Please vote what you think is correct, before reading the rest of the posts.
On this it would be useful if the first few posts here didn't give any opinions on specific poll options. I wonder if I can resist ... ... ... Whew, made it.  |
|
|
|
How does one "answer" this? My head is full of fog  It is strongly reminiscent of "This sentence is false. Is that sentence correct?". Basically, if 40% is correct, you have 40% chance. But if 20% is correct, you have 20% chance. But if they are both correct, then there's 60% chance, which gives 0% chance, which gives 20% chance. So 20% wouldn't keep looping around, but 40% wouldn't either, but they can't both be correct. Should we say there is no answer, the question is a liar paradox? I can't put my finger on what is "wrong" with the question… If correct is taken to mean (can consistently be correct) then (B), (C), and (E) are possible and (A) is not. But then what about (D)? Could it be "meta-consistently-correct" or something? More seriously, I would simply say that there is no solution to this question (yes, there is a similarity with the liar paradox). With a slightly different wording (not saying "... the probability ..." which implies uniqueness) there could be two different consistent solutions, 20% and 40%. The cause of the apparent paradox is the self-reference in the question. |
|
|
|
In the future, PPS pools won't be literally "specified payment per share", but rather "specified fraction of share's value per share". That is, pB(1-f) given immediately per share where f is known and fixed, p changes every two weeks and B is variable.
Agreed. By PPS I was referring to a fixed amount per share. I agree that a variable share value would make sense and that this could well be considered PPS (the miner has variance no worse than that forced by share difficulty and the pool takes the risk for a fee). I have a similar ambiguity/confusion problem with the term PPLNS. Ah well. If the thermal cycle cost is higher than the electricity cost, and there are really no other profitable things to do, they will probably keep mining 24/7 after all.
True but that's an interesting 'if'. There are many ways the market might address this oscillation. |
|
|
|
A competing pool could react to new transactions by compiling and sending out new jobs more frequently (perhaps whenever it can increase the block reward + transaction fee by 0.1 BTC). The shares at a pool would consequently be more valuable on average and so they could offer higher income for their miners.
Yes, if transaction fees are rapidly changing, the pool (and, in a proper scoring method, the miners) are incentivized to work on an up-to-date header with higher fees. This should be balanced with the resource cost of frequently pushing work. Ah good. So, in the long run (assuming Bitcoin bitcoin becomes large and transaction fees become the primary incentive to mine) then the profitability of mining will fluctuate significantly on a minute by minute basis. Miners could then start hopping the PPS pools (provided they are still alive) and true 24-7 mining will disappear. I wonder what miners will then do to limit the wear on their equiptment, particularly considering that the hardware may be Bitcoin mining specific. Of course, this is hardly significant at this stage but it's nice to get the mathematics right. |
|
|
|
|
Also, I'm a little confused about how block generation works so I'll lay down my current understanding. Feel free to correct me.
Each new job is basically a header containing, among other things, a list of transactions to be verified. This means that the "block reward + transaction fees" as far as a miner of this pool sees them will only change when new work is pushed. Consequently, the pool would only need to find the total transaction fees for each of the jobs it sends out and not the transaction fees currently up for grabs on the network when a share is submitted.
A competing pool could react to new transactions by compiling and sending out new jobs more frequently (perhaps whenever it can increase the block reward + transaction fee by 0.1 BTC). The shares at a pool would consequently be more valuable on average and so they could offer higher income for their miners.
|
|
|
|
yeah i think 'intuitively' was the wrong word choice...
my intuition said go for the EURO because being Aussie, it doesn't look fake to me... we're used to colourful polymer notes. it immediately looks the most valuable, because the others look like pocket change.
choosing rationally on the other hand, i'd go for the c-c-casket coins, even if i don't care to learn how to pronounce their name.
How does one pronounce "casascius" anyway? I've been thinking "ka-sass-ee-us" the whole time. Could it be that it's really "ka-sass-key-us"? |
|
|
|
For a consistent meaning of "answer" and an assumed uniform distribution for "random", 0% To make this question more interesting you might want to make option (C) 0% and/or slightly rephrase the question. You might also try something a little bit deeper: If one of the following five answers to this question is chosen at random what is the chance you will be correct? A) 0% B) 20% C) 40% D) 80% E) 40% I take your point though, the poll could have been better worded.  EDIT: This post has been edited. |
|
|
|
Not sure yet, if you have any suggestions let me know.
I don't have any good suggestions. What I would do is to include the transaction fee rewards with the blocks for now and begin to scale the share values appropriately once bitcoind 0.5 comes out. This means that the pool will be less than perfect on the pool hopping front for now but instinct tells me that it's a big improvement over the loyalty bonus approach. Perhaps Meni has some better ideas. |
|
|
|
"Fluctuation" implies 2 objects. What are you measuring fiat fluctuation against?
Fluctuation, usually, describes a value changing over time. So you compare it against itself at a different point in time. For doing so you try to keep all other factors as equal through time as possible. So fluctuation implies at least one value/level/number in a space that changes over time. The value of a kind of fiat is a relative quantity and so when we can only say whether or not it fluctuates with respect to something else. If we fix the quantity against which we measure we can happily talk about fluctuation in value. Most people would probably take some average of the goods and services they purchase regularly as their yardstick. In this respect fiat is remarkably stable but I wonder how much of this is because everyone prices in fiat. If your personal list of goods and services comprises completely of "silver" then you'll find 2 to be pretty stable. |
|
|
|
Did some homework after Meni's feedback, in order to determine B (block reward + transaction fees) correctly when a share was submitted:
bitcoind version 0.5 will get a "getmemorypool" call, which is capable to get the btc amount of transaction fees, if the current network block would be solved at that moment.
So the distribution of transaction fees will be included into DGM on yourbtc.net as soon as it's technically possible.
Yep, I read this and appreciate the problem. I just wondered what do you plan to do with the transaction fee rewards between now and when bitcoind 0.5 comes out? |
|
|
|
In order to support Merged Mining and get a fair reward of namecoin blocks we did major updates on the pool:
- Loyality Payout has been done and the feature is now removed
- Therefore all upcomming NMC earnings are distributed on Double Geometric Method just like BTC
- NMC earnings are automatically converted into BTC on current exchange rates and put into the payout queue
- All stats are independent for each chain (BTC & NMC) in the frontend
- According charts will be updated soon
Awesome! What's the current plan for the transaction fee rewards? |
|
|
|
The third choice looks like monopoly money to me. This is why the poll is not representative. Half of the world thinks monopoly money is involved I think this holds for a lot of paper money. I must admit I wasn't able to picture a USD note so I googled for a picture and the notes really don't look valuable to me (even though I know they must be). GBP, EUR, and JPY notes look valuable because I've had experience trading them for goods and services. Coins on the other hand look valuable even when they are not familiar ( particularly if they contain more than a tonne of gold  ). |
|
|
|
|
Does anyone know what happened at the pool recently? The pool's hashrate and estimated payout graphs both flatlined for a few hours.
|
|
|
|
The problem with higher stale rates and cgminer is hotfixed for now.
We are now accepting stale shares from NMC chain as a valid share until we have a more advanced solution.
This is fine short-term but if there is a fundamental problem with using cgminer (at least old versions of) for merged mining then ultimately the people using such software need to feel the sting of their inefficiency. People that will try different mining software and will try to configure it so as to reduce stales should be appropriately rewarded. If cgminer is the only option for a user (for whatever reason) then they will simply have to live with the stales. I can offer help to anyone at this pool trying to use phoenix. |
|
|
|
...you do not need that level of privacy...
Most people do not need that level of privacy most of the time. Many people would like more privacy for a lot of silly things (like the inflatable woman). There are also a lot of illegal activities for which it makes sense to seek privacy. To most people I would suggest that the only attraction of Bitcoin is the potetntially lower transaction fees. When you consider only those that already use Bitcoin I expect you'll find a larger proportion which highly value freedom and/or privacy. If all of the things you want to do are either legal or carry a low probability of a mild penalty then you are lucky indeed, particularly if, by some miracle, you were born into the country with these ideal laws! |
|
|
|
|
Sorry to hear about your hassles genjix. Given the way you've approached this exchange from the start this really ought not to be happening to you of all people. The worst of it is not receiving advanced notice. I'm assuming everything can be explained by incompetence on HSBC's part but we'll see.
Good luck getting things running again.
|
|
|
|
The way to 'police' those evil speculators is to be better at it than they are.
Beat me to it. If anything, day traders leaving Bitcoin would a step backwards. |
|
|
|
I am now running on this pool with under 2% stales. See sig.
I'm glad you've managed this. It would have been a shame if your monsterous hashing power was taking a 4-5% hit. I've been working pretty hard on my stales and my average for this round is 1.67% (only 8000 shares though) so until there's a change to the server software I doubt either of us will be able to do much better. Thanks for your results.
I'am currently in contact with shadders (poolserverj dev) and gathering log files atm.
Keep you informed if got an update.
Excellent. I hope this is not interfering too much with the plan to start using DGM for the Namecoin block rewards at the start of November. |
|
|
|
The bitcoin trademark holder? Who holds the trademark for "internet"? What about trademarks in different countries? The World Wide Web has no trademark and logo because it is the only one on this Planet, while above mentioned organizations have. My point was simply that, for some terms, a trademark is not appropriate. Where a specific trademark office (I don't know the term) would draw the line is not so important (I very much doubt they all agree). Just imagine what chaos the Web will be if such organizations as ICANN and IANA don't exist? For instance, what even greater mess would be the transition from IPv4 to IPv6? With its expansion and evolution the core of bitcoin protocol will also need to change overtime. There are some brilliant ideas tested in the alternative cryptocurrencies that must be implemented in bitcoin as well. I'm quite confident there will be even more in near future. I'd also like to ask the all those guys that started their own alternative blockchain, please give your helping hand to Gavin and unite around bitcoin. This is a 50 trillion market that will change fiat to bitcoin back and forth many times. There is bread and butter (and caviar) for all of you. If you don't like a certain person to represent you in this Foundation just vote for another one.
Now, bitcoin should be decentralized as much as possible, I'm all for that. But decentralization is not anarchy! We still need organization(s) to coordinate and support our decentralized efforts!!! All such organizations must be build and run in such a way that even forcefully dismantled to not negatively affect the functioning of bitcoin network.
I feel this takes things too far in the direction of centralisation. If we had an unquestioned "King of the internet" then changes like IPv4 to IPv6 would be much easier. But changes like global internet filtering would also be easier. There are undoubted pros and cons to great central power. Those who advocate less central power must accept both the good and the bad that comes with this. Yes, Bitcoin will want/need changes with time, but as time goes by this will (and rightly should) become harder and harder to do! A guy at the top that can simply apply changes to the protocol at whim is exactly what I would like to see Bitcoin evolve away from. Changing the transaction limit for example really should require much planning and organisation of the most powerful Bitcoin-related businesses and the consequential changes to the existing clients and mining software would have to be accepted by very many people (almost a forced global referendum). If a similar change to make Bitcoin inflationary were proposed then it should fail to make it through this process. I would rather see Bitcoin wither and die due to lack of organisation than to succeed and succumb to central authority. I agree that a "Bitcoin Foundation" would be very useful at this stage to "coordinate and support our decentralized efforts" and I'm very grateful to the continued efforts of people like Gavin in helping and guiding Bitcoin at this very early stage. However, I feel that if such an organisation does its job well then Bitcoin will have no need for such support in the future. I agree that such organisations should be built and run such that their sudden removal will not hurt the network. But more than this, such organisations, suddenly working hard to deform or destroy Bitcoin, should fail. Provided I agree with the constitution of a proposed "Bitcoin Foundation" and the key members remain people I trust then I offer my support. |
|
|
|
|
Just some data on the current stales situation. Excerpts from the output of phoenix on a 350 MH/s miner (times in UTC + 1).
My miner is now alerted to Namecoin block changes with an impressive 6 new jobs!
{
[28/10/2011 10:36:08] Result: 527688f6 accepted
[28/10/2011 10:36:19] Result: a2265f38 accepted
[28/10/2011 10:36:35] LP: New work pushed
[28/10/2011 10:36:40] LP: New work pushed
[28/10/2011 10:36:40] Currently on block: 24955
[28/10/2011 10:36:41] LP: New work pushed
[28/10/2011 10:36:42] LP: New work pushed
[28/10/2011 10:36:43] Result: e6a20530 accepted
[28/10/2011 10:36:43] LP: New work pushed
[28/10/2011 10:36:44] LP: New work pushed
[28/10/2011 10:36:55] Result: c7755a8a accepted
[28/10/2011 10:37:01] Result: fe495922 accepted
}
As you can see here, there can still be a significant window of rejects.
{
[28/10/2011 10:57:57] Result: 6fb45837 accepted
[28/10/2011 10:58:09] Result: 9b264748 accepted
[28/10/2011 10:58:18] LP: New work pushed
[28/10/2011 10:58:22] Result: 32fc2451 rejected
[28/10/2011 10:58:23] LP: New work pushed
[28/10/2011 10:58:23] Currently on block: 24962
[28/10/2011 10:58:24] LP: New work pushed
[28/10/2011 10:58:25] LP: New work pushed
[28/10/2011 10:58:26] LP: New work pushed
[28/10/2011 10:58:27] LP: New work pushed
[28/10/2011 10:58:29] LP: New work pushed
[28/10/2011 10:58:33] Result: 14bcb49c accepted
[28/10/2011 10:58:35] Result: 309e5bcc accepted
}
The window of rejects when the Bitcoin block changes still exists.
{
[28/10/2011 10:43:39] LP: New work pushed
[28/10/2011 10:43:43] Result: 13845b18 rejected
[28/10/2011 10:43:43] Result: 0e7d80ea rejected
[28/10/2011 10:43:47] Result: 8ee66e58 rejected
[28/10/2011 10:43:57] Result: c552249c accepted
}
{
[28/10/2011 10:55:49] LP: New work pushed
[28/10/2011 10:55:52] Result: 96c68812 rejected
[28/10/2011 10:55:56] Currently on block: 150893
}
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
