Old simplecoin thread

[simplecoin]

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  

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)

[simplecoin]

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.

[pete248]

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  

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]

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.

[pete248]

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 thanks for explaining!

[Man From The Future]

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]

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!

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

[Man From The Future]

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

Nice! I look forward to looking at it and becoming confused

[iCEBREAKER]

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* 

[sirky]

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* 

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]

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

[iCEBREAKER]

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.

[simplecoin]

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.

[mouser98]

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

[bitblazing]

When do payout occur?

[mouser98]

When do payout occur?

a few hours after a block is solved.

[simplecoin]

When do payout occur?

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

[damata_chip]

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]

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.

[simplecoin]

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.

No, not relative Just ((valid shares*4294967296)/600seconds)