I have read wikipedia about kelly criterion but i dont really get how much bigger the risk is when using kelly 2% instead 1%. I mean doesnt it mean for JD that at kelly 1% 1% of the house can be won. I see JD is only at 0.5% what is even below the optimum kelly describes. But even with 2%... its a percent value... the house cant really be beaten this way or am i wrong? It can go down very much but each new bet with max win of the house 2% means the house will be less than before... so the max win will be less then. If it would be a fixed value then of course... at 2% the house could be beaten in 50 wins. Which sounds like it will happen very rare. But its not even a fixed value. Its a percent value. That means you cant win back the losses as fast as you could with fixed values but the same goes with the losses. They will slow down. I dont see yet why 2% should be so much worse than 1%.
read: http://wizardofodds.com/gambling/kelly-criterion/(it's great site by the way, in general) and: http://compoundingmyinterests.com/compounding-the-blog/2012/10/12/how-did-ed-thorp-win-in-blackjack-and-the-stock-market.htmland http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/kelly/kellyfaq.htm(see Q5) If edge is 1%, and you wager 2% every time, the house bankroll won't grow. Wager >2%, and it will actually shrink over time. |
|
|
|
So there is more than double of the original shares issued currently outstanding. Do current shareholder get the first right to buy new shares issued for expansion so that shareholders dont get diluted? I ask because I am going to make an offer in the order book.
New shares represented new hardware. The hashrate value of all (bitfunder and thus new forum) shares was identical (41.8 GH/s/share). There was no dilution. Shares were issued to those that underwrote the hardware purchase at a rate of 41.8 GH/s per share. 41.8mh/s share... thanks, fixed my original post! just a typo EDIT: I agree re: cex.io. I really like the idea, but not the implementation (the operators have been shown to be less than trustworthy). That and the market seems artificially inflated, there is no way to make money long term at those prices unless no gen2 hardware ships at all. |
|
|
|
So there is more than double of the original shares issued currently outstanding. Do current shareholder get the first right to buy new shares issued for expansion so that shareholders dont get diluted? I ask because I am going to make an offer in the order book.
New shares represented new hardware. The hashrate value of all (bitfunder and thus new forum) shares was identical (41.8 GHMH/s/share). There was no dilution. Shares were issued to those that underwrote the hardware purchase at a rate of 41.8 GHMH/s per share. |
|
|
|
Are you being dense on purpose, or do you really not get it?
The network targets a share rate, not a hash rate, not a
difficulty rate, and not a (share times value) rate. It adjusts so
that the correct number of shares is found over time, which
shares can be of any difficulty equal to or greater than the minimum.
Shares of higher than the minimum difficulty are worth more, but still
only take up one "slot" in the calculation.
I'm surprised too that Kano doesn't know that. p2pool works this way: Imagine there are two miners on p2pool, miner A has 10x the hashrate of miner B. Miner A and B both use the default difficulty, which is adjusted so that miner A gets 10x the shares of miner B and a share is found every 30 seconds. In one hour (on average), Miner A finds ~109 shares and Miner B finds ~11 shares. Now miner A manually sets his difficulty to 5x higher than the default. He now finds shares 5x slower (on average). So in an hour, miner A only finds 22 shares, and miner B still finds 11 shares. The p2pool network now must decrease difficulty so that 120 shares are found in an hour. Difficulty is thus decreased to the point where miner B (the miner mining on default minimum difficulty) finds 120-22=98 shares in an hour. That means: Miner A increased difficulty 5x the p2pool minimum difficulty decreases 9x both miner A and B get the same payout on average, miner A has higher variance than default and miner B has lower variance than default. |
|
|
|
I would like the ability to increase my allocated risk when investing, Instead of .5% the option upto 5% would be beneficial for myself.
Is this something that could be implemented?
While a good feature, you should read about expected return when you wager > 100% Kelly. |
|
|
|
According to current nastyfans rules, we would need a 75% majority to vote for the 75% option in order to implement the change, correct?
"for a poll choice to result in a action there must be at least a three-fourths majority for that poll choice (seats owned by a membership in suspension have no voting rights and are not counted)"
polls are non-binding, just consulations |
|
|
|
removed kushedout's post, it was out of date |
|
|
|
New to this operation, what is the current way to proceed in getting some shares in this operation?  You can exchange shares on the forums: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=328135.0Instructions are in the first post, latest prices are the last. Repeated here FYI: |
|
|
|
Does the number of p2pool shares found include deads and orphans?
In any case, it sounds like what you're measuring is the luck in creating blocks vs. the luck in creating shares... At least, that's what you're measuring if you're including all the deads and orphans. If you're not including the deads and orphans, then your hash estimate is too low.
Is it even possible to measure deads and orphans? Not all of the network is necessarily going to see all of them...
good point - I'm not the one that quotes that +12% number, but that's about what the DOA+orphan rate is on the network that is also possibly viable blocks. Does anyone know how p2pool.info does it? |
|
|
|
...and people who've been mining on p2pool all year have made something like 12% more than they expected
How the heck is it possible to calculate that? Is this a sampled figure? you can calculate the total number of hashes in the year and the expected number of blocks. You can then count the total number of blocks actually found. You do that, and you get +12%. How do you calculate the total number of hashes in the year? Aren't you just estimating this from the number of blocks/shares found? What is really calculated is the number of hashes you'd have to perform to have a good chance of finding the same number of (different) blocks at the same difficulties. That's cumbersome to say, so most people just shorten it. Or they are confused. Either way, when you see people say things like that, you need to expand it to the full phrase in your head when you read it. thanks, yes - and p2pool has the extra data in that you can track the number of p2pool shares found, and the difficulty of those shares. So you look how many hashes are in those p2pool shares (effectively) and compare that to how many hashes should have been in the blocks you found. We have fewer calculated hashes in the p2pool share chain than is expected based on the number of real blocks that were found. |
|
|
|
...and people who've been mining on p2pool all year have made something like 12% more than they expected
How the heck is it possible to calculate that? Is this a sampled figure? you can calculate the total number of hashes in the year and the expected number of blocks. You can then count the total number of blocks actually found. You do that, and you get +12%. |
|
|
|
Is there any decentralized exchange worth using?
Wait, is there any decentralized exchange?
NastyFans.org if that was open source (or something you can license), I think many people would use it. It's a great trustless system, exactly what many groups are looking for. People may object to having to remember a login for each security they own (since it is decentralized, everyone would run their own sites). |
|
|
|
But, now difficulty has hit the threshold where I will always make more on BTCGuild with less power on it than I do at p2pool.
There is no such threshold. Well, there might be one down in the 0-10 megahash range with the CPUs where the expected number of shares earned between now and infinity is less than a half. But 20 Ghash/sec is nowhere near that. Once again, I'm mining with about 7 Ghash/sec, and while I see plenty of variance, sometimes going 4 or 5 days without a payout, I still get paid, and my running averages are hovering rather close to my ideal expected payout. (I'm actually up a fair bit right now because I had shares active during the very recent string of crazy good luck, including that block with the 20 BTC fee.) Well goody for you... you seem to be the only one... read all the posts above yours and you'll see what the threshold is. Glad you're getting something. I was not... so for me the decision was easy since I already had some test miners on other pools types that made more with less power over the course of months. Good luck. Hope you keep getting lucky. I solo mined and found a block in 30 minutes. Over the same time I only earned 0.000002 BTC on BTCGuild. Solo mining is WAY better than any pool! You get paid SO MUCH more solo mining. that is the logical equivalent of what you're saying. kjj is right, there is no threshold. The only threshold is how much variance is worth to you. When you cross that threshold, like you found, it is no longer fun to mine on p2pool. It's ok, p2pool has high variance for small miners - and to many/most it is not worth it. I'm a huge fan of p2pool, but I stopped since my personal value of variance is exceeding my interest in p2pool |
|
|
|
So, roughly half of the time, you will have an active share, and half the time you won't.
As I understand it, there are other possibilities: some of the time you'll have more than one active share, and some of the time you'll solve the block. Is this correct? Yes. Some fraction of the time you will have 2, 3, 4,... active shares, but for a smaller miner, 0 and 1 will be vastly dominant, with 2 as a novelty, 3 as a rarity, etc. At any rate, the sum of the series is 1/2 in the example. OK. Now let's continue to say your mining rigs have a hash rate good for 0.5 BTC per day. Let's say you normally use 1/5 of that hashing power mining with P2Pool, and the other 4/5 solo mining. Then, whenever you gain an active share, you dedicate 100% of your hashing power to trying to solve the block. Do you see how this will get you more than 0.5 BTC per day, if all other things are equal? This does not work. You end up with exactly the same expected value. The days you find a p2pool share you get more than 0.5, the days you don't find a share you get only 0.4. It will exactly average out to 0.5 BTC per day over the course of several days. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
