Merged mining requires extra long polls when the NMC block changes. Everytime you have a LP, you increase the odds of users getting stales during that window where the pool is generating thousands of getworks for miners. MM more than doubles the number of long polls. The only way around that FACT, is if some of the other MM pools are not pushing out a longpoll when the NMC block changes. If that's the case, they're damaging NMC production without hurting BTC much (there is always some minor overhead in generating the work for a merged block vs a regular block).
You're right that longpolling on NMC blocks isn't worth of doing, I'm not triggering LP on NMC block, too. However I must disagree that merged mining is adding any measurable additional load on servers when doing properly (so - without merged mining proxy) or hurt bitcoin mining in any way. Also that drop in NMC performance because of not doing LP is really mininmal, in few percents, so that's nothing what really hurt anybody. Otherwise I agree, introducing merged mining WAS pain and I really understand that you don't want to play with it when NMC price is so low (actually it's on 30% of price in time of MM started). |
|
|
|
Slush, one sugestion:
-On the Hall of Fame, add some camp with the user in question, with what place he is, what's its current hash rate and how many block he has found up.
Hm, can you describe it more? I probably don't understand. You mean -> slush, make the stats better? :-) |
|
|
|
no more shares worth little or nothing after 15 min
Quote from Meni Rosenfeld's paper about pools, part "Myths": The value of my score will decay if I quit a score-based pool, so it forces
me to stay.
Score and payouts are additive. The score you were rewarded for shares
submitted in the past will decay the same way whether you stay or quit; the score you
will receive for shares you submit in the future does not rely on the past. Your total
payout is an independent sum of the two factors.
Score-based methods are disadvantageous for intermittent miners.
The expected payout per share in a hopping-proof method is always the fair solo average
no matter when it was submitted, so your expected total reward over a period of
time is equal exactly to the total value of the shares you submitted, no matter what
your mining pattern is.
It's probably the best response which I can provide, because I told the same many times before, obviously without an effect for some users :-). no more variance thanks to "invalid blocks"
I slightly changed your quote, to be more correct. Every pool has invalid blocks, only few of them "protect" users by higher fee. It lower their payout variance, but the final effect is same unless pool operator is Mother Theresa and pay for invalid blocks from his own pocket. no more rejected shares because your pool can't play with phoenix
phoenix is crippled in serious way and author is aware of this. Actually latest phoenix work without issues for *most* users as 1/3 of all miners on my pool is phoenix. What's an issue? no more problems & promises
Well, I know there was many problems lately, unfortunately only few were caused by my incompetence or lack of support. I already apologize for that and cannot do more. About promises - I'm filling them. oh one last slam to me namecoins DIDN"T payoff with the last of my bitcoins
Hm, can you describe it more? Are they pending on your profile for some reason? I'm not aware of any problem with payouts. If you hate me for some reason, you can leave - I don't keep you by force. But there's no need to make such drama about that. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Having a direct link from the pool would be a compelling reason to join back up here, but of course, actual rates and types of gold/silver coin would be an issue. Does slush *really* want to get into the bullion dealing business?
As I claimed - not directly, for security and legal reasons. But thanks to high interest here it's probably worth of try. Actually I'm really surprised that 40% of people checked gold/silver payouts option in poll, but I'm not sure they'll *really* use it after they realize that price for 1gram bar + shipping will be far from London fix for 1oz :-D. I also agree that |
|
|
|
Actually I don't want to handle gold personally, for both security and legal reasons. But I have connection to trusted company which can process secure gold delivery. So as far as you trust me and I trust them, there should be everything fine :-). trust, if you already trust Slush's pool to send you your coins...(some other guys are offering it already, but can you trust them...?)
|
|
|
|
What a nice Idea! The only thing why I wont't use it, is the ratio between the Silver OZ and the shipping fee. It would be extreme, if they would be sended every time 14 BTC + shipping (1 to 2 BTC in my case if they are sended from CZ to AT) The next Problem would be the toll rates if the reciepent is outside of the EU.
You're absolutely right, shipping prices and gold premium *are* the issue. Delivering a gram of gold around the world every week will have insane overhead, far from stock price of 1oz gold and I'm not sure if people are aware of this. If it will be successful, maybe it will be possible to have more places for sending (at least EU/US), but at the beginning there will be definitely only one location and it will be probably USA, not CZ, because I don't want to handle gold packages personally; I'm not a bank nor gold mine :-). |
|
|
|
|
I think that better is to show only exchange "houses", not their tradable currencies. For example show USD/EUR/whatever on MtGox as one record.
Anyway thanks for graphs :-).
|
|
|
|
although if the namecoins had an option to be paid out in BTC instead of NMC, that I might go for.
I has been thinking about this month ago, even before merged mining started. I realized that it's not profitable for anybody. a) Miners interested in keeping namecoins will get much less namecoins, because now they get much more than is corresponding their hashrate (because many users don't claim their namecoin wallet). b) Miners interested in selling namecoins to BTC will get much less bitcoins, because when pool start automatic conversion, it will push price on namecoin exchange to almost zero (pool still has over 50% of namecoin hashrate). c) People not interested in namecoins will get virtually +0% to their btc earnings, because pool push merket price to zero. So I decided to *not* trade namecoins automatically and let people to handle their namecoins on their own. Honestly - selling namecoins for bitcoins is a matter of few clicks once per week, so I don't think it's a big deal. I know that some other pools are trading namecoins for bitcoins automatically, but I simply don't think it's good decision for miners. |
|
|
|
|
As somebody asked (sorry, I cannot find that post right now), I added "confirmed_nmc_reward" and "nmc_send_threshold" to user's JSON stats.
|
|
|
|
which will lower your profits increase your variance
This. But as far as smaller pools are in the game and you're running long-term operation, higher variance (in contrast with deepbit, for example) isn't probably an issue. Just my two cents ;-). Edit: Btw number of found blocks should be roughly the same as before an outage, because during the outage dropped the bitcoin difficulty. So it even didn't affect block variance. |
|
|
|
I think we have an economic incentive to keep payouts in BTC. Basically you're right, keeping bitcoins and spending them for goods in Bitcoin world is the best possibility. But of course a lot of miners directly sell coins on market, that's the reality. Refusing to offer some interesting payout methods don't make things better. Actually there are some merchants accepting bitcoins for gold/silver, so payouts in gold *do* help the economy much better than selling them on MtGox for USD and push BTC price down. Of course pool payouts in Bitcoin will be here forever, I'm just thinking if there's enough interest to play with some alternatives. |
|
|
|
|
Just for curiosity I changed thread poll. Please check what do you personally prefer. Of course other methods than bitcoin payouts have some additional expenses, so they're might be interesting only for people earning enough coins...
As an example, 1oz silver bar is roughly 14BTC + shipping.
|
|
|
|
But he said there's pending transaction on tradehill side. So I'm expecting same issue like I had. let me get this straight, you sent your funds directly from one exchange to another, tradehill to virwox, 3 days ago and it doesn't show up ?
|
|
|
|
I had similar problem with transferring 100BTC from TradeHill. I wrote him after a day of waiting and got this reply: Apologies about the delay. Our system has an override that occurs on some BTC withdrawals. Once we research the user activity we can manually approve these!
Then coins went thru in one hour or so. Not sure if this can help you. |
|
|
|
Your a better man the I, I would simply ban them (which is likely why I don't run a pool  ) I've learned a lot of new stuff during this year, thanks to running the pool. Now I don't mean technically, but pool gave me a lesson to not keep everything personally. I'm running public service which keep valuable tokens and I must understand that people are nervous when they don't get what they expected. Only few of them understand the troubles which I had and that I had only a little chance to pretend it, but it's obviously my problem, not theirs. So I'm very glad for all that support from people who understand, but trying to not get mad from people who're crazy about 0.5$ :-). |
|
|
|
|
NMC payouts were sent and automatic payouts are enabled again. Thank you all for your patience.
RobertRibbeck: Exactly as I promised 19 hours ago.
|
|
|
|
|
So? It's still "tomorrow". Every day have, at least here, 24 hours.
|
|
|
|
tomorrow of which week ??
UTC |
|
|
|
|
runeks: It's generating random keys, so yes - you can stop it anytime and it don't lower your chance to find proper address...
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
