Whatever new model will be used, the old EC from the current system should be carried over, as TheSeven already pointed out.
Not doing this will punish the loyal miners and will damage the image of Eligius. Because who is to say that the model will not change again in the near future and will the loyal miners again loose their EC?
I for myself will consider this risk when evaluating the various pools next time.
PPLNS doesn't have EC. Nor does this fear of losing EC make much sense, rationally speaking: - New miners are losing out pretty bad under the current SMPPS system, and PPLNS will be a welcome change to them.
- Old miners have already made more from SMPPS than other reward systems would have paid for the same luck, at the expense of these newer miners.
It seems the complaint more-or-less boils down to, old miners want new miners to continue subsidizing them in times of bad luck. I do realize this is probably not the intention of the old miners, but I think they (and everyone) need to carefully look at the logic behind this and realize that's how it works out in practice. Also, please keep in mind that I am in the same boat. I have quite a bit of EC piled up myself, and am not very happy with recent luck trends or the direction we must take to move forward either. |
|
|
|
Am I correct that the SMPPS could potentially be in debt and as a result it will take *forever* for someone to reach max payout? I've been mining 48 hours now with 1 GHash and I've only gotten paid like 0.10 BTC. I guess that's kinda sad, but it seems like I need to wait forever until I get to my max payout which is over 1 BTC.
SMPPS can't be in debt because it doesn't promise anything more than it has available. The way SMPPS implements that is a big flaw when it comes to new miners, which is why change is being considered... Well it never pays out more than it has, but it's considered debt because it has to continue to pay out after the miner has quit mining. Thus it's considered a debt. So as more people leave, the longer it will take to pay out the remainder you're owed.... I suppose it's like social security. The last ones in get... screwed. It's not considered debt, because it's not guaranteed you'll ever get it converted to Bitcoins. Otherwise, this sounds mostly right. What's the issue with new miners? Is there an explanation for this? I guess I shouldn't have just jumped onto Eligius? I was tired of Mt Red's downtime  Well, as you just noted, "the last ones in get screwed": that's new miners. You're welcome to mine of course, but unfortunately chances are Eligius-Ra will leave you with a lot of extra credit when all is said and done. |
|
|
|
Am I correct that the SMPPS could potentially be in debt and as a result it will take *forever* for someone to reach max payout? I've been mining 48 hours now with 1 GHash and I've only gotten paid like 0.10 BTC. I guess that's kinda sad, but it seems like I need to wait forever until I get to my max payout which is over 1 BTC.
SMPPS can't be in debt because it doesn't promise anything more than it has available. The way SMPPS implements that is a big flaw when it comes to new miners, which is why change is being considered... |
|
|
|
There are a few issues with the Ztex driver, and since it seems Nelisky has disappeared, I think it would be a good idea to order one of each for myself so that I can maintain it properly. If anyone with Ztex boards would like to donate toward this goal, I have setup an address: 1HcJMz6iTMcBS5NxzRqM5UpTAnC9fmuQqsRegardless of whether you donate personally, please do report any issues you have with BFGMiner or any of its drivers. Disclosure: ZTEX GmbH offered a generous discount for development use, and I have already ordered the Ztex boards on my own. Donations are to help cover the direct cost to me, since this is mainly for others' benefit. |
|
|
|
I simulated all these reward systems a year ago: http://eligius.st/~luke-jr/samples/800MH-3/The problem with 95%-* systems is that it has no potential to ever be any better than PPS with a 5% 'fee', but still has the risk of the pool hitting long unlucky streaks. Everything else equal, why would anyone pick 95%-CPPSEB over 95%-InstantPPS? |
|
|
|
People seem to be against HU (according to the polls) But nobody's willing to say why; makes me wonder if it's just the trolls who want Eligius dead. Shame on you for saying "trolls" and "wanting eligius dead" in the same breath as you quoted me. I didn't know you voted "dislike Hu", nor did I meant to imply you were a troll (I wouldn't have responded at all if I thought you were). For starters, Eligius-HU is largely undocumented, and not explained well in the OP.
What is the size of a share anyway? How many hashes is that?
I ask because the entire bitcoin network is usually between 7k and 8k blocks per month, of which, eligius only finds 100 or so... how does this arbitrary value of "8x difficulty" fit in for our rate if we suddenly mine more or less percentage of the bitcoin network's blocks? The OP tries to explain it in language everyone can understand. It sounds like you want some low-level technical details here... but those aren't entirely worked out yet. The current "second proposal" doesn't really explain the math which will determine the size of the window over which each miner's recent shares are counted for the purpose of payouts. Huh? This last concern ties in with my first new question -- Eligius-HU system is going to arbitrarily change the size of a share to be dynamic based on hash-rate, so that nobody's math will be able to know what is going on with the new algorithm. Where's the question? ...the decision has basically already been made. This is just to justify the decision. Yeah well it's not working. People seem to be against HU (according to the polls) What I meant was that the votes don't seem to be justifying the change(s) after the fact (was that really the plan?) imsaguy's post is an example of a troll I ignored. I figured the troll nature of it should have been obvious considering he said the same nonsense about wizkid057's last poll too. |
|
|
|
That one's a real bug. try this until it works, for now: git checkout HEAD^
Same problem ~/bc/eloipool$ git checkout HEAD^
Previous HEAD position was 5e363be... Merge branch 'sharetarget'
HEAD is now at ac36d06... Merge branch 'sharetarget'
~/bc/eloipool$ ./gmp-proxy.py http://<ADDRESS>:a@mining.eligius.st:8337
WARNING:jsonrpc_getwork:Error importing 'midstate' module; work will not provide midstates
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "./gmp-proxy.py", line 134, in <module>
server.serve_forever()
File "/home/alan/bc/eloipool/networkserver.py", line 267, in serve_forever
self.final_init()
File "/home/alan/bc/eloipool/jsonrpcserver.py", line 300, in final_init
ShareTargetHex = '%064x' % (self.ShareTarget,)
AttributeError: 'JSONRPCServer' object has no attribute 'ShareTarget'
"until it works" |
|
|
|
People seem to be against HU (according to the polls)
But nobody's willing to say why; makes me wonder if it's just the trolls who want Eligius dead. Or people just don't want to gamble on an untested payment strategy? PPLNS is untested? Really? Now SMPPS, when we originally switched to it, THAT was untested. How many pools use PPLNS as you have proposed, using the values you've proposed? PPLNS isn't DGM. The value doesn't change how it works. |
|
|
|
People seem to be against HU (according to the polls)
But nobody's willing to say why; makes me wonder if it's just the trolls who want Eligius dead. Or people just don't want to gamble on an untested payment strategy? PPLNS is untested? Really? Now SMPPS, when we originally switched to it, THAT was untested. |
|
|
|
People seem to be against HU (according to the polls)
But nobody's willing to say why; makes me wonder if it's just the trolls who want Eligius dead. |
|
|
|
|
twmz's page includes "estimated" earnings for the next block, so it's not too useful here.
Whatever is "unpaid balance" is yours and guaranteed to be paid out eventually, no later than a month after the pool closes (but probably sooner), regardless of amount.
|
|
|
|
Where did eloipool/json.py come from? json is a standard Python module...
I accidentally moved it from python-bitcoinrpc. After moving it back to eloipool/json it seems to be working better-ish:
~/bc/eloipool$ ./gmp-proxy.py http://<address>:a@mining.eligius.st:8337
WARNING:jsonrpc_getwork:Error importing 'midstate' module; work will not provide midstates
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "./gmp-proxy.py", line 134, in <module>
server.serve_forever()
File "/home/alan/bc/eloipool/networkserver.py", line 267, in serve_forever
self.final_init()
File "/home/alan/bc/eloipool/jsonrpcserver.py", line 300, in final_init
ShareTargetHex = '%064x' % (self.ShareTarget,)
AttributeError: 'JSONRPCServer' object has no attribute 'ShareTarget'
That one's a real bug. try this until it works, for now: git checkout HEAD^ |
|
|
|
Sorry, I forgot to move jsonrpc from python-bitcoinrpc. I did the same with python-base58, per README. ~/bc/eloipool$ ./gmp-proxy.py --help
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "./gmp-proxy.py", line 9, in <module>
import jsonrpc
File "/home/alan/bc/eloipool/jsonrpc/__init__.py", line 1, in <module>
from .json import loads, dumps, JSONEncodeException, JSONDecodeException
File "/home/alan/bc/eloipool/jsonrpc/json.py", line 1, in <module>
_json = __import__('json')
File "/home/alan/bc/eloipool/json.py", line 2, in <module>
loads = _json.loads
AttributeError: 'module' object has no attribute 'loads'
I have no .json directory in eloipool/jsonrpc/ . Sorry for my ineptitude. Thanks for the help Where did eloipool/json.py come from? json is a standard Python module... |
|
|
|
I am having trouble getting gmp-proxy.py to work. Ubuntu 12.04 32bit. Using apt-get, I installed python3-minimal and python3-anyjson. ~/bc/eloipool$ ./gmp-proxy.py --help
WARNING:jsonrpc_getwork:Error importing 'midstate' module; work will not provide midstates
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "./gmp-proxy.py", line 26, in <module>
pool = jsonrpc.ServiceProxy(sys.argv[1])
AttributeError: 'module' object has no attribute 'ServiceProxy'
Any ideas?  README? |
|
|
|
BTW, speaking of ASICs and gmp, can someone (Luke-Jr perhaps?) give estimates of bandwidth usage for getwork and using gmp-proxy on a per GH/s basis? Here is an old stack exchange article). Are there any plans for difficulty 10, 100, N, shares a la p2pool? How does bandwidth compare to p2pool? I haven't done any bandwidth measurement at all. My plan at this time is to send new work every 2 minutes via BIP22, and dynamically adjust the target based on each miners' hashrate to aim for 1 or 2 shares per minute on average. |
|
|
|
Wow, a lot of hate for PPLNS? Why? Might be something to do with your x8 implementation sounding somewhat novel and untested? It sounds to me like an interesting concept though. Eligius has always used custom implementations; that much isn't new... All PPLNS needs to define N. Making it D×8 is still the same PPLNS logic, just with very low variance. At this point, Eligius is no longer the only pool that allows a miner to mine anonymously with just a bitcoin address - other than the stats graphs, I'm not sure what is unique about it now that may have been previously. Well, there are other pools with almost all Eligius's features by now, yes, but I don't think any that have all of them. The closest is p2pool, and that has all the problems p2p entails and a very high variance. With Eligius-Hu, we will also be the first ASIC ready pool. - Zero fee
- Zero setup
- Low variance
- ASIC ready
- Generated payouts
- Decentralized block creation
- Hopper friendly
- Open development
- ... probably others I forget off the top of my head
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, a lot of hate for PPLNS? Why?
|
|
|
|
|
Edit: Note that with the Active Miners rule enabled, ex-miners who have unpaid balances under 0.67 BTC will finally reach the 1 week inactivity and get their payout. Also note that when Eligius-Ra finally closes, all unpaid balances (not EC!) will be paid out regardless of the amount.
|
|
|
|
As for coin control, i surely hope this will be picked up in the main client, it's an important feature imho, i use it on a regular basis. It's been unmaintained for so long that it really needs a rewrite at this point. Perhaps you can recruit someone with a bounty? |
|
|
|
p2pool tells me the version of bitcoin is too old, need at least 0.5 xD (next-test) You need a newer version of p2pool with BIP22 support. I don't know if forrestv has released one yet. Coin control is abandoned? Just for the next version or for good? Depends on when/if someone steps up to take care of it. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
