Haven't seen a penny?

[ATC777]

sry facts cant lie, oh wait according to ur "god" in your "bible" this happens all the time, ah well then!

Why do you have to insult his religion?  

It's not like he's the only Christian in the world... *cough*  

let me have some fun with idiots
since hes trying to force it on all ppl, for example he put his prayers into the blockchain with his pool but havent told the user, after that many ppl droped from eligius. hes just a shady lier thats all, oh and stealing software (see bfgminer for example). if you dont believe me just look at his posts, but i really dislike to waste time @ him if u understand me got better things to do.

I'm not getting involved in the argument -- I refrain from internet arguments or personal attacks. I'm just saying that if you must insult him don't insult his religion, especially if it's one of the largest religions in the world like Christianity or Islam. You'll inadvertently insult other people and then they won't like you. Some crazy people might even try to do you harm.

[1714838913]

1714838913

[1714838913]

1714838913

[1714838913]

1714838913

[1714838913]

1714838913

[1714838913]

1714838913

[organofcorti]

I'm not getting involved in the argument -- I refrain from internet arguments or personal attacks. I'm just saying that if you must insult him don't insult his religion, especially if it's one of the largest religions in the world like Christianity or Islam. You'll inadvertently insult other people and then they won't like you. Some crazy people might even try to do you harm.

That's not exactly a ringing endorsement for organised religion. Are you pro or con?

[Luke-Jr]

for max income, use p2pool

Explain... Never heard of it and dunno what it is! 

He's mostly trolling. p2pool's reward system basically makes it improved solo mining. It's not a bad pool, but it certainly doesn't pay better than others.

its the pool with the max outcome, besides the increased PPS pools (unlike ur scampool).

Can't get higher than nofee+txnfees. Admittedly, Eligius is only nofee, but txnfees are so worthless it isn't worth the effort right now - that hardly makes it a "scampool", so that verifies your status as troll. On the other hand, p2pool has very high variance, while Eligius has much lower, so for most people, Eligius is the better choice.

You're probably right, but time to maturity is also a factor. If miners have to wait a significant time to obtain their coins, this also has an impact on earnings. Have you derived the expected time to maturity for Eligius' new reward method? If so could you post it here so it can be compared to p2Pools?

Time to maturity is always 100 confirmations, no matter where you mine, unless the pool is doing some kind of advance (or delay). Neither Eligius and p2pool give any advance, and Eligius only delays rewards for the miners' benefit (to avoid transaction fees when you go to spend them, the pool waits until you have earned a reasonable amount).

I'm not getting involved in the argument -- I refrain from internet arguments or personal attacks. I'm just saying that if you must insult him don't insult his religion, especially if it's one of the largest religions in the world like Christianity or Islam. You'll inadvertently insult other people and then they won't like you. Some crazy people might even try to do you harm.

Seems pretty clear to me his anti-Christianity is the fundamental reason he hates me enough to slander me.

[crazyates]

I'm not getting involved in the argument -- I refrain from internet arguments or personal attacks. I'm just saying that if you must insult him don't insult his religion, especially if it's one of the largest religions in the world like Christianity or Islam. You'll inadvertently insult other people and then they won't like you. Some crazy people might even try to do you harm.

That's not exactly a ringing endorsement for organised religion. Are you pro or con?

There are crazies in every religion. Minorities might be the loudest, but they're just that: a minority.

Back on topic: why are we comparing pools? I thought most pools would be within a few % of each other, and the STICKY at the top of this subforum already compares all most of them.

[K1773R]

for max income, use p2pool

Explain... Never heard of it and dunno what it is! 

He's mostly trolling. p2pool's reward system basically makes it improved solo mining. It's not a bad pool, but it certainly doesn't pay better than others.

its the pool with the max outcome, besides the increased PPS pools (unlike ur scampool).

Can't get higher than nofee+txnfees. Admittedly, Eligius is only nofee, but txnfees are so worthless it isn't worth the effort right now - that hardly makes it a "scampool", so that verifies your status as troll. On the other hand, p2pool has very high variance, while Eligius has much lower, so for most people, Eligius is the better choice.

You're probably right, but time to maturity is also a factor. If miners have to wait a significant time to obtain their coins, this also has an impact on earnings. Have you derived the expected time to maturity for Eligius' new reward method? If so could you post it here so it can be compared to p2Pools?

Time to maturity is always 100 confirmations, no matter where you mine, unless the pool is doing some kind of advance (or delay). Neither Eligius and p2pool give any advance, and Eligius only delays rewards for the miners' benefit (to avoid transaction fees when you go to spend them, the pool waits until you have earned a reasonable amount).

I'm not getting involved in the argument -- I refrain from internet arguments or personal attacks. I'm just saying that if you must insult him don't insult his religion, especially if it's one of the largest religions in the world like Christianity or Islam. You'll inadvertently insult other people and then they won't like you. Some crazy people might even try to do you harm.

Seems pretty clear to me his anti-Christianity is the fundamental reason he hates me enough to slander me.

wrong, its 120 confirmations... dosnt even know the basics and is a bitcoin dev, shame on u... no i dont hate u because ur believe some stupid shit, its because how u act and what ur doing.

[organofcorti]

You're probably right, but time to maturity is also a factor. If miners have to wait a significant time to obtain their coins, this also has an impact on earnings. Have you derived the expected time to maturity for Eligius' new reward method? If so could you post it here so it can be compared to p2Pools?

Time to maturity is always 100 confirmations, no matter where you mine, unless the pool is doing some kind of advance (or delay). Neither Eligius and p2pool give any advance, and Eligius only delays rewards for the miners' benefit (to avoid transaction fees when you go to spend them, the pool waits until you have earned a reasonable amount).

Defining "Time to maturity" as follows:

Maturity time: This is the average time it takes to receive the due reward. High maturity time causes loss of the time value of money, and risk of the pool being discontinued before the rewards are received.

(from https://bitcoil.co.il/pool_summary.pdf)

If you find the name confusing, call it "Average time to payment" or some such.

0. Background.
The old Eligius reward method had an average time to maturity greater than that for other methods (for example PPLNS) and certainly longer than 100 or even 120 network confirmations. If there is significantly poor luck, then it may take a while for miners to receive their payment. So while the variance in payments is zero (SMPPS is a PPS variant, so all shares are paid at B/D) the time it catualy takes to recieve your payment varies from no time at all to a significant amount of time. After a pool using SMPPS solves 1000 blocks, on average miners will have had to wait for the pool to solve ~ 8.4 blocks before receiving payment (Further explanation here).

The derivation of time to maturity for SMPPS is derived in Appendix F of https://bitcoil.co.il/pool_analysis.pdf

1. Question.
Now that I've made clear the meaning of "time to maturity" and shown (with references, albeit my own work) how time to maturity was a problem for SMPPS, I'm wondering what the time to maturity is for the new reward method. Have you derived it yet? I think it's important for miners to know and understand there may be more waiting involved than for other methods. Threads like this one would be much less likely if it was more wisely known and explained.

[Luke-Jr]

You're probably right, but time to maturity is also a factor. If miners have to wait a significant time to obtain their coins, this also has an impact on earnings. Have you derived the expected time to maturity for Eligius' new reward method? If so could you post it here so it can be compared to p2Pools?

Time to maturity is always 100 confirmations, no matter where you mine, unless the pool is doing some kind of advance (or delay). Neither Eligius and p2pool give any advance, and Eligius only delays rewards for the miners' benefit (to avoid transaction fees when you go to spend them, the pool waits until you have earned a reasonable amount).

Defining "Time to maturity" as follows:

Maturity time: This is the average time it takes to receive the due reward. High maturity time causes loss of the time value of money, and risk of the pool being discontinued before the rewards are received.

(from https://bitcoil.co.il/pool_summary.pdf)

If you find the name confusing, call it "Average time to payment" or some such.

0. Background.
The old Eligius reward method had an average time to maturity greater than that for other methods (for example PPLNS) and certainly longer than 100 or even 120 network confirmations. If there is significantly poor luck, then it may take a while for miners to receive their payment. So while the variance in payments is zero (SMPPS is a PPS variant, so all shares are paid at B/D) the time it catualy takes to recieve your payment varies from no time at all to a significant amount of time. After a pool using SMPPS solves 1000 blocks, on average miners will have had to wait for the pool to solve ~ 8.4 blocks before receiving payment (Further explanation here).

The derivation of time to maturity for SMPPS is derived in Appendix F of https://bitcoil.co.il/pool_analysis.pdf

1. Question.
Now that I've made clear the meaning of "time to maturity" and shown (with references, albeit my own work) how time to maturity was a problem for SMPPS, I'm wondering what the time to maturity is for the new reward method. Have you derived it yet? I think it's important for miners to know and understand there may be more waiting involved than for other methods. Threads like this one would be much less likely if it was more wisely known and explained.

The background you've posted is wrong. Eligius has always paid out immediately (or as close to it as possible); while there were some delays in SMPPS due to the variance of block finding times, the longest that rewards ever took was a mere 3 days since I made sure to send before any balance was waiting that long. Your blog misrepresents extra credit as "owed", which it is not and never has been. Most other reward systems (PPLNS, proportional, DGM, etc) never attempt to track or pay extra credit at all - under those systems, miners never get this. It is therefore unfair and possibly dishonest to count extra credit against "time to maturity".

CPPSRB also tracks a value similar to "extra credit", but the same still applies. With CPPSRB, extra credit is actually less likely to ever be paid due to how LIFO works. On the upside, CPPSRB gives actual rewards much more like proportional, so they fit with the actual block payout availability much better without any manual sends; in normal operation, no payout should be delayed more than a single block, and most (at least on Eligius) will be paid out in the same block they are earned in.

for max income, use p2pool

Explain... Never heard of it and dunno what it is!  

He's mostly trolling. p2pool's reward system basically makes it improved solo mining. It's not a bad pool, but it certainly doesn't pay better than others.

its the pool with the max outcome, besides the increased PPS pools (unlike ur scampool).

Can't get higher than nofee+txnfees. Admittedly, Eligius is only nofee, but txnfees are so worthless it isn't worth the effort right now - that hardly makes it a "scampool", so that verifies your status as troll. On the other hand, p2pool has very high variance, while Eligius has much lower, so for most people, Eligius is the better choice.

You're probably right, but time to maturity is also a factor. If miners have to wait a significant time to obtain their coins, this also has an impact on earnings. Have you derived the expected time to maturity for Eligius' new reward method? If so could you post it here so it can be compared to p2Pools?

Time to maturity is always 100 confirmations, no matter where you mine, unless the pool is doing some kind of advance (or delay). Neither Eligius and p2pool give any advance, and Eligius only delays rewards for the miners' benefit (to avoid transaction fees when you go to spend them, the pool waits until you have earned a reasonable amount).

I'm not getting involved in the argument -- I refrain from internet arguments or personal attacks. I'm just saying that if you must insult him don't insult his religion, especially if it's one of the largest religions in the world like Christianity or Islam. You'll inadvertently insult other people and then they won't like you. Some crazy people might even try to do you harm.

Seems pretty clear to me his anti-Christianity is the fundamental reason he hates me enough to slander me.

wrong, its 120 confirmations... dosnt even know the basics and is a bitcoin dev, shame on u... no i dont hate u because ur believe some stupid shit, its because how u act and what ur doing.

Wrong, it's 100 confirmations. 120 is just what Bitcoin-Qt and (most?) other clients enforce on your computer - you could hack your client to send as soon as it reaches 100 (though due to a bug in all current released versions, no miner will accept it into their block until 101).

Considering all you talk about how I act/do is lies, that clearly isn't the real problem you have with me.

[K1773R]

Considering all you talk about how I act/do is lies, that clearly isn't the real problem you have with me.

so truth are lies now? this explains alot, for example why u say u never lie sry luke all ur post are proove enough.
sry, youve been beaten by simple logic, there's no way to circumvent it.

[organofcorti]

Defining "Time to maturity" as follows:

Maturity time: This is the average time it takes to receive the due reward. High maturity time causes loss of the time value of money, and risk of the pool being discontinued before the rewards are received.

(from https://bitcoil.co.il/pool_summary.pdf)

If you find the name confusing, call it "Average time to payment" or some such.

0. Background.
The old Eligius reward method had an average time to maturity greater than that for other methods (for example PPLNS) and certainly longer than 100 or even 120 network confirmations. If there is significantly poor luck, then it may take a while for miners to receive their payment. So while the variance in payments is zero (SMPPS is a PPS variant, so all shares are paid at B/D) the time it catualy takes to recieve your payment varies from no time at all to a significant amount of time. After a pool using SMPPS solves 1000 blocks, on average miners will have had to wait for the pool to solve ~ 8.4 blocks before receiving payment (Further explanation here).

The derivation of time to maturity for SMPPS is derived in Appendix F of https://bitcoil.co.il/pool_analysis.pdf

1. Question.
Now that I've made clear the meaning of "time to maturity" and shown (with references, albeit my own work) how time to maturity was a problem for SMPPS, I'm wondering what the time to maturity is for the new reward method. Have you derived it yet? I think it's important for miners to know and understand there may be more waiting involved than for other methods. Threads like this one would be much less likely if it was more wisely known and explained.

The background you've posted is wrong. Eligius has always paid out immediately (or as close to it as possible); while there were some delays in SMPPS due to the variance of block finding times, the maximum rewards ever took was a mere 3 days since I made sure to send before any balance was waiting that long.

Well, it was nice of you to dip into your own pocket to pay miners, that's not a part of the SMPPS protocol.

Your blog misrepresents extra credit as "owed", which it is not and never has been.

This is something you've mentioned many times, and I don't understand it. If extra credit is not owed, why pay it? If you didn't pay it, would miners still earn 100% of PPS?

Most other reward systems (PPLNS, proportional, DGM, etc) never attempt to track or pay extra credit at all - under those systems, miners never get this. It is therefore unfair and possibly dishonest to count extra credit against "time to maturity".

I don't understand this. There's no need for other reward methods to track extra credit, since they're provable fair reward methods that have variance due to pool luck (which miners on Eligius do not experience). So what "extra credit is there to track?

CPPSRB also tracks a value similar to "extra credit", but the same still applies. With CPPSRB, extra credit is actually less likely to ever be paid due to how LIFO works. On the upside, CPPSRB gives actual rewards much more like proportional, so they fit with the actual block payout availability much better without any manual sends; in normal operation, no payout should be delayed more than a single block, and most (at least on Eligius) will be paid out in the same block they are earned in.

I read the info on the Eligius site for the first time, and it's quite an interesting reward method. By assuming that 100% of PPS value won't be paid (am I right in that?) you're able to make certain that reward are paid in a timely manner. So time to maturity is reduced to 100 network block confirmations, with a trade off of increased earning variance. I think most miners would be happy earning a little less if they didn't have to be worried about when it may get paid.

Have you derived (or otherwise calculated) the expected PPS miners will earn under the new method?

[Luke-Jr]

Considering all you talk about how I act/do is lies, that clearly isn't the real problem you have with me.

so truth are lies now? this explains alot, for example why u say u never lie sry luke all ur post are proove enough.
sry, youve been beaten by simple logic, there's no way to circumvent it.

Obviously you have no idea what logic or truth are.

Defining "Time to maturity" as follows:

Maturity time: This is the average time it takes to receive the due reward. High maturity time causes loss of the time value of money, and risk of the pool being discontinued before the rewards are received.

(from https://bitcoil.co.il/pool_summary.pdf)

If you find the name confusing, call it "Average time to payment" or some such.

0. Background.
The old Eligius reward method had an average time to maturity greater than that for other methods (for example PPLNS) and certainly longer than 100 or even 120 network confirmations. If there is significantly poor luck, then it may take a while for miners to receive their payment. So while the variance in payments is zero (SMPPS is a PPS variant, so all shares are paid at B/D) the time it catualy takes to recieve your payment varies from no time at all to a significant amount of time. After a pool using SMPPS solves 1000 blocks, on average miners will have had to wait for the pool to solve ~ 8.4 blocks before receiving payment (Further explanation here).

The derivation of time to maturity for SMPPS is derived in Appendix F of https://bitcoil.co.il/pool_analysis.pdf

1. Question.
Now that I've made clear the meaning of "time to maturity" and shown (with references, albeit my own work) how time to maturity was a problem for SMPPS, I'm wondering what the time to maturity is for the new reward method. Have you derived it yet? I think it's important for miners to know and understand there may be more waiting involved than for other methods. Threads like this one would be much less likely if it was more wisely known and explained.

The background you've posted is wrong. Eligius has always paid out immediately (or as close to it as possible); while there were some delays in SMPPS due to the variance of block finding times, the maximum rewards ever took was a mere 3 days since I made sure to send before any balance was waiting that long.

Well, it was nice of you to dip into your own pocket to pay miners, that's not a part of the SMPPS protocol.

Obviously these payouts came from the pool wallet, which gets filled by the SMPPS buffering and when miners haven't earned enough to achieve a reasonable payout yet.

Your blog misrepresents extra credit as "owed", which it is not and never has been.

This is something you've mentioned many times, and I don't understand it. If extra credit is not owed, why pay it? If you didn't pay it, would miners still earn 100% of PPS?

It's paid as part of the reward system rules, as an incentive for miners to keep mining even on long rounds when the buffer is empty. No reward system can pay 100% PPS, with or without extra credit. SMPPS and CPPSRB just do the best they can to try to achieve that. If the extra credit in SMPPS was ignored/didn't exist (PPPS), it would underpay miners during long rounds after it went broke, just like proportional always does for long rounds.

Most other reward systems (PPLNS, proportional, DGM, etc) never attempt to track or pay extra credit at all - under those systems, miners never get this. It is therefore unfair and possibly dishonest to count extra credit against "time to maturity".

I don't understand this. There's no need for other reward methods to track extra credit, since they're provable fair reward methods that have variance due to pool luck (which miners on Eligius do not experience). So what "extra credit is there to track?

A DGM pool with a week of bad luck, will never try to make it up to miners who mined only for that week.

CPPSRB also tracks a value similar to "extra credit", but the same still applies. With CPPSRB, extra credit is actually less likely to ever be paid due to how LIFO works. On the upside, CPPSRB gives actual rewards much more like proportional, so they fit with the actual block payout availability much better without any manual sends; in normal operation, no payout should be delayed more than a single block, and most (at least on Eligius) will be paid out in the same block they are earned in.

I read the info on the Eligius site for the first time, and it's quite an interesting reward method. By assuming that 100% of PPS value won't be paid (am I right in that?) you're able to make certain that reward are paid in a timely manner. So time to maturity is reduced to 100 network block confirmations, with a trade off of increased earning variance. I think most miners would be happy earning a little less if they didn't have to be worried about when it may get paid.

Have you derived (or otherwise calculated) the expected PPS miners will earn under the new method?

With Eligius's no-fee implementation, shares are still paid 100% PPS value, but the unavoidable loss is in the backlog of shares that inevitably never get paid. I think it's easiest to explain if you compare it to PPLNS; the main differences there are just that shares are never paid twice (which results in older shares getting paid on lucky rounds). While PPLNS effectively forces a pool to compromise between variance (low N, like <=expected) and reward delays (high N, like expected*, CPPSRB's rewarding older shares rather than doubling rewards gives it a low variance with instant rewards.

[organofcorti]

The background you've posted is wrong. Eligius has always paid out immediately (or as close to it as possible); while there were some delays in SMPPS due to the variance of block finding times, the maximum rewards ever took was a mere 3 days since I made sure to send before any balance was waiting that long.

Well, it was nice of you to dip into your own pocket to pay miners, that's not a part of the SMPPS protocol.

Obviously these payouts came from the pool wallet, which gets filled by the SMPPS buffering and when miners haven't earned enough to achieve a reasonable payout yet.

But the pool wallet had insufficient funds to pay extra credit - isn't that why there was a back log?

Your blog misrepresents extra credit as "owed", which it is not and never has been.

This is something you've mentioned many times, and I don't understand it. If extra credit is not owed, why pay it? If you didn't pay it, would miners still earn 100% of PPS?

It's paid as part of the reward system rules, as an incentive for miners to keep mining even on long rounds when the buffer is empty. No reward system can pay 100% PPS, with or without extra credit. SMPPS and CPPSRB just do the best they can to try to achieve that.

 Do you mean irl or in theory? Theoretically, any provable fair reward method without a fee can pay 100% PPS. If you mean irl, then ok, but the extra credit is an integral part of SMPPS and if the extra credit isn't guaranteed to be paid even in theory, then it even theoretically it may not pay 100% PPS. I understand this never happened for SMPPS, but I would like to understand your thoughts on the matter better.

If the extra credit in SMPPS was ignored/didn't exist (PPPS), it would underpay miners during long rounds after it went broke, just like proportional always does for long rounds.

This is why I thought discriminating between a "buffer" and "extra credit" was wrong. The point of extra credit is to enable fair rewards, and to achieve PPS.

Most other reward systems (PPLNS, proportional, DGM, etc) never attempt to track or pay extra credit at all - under those systems, miners never get this. It is therefore unfair and possibly dishonest to count extra credit against "time to maturity".

I don't understand this. There's no need for other reward methods to track extra credit, since they're provable fair reward methods that have variance due to pool luck (which miners on Eligius do not experience). So what "extra credit is there to track?

A DGM pool with a week of bad luck, will never try to make it up to miners who mined only for that week.

I see where you're coming from, but I think variance is well understood by most miners now. Whether you're mining DGM or PPLNS, there will be variance in rewards - larger than PPS payments some weeks, smaller than average others. Just as there's no reason to track and rectify the losses a miner incurs in an unlucky week, there's also no reason to track and remove the bonus from a lucky week at a DGM or PPLNS pool. Over time the reward will be fair. SMPPS and (I think  CPPSRB) won't ever pay more than PPS, hence the necessity of tracking extra credit.

CPPSRB also tracks a value similar to "extra credit", but the same still applies. With CPPSRB, extra credit is actually less likely to ever be paid due to how LIFO works. On the upside, CPPSRB gives actual rewards much more like proportional, so they fit with the actual block payout availability much better without any manual sends; in normal operation, no payout should be delayed more than a single block, and most (at least on Eligius) will be paid out in the same block they are earned in.

I read the info on the Eligius site for the first time, and it's quite an interesting reward method. By assuming that 100% of PPS value won't be paid (am I right in that?) you're able to make certain that reward are paid in a timely manner. So time to maturity is reduced to 100 network block confirmations, with a trade off of increased earning variance. I think most miners would be happy earning a little less if they didn't have to be worried about when it may get paid.

Have you derived (or otherwise calculated) the expected PPS miners will earn under the new method?

With Eligius's no-fee implementation, shares are still paid 100% PPS value, but the unavoidable loss is in the backlog of shares that inevitably never get paid. I think it's easiest to explain if you compare it to PPLNS; the main differences there are just that shares are never paid twice (which results in older shares getting paid on lucky rounds). While PPLNS effectively forces a pool to compromise between variance (low N, like <=expected) and reward delays (high N, like expected*, CPPSRB's rewarding older shares rather than doubling rewards gives it a low variance with instant rewards.

Nice analogy - that makes it clearer, thanks. However it seems that there is a possibility that in the long term not all shares would be paid.

I don't have a problem with this - as long as a reward method is fair and is unlikely to cause problems for a pool then it's a metter of miner choice. For example, I mined at Eligius for a time (in the proportional days) mostly because I liked not having to register. I still think that's an important option. Miners may choose to use Eligius for reasons other than simply the expected reward.

However, informed miners are happier miners. Including, for example, how many shares on average won't be paid in a given time period - a month in your explanation may help. Or the probability that any given share won't be paid in a given time period. It may also be possible that some shares will never be paid - and if so miners should know the probability of that, too - if it's possible to derive.

It may be that very few shares won't be paid long term and have no significant impact on miners, but I think it would be good for miners to know what that might be - even if it's just the result of a simulation rather than a derivation. Have you managed anything like that? 

[Luke-Jr]

The background you've posted is wrong. Eligius has always paid out immediately (or as close to it as possible); while there were some delays in SMPPS due to the variance of block finding times, the maximum rewards ever took was a mere 3 days since I made sure to send before any balance was waiting that long.

Well, it was nice of you to dip into your own pocket to pay miners, that's not a part of the SMPPS protocol.

Obviously these payouts came from the pool wallet, which gets filled by the SMPPS buffering and when miners haven't earned enough to achieve a reasonable payout yet.

But the pool wallet had insufficient funds to pay extra credit - isn't that why there was a back log?

There was a backlog because the pool was rewarding miners with buffer. This was mostly before we dipped into extra credit - Eligius went about a year(?) straight lucky. At no point was raw (ie, not converted to reward) extra credit paid of course.

Your blog misrepresents extra credit as "owed", which it is not and never has been.

This is something you've mentioned many times, and I don't understand it. If extra credit is not owed, why pay it? If you didn't pay it, would miners still earn 100% of PPS?

It's paid as part of the reward system rules, as an incentive for miners to keep mining even on long rounds when the buffer is empty. No reward system can pay 100% PPS, with or without extra credit. SMPPS and CPPSRB just do the best they can to try to achieve that.

 Do you mean irl or in theory? Theoretically, any provable fair reward method without a fee can pay 100% PPS. If you mean irl, then ok, but the extra credit is an integral part of SMPPS and if the extra credit isn't guaranteed to be paid even in theory, then it even theoretically it may not pay 100% PPS. I understand this never happened for SMPPS, but I would like to understand your thoughts on the matter better.

Theoretically, reward systems can pay 100% PPS given infinite time. SMPPS's extra credit is part of the mechanism it uses to achieve this; many other systems use variance to do it. In other words, extra credit is only as obliged in SMPPS, as if proportional pools are obliged to have lucky rounds. In theory, both (EC rewarding, and prop lucky rounds) should happen - but there is no guarantee/debt of them.

If the extra credit in SMPPS was ignored/didn't exist (PPPS), it would underpay miners during long rounds after it went broke, just like proportional always does for long rounds.

This is why I thought discriminating between a "buffer" and "extra credit" was wrong. The point of extra credit is to enable fair rewards, and to achieve PPS.

The discrimination is necessary and important. The buffer is guaranteed (the pool already has it!), but nothing can guarantee future findings - no matter whether it's SMPPS's EC, proportional's lucky blocks, or any other system.

CPPSRB also tracks a value similar to "extra credit", but the same still applies. With CPPSRB, extra credit is actually less likely to ever be paid due to how LIFO works. On the upside, CPPSRB gives actual rewards much more like proportional, so they fit with the actual block payout availability much better without any manual sends; in normal operation, no payout should be delayed more than a single block, and most (at least on Eligius) will be paid out in the same block they are earned in.

I read the info on the Eligius site for the first time, and it's quite an interesting reward method. By assuming that 100% of PPS value won't be paid (am I right in that?) you're able to make certain that reward are paid in a timely manner. So time to maturity is reduced to 100 network block confirmations, with a trade off of increased earning variance. I think most miners would be happy earning a little less if they didn't have to be worried about when it may get paid.

Have you derived (or otherwise calculated) the expected PPS miners will earn under the new method?

With Eligius's no-fee implementation, shares are still paid 100% PPS value, but the unavoidable loss is in the backlog of shares that inevitably never get paid. I think it's easiest to explain if you compare it to PPLNS; the main differences there are just that shares are never paid twice (which results in older shares getting paid on lucky rounds). While PPLNS effectively forces a pool to compromise between variance (low N, like <=expected) and reward delays (high N, like expected*, CPPSRB's rewarding older shares rather than doubling rewards gives it a low variance with instant rewards.

Nice analogy - that makes it clearer, thanks. However it seems that there is a possibility that in the long term not all shares would be paid.

In practice, it is pretty much guaranteed that some shares will go unpaid ever. That end result is, again, unavoidable no matter what reward system is used.

However, informed miners are happier miners. Including, for example, how many shares on average won't be paid in a given time period - a month in your explanation may help. Or the probability that any given share won't be paid in a given time period. It may also be possible that some shares will never be paid - and if so miners should know the probability of that, too - if it's possible to derive.

The probability a share is never paid is pretty much identical to the probability of blocks being stale. Considering all the factors involved there, it can vary quite a bit (as much as 5% at extremes, it seems) and isn't likely something that can be predicted.

It may be that very few shares won't be paid long term and have no significant impact on miners, but I think it would be good for miners to know what that might be - even if it's just the result of a simulation rather than a derivation. Have you managed anything like that?

I don't know any simulation of stale blocks. I'm not sure it's even possible.

[420]

Congratulations on 140mhash from an nvidia card

[JTurner]

BTW, ssateneth, I wouldn't call a 580 "puny"... It's not a fast miner, true... but as far as an actual graphics card goes it's blazing fast. I've gotten several years of dutiful service out of it and still maintain ultra-high framerates on modern graphics apps and simulations. It will run even sophisticated simulations like ArmA and IL-2 at max graphics settings and thousands of enemy soldiers/aircraft.

It's just that, generally speaking, mining-wise, NVIDIA GPUs are slow compared, precisely, to their gaming value.

Congratulations on 140mhash from an nvidia card

Indeed that's quite fast IMO for an NIVIDA.

About the pool war, my personal preference goes to PPLNS such as Bitminter (this one also pays tx fees as far as I know). Particularly interesting when you have a low hashrate and want to be the one (as opposed to the pool operator) taking the risk of good or bad luck without too much variance.

[noncecents]

for max income, use p2pool

Explain... Never heard of it and dunno what it is! 

He's mostly trolling. p2pool's reward system basically makes it improved solo mining. It's not a bad pool, but it certainly doesn't pay better than others.

its the pool with the max outcome, besides the increased PPS pools (unlike ur scampool).

Can't get higher than nofee+txnfees. Admittedly, Eligius is only nofee, but txnfees are so worthless it isn't worth the effort right now - that hardly makes it a "scampool", so that verifies your status as troll. On the other hand, p2pool has very high variance, while Eligius has much lower, so for most people, Eligius is the better choice.

not even to talk about that u use ur pool to attack altchains, this is an abuse of the miners since u dont tell them. according to simple logic this is a scam.
i know uve done alot for bitcoin but i also know ur a total jerk who's brain got totaly compromised by ur church stuff and most post are lies. i dont want to offend u but this has do be said once. why, just why cant u just one time not lie (yes even telling half trues like u do is lieing!) and be honest? well, this is offtopic so it dosnt belong here.

No, you are lying here.