If something has happened several times before and has a fairly predictable result it isn't a black swan.

The main reason by far is that it makes it easier for owners to sell (and implicitly buy) shares. Combined with the fact that the laws about distribution of information is much more strict for public companies in most countries, it makes the shares much more attractive. This results in higher share prices.

The client probably just doesn't calculate the percentage correctly, there are way more hits on even percentage numbers than odd. Also, you don't include 0 in your statistics, "0%" has 488 hits.

Why would there be an "optimal pool rate"?

How?

Everybody wants low risk. For a well run, well connected pool with a high hash rate the risk would be minimal to the operator, though.

I don't think there is any way to cheat with PPS. Feel free to share if you think you know something I don't.

I can only speak for myself, but they don't have PPS, their hash rate is too low to provide a steady payout, they require a special client, and they whine too much about their efficiency.

BTW, the name of the show is "Pioneer One". The difference is mainly that you will get a lot more relevant responses if you google that.

The guy who's commenting is completely clueless. He thinks that dollars are tied to gold, and that all other currencies are tied to dollars. I can't be bothered to make an account to correct him.

But since I don't agree to it your attempt at nitpicking is moot.

I voted pay per share, under the condition that the price is the same for all models. I don't think those who select another option make the same assumption, because if they did it would make no sense to select anything else. The whole point of a pool is to get a steady payout, and pps is as steady as it gets.

The only drawback for pps is that it shifts that risk to the pool provider. Other than that it's win win for both sides. It makes it very easy to client to check that the pool provider doesn't cheat, and the pool provider doesn't have to take any measures against pool jumping. I think that if someone starts providing pps and long polling for a more fair price than 10% they would quickly become the largest pool.

VNC isn't very "techie" and it runs fine with W7. I recommend TightVNC.

There's no way to get 1100 MHash from a single 5970. It's just two 5870 GPUs, and my 5870 gets 360 MHash at 950 MHz. To get 1100 MHash you'd need to run both cores at more than 1400 MHz.

Many ISPs throttle torrents, and if people actually got paid to find available bandwidth and fill it it would get much worse than torrents.

ISPs would kill it in days, if not hours.

What you are describing is a socialist pool. Good luck with that here.

De Beers beat you to it by about 100 years.

Any particular reason for the 5-10%? It's pretty pointless to mine with a CPU, but if you're going to do it, there's no point in limiting to 10%. Just set the process priority to low and you won't notice it.

You can only forward to hosts that have opened the ports, and they are much better connected to the rest of the web than you, so they don't need it. You're actually just adding load to them, because they have to be hubs for all the peers that don't allow incoming connections.

Just give the CPU intensive processes lower priority than the miner and you should be fine. Hyperthreading might mess it up, though.

Mainstream people aren't going to have a clue about how it works under the hood, so it won't influence their confidence in it at all.