A dream of having a new pool

[.anto.]

I am a new hobbyist miner with only 150 Gh/s total hashrate. I have been searching for pool that can give me the highest payout in the last 5 months, but I still cannot find the right one for me. The pool that I have been mining on the longest is Eligius. But I still don't see it to be a fair pool for me as I cannot set my difficulty to below 512. So I am dreaming to have my own pool.

I am still not familiar with the terms in Bitcoin. And I still do not understand all about mining business. So I would like to get inputs from all of you on this.

If I would make a public pool with the objectives, requirements and payout scheme as below, do you think I would reach my objectives? Do you think the requirements and payout scheme make sense? And what do you think we could improve to reach the objectives?

Objectives:
- Decentralise Bitcoin network, so it will only support Bitcoin
- Attract miners with low hashrates and pool hoppers
- Provide more advantage to miners with low hashrates
- Transparent information on the reward payout
- The pool must not make any profit but it must not go bankrupt

Requirements:
- Miners do not need to register to the pool
- Miners can only use Bitcoin address to mine
- Bitcoin address of the miners will be validated
- Miners with invalid Bitcoin addresses will be rejected
- Minimum accepted hashrate per Bitcoin address is 100 Gh/s
- Maximum accepted hashrate per Bitcoin address is 1000 Gh/s
- Miners with hashrates lower than 100 Gh/s must join a group and mine with a single Bitcoin address
- The distribution of payout on the miners' group should be managed by the group
- Miners will submit approximately the same shares managed by vardiff
- The fee for the pool maintenance is 0.05% of the total reward
- All 99.95% of the reward must go to the miners
- The minimum payout for each Bitcoin address is 0.001 BTC
- The payout will be rounded down to the nearest 0.000001 BTC
- The remaining dust payout will go to the pool maintenance account

Payout scheme:
- All miners will get the payout based on their porpotional and bonus shares
- The coinbase transaction of the miners' Bitcoin addresses will be updated each hour
- The payout will be based on the total shares recorded on the previous hour
- The shares that have been paid out will be reset at the time the payout is being executed
- When the total shares of miners remain the same on previous 2 hours, they will be set as dormant miners
- The total share of each dormant miner will be deducted by 1% and they will be distributed to all active miners on the next hour as bonus share
- The dormant miners will be changed back as active miners when their total shares on previous 2 hours keep increasing

[jonnybravo0311]

Well, everyone can dream I suppose.  I'm not really sure why the inability to set your minimum difficulty to 512 would have been a reason to quit a pool.  I find it especially curious that the very reason for you leaving a pool is not even listed as a requirement for your dream one.

Why do you want to attract pool hoppers?
How would your pool provide an advantage to miners with low hash rates?

I don't understand your payout scheme at all.  Way too many weird things going on...

The coinbase transaction of the miners' Bitcoin addresses will be updated each hour

Huh?  Makes zero sense.

- The payout will be based on the total shares recorded on the previous hour
- The shares that have been paid out will be reset at the time the payout is being executed
- When the total shares of miners remain the same on previous 2 hours, they will be set as dormant miners
- The total share of each dormant miner will be deducted by 1% and they will be distributed to all active miners on the next hour as bonus share

Wait... first you state the payout is based on previous hour's shares.  Alright, so you only count an hour's worth of mining?  Weird... but fine.  But wait, how then can I tell if a miner has been inactive for the previous 2 hours?  If I'm paying and resetting every hour, then I have no way to know if somebody was dormant for the hour prior.

[os2sam]

Eligius. But I still don't see it to be a fair pool for me as I cannot set my difficulty to below 512.

How does a minimum difficulty of 512 make a pool not "fair"?

[itsnogood]

"I am still not familiar with the terms in Bitcoin. And I still do not understand all about mining business."

Really.... well, well.

So you go from being annoyed at not being able to set your minimum difficulty to wanting to start your own pool.

You have been building to this through your other posts.

Go have a chat with Nexious, Im sure he will be able to help.

[.anto.]

Well, everyone can dream I suppose.  I'm not really sure why the inability to set your minimum difficulty to 512 would have been a reason to quit a pool.  I find it especially curious that the very reason for you leaving a pool is not even listed as a requirement for your dream one.

Yes. Inability to set minimum difficulty to below 512 is not the only reason why I want to have my own pool. Only miners with hashrates above 1 Th/s get the benefits from all available pools on the planet now. The miners with hashrates lower than 1 Th/s only get dust payout. So I think I have listed the requirements for this reason.

Why do you want to attract pool hoppers?

All miners including the pool hoppers must have the same opportunities to mine. However, the pool hoppers must also understand the impact of what they are doing, hence the penalty should be applied to them. But the penalty must be applied so that it will still make them come back to the pool. I am not sure though if the penalty that I mentioned would be able to manage that.

How would your pool provide an advantage to miners with low hash rates?

On all pools now, most rewards go to the miners with huge hashrates. So the miners with low hashrates only get dust payout. I thought it would be good for the miners with low hashrates if the gaps between all miners are quite close, so their payout would still be higher than what they would get on the other pools.

I don't understand your payout scheme at all.  Way too many weird things going on...

The coinbase transaction of the miners' Bitcoin addresses will be updated each hour

Huh?  Makes zero sense.

I am not sure how to explain this using the right terms. But this is what has been done already by Eligius pool for years, where the miners' addresses are being included into the transaction so their payouts are being done automatically as soon as the new block is found, without the need to execute the payout manually. The different is that on Eligius, the list is taken from the miners that their shares value exceed the threshold, sorted base on how long they are waiting to be paid out. I thought it would be fair to pay the miners listed on the previous hour before the new block is found, so they do not need to wait for days to get the payout.

- The payout will be based on the total shares recorded on the previous hour
- The shares that have been paid out will be reset at the time the payout is being executed
- When the total shares of miners remain the same on previous 2 hours, they will be set as dormant miners
- The total share of each dormant miner will be deducted by 1% and they will be distributed to all active miners on the next hour as bonus share

Wait... first you state the payout is based on previous hour's shares.  Alright, so you only count an hour's worth of mining?  Weird... but fine.  But wait, how then can I tell if a miner has been inactive for the previous 2 hours?  If I'm paying and resetting every hour, then I have no way to know if somebody was dormant for the hour prior.

First of all, I am quite sure that in reality the pool will not find a new block every hour. It would be great if that would happen but that is not realistic.

If you assumed that the pool will find new block every hour, then yes the scenario that you mentioned applies here. But even if that would happen, it is easy to detect the dormant miners as their shares will always 0 in the next hours until they mine again.

All other active miners will always have the shares recorded because they keep submitting the shares before the next recording hour is reached and they payout is done based on the record of the previous hour. For instance, the shares of a miner recorded at h hour is X and the pool has not found a new block at h hour. The pool finds a new block in between h and h+1 hours. At this time, his total share is X+Y, where Y is the shares mined after h hours. That miner will get the payout of X share value and he stills has Y shares and counting which will be recorded on the next hour.

[.anto.]

How does a minimum difficulty of 512 make a pool not "fair"?

Because I would submit more shares on lower difficulty. Or am I wrong on this?

[.anto.]

Go have a chat with Nexious, Im sure he will be able to help.

I promise you that I will get as much information about the where about of Nexious if I would be able to chat with him.

[eleuthria]

How does a minimum difficulty of 512 make a pool not "fair"?

Because I would submit more shares on lower difficulty. Or am I wrong on this?

Every single pool that uses difficulties greater than 1 (AKA: all of them) multiplies your share submissions by your difficulty.  So yes, you'll submit 4 times more work at 128 diff, but it would be the same payment as somebody submitting a single piece of work at 512.  Minimum difficulty has zero effect on your payout over any reasonable period of time.

[.anto.]

How does a minimum difficulty of 512 make a pool not "fair"?

Because I would submit more shares on lower difficulty. Or am I wrong on this?

Every single pool that uses difficulties greater than 1 (AKA: all of them) multiplies your share submissions by your difficulty.  So yes, you'll submit 4 times more work at 128 diff, but it would be the same payment as somebody submitting a single piece of work at 512.  Minimum difficulty has zero effect on your payout over any reasonable period of time.

Thanks for the clarification.

However, on the pool that I would like to have, the share is being used to get the proportional BTC reward for the miners. So I hope all miners will approximately get the same payout for the same mining period, regardless of their hashrates. The different will be that the miners who mine in longer time will get more payout than the ones who mine in shorter period. Has this kind of method been used so far? More importantly, does that make sense?

[os2sam]

However, on the pool that I would like to have, the share is being used to get the proportional BTC reward for the miners. So I hope all miners will approximately get the same payout for the same mining period, regardless of their hashrates. The different will be that the miners who mine in longer time will get more payout than the ones who mine in shorter period. Has this kind of method been used so far? More importantly, does that make sense?

That's not Proportional payout system.  That is Communism.  Nobody here will take part in such an unfair payout scheme.  Everyone wants to be paid for the work they do not to subsidize lower hash rate miners.

[jonnybravo0311]

I think you're missing the point here.  Small time miners get small time payouts - no matter what you may wish to happen.  You simply aren't going to get a bigger slice of the pie unless you get more hash.  Let's say you do start some kind of pool with an upper limit on hashing power.  So, you've got a pool with 10000 miners each having 100GH/s.  Do you somehow think that you, as one of those 100GH/s users is somehow going to make more than you would as the same user on a pool that has 2 miners, one has 999.9TH/s and you, with 100GH/s?  The simple answer is you are going to make the same.

You are hoping for the impossible.

[eleuthria]

However, on the pool that I would like to have, the share is being used to get the proportional BTC reward for the miners. So I hope all miners will approximately get the same payout for the same mining period, regardless of their hashrates. The different will be that the miners who mine in longer time will get more payout than the ones who mine in shorter period. Has this kind of method been used so far? More importantly, does that make sense?

This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.  So you think the people who spent thousands of dollars on modern and high speed equipment shouldn't get paid more than the people running 2-year old bargain bin ASICs and/or GPUs?  This isn't elementary school where just participating will get you credit.

[.anto.]

However, on the pool that I would like to have, the share is being used to get the proportional BTC reward for the miners. So I hope all miners will approximately get the same payout for the same mining period, regardless of their hashrates. The different will be that the miners who mine in longer time will get more payout than the ones who mine in shorter period. Has this kind of method been used so far? More importantly, does that make sense?

That's not Proportional payout system.  That is Communism.  Nobody here will take part in such an unfair payout scheme.  Everyone wants to be paid for the work they do not to subsidize lower hash rate miners.

If everybody had the same thought like that, we can be sure where the Bitcoin network will be centralised in a few years. Perhaps what I mentioned is very close to communism. But communism idea is practically dead. And I don't think capitalism works either. For instance, how many percent of the US citizens control the economy and politic in the US? I have read this article a few months back and I found that quite interesting.

What I was looking for is a way to keep the idea of Bitcoin network decentralisation going. And I know that this idea is not for people with huge hashrates, that is why I clearly stated that in the beginning.

[os2sam]

However, on the pool that I would like to have, the share is being used to get the proportional BTC reward for the miners. So I hope all miners will approximately get the same payout for the same mining period, regardless of their hashrates. The different will be that the miners who mine in longer time will get more payout than the ones who mine in shorter period. Has this kind of method been used so far? More importantly, does that make sense?

That's not Proportional payout system.  That is Communism.  Nobody here will take part in such an unfair payout scheme.  Everyone wants to be paid for the work they do not to subsidize lower hash rate miners.

If everybody had the same thought like that, we can be sure where the Bitcoin network will be centralised in a few years. Perhaps what I mentioned is very close to communism. But communism idea is practically dead. And I don't think capitalism works either. For instance, how many percent of the US citizens control the economy and politic in the US? I have read this article a few months back and I found that quite interesting.

Capitalism works and has worked every time it has been tried.  Everyone in the US asserts control over the economy and every one could take part in the Political process if they chose to.  It is very sad that so many choose to not participate in it and/or are ignorant to how it works.

[.anto.]

I think you're missing the point here.  Small time miners get small time payouts - no matter what you may wish to happen.  You simply aren't going to get a bigger slice of the pie unless you get more hash.  Let's say you do start some kind of pool with an upper limit on hashing power.  So, you've got a pool with 10000 miners each having 100GH/s.  Do you somehow think that you, as one of those 100GH/s users is somehow going to make more than you would as the same user on a pool that has 2 miners, one has 999.9TH/s and you, with 100GH/s?  The simple answer is you are going to make the same.

You are hoping for the impossible.

I wrote on the other thread that I usually make 10 mBTC per 2 weeks on Eligius pool and 1 mBTC per 2 days on Antpool with 100 Gh/s hashrate. Those are roughly equal to 0.7 and 0.5 mBTC per day respectively.

If I would mine together with all other 9,999 miners with the same 100 Gh/s, using this method I will definitely get 2.5 mBTC per day. And I will definitely get multiple of that per day as the pool hashrate is 1 Ph/s so it is likely to solve more blocks a day.

If there would be only 2 miners with 999.9 Th/s and 100 Gh/s, I would have to wait for a few days until my shares value reach the minimum payout threshold while the other miner would get the most payout every day while I am waiting. This is clear to me that I will make very less than on the previous example. Could you please explain why this would not be the expected result, John (I hope you still have the patience of the Saint)?

[os2sam]

What I was looking for is a way to keep the idea of Bitcoin network decentralisation going. And I know that this idea is not for people with huge hashrates, that is why I clearly stated that in the beginning.

Creating a pool with ONLY small miners will not solve enough blocks to make worth while for anyone.  Small miners have largely shutdown or upgraded hardware due to poor efficiency of small mining devices.

If you want to help decentralize the network then figure out a way to make P2Pool work on a large scale to include large and small hash rate miners.

Another way to help keep the network decentralized is to run a full Bitcoin node and have it in your miners failover list.

In the mean time rethink your ideas as they are now unworkable and contradictory.

My main problem is with you having the idea that the current pools are somehow unfair.  I think that notion of yours is what is unfair.

But keep thinking on how to make things better and good luck with it.

[.anto.]

However, on the pool that I would like to have, the share is being used to get the proportional BTC reward for the miners. So I hope all miners will approximately get the same payout for the same mining period, regardless of their hashrates. The different will be that the miners who mine in longer time will get more payout than the ones who mine in shorter period. Has this kind of method been used so far? More importantly, does that make sense?

This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.  So you think the people who spent thousands of dollars on modern and high speed equipment shouldn't get paid more than the people running 2-year old bargain bin ASICs and/or GPUs?  This isn't elementary school where just participating will get you credit.

Ohhh... Come on. The people who invested thousands of dollars definitely choose to mine on the available pools or they even have their own pools. This idea is for the people who are impossible to compete with them. I thought I was quite clear on my first post.

[os2sam]

I think you're missing the point here.  Small time miners get small time payouts - no matter what you may wish to happen.  You simply aren't going to get a bigger slice of the pie unless you get more hash.  Let's say you do start some kind of pool with an upper limit on hashing power.  So, you've got a pool with 10000 miners each having 100GH/s.  Do you somehow think that you, as one of those 100GH/s users is somehow going to make more than you would as the same user on a pool that has 2 miners, one has 999.9TH/s and you, with 100GH/s?  The simple answer is you are going to make the same.

You are hoping for the impossible.

I have wrote on the other thread that I usually make 10 mBTC per 2 weeks on Eligius pool and 1 mBTC per 2 days on Antpool with 100 Gh/s hashrate. Those are roughly equal to 0.7 and 0.5 mBTC per day respectively.

If I would mine together with all other 9,999 miners with the same 100 Gh/s, using this method I will definitely get 2.5 mBTC per day. And I will definitely get multiple of that per day as the pool hashrate is 1 Ph/s so it is likely to solve more blocks a day.

If there would be only 2 miners with 999.9 Th/s and 100 Gh/s, I would have to wait for a few days until my shares value reach the minimum payout threshold while the other miner would get the most payout every day while I am waiting. This is clear to me that I will make very less than on the previous example. Could you please explain why this would not be the expected result, John (I hope you still have the patience of the Saint)?

Um, it doesn't matter if it takes 9,999 miners or just one miner to make up the 1Phs minus your 100Ghs portion.  You will still have the same percentage of shares thus the same payout, IF a block is found.  No block no payout.

[.anto.]

However, on the pool that I would like to have, the share is being used to get the proportional BTC reward for the miners. So I hope all miners will approximately get the same payout for the same mining period, regardless of their hashrates. The different will be that the miners who mine in longer time will get more payout than the ones who mine in shorter period. Has this kind of method been used so far? More importantly, does that make sense?

That's not Proportional payout system.  That is Communism.  Nobody here will take part in such an unfair payout scheme.  Everyone wants to be paid for the work they do not to subsidize lower hash rate miners.

If everybody had the same thought like that, we can be sure where the Bitcoin network will be centralised in a few years. Perhaps what I mentioned is very close to communism. But communism idea is practically dead. And I don't think capitalism works either. For instance, how many percent of the US citizens control the economy and politic in the US? I have read this article a few months back and I found that quite interesting.

Capitalism works and has worked every time it has been tried.  Everyone in the US asserts control over the economy and every one could take part in the Political process if they chose to.  It is very sad that so many choose to not participate in it and/or are ignorant to how it works.

I hope that would be the reality. You can look it up yourself on how the US economy is actually being managed. But I will stop responding to this kind of comments as this is out of topic.

[os2sam]

Capitalism works and has worked every time it has been tried.  Everyone in the US asserts control over the economy and every one could take part in the Political process if they chose to.  It is very sad that so many choose to not participate in it and/or are ignorant to how it works.

I hope that would be the reality. You can look it up yourself on how the US economy is actually being managed. But I will stop responding to this kind of comments as this is out of topic.

Yes, it is off the topic.  But it would be a very worthwhile discussion in the proper forum.