Why that? Can you back up that claim? IMO ESMPPS is much more fair to miners in the long term.
ESMPPS is broken by design. Just like with original SMPPS, badluck could cause collapse of mining pool. RSMPPS is invulnerable to this scenario.
IMO ESMPPS is much more fair to miners in the long term.
Actually, RSMPPS and ESMPPS are the same in long term. But in fact, RSMPPS results are better.
P.S. You can see RSMPPS rounds list example here (switched to RSMPPS from SMPPS since round #112):
https://pool.itzod.ru/roundsThe main flaw of SMPPS is that in the long term, even with average luck, a queue of unpaid shares will build up, dropping immediate payout ratios for new shares to nearly zero. This is not true for ESMPPS though: While the immediate payout level will drop proportionally with long-term average luck, it will come back up when luck gets back to normal, unlike SMPPS.
While SMPPS gives priority to old shares and RSMPPS gives priority to new shares (both are a bad thing IMO), ESMPPS does neither of those by giving priority to the shares that have been paid the least so far, i.e. affected by luck the worst, until they catch up. This way it attempts to pay all shares equally in the long term.
The ESMPPS design is based on several weeks of discussions and hundreds of simulations, where it was directly compared to other reward distribution models on the very same luck data, and it turned out to behave more fairly in the vast majority of cases.
It is true that RSMPPS might provide more incentive to join a pool if you want to be paid quickly. That is not true if you're in for the long term though.And while it does have the same statistical average long term outcome, just like PPS, PPLNS and soloing have as well, it does have a much higher share-based variance than ESMPPS.
So while RSMPPS moves the SMPPS flaw from the newest shares to random shares, ESMPPS tries to spread it out evenly across all shares rather than picking individual ranges of shares to be basically just discarded. In fact I think that RSMPPS is more similar to PPLNS than to ESMPPS.
(Another problem with RSMPPS is a technical one: It requires you to keep track of an ever increasing number of individual shares.)
