you still have less negative buffer than Eligius SMPPS. lol? Eligius has a huge positive buffer. I don't see it going negative any time soon. |
|
|
|
|
Speaking of which, I forgot to save a copy of my final post to that thread... is it possible to get it now, or is it gone forever?
|
|
|
|
Sh1337, where is your proof you sent back the BTC? this is pretty much the equivalent of you shoplifting and getting caught, and you swear that you payed for it yet you don't have the receipt and there's no record of the transaction on the store's computer. Hey now, innocent until proven guilty! Don't give into a police state: if a store's "alarm" goes off and they want to check your receipt, just keep walking. If they try to detain you, they must either accuse you of theft ( with actual proof, not lack thereof!) or the person stopping you can himself be arrested. Let's not let Bitcoin's public transaction log be an excuse to switch to guilty-until-proven-innocent. Edit: Yes, I have personally proceeded to leave a Walmart after their "alarm" went off, and refused to comply with Sam's Club's "policy" of checking receipts of everyone who leaves. The latter case, they actually put up a little argument, but I had cold stuff so I didn't have time to wait for police to arrest the manager. So in case you're worried about trying this, know that at least I have tested it in practice and not had any problems as a result. |
|
|
|
PPS is the way to go (by the way: SMPPS etc. are not pure PPS!). Yeah, SMPPS etc are better than pure PPS  Pool hopping is direct theft from people who stick with the pool at all times. No, pool hopping is not theft at all, it is simply smart mining. Miners have no obligation to stick to one pool at all times, and have no reason to stick to a pool that is offering to pay them less per-share than its market value. "Pool hopping" is simply working for the highest bidder. |
|
|
|
It seems too many people might be taking this thread too seriously (although Eligius actually had a surge of miners join not long after it was posted...), so I'm "forced" to respond. In short, there is no technical problem with the prayers, and they do not involve Eligius miners any differently than solo miners-- the only reason I can speculate Graet posted this (since he won't give a rational reason) is to grab more miners to his pool or some kind of subtle anti-Catholic agenda (he denies both). Personally i believe freedom of religion is anyones choice, unfortunate that it was prayers that caused this to start, really it could have been anything put in the blockheader by any pool owner that caused this discussion. Yeah right. Nevermind the fact that it was actually started with political propaganda in the Genesys block by Satoshi himself, setting a clear and undeniable precedent. Thanks again to those that take time to think AND are concerned for Bitcoins future  Anyone who can think knows this is at the very least neutral, and at best positive. I thought coinbase and transaction spam was an issue the whole community needed to be aware of. Coinbases and transaction spam are two entirely different things. Transaction spam serves no purpose, destroys coins, and can never be purged from the block chain. Coinbases can contain text messages by design, and can be purged immediately from your block chain. I propably chose the wrong topic for this thread, but at the time just wanted to knw if luke-jr has informed miners on Eligius, so that those of other faiths could know what was happening on the blocks they were contributing to and have a choice to participate or not. Miners do not participate at Eligius any more than they do at other pools or solo mining. Miners hash the prayers indirectly through multiple layers of SHA256 whether they are mining on Eligius or not. Furthermore, I have not been at all secretive about either the Catholic theme of St. Eligius, nor the fact that I have been including prayers rather than pure random data in the coinbase. Graet is quick to deflect his "argument" to real block chain spam, and claim I am at fault for that. However, it doesn't take much thinking to realize this is the same as arguing that a rape victim is responsible for being raped. "Oh, you were putting prayers, so you're at fault for a troll really spamming the block chain with slander." "Oh, you were acting so good, so you're at fault for a rapist wanting to take away your innocence." This blame-the-victim attitude is IMO disgusting. Also: Could this impact security of the blockchain somehow? If it is supposed to be random data there (whereever these prayers are) but this data isn't as random as it could be, this might not be "a good thing (TM)". It's supposed to be random enough that miners aren't working on the same hashes. In practice, this only requires a few bytes of unique data, which Eligius guarantees by putting the usual extranonce at the start of the coinbase (the prayers are at the end, after the extranonce + "Eligius"). As noted, Satoshi himself endorsed putting text content in the coinbase with the Genesys block, so it would be silly to argue it creates any real problems. If it bothers you than don't use his pool. For fuck sake its named st eligius after the patron saint of goldsmiths. I am catholic as well and as far as I know other religions are recognized. I went to catholic school for 12 years. This thread is retarded, hey guys I'm going to pray for all of you, and if you don't like it well fuck you, your going to heaven anyways.  St. Eligius actually is also the patron saint of miners, coin collectors, and minters. Great, that you are Catholic, but I would recommend studying your religion a bit more-- especially the Syllabus of Errors condemned by Pope Pius IX, and the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ("Outside the Church there is no salvation"). |
|
|
|
|
For the record, I don't endorse block chain spam. I'm also not interested in participating in (this) Graet's troll/FUD thread.
|
|
|
|
if the pool switched to PPLNS, would that mean that it would pay out rewards as they are earned? in other words, there would be no delay? PPLNS never rewards more than 50 BTC per block (like SMPPS does), so delays would be very rare. |
|
|
|
But I am uncomfortable with this happening. Honestly, I expected better from you. This is a terrible way to try to win people to your pool. |
|
|
|
|
I hope you go out of business. But I claim a frisbee.
Edit: You can save the shipping costs on the condoms-- just destroy a pack for me, ok?
|
|
|
|
Hopefully our luck turns soon, but if not, I thought I would again explain how payouts work when we can not pay all of the Total PPS work.
So, various miners have a Total PPS work > Paid PPS Work. This is because the pool doesn't have BTC to pay anyone. Once we get more BTC, the following occurs:
Each miner has an 'ideal payment' of Total PPS Work - Paid PPS work. For example, Miner 1 could have 100 Total PPS Work, 99 Paid. His ideal payment is 1 BTC. Miner 2 has 50 Total PPS work, and 48 Paid PPS work, or an ideal payment of 2.
Lets say the pool just confirmed a new block that is worth 1 BTC. First, we get the ratio of what we can pay everyone. Total outstanding ideal payments in this 2 miner pool is 3 (2 + 1.) So, our total ratio that we can pay people is (1 / 3) or 0.333333etc.
This means that Miner 1 gets (1 * 0.333333etc) BTC and Miner 2 gets (2 * 0.3333333etc) BTC, for a total of 1 paid out (all that the pool has available.)
Note that this isn't exactly like Eligius' SMPPS, where older shares get paid first I believe. No, this is exactly the same as Eligius' SMPPS-- we do not prioritize (nor track) any shares. |
|
|
|
Actually, if everyone stopped mining when the buffer was negative, there would be btc earned that would simply not be paid at all under the current PPS model, even after all mined blocks had been confirmed.  Not correct. SMPPS never rewards more than it has. You might have people left with "extra credit", but that is not ever guaranteed to be worth anything. |
|
|
|
|
i0c is a scam too. If you guys want to actually make a successful fork, you need to actually improve things and probably retain at least one-way compatibility with Bitcoins.
|
|
|
|
The time stamp on blocks solved by Eligius is at least 6 minutes into the future. I recommend you start syncing the time using ntp. The timestamp does not have to be the exact time, nor is it usually based on the system clock (which is kept in sync with ntp) for Eligius. |
|
|
|
|
After pondering this problem further, I have come to the conclusion that despite its ugliness, this extension should follow the same behaviour of the other response data. That is, the nonces should be treated as little endian (as specified for mining hashes), but sent over the wire as big endian. That means unfortunately, a range from 0x10203040 to 0x50607080 is represented as "4030201080706050", and a winning nonce of 0x20304050 is sent in the solution as "50403020".
Edit: No idea what I was thinking last night. This is nonsense. Big endian means 0x10203040 is encoded "10203040" of course. I need to chat with a GPU miner author :|
|
|
|
|
100 extra bitpennies. How about defining "bitpenny"? Logically speaking, I would assume it is 0.01 BTC, in which case you're offering 1 BTC? |
|
|
|
|
After chatting with OneFixt about it, his system is actually more like a CPPSRB (Capped Pay Per Share with Recent Backpay), which is a super-simple and elegant exception to the CPPS*B model. The difference from RSMPPS is that RSMPPS will pay every share during the round some fraction proportionally if it hits no-more-funds (and make up the difference recent-later), whereas CPPSRB (BitPenny) will just discard (for payment later) the oldest shares for the current round in order to pay the more recent ones in full.
|
|
|
|
The system you're using is RSMPPS, as far as I see it (interestingly with custom share difficulty, probably to keep pool load lower). The Delayed PPS model was developed independently, but does bear close resemblance to RSMPPS. Since the way that the pool credit buffer is distributed may differ somewhat from what is implied by RSMPPS, I've chosen to use a different name and to explain the details. The general idea, however, is the same. Care to explain the difference? I don't see one. |
|
|
|
each share is worth 97% of expected block reward (0.00020542 btc) What? 97% of expected block reward is 48.5 BTC. I doubt you get that per share, unless the share difficulty matches network difficulty (in which case you might as well be solo mining). The algorithm on the next few lines explains a more standard PPS with 3% fee scheme, but that'd be 2567 Satoshis, not 20542... If BitPenny is really paying 0.00020542 BTC per share, it really does seem tempting, but it'll go broke very fast. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
