense to talk about a scenario (naming Slush pool specifically) where a miner might get a lower reward. You could name both scenarios, and scenario of getting the average reward but why not get rid of all that.
I would recommend simply indicate that average reward for any fair pool is the same (unless the pool can be hopped). I would even add a sentence where the belief that PPLNS or score based pools "punish" miners is an urban legend. In long run each miner will receive the same value for their shares.
Then in a separate section talk about variance. Conflating the two and talking about only the downside scenario simply reinforces this mistaken belief about pool rewards.
I plan to, but unfortunately don't have the time right now to revise it in a way that will do it justice, so I have edited the OP to request the reader to also read post#15 for clarifications. do what you please but you will ruin a nice guide in the process. Some people have personal agendas and you should take that into account when adopting their "corrections". Just my personal opinion. Why do you think I am taking the time to formulate an appropriate response/rewrite? I definitely want to be impartial and mathematically correct, but also need to get across my own take on this very important issue without being influenced by 'personal agendas'. cheers... |
|
|
|
|
