Bitcoin Forum
December 06, 2016, 04:11:44 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Old simplecoin thread  (Read 93886 times)
kiwiasian
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168


View Profile
June 08, 2011, 05:58:39 PM
 #301

Sigh, my estimated earnings are still randomly decreasing and jumping about.
Is the score calculation still flawed?

I'll do my own calculations to determine how accurate it is.

Edit:
50(13535/441462)=1.533 BTC
My earnings are showing as 1.203 BTC  Huh

I am trying to iron-out the cheat-proof estimate. It's crazy logarithmic math. Payouts are also no longer 100% proportional. They are weighted towards miners who spend even time in the round. So, if you're not trying to pool-hop, you will be paid slightly more than those who are.

Even if your estimate is off: the final payout will be correct. The final payout calculations are too complex and strenuous to run often enough for estimates.

Could you explain the entire formula for calculating how we are paid? Then we can review it and fully understand how the reward system works.

Also, with the current method, doesn't that mean the lower-power contributers (below 500 MH/s) are unfairly being disadvantaged relative to the high-power hashers, so long as the high-power hashers are present (or accepting shares while the low-power hashers are too)?

Tradehill referral link, save 10% | http://www.tradehill.com/?r=TH-R12328
www.payb.tc/kiwiasian | 1LHNW1JGMBo2e7rKiiFz7KJPKE57bqCdEC
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481040704
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481040704

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481040704
Reply with quote  #2

1481040704
Report to moderator
simplecoin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406



View Profile WWW
June 08, 2011, 06:06:41 PM
 #302

Sigh, my estimated earnings are still randomly decreasing and jumping about.
Is the score calculation still flawed?

I'll do my own calculations to determine how accurate it is.

Edit:
50(13535/441462)=1.533 BTC
My earnings are showing as 1.203 BTC  Huh

I am trying to iron-out the cheat-proof estimate. It's crazy logarithmic math. Payouts are also no longer 100% proportional. They are weighted towards miners who spend even time in the round. So, if you're not trying to pool-hop, you will be paid slightly more than those who are.

Even if your estimate is off: the final payout will be correct. The final payout calculations are too complex and strenuous to run often enough for estimates.

Could you explain the entire formula for calculating how we are paid? Then we can review it and fully understand how the reward system works.

Also, with the current method, doesn't that mean the lower-power contributers (below 500 MH/s) are unfairly being disadvantaged relative to the high-power hashers, so long as the high-power hashers are present (or accepting shares while the low-power hashers are too)?

No, hashrate has nothing to do with the scoring weight. It's weighted towards when you participate.

Think of it as proportional scoring but also proportional to the length of the round you participated in.

The actual proof and discussion is here if you want the technical details (http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=4787.0)


Donations: 1VjGJHPtLodwCFBDWsHJMdEhqRcRKdBQk
simplecoin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406



View Profile WWW
June 08, 2011, 06:27:12 PM
 #303

Well, looks like I'll lose just a tiny bit from this first round..... Since tx fees are mandated by the client, every cashout costs me .01 btc.

So, since I want to keep this pool free... Should I take the estimated tx fee out on cashout or should it make accounts go negative for the actual cost?

I run this for you, so I'm open to suggestions.

Donations: 1VjGJHPtLodwCFBDWsHJMdEhqRcRKdBQk
pete248
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 12


View Profile
June 08, 2011, 06:40:44 PM
 #304

Sigh, my estimated earnings are still randomly decreasing and jumping about.
Is the score calculation still flawed?

I'll do my own calculations to determine how accurate it is.

Edit:
50(13535/441462)=1.533 BTC
My earnings are showing as 1.203 BTC  Huh

I am trying to iron-out the cheat-proof estimate. It's crazy logarithmic math. Payouts are also no longer 100% proportional. They are weighted towards miners who spend even time in the round. So, if you're not trying to pool-hop, you will be paid slightly more than those who are.

Even if your estimate is off: the final payout will be correct. The final payout calculations are too complex and strenuous to run often enough for estimates.

Could you explain the entire formula for calculating how we are paid? Then we can review it and fully understand how the reward system works.

Also, with the current method, doesn't that mean the lower-power contributers (below 500 MH/s) are unfairly being disadvantaged relative to the high-power hashers, so long as the high-power hashers are present (or accepting shares while the low-power hashers are too)?

No, hashrate has nothing to do with the scoring weight. It's weighted towards when you participate.

Think of it as proportional scoring but also proportional to the length of the round you participated in.

The actual proof and discussion is here if you want the technical details (http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=4787.0)



So if i understand correctly, a simple situation would be this:

If Person 2 joined the pool at when the weighting was 5.
And the number means how many shares have been submitted at that weighting (would decrease within a given time period).

Person 1                     Person 2       Share Weighting (Decreases with time until block is solved)
         1                                                               10
         1                                                                9
         1                                                                8
         1                                                                6
         1                             3                                 5
         1                             3                                 4
         1                             3                                 3
         1                             3                                 2
         1                             3                                 1

Person 1 submitted 10 shares. Has a total weighting of 55.
Person 2 submitted 15 shares. Has a total weighting of 45.
This means that Person 1 minimises their losses (or even equals or gets more than) Person 2 as he started mining earlier in the pool, and so the weighting starts canceling out the fact that Person 2 has a higher share of the reward.
simplecoin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406



View Profile WWW
June 08, 2011, 06:54:05 PM
 #305

So if i understand correctly, a simple situation would be this:

If Person 2 joined the pool at when the weighting was 5.
And the number means how many shares have been submitted at that weighting (would decrease within a given time period).

Person 1                     Person 2       Share Weighting (Decreases with time until block is solved)
         1                                                               10
         1                                                                9
         1                                                                8
         1                                                                6
         1                             3                                 5
         1                             3                                 4
         1                             3                                 3
         1                             3                                 2
         1                             3                                 1

Person 1 submitted 10 shares. Has a total weighting of 55.
Person 2 submitted 15 shares. Has a total weighting of 45.
This means that Person 1 minimises their losses (or even equals or gets more than) Person 2 as he started mining earlier in the pool, and so the weighting starts canceling out the fact that Person 2 has a higher share of the reward.

No, that's what the scoring is meant to prevent.
Share # Person a (Pool Hopper) Person b (loyal member) Share weight
1          1mh                          1mh                            1
100       1mh                          1mh                            1.1
10000    1mh                          1mh                            2
100000   0mh                         1mh                            4
1000000 0mh                          1mh                            10

Please note these numbers are purely made up, but they might help get the point across. Since you never know when a block will end and pool hopping exploits the start of a new block, it causes anyone trying to cheat to not get a disproportionate reward on short rounds.

The share weights are not 1-1, and reset with each block, creating a constant sliding scale. Your rewards should be the same or better than a proportional share if you are not trying to exploit pool hopping.

Donations: 1VjGJHPtLodwCFBDWsHJMdEhqRcRKdBQk
pete248
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 12


View Profile
June 08, 2011, 07:19:43 PM
 #306

So if i understand correctly, a simple situation would be this:

If Person 2 joined the pool at when the weighting was 5.
And the number means how many shares have been submitted at that weighting (would decrease within a given time period).

Person 1                     Person 2       Share Weighting (Decreases with time until block is solved)
         1                                                               10
         1                                                                9
         1                                                                8
         1                                                                6
         1                             3                                 5
         1                             3                                 4
         1                             3                                 3
         1                             3                                 2
         1                             3                                 1

Person 1 submitted 10 shares. Has a total weighting of 55.
Person 2 submitted 15 shares. Has a total weighting of 45.
This means that Person 1 minimises their losses (or even equals or gets more than) Person 2 as he started mining earlier in the pool, and so the weighting starts canceling out the fact that Person 2 has a higher share of the reward.

No, that's what the scoring is meant to prevent.
Share # Person a (Pool Hopper) Person b (loyal member) Share weight
1          1mh                          1mh                            1
100       1mh                          1mh                            1.1
10000    1mh                          1mh                            2
100000   0mh                         1mh                            4
1000000 0mh                          1mh                            10

Please note these numbers are purely made up, but they might help get the point across. Since you never know when a block will end and pool hopping exploits the start of a new block, it causes anyone trying to cheat to not get a disproportionate reward on short rounds.

The share weights are not 1-1, and reset with each block, creating a constant sliding scale. Your rewards should be the same or better than a proportional share if you are not trying to exploit pool hopping.

Oh right, i get it Smiley thanks for explaining!
Man From The Future
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126


View Profile
June 08, 2011, 07:39:19 PM
 #307

Open source, ok, where is the source of this "Miner Pool"?

Please don't claim that it is open source, if it is not.

edit:, oh it's changed since yesterday, now it reads "SimpleCoin" in the about. Still no source that I can find... People shouldn't be asking "how is your reward calculated", if it was all open source. They would already know.
simplecoin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406



View Profile WWW
June 08, 2011, 07:42:34 PM
 #308

Open source, ok, where is the source of this "Miner Pool"?

Please don't claim that it is open source, if it is not.

Funny you mention that, I'm uploading it to a public github now! Wink

It was based off Xenland's Miner Pool which was also opensource. He and I have spoken about cross-licensing, and came to an agreement. I'm comfortable enough now with the source too that it is on it's way shortly!

Miner Pool is here : http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=10617.0

Donations: 1VjGJHPtLodwCFBDWsHJMdEhqRcRKdBQk
Man From The Future
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126


View Profile
June 08, 2011, 07:45:47 PM
 #309

AAh, I see why I couldn't find it, it read "Miner Pool", when it is called "Mining Pool"! Tongue

Nice! I look forward to looking at it and becoming confused Smiley
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
June 08, 2011, 08:08:55 PM
 #310

So if i understand correctly, a simple situation would be this:

If Person 2 joined the pool at when the weighting was 5.
And the number means how many shares have been submitted at that weighting (would decrease within a given time period).

Person 1                     Person 2       Share Weighting (Decreases with time until block is solved)
         1                                                               10
         1                                                                9
         1                                                                8
         1                                                                6
         1                             3                                 5
         1                             3                                 4
         1                             3                                 3
         1                             3                                 2
         1                             3                                 1

Person 1 submitted 10 shares. Has a total weighting of 55.
Person 2 submitted 15 shares. Has a total weighting of 45.
This means that Person 1 minimises their losses (or even equals or gets more than) Person 2 as he started mining earlier in the pool, and so the weighting starts canceling out the fact that Person 2 has a higher share of the reward.

No, that's what the scoring is meant to prevent.
Share # Person a (Pool Hopper) Person b (loyal member) Share weight
1          1mh                          1mh                            1
100       1mh                          1mh                            1.1
10000    1mh                          1mh                            2
100000   0mh                         1mh                            4
1000000 0mh                          1mh                            10

Please note these numbers are purely made up, but they might help get the point across. Since you never know when a block will end and pool hopping exploits the start of a new block, it causes anyone trying to cheat to not get a disproportionate reward on short rounds.

The share weights are not 1-1, and reset with each block, creating a constant sliding scale. Your rewards should be the same or better than a proportional share if you are not trying to exploit pool hopping.

Doesn't this just change the incentive for pool hoppers from exploiting the first half of the round, to exploiting the second one?

*joins for first 1/3 of round, hops pools, re-joins for last 1/3 of current difficulty*  Tongue

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Wallets - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }


Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016
Blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security.  davout 2015
Blocksize is an intentionally limited resource, like the 21e6 BTC limit.  Changing it degrades the surrounding economics, creating negative incentives.  Jeff Garzik 2013


"I believed @Dashpay instamine was a bug & not a feature but then read: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg13017231#msg13017231
I'm not against people making money, but can't support questionable origins."
https://twitter.com/Tone_LLT/status/717822927908024320


The raison d'être of bitcoin is trustlessness. - Eric Lombrozo 2015
It is an Engineering Requirement that Bitcoin be “Above the Law”  Paul Sztorc 2015
Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralized, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016

Technology tends to move in the direction of making surveillance easier, and the ability of computers to track us doubles every eighteen months. - Phil Zimmerman 2013

The only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. - Andy Tanenbaum 2004

"Hard forks cannot be co
sirky
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 407



View Profile
June 08, 2011, 08:14:22 PM
 #311

So if i understand correctly, a simple situation would be this:

If Person 2 joined the pool at when the weighting was 5.
And the number means how many shares have been submitted at that weighting (would decrease within a given time period).

Person 1                     Person 2       Share Weighting (Decreases with time until block is solved)
         1                                                               10
         1                                                                9
         1                                                                8
         1                                                                6
         1                             3                                 5
         1                             3                                 4
         1                             3                                 3
         1                             3                                 2
         1                             3                                 1

Person 1 submitted 10 shares. Has a total weighting of 55.
Person 2 submitted 15 shares. Has a total weighting of 45.
This means that Person 1 minimises their losses (or even equals or gets more than) Person 2 as he started mining earlier in the pool, and so the weighting starts canceling out the fact that Person 2 has a higher share of the reward.

No, that's what the scoring is meant to prevent.
Share # Person a (Pool Hopper) Person b (loyal member) Share weight
1          1mh                          1mh                            1
100       1mh                          1mh                            1.1
10000    1mh                          1mh                            2
100000   0mh                         1mh                            4
1000000 0mh                          1mh                            10

Please note these numbers are purely made up, but they might help get the point across. Since you never know when a block will end and pool hopping exploits the start of a new block, it causes anyone trying to cheat to not get a disproportionate reward on short rounds.

The share weights are not 1-1, and reset with each block, creating a constant sliding scale. Your rewards should be the same or better than a proportional share if you are not trying to exploit pool hopping.

Doesn't this just change the incentive for pool hoppers from exploiting the first half of the round, to exploiting the second one?

*joins for first 1/3 of round, hops pools, re-joins for last 1/3 of current difficulty*  Tongue

Well... you never know when you are going to find a block though. So you can't know when to rejoin. It's just good to be there right before it is found.
simplecoin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406



View Profile WWW
June 08, 2011, 08:34:24 PM
 #312

First public source released! http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=13164.0

Donations: 1VjGJHPtLodwCFBDWsHJMdEhqRcRKdBQk
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
June 08, 2011, 09:09:50 PM
 #313

Well... you never know when you are going to find a block though. So you can't know when to rejoin. It's just good to be there right before it is found.

That works, unless you can use the current difficulty to estimate when the least profitable middle-third of the current round will occur, and then skip out on it.

Disclaimer: I am terrible at probability and combinatorics.  It's all magic quantum woo to me.

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Wallets - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }


Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016
Blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security.  davout 2015
Blocksize is an intentionally limited resource, like the 21e6 BTC limit.  Changing it degrades the surrounding economics, creating negative incentives.  Jeff Garzik 2013


"I believed @Dashpay instamine was a bug & not a feature but then read: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg13017231#msg13017231
I'm not against people making money, but can't support questionable origins."
https://twitter.com/Tone_LLT/status/717822927908024320


The raison d'être of bitcoin is trustlessness. - Eric Lombrozo 2015
It is an Engineering Requirement that Bitcoin be “Above the Law”  Paul Sztorc 2015
Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralized, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016

Technology tends to move in the direction of making surveillance easier, and the ability of computers to track us doubles every eighteen months. - Phil Zimmerman 2013

The only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. - Andy Tanenbaum 2004

"Hard forks cannot be co
simplecoin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406



View Profile WWW
June 08, 2011, 09:14:56 PM
 #314

Well... you never know when you are going to find a block though. So you can't know when to rejoin. It's just good to be there right before it is found.

That works, unless you can use the current difficulty to estimate when the least profitable middle-third of the current round will occur, and then skip out on it.

Disclaimer: I am terrible at probability and combinatorics.  It's all magic quantum woo to me.

Maybe, if the round was just one block. Plus, it's always possible to solve a block in less than the estimate.

Donations: 1VjGJHPtLodwCFBDWsHJMdEhqRcRKdBQk
mouser98
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
June 08, 2011, 09:43:57 PM
 #315

assuming SC doesn't mind, i have made a page in facebook for us called Simplecoin US.  come and hang out.
bitblazing
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 96


View Profile
June 08, 2011, 09:47:43 PM
 #316

When do payout occur?
mouser98
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
June 08, 2011, 09:55:42 PM
 #317

When do payout occur?

a few hours after a block is solved.
simplecoin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406



View Profile WWW
June 08, 2011, 09:58:58 PM
 #318

When do payout occur?

Specifically, once we find a block and it matures (120 confirmations)

Donations: 1VjGJHPtLodwCFBDWsHJMdEhqRcRKdBQk
damata_chip
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1


View Profile
June 08, 2011, 10:07:07 PM
 #319

My processing speed keeps pretty constant between 62,000-66,000 khash/s, but on my account page the hashrate is showing as between 40-50 MH/s. Is there a problem with the calculation or is there something else i'm not taking into account?
kiwiasian
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168


View Profile
June 08, 2011, 10:13:35 PM
 #320

My processing speed keeps pretty constant between 62,000-66,000 khash/s, but on my account page the hashrate is showing as between 40-50 MH/s. Is there a problem with the calculation or is there something else i'm not taking into account?

The hash rate is estimated based on the number of valid shares you submit relative to others.

Tradehill referral link, save 10% | http://www.tradehill.com/?r=TH-R12328
www.payb.tc/kiwiasian | 1LHNW1JGMBo2e7rKiiFz7KJPKE57bqCdEC
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!