Yes the value of the coins add very little to today's profits in terms of GAAP accounting, but merged mining does not cost anything to do.
Actually it does. A new block header and template needs to be sent to all clients every time the merged coins have a new block on their network. If this results in even 0.1% more stale shares on your miner, then you've lost money compared to just mining BTC+NMC. If it results in 1% more stales, then you've lost money compared to just mining BTC alone. |
|
|
|
You can do that, unless you want to mine more profitable coins automatically...
Well that's the thing.... I would rather NOT mine all the "more profitable" coins automatically. Most of the time I don't agree that they are "more profitable". For example: Just because coinwarz deems that Mazacoin is more profitable for 5 minutes, I would rather keep on mining BTC. So as a request, would it be possible in the future to have some coins disabled in my multipool account? So I can say in the settings: Yes, please mine Zetacoin and Myriad, but all other coins I don't want to participate and would rather continue with my first priority coin. Or is this already possible, and I just haven't yet found the feature... hm, nope, I don't think so...This is not really possible with the current architecture. I suggest you auto withdraw and auto-sell the coins you don't want to hold. |
|
|
|
GHASH.IO vs ELIGIUS.ST
Which pool is more profitable. Its seems GHASH.IO more appealing. What you say?
Ghash is effectively more profitable. They both merge mine namecoins but ghash mines dvc and ixc as well. They are both worth basically nothing but that little bit does make a difference. Does it? A new template has to be generated every time DVC and IXC block changes. If this increases your stale rate by even 0.1% it's a net loss. my stale rate isn't even .00001% so it's not an issue. Already made money off my ixc that I mine. If the other pool operators weren't so greedy this wouldn't be an issue. But the greed of miners enabling a 51% attack for 0.05% higher profits is not an issue? Nope because it's the developers fault not mine. Good to know where your priorities lie. |
|
|
|
GHASH.IO vs ELIGIUS.ST
Which pool is more profitable. Its seems GHASH.IO more appealing. What you say?
Ghash is effectively more profitable. They both merge mine namecoins but ghash mines dvc and ixc as well. They are both worth basically nothing but that little bit does make a difference. Does it? A new template has to be generated every time DVC and IXC block changes. If this increases your stale rate by even 0.1% it's a net loss. my stale rate isn't even .00001% so it's not an issue. Already made money off my ixc that I mine. If the other pool operators weren't so greedy this wouldn't be an issue. But the greed of miners enabling a 51% attack for 0.05% higher profits is not an issue? |
|
|
|
|
Makefile is missing in src/leveldb
|
|
|
|
Finding a active dev or two wouldn't do any harm either......  FTFY To be fair though, both norgen and windpath have been doing some good stuff lately, but we need more to pick up the sizeable slack What happened to the LTC that was given to forrestv to develop p2pool? |
|
|
|
You do not understand what you are talking about. And at the same time you do understand what you are talking about. Wow that must be very hard on your mind.
Here is what I agree with. Your theory is: multi pool's gear sucks and they jump all over the place with broken gear they are stuck with
Let me clear this up. Multipool doesn't own any gear, other than a 30GH BFL little single in my garage. We proxy BTC hash from our users to larger pools (currently Bitminter) to reduce our Bitcoin payout variance. We pay out the rewards received from the larger pool on a proportional basis based on shares submitted since the previous payout. Our software is a custom stratum proxy that rewrites the worker name and saves each share to the DB on our side after the share is accepted by Bitminter. Other Stratum commands are proxied unaltered. There is no way for me to withhold blocks, in fact doing so would decrease our profits by around 20% so what incentive do I have to do this on a pool whose sole purpose is to maximize profits? I would lose all my users. Shit, I lost about 50TH just because of the low profits while getting into Bitminter's PPLNS. We have been operating for over a year. If you want to know how trustworthy we are, come into our thread and ask our users. You people need to do some research before throwing around baseless accusations (not you Philip, but others). |
|
|
|
Yes, they claim to be solving blocks at cex.io, but apparently 100% of their hashrate has been mining at Bitminter. I wonder if they could be submitting work to both pools simultaneously? What you see on our stats page are the payouts from the pools we proxy our hash to. |
|
|
|
We had some good luck and then some even luck. We haven't been having bad luck for some time. Look at the reward graphs at https://bitminter.com/stats/rewardsThe slightly bad luck I was talking about was Multipool alone. With their mining alone it is slightly bad luck that they haven't found a block yet. Which is completely normal. The pool as a whole is currently having even luck, though, because others are finding blocks. Some miners in the pool are having good luck while others have bad luck. The pool is evening this out. This is one of the nice things that pools do. The reward model at Bitminter does not punish you for coming and going. You can mine part time at the pool and the pay is still fair. Mining more does not change the pay you are going to get for the mining you already did. Like Blackjack, the hands you already played are done, there is no way to influence the winnings any more for those hands. But unlike Blackjack, the winnings have not been revealed yet. If you mine 12 hours per day at Bitminter, then you will on average make 50% of what you would get for mining 24/7. I say on average because the luck during the 50% you mine may not be the same as the 50% you don't mine. But over time that will even out. Bitminter is not vulnerable to pool hopping. That's a technique where you hop between pools, timing it so that you get paid more than your fair share. The reward model at Bitminter was chosen specifically to make this impossible. Whether you earn more or less at Bitminter when you jump in and out of the pool is completely random. There is no way to predict whether mining pay at Bitminter in the next few hours will be higher or lower than other pools. Pool hopping was a way that some miners earned a lot more bitcoins at vulnerable pools, at the cost of the miners who were not pool hopping. I believe there are still a couple pools that are vulnerable to pool hopping. But the art/scam of pool hopping seems to be forgotten - I don't think any miners are doing it anymore. You could try to switch between pools based on religious or superstitious beliefs. Maybe you believe luck is not random but related to karma or sin. Or maybe you believe that past luck influences future luck (this is called Gambler's Fallacy, you can read about it on Wikipedia). Maybe you belong to a Cargo Cult (also on Wikipedia) - you saw someone restart his miner and then he found a block. Now you believe restarting the miner increases the chance of finding blocks. All those beliefs go against all logic and science. I have never heard of anyone who is able to earn more bitcoins this way. But if you want to try it, you can. Bitminter won't punish your earnings for mining part time in the pool. Doc are you even paying attention? BTCGuild and Eligius users have both been ripped off by large users that withheld blocks. Being suspicious of an anonymous company that somehow claims to charge no fees mining BTC at your pool (guaranteeing themselves a 1% loss if they are honest) isn't being superstitious, it's being practical. a) I'm not anonymous, I'm very un-anonymous actually. Multipool is a company registered as CryptoFish, LLC in California as it states in our footer. I've posted numerous articles online using my real name. Our thread here is 275 pages: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=167635.0 b) I don't lose anything by proxying our users' hash to Bitminter, the fees are passed through to the miners. c) My fee is 1.5% on the altcoins that we mine when we're not on bitcoin. People also donate. Since we're on Bitcoin about 80% of the time, we need a stable pool we can proxy our hash to. Unfortunately in order to attract BTC hash, you cannot charge a fee. This is because the two of the three largest BTC pools do not charge a fee (cex and Eligius). So it's not a simple matter to attract hashrate if you charge a fee, especially if you're a 'new' pool. Many miners expect the pool to be free, which is not reasonable imo, but there it is. d) We just moved to Bitminter a few days ago and I still haven't had time to change all the references to cex.io on the site. We are fully on Bitminter now, assuming we're on BTC and not on another coin. We have never mined on BTC Guild. |
|
|
|
uhm.. first btc block by multipool, i see they had also a few nmc blocks..
If they're the same bad actor that has plagued BTCGuild and Eligius, they've demonstrated that withholding blocks is a feature, not a bug in their software. They can turn it on/off at their discretion. WTF? Conspiracy theory much? |
|
|
|
How can pools be reliably inhibited from growing too large?
. By educating people (miners) about variance and how small of a factor it is compared to other factors (assuming a pool is at a sufficient size.) Variance can be a large factor assuming that the bigger pool can get you closer to 100% Variance is not a large factor with any pool over 1PH. Other factors have a higher influence on overall profits. Math here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=651450.msg7301307#msg7301307
Another issue with ghash is that they offer merged mining that can increase profitability by ~3% and merged mine coins that have no value now but could possibly in the future (basically a lottery ticket) but the coins are held at the pool so there is no need to download a client of a shit coin.
ghash's merged mining does not increase profits by anywhere near 3%. In fact IXC and DVC are worth so little that merged mining them probably increases stales shares more than the potential profit to be made. Namecoin is less than 1% (0.84% at the time of this writing), and the other two are more like 0.01-0.05% each. You can speculate that they may be worth more in the future, but that really has no place in a calculation of today's profits. |
|
|
|
GHASH.IO vs ELIGIUS.ST
Which pool is more profitable. Its seems GHASH.IO more appealing. What you say?
Ghash is effectively more profitable. They both merge mine namecoins but ghash mines dvc and ixc as well. They are both worth basically nothing but that little bit does make a difference. Does it? A new template has to be generated every time DVC and IXC block changes. If this increases your stale rate by even 0.1% it's a net loss. |
|
|
|
None of the large mining operations are going to want the haphazard payouts of any of the smaller pools no matter what features they offer, and as stated, they will not give a crap about ideals, all they would care about is adding more miners to their racks while writing off their tax, and swiping the BTC in the process, and the constant almost hourly blocks mined on ghash.
If that be true, how to you tackle that mindset, is it tackle-able?
Start with the fact that Bitcoin difficulty doesn't change every hour. In fact it doesn't even change every week. So finding 'hourly' blocks should not be anywhere near as important as people think it is. People put far too high a premium on some nebulous thing called 'variance' and need to be educated on why other aspects of pools are more important. Like, for example, do they actually payout their rewards properly? |
|
|
|
So after reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_distribution#Mean.2C_variance.2C_moments_and_median, the variance of any exponential function can be calculated as: E(x) = 1/lambda. Var(x) = 1/lambda^2 So, does that mean lambda for any particular expected block time can be expressed as 1/E(x)? And then Var(x) would be 1/(1/E(x))^2. If this is the case, variance at even a fairly low pool hashrate is a much lower factor than most people seem to think. For example, a 1PH pool at the current difficulty, has a theoretical variance over a 10-day difficulty adjustment period of only 4.87%, far lower than many other factors that could influence profitability, and for a 5PH pool that figure is lowered to 0.97%. At 5% variance over two Bitcoin difficulty periods, assuming one 'unlucky' period where profits were 5% lower than expected, and one 'lucky' period, where profits were 5% higher than expected, the profit lost would only be 0.5%. At this level, many other factors become more important than a pool's payout variance. Looking for someone to tell me my math is wrong here.  |
|
|
|
I can't seem to find the X11/X13 parts of this site. Is there an X11/X13 port set up yet?
The x11 port is 11111. There is currently no x13 port. |
|
|
|
How can pools be reliably inhibited from growing too large?
. By educating people (miners) about variance and how small of a factor it is compared to other factors (assuming a pool is at a sufficient size.) |
|
|
|
cex has zero incentive to give up any hashrate considering it's their main profit now (fees from trades within their system) Why do you think they have a 0% pool in the first place?
The hashrate they employ for the Gh/s traded on CEX is not the problem. Many miners unrelated to their services choose their pool to mine and that's contributes causes the majority of their pools hashrate. It's because people choose to mine there that it has all this hashpower, not because they are using half of the asics in this planet. I think you misunderstood my post. What I said was they [must] make a lot of their money from trade fees now. So their incentive is to get as many coins into their system as possible. Providing fee-free pools to outside miners is just another way to accomplish this. And a reason they have zero incentive to limit outside hash. |
|
|
|
|
cex has zero incentive to give up any hashrate considering it's their main profit now (fees from trades within their system) Why do you think they have a 0% pool in the first place?
|
|
|
|
|
So a lot of people have been throwing around the term 'variance' as a defense of why they want to mine at only the largest pool.
Does anyone have a method of calculating the variance, both over a day and over a bitcoin difficulty period (10-12 days) based on difficulty and hashrate? I started looking around on some sites but the math is a bit over my head.
I think if we can show that variance is not really an issue when using a smaller pool (down to a certain threshold, anyway), people will be more likely to move away from giant pools like ghash.
|
|
|
|
I still can't seem to be able to mine BTC with this pool.
Until 2-3 days ago, everything was working fine on the EU high diff server,
now no matter what I do it keeps on mining only like 10% of the amount of BTC I was used to.
At the moment I switched to mining MYRH directly, works ok.
I hope BTC mining will work again soon, I will do a check later this week.
What's with the EU bitcoin direct mining ports anyway?
Is it the summer heat?
We had a couple days of bad profits while we worked our way into Bitminter's 40-hour PPLNS. That said, today we had stellar BTC profits due to good luck at Bitminter. We will continue to have slightly higher variance on a daily basis than we did with ghash, but overall profits should be higher and on a 'BTC difficulty period' basis, the variance should be hardly noticeable. Since 18 hours ago I started mining with bitminter directly. It takes a while before I will have 10 shifts and a little "good luck"... I see... so that's the reason why I recieved no profit at all with multipool the last days... ofcourse it takes a while to work your way in. (40 hours ?) I'll probably return to multipool.us next week if bitminter works fine. But since multipool mines with bitminter, I might just as well stay at bitminter. You can do that, unless you want to mine more profitable coins automatically... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
