Pay On Target: New High variance payout System Offered by Ozcoin

[Graet]

Pay On Target

In an effort to bring some fun back to mining
and offer a high variance reward system to those that like a gamble.
You get more for shares of higher difficulty, meaning you get a big reward if you're the block finder.

We are offering a unique NEW payout system:
 Pay On Target
where higher value shares are paid at a higher value following this formula

Code:

[(1-a)/(1-a*wd^(1-a)*X^(a-1))]*(wd*B/D)*(min(X,sd)/wd)^a

where
B = Block reward - Pool fee
D = current difficulty
X = cap, currently 5*DNEW
work difficulty = difficulty pool sends to miner (see variable difficulty)
share difficulty = difficulty or target of share submitted to pool after hashing
a = a variable currently set to 0.8 but share value will be capped at 5*D

Pay On Target Pool fee will be set at 2% NEW

As always over time everything should even out to a 98% PPS rate BUT there isn't much time till GPUs become unviable, it is possible to come out ahead if you are lucky.
So I will ask "do you feel lucky? well do ya?"

IMPORTANT: POT will only be available on stratum servers.
You WILL make a loss if attempting to mine on getwork/ecoinpool servers
Stratum mining node addresses listed on "Worker" page on site.
This is a Per Account setting - if you want to split miners over payout methods feel free to make a second account
Set Pay on Target radio button on User Account -> Pool Options

Who to blame
ckolivas/conman for the idea
organofcorti and Meni Rosenfeld for help and advice on the more technical aspects and formula.
Blaksmith for coding it
Thanks for the help guys, much appreciated
Me for thinking it could be fun, give our stratum servers a good loadtest and attract some miners to Ozcoin.

Please consider this an initial trial period, we have done many simulations but reserve the right to change parameters. Please check this thread for updates regularly. Once the
trial period is over no further adjustments should be needed

Best wishes and best of luck to all.
Graet


POT calculator, thanks to kano
http://tradebtc.net/potcalc.php




Note: No Merged Mining available on Stratum servers

[1715005260]

1715005260

[1715005260]

1715005260

[1715005260]

1715005260

[-ck]

A lot of this idea came out of the fact that people feel cheated if they're the block finder and get no more than any other share for submitting it, and that now that cgminer scrolls difficulty, people constantly ask "so are the higher shares worth more?". It also acts as a disincentive to people acting maliciously performing what's known as a withholding attack by not submitting the block solve. It also adds an incentive to people mining on the fringe of profitability that they might actually make a profit if their hardware is the one that is lucky at that time. Ultimately, it's just gambling and over the very long term leads to the same rewards as PPS, but you never know your luck...

Here's an example:
[2012-12-18 22:52:10] Accepted 0000aa69 Diff 98.5K/1 GPU 1 pool 0
That share was worth 0.01435750 BTC where the current PPS rate is 0.00000712, meaning that one share was worth more than 2000 shares. On the other hand, diff 1 shares are worth 1/5th of what the going PPS rate is.

Note that in cgminer, up to and including version 2.10.2, the "best share" value may be wrong whereas the per-share statistic is accurate. This should be fixed from 2.10.3 onwards.

[kano]

I've been mining on it for 50 minutes and got a 51.7K/8 share in the first 6 minutes
Edit: Correction not 51.7K/8 - it was 2.25K/8 ... but still good

[Wave]

I'm in with my 1.21 Jiggawatts for a spin, what the heck ;-)


-Wave

[John (John K.)]

Awesome! 

[Meni Rosenfeld]

high variance reward system

That is an understatement. With a=0.8 (or any a>0.5) the variance is infinite. Greater than the variance of solo mining. The distribution will be quite different though, you'll have a high chance to get moderate rewards, and a small chance to get very high rewards.

The variance quickly goes down when decreasing a past 0.5, though. To get the variance to be less than solo variance, you need a < D / (2D + work_difficulty). Edit: should be a < 1/2 - wd/(8D) (approximately).

A lot of this idea came out of the fact that people feel cheated if they're the block finder and get no more than any other share for submitting it, ... It also acts as a disincentive to people acting maliciously performing what's known as a withholding attack by not submitting the block solve.

The goals should be clarified because this is a very ineffective way to solve these problems. You could do the standard method of block finding fee, but it greatly increases the variance.

[John (John K.)]

high variance reward system

That is an understatement. With a=0.8 (or any a>0.5) the variance is infinite. Greater than the variance of solo mining. The distribution will be quite different though, you'll have a high chance to get moderate rewards, and a small chance to get very high rewards.

The variance quickly goes down when decreasing a past 0.5, though. To get the variance to be less than solo variance, you need a < D / (2D + work_difficulty).

A lot of this idea came out of the fact that people feel cheated if they're the block finder and get no more than any other share for submitting it, ... It also acts as a disincentive to people acting maliciously performing what's known as a withholding attack by not submitting the block solve.

The goals should be clarified because this is a very ineffective way to solve this problem. You could do the standard method of block finding fee, but it greatly increases the variance.

Correct me if I'm wrong (which I think I am ), but won't the payouts be substantially more for previous PPS users on the pool? Previously, we get paid a fixed fee per share no matter how high the difficulty is, but now we get paid the fixed fee + extra stipend based on the difficulty. I do agree on the high variance though.

[Wave]

Feedback - On the POT stats page we need per share price.  I'm going to track every hour for a bit, but that would be nice.  I have been tracking more frequently for now.  Way over PPS, way under, and now trending slightly under.  Figure I'll run it 24 hours and see what the luck shows.


-Wave

[Meni Rosenfeld]

high variance reward system

That is an understatement. With a=0.8 (or any a>0.5) the variance is infinite. Greater than the variance of solo mining. The distribution will be quite different though, you'll have a high chance to get moderate rewards, and a small chance to get very high rewards.

The variance quickly goes down when decreasing a past 0.5, though. To get the variance to be less than solo variance, you need a < D / (2D + work_difficulty).

A lot of this idea came out of the fact that people feel cheated if they're the block finder and get no more than any other share for submitting it, ... It also acts as a disincentive to people acting maliciously performing what's known as a withholding attack by not submitting the block solve.

The goals should be clarified because this is a very ineffective way to solve this problem. You could do the standard method of block finding fee, but it greatly increases the variance.

Correct me if I'm wrong (which I think I am ), but won't the payouts be substantially more for previous PPS users on the pool? Previously, we get paid a fixed fee per share no matter how high the difficulty is, but now we get paid the fixed fee + extra stipend based on the difficulty. I do agree on the high variance though.

It's not plus, it's instead. Note the (1-a) term in the payout formula; it means that for a share that is just barely valid (share_difficulty = work_difficulty) you would get just 20% of the normal payout (with a=0.8 ), and you'd need the share to be much more difficult than that to get near the normal payment. On the flip side, if your share happens to be very difficult, you could get for it more than the entire block reward.

This poses high variance for the pool, not just the miners. I don't think 3% fee will cut it. Maybe a=0.4 will be better.

[John (John K.)]

high variance reward system

That is an understatement. With a=0.8 (or any a>0.5) the variance is infinite. Greater than the variance of solo mining. The distribution will be quite different though, you'll have a high chance to get moderate rewards, and a small chance to get very high rewards.

The variance quickly goes down when decreasing a past 0.5, though. To get the variance to be less than solo variance, you need a < D / (2D + work_difficulty).

A lot of this idea came out of the fact that people feel cheated if they're the block finder and get no more than any other share for submitting it, ... It also acts as a disincentive to people acting maliciously performing what's known as a withholding attack by not submitting the block solve.

The goals should be clarified because this is a very ineffective way to solve this problem. You could do the standard method of block finding fee, but it greatly increases the variance.

Correct me if I'm wrong (which I think I am ), but won't the payouts be substantially more for previous PPS users on the pool? Previously, we get paid a fixed fee per share no matter how high the difficulty is, but now we get paid the fixed fee + extra stipend based on the difficulty. I do agree on the high variance though.

It's note plus, it's instead. Note the (1-a) term in the payout formula; it means that for a share that is just barely valid (share_difficulty = work_difficulty) you would get just 20% of the normal payout (with a=0.8 ), and you'd need the share to be much more difficult than that to get near the normal payment. On the flip side, if your share happens to be very difficult, you could get for it more than the entire block reward.

This poses high variance for the pool, not just the miners. I don't think 3% fee will cut it. Maybe a=0.4 will be better.

Oops, didn't notice the (1-a). Now this would be like a lower variance solo mining, where you can end up getting ~20% of your regular PPS income to a lot more. Seems to be better than solo when you could end up with 0 though.

[John (John K.)]

Feedback - On the POT stats page we need per share price.  I'm going to track every hour for a bit, but that would be nice.  I have been tracking more frequently for now.  Way over PPS, way under, and now trending slightly under.  Figure I'll run it 24 hours and see what the luck shows.


-Wave

That'll be the 3% fee PPS rate, but depending on the share difficulty you submit. Man I'm hoping that I get more 300k shares like the one I got a couple days ago. 

[K1773R]

well this seems ot be the fairest payout system so far (no its not gambling, ur getting payed for ur work and not proportional/similiar), gl with it

[John (John K.)]

I guess I'm down under if the average share is below 5. Is that correct? 

[Wave]

Yup, understood.  But curious about trending.  I hear you on the share!  My last block solve was a 40M diff share!  Let me figure the payoff on that one...


-Wave

[Graet]

Please consider this an initial trial period, we have done many simulations but reserve the right to change parameters. Please check this thread for updates regularly. Once the
trial period is over no further adjustments should be needed

Sounds like we need to invoke this and reduce "a"
edited 1st post with some a = 0.5 samples

[DutchBrat]

Can I use Hashpower.com on Stratum servers yet ?

That would be like gambling to the power of 10 !!!

I like it  

[Wave]

I guess I'm down under if the average share is below 5. Is that correct? 

Does not appear that way:

I'm at 5021 shares, avg/ Dif 10.938 and payout is 0.03173515, or per share of 0.00000632.


-Wave

[JWU42]

Jump off PoT and then hit a 143K share 

[DutchBrat]

Jump off PoT and then hit a 143K share 

The system is rigged I tell ya... Rigged !!! 

[Graet]

Moving to a = 0.5 while i look at more figures
and 4% fee on advice

[John (John K.)]

I guess I'm down under if the average share is below 5. Is that correct? 

Does not appear that way:

I'm at 5021 shares, avg/ Dif 10.938 and payout is 0.03173515, or per share of 0.00000632.


-Wave

Yeah, I'm feeling strange here. I get an average share of 8.76552 with 753 shares, but I'm only at 0.00438018 btc, which translates to 0.000005816972111553785 btc per share. I'm confused now.

[Wave]

Moving to a = 0.5 while i look at more figures
and 4% fee on advice

Not sure how I feel about that.  The huge POTENTIAL upside is gone.  But I will run for a day for sure.

[Graet]

I guess I'm down under if the average share is below 5. Is that correct? 

Does not appear that way:

I'm at 5021 shares, avg/ Dif 10.938 and payout is 0.03173515, or per share of 0.00000632.


-Wave

Yeah, I'm feeling strange here. I get an average share of 8.76552 with 753 shares, but I'm only at 0.00438018 btc, which translates to 0.000005816972111553785 btc per share. I'm confused now.

changed the varaibles as per meni's advice
0.8 gave too much variance, see a=0.5 example in 1st post

[Graet]

Moving to a = 0.5 while i look at more figures
and 4% fee on advice

Not sure how I feel about that.  The huge POTENTIAL upside is gone.  But I will run for a day for sure.

yeah the way I read it this will reduce potential loss but also reduce potential gains

[Wave]

Any way to make it selectable by the user?  .5 .6 .7 or .8 with appropriate fees?  Could get interesting...

[wknight]

Any way to make it selectable by the user?  .5 .6 .7 or .8 with appropriate fees?  Could get interesting...

Hahaha now thats gambling

[Graet]

Any way to make it selectable by the user?  .5 .6 .7 or .8 with appropriate fees?  Could get interesting...

ooc was interested in that too, it *may* be possible yes
I'd like to make this interesting, but don't want to go broke doing it

[Wave]

Understood, if you would like to test seperatly I will "donate" my hasing power at up to 10% fee PPS for 1 day at each level...



-Jason

[os2sam]

Any way to make it selectable by the user?  .5 .6 .7 or .8 with appropriate fees?  Could get interesting...

ooc was interested in that too, it *may* be possible yes
I'd like to make this interesting, but don't want to go broke doing it

I don't think any of us wants you to go broke.

So is this new payout method for only those who are using higher difficulty targets?

[Graet]

Understood, if you would like to test seperatly I will "donate" my hasing power at up to 10% fee PPS for 1 day at each level...



-Jason

Thanks man

I think for the "trial period" I will put fees to 3% - a little sweetener for miners while they try it

Please expect them to go to 4% after trial.

I don't think any of us wants you to go broke.

So is this new payout method for only those who are using higher difficulty targets?

Not at all, the examples were worked out with difficulty 1
We could have used a different formula and forced everyone to diff1 for this payout method but thought allowing Variable difficulty it would be better for miners 

[Meni Rosenfeld]

Moving to a = 0.5 while i look at more figures
and 4% fee on advice

Interesting choice, the variance will still be infinite but just barely so.

If you reduce a further maybe 3% fee can be enough.

Any way to make it selectable by the user?  .5 .6 .7 or .8 with appropriate fees?  Could get interesting...

ooc was interested in that too, it *may* be possible yes
I'd like to make this interesting, but don't want to go broke doing it

I don't think any of us wants you to go broke.

So is this new payout method for only those who are using higher difficulty targets?

I think once you figure out the highest value of a you're safe with (maybe 0.5), allowing the user to choose any a up to this value will be safe.

[Wave]

Graet,
One of my miners shows offline but I'm not so sure.  My rejects went from 6 to 500+ and climbing consistently now like every share from that one miner is rejecting.


-Wave

[crazyates]

For now, I don't even care if I make less or not. I just like seeing my average share go up and down.

Also, the OZcoin widget seems to be keeping up with my estimated hashrate, but isn't reporting any shares in the worker section. Also, the Estimated Payout section is having issues. None of this is really unexpected.

[Roy Badami]

Currently there's no upper bound on the value of a share...  If someone finds a share of difficulty several billion, several quadrillion, whatever, it will just bankrupt Graet.  It's possible for someone to submit a share that earns a payout of more than the 21,000,000 BTC that will ever be mined.

Would it not be prudent to put a cap on the maximum payout from a share, say BTC 250 or BTC 2500 or whatever Graet feels comfortable with.  (This would also have the side effect of making the variance finite.  In reality such a payout limit already exists - but better to implement it in the maths than by bankruptcy

EDIT: Of course, this almost certainly makes the analysis a complete bitch.

EDIT: Also of course, a simple cap would make the expected payout dependent on the work difficulty.  I imagine there are ways of fixing that, at least if the pool is also willing to impose a maximum work difficulty when using this scheme.  (The alternative approach would be a scheme that puts a cap on share difficulty, perhaps at some multiple of the current difficulty.)

roy

[-ck]

To be fair, what I had originally suggested with this scheme was to cap the maximum paid to that of the current block difficulty to prevent the ridiculously high difficulty share from bankrupting the pool.

As an aside, I'm disappointed they didn't adopt the name I chose for this payment scheme: Difficulty Extrapolated Reward Payment, aka DERP. Though I guess one could argue we're now hashing pot.

[crazyates]

As an aside, I'm disappointed they didn't adopt the name I chose for this payment scheme: Difficulty Extrapolated Reward Payment, aka DERP.

Graet, I respect you and greatly appreciate all the hard work you've put in, but how could you make a mistake like this?! 

[kano]

Currently there's no upper bound on the value of a share...  If someone finds a share of difficulty several billion, several quadrillion, whatever, it will just bankrupt Graet.  It's possible for someone to submit a share that earns a payout of more than the 21,000,000 BTC that will ever be mined.

Would it not be prudent to put a cap on the maximum payout from a share, say BTC 250 or BTC 2500 or whatever Graet feels comfortable with.  (This would also have the side effect of making the variance finite.  In reality such a payout limit already exists - but better to implement it in the maths than by bankruptcy

EDIT: Of course, this almost certainly makes the analysis a complete bitch.

EDIT: Also of course, a simple cap would make the expected payout dependent on the work difficulty.  I imagine there are ways of fixing that, at least if the pool is also willing to impose a maximum work difficulty when using this scheme.  (The alternative approach would be a scheme that puts a cap on share difficulty, perhaps at some multiple of the current difficulty.)

roy

As I mentioned in #cgminer yesterday, my last OzCoin block I got was
 [2012-11-28 18:02:55] Accepted 0000002b Diff 99.2M/8 BLOCK! ICA 0 pool 0
Which was also just before halving (block 209939)

So calculating it now, but based on the numbers back then (with a=0.8 and BTC=50)
(8 * (50*.97) / 3438908.9601591) * (1-0.8 ) * (99200000 / 8 )^0.8 = 10.67...BTC
So even with slightly higher than usual blocks it's was already a pretty high payout at 0.8

Recalculating just changing it to 0.5 ...

(8 * (50*.97) / 3438908.9601591) * (1-0.5) * (99200000 / 8 )^0.5 = 0.19865...BTC
Oh well.

Yes I mine at 8 difficulty (even though I'm only around total 2GH/s)
Makes the network a lot quieter for my (old'ish) NetGear PowerLine down to my garage

[Roy Badami]

@ckolivas: I can see, for people who want a high variance pool to essentially gamble, that rewarding shares above current difficulty might be part of the attraction.  Indeed, having the maximum share payout be (significantly) above 25 BTC would be, too.  Given Graet is choosing fairly agressive parameters, I'm assuming that's what he's after?

@kano: that example isn't really that extreme.  Assuming it's ballpark 30 times difficulty you'd expect the network as a whole to generate such a block every 30 blocks or every five hours.  And you got less than half what you'd got if you'd mined that block yourself.  (EDIT: so Ozcoin would expect to get such an event every five days or so - such events will average out nicely.)  It's the tail events that pose the risk to the pool operator. (EDIT: eg the 1G share, which Ozcoin will find once every year-and-a-half, and which will cost Graet 400 BTC at a=0.8, or the 10G block that Ozcoin would expect to see once every 10-15 years which would cost Graet 2500 BTC.  Hope I got my maths right, that was a very quick back of the envelope back of the bc -l extrapolation and I may well have messed up.)

[-ck]

@ckolivas: I can see, for people who want a high variance pool to essentially gamble, that rewarding shares above current difficulty might be part of the attraction.  Indeed, having the maximum share payout be (significantly) above 25 BTC would be, too.  Given Graet is choosing fairly agressive parameters, I'm assuming that's what he's after?

No he's not. There was never any intention of making this much greater risk for the pool, only more fun for the miners. Higher variance but capping it would achieve that goal.

[vapourminer]

all those number and equations make my head hurt. but.. anything with "pot" in the name is worth running for a week at least, just on general principles. ("DERP" too. Im torn between the names myself)

so, Im in!

EDIT: so all I have to do is select POT for payment method, correct? nothing else to set or choose?

[Graet]

all those number and equations make my head hurt. but.. anything with "pot" in the name is worth running for a week at least, just on general principles. ("DERP" too. Im torn between the names myself)

so, Im in!

EDIT: so all I have to do is select POT for payment method, correct? nothing else to set or choose?

and make sure you are mining on a stratum server, servers are listed on the page you make a worker

Will look back over thread when I wake up a bit more - seems to have spurred some discussion at least

[JingleBalls]

I'm all up for a gamble. 

Grats Graet on doing something a little different, good to see the ozcoin community working together to get things going.

JB

[organofcorti]

To be fair, what I had originally suggested with this scheme was to cap the maximum paid to that of the current block difficulty to prevent the ridiculously high difficulty share from bankrupting the pool.

Capping payments is quite doable if required. The first lot of tables I did were just a tweak of your original suggestion to allow for a cap. If the reward is capped, all the other payments have to be increased slightly. This reduces variance which is either good or bad depending on your outlook.

It's true that not using caps will be a big source of risk for the pool especially at a = 0.8, and possibly may be larger than the pool can expect to earn in the long term. Keep 'a' under 0.5 though, and I don't think there'll be need for a cap.

If miners want to pay extra for uncapped rewards with a large 'a', then that might be an option if the risk to the pool can be measured and an appropriate fee charged and buffer held to avoid pool bankruptcy. Meni has already done this for standard PPS, but I'm not sure if his derivation applies to random variables with infinite variance.

[Graet]

I think sanity says a cap and a re-jigging of the formula would be a good idea
I'll keep thinking between chasing kids around (1st day of school holidays)

[Graet]

Looking at feedback, thinking, talking with others our next experiment will be at a= 0.8 which brings back in high variance but share value will be capped at 1.5*D (5055272)
 to reduce chance of pool going broke

Thanks for persisting and all the feedback - I feel we can make this work and be fun
cheers
Graet

[Meni Rosenfeld]

Looking at feedback, thinking, talking with others our next experiment will be at a= 0.8 which brings back in high variance but share value will be capped at 1.5*D (5055272)
 to reduce chance of pool going broke

Personally I'd prefer a smaller a which would make the cap unnecessary.

But if you do place a cap you need to tweak the constant factor, let me work on it...

Edit: The current formula is (1-a)*(wd*B/D)*(sd/wd)^a.

If you cap sd so that it is never more than X, you should use instead

[(1-a)/(1-a*wd^(1-a)*X^(a-1))]*(wd*B/D)*(sd/wd)^a

And then you will again have an expected payout of wd*B/D per share.

Discussion of the variance of this will follow.

Meni has already done this for standard PPS, but I'm not sure if his derivation applies to random variables with infinite variance.

It's not. It would be interesting to figure out if it's possible to bound the bankruptcy probability with infinite variance, I'm inclined to think that it's impossible.

[Graet]

Looking at feedback, thinking, talking with others our next experiment will be at a= 0.8 which brings back in high variance but share value will be capped at 1.5*D (5055272)
 to reduce chance of pool going broke

Personally I'd prefer a smaller a which would make the cap unnecessary.

Thanks Meni,
I understand.
The majority of feedback I have had is miners are keen on the higher variance but also understand the need for a cap.
ooc mentioned we have now inadvertently introduced an effective fee with the cap, will have to look at the value of this and work out best way to handle it.

Thanks again for the feedback everyone

[organofcorti]

If you cap sd so that it is never more than X, you should use instead

[(1-a)/(1-a*wd^(1-a)*X^(a-1)]*(wd*B/D)*(sd/wd)^a

And then you will again have an expected payout of wd*B/D per share.

Discussion of the variance of this will follow.

Nice!

I don't think it would be off topic if you showed us how you derived that?

[organofcorti]

ooc mentioned we have now inadvertently introduced an effective fee with the cap, will have to look at the value of this and work out best way to handle it.

.. and Meni just did all that:

If you cap sd so that it is never more than X, you should use instead
[(1-a)/(1-a*wd^(1-a)*X^(a-1)]*(wd*B/D)*(sd/wd)^a

and it only took a few minutes, too (insert jealous grumbling here).

[Graet]

Personally I'd prefer a smaller a which would make the cap unnecessary.

But if you do place a cap you need to tweak the constant factor, let me work on it...

Edit: The current formula is (1-a)*(wd*B/D)*(sd/wd)^a.

If you cap sd so that it is never more than X, you should use instead

[(1-a)/(1-a*wd^(1-a)*X^(a-1)]*(wd*B/D)*(sd/wd)^a

And then you will again have an expected payout of wd*B/D per share.

Discussion of the variance of this will follow.

Thanks Meni
I'll go play with this one

[Meni Rosenfeld]

ooc mentioned we have now inadvertently introduced an effective fee with the cap, will have to look at the value of this and work out best way to handle it.

.. and Meni just did all that:

If you cap sd so that it is never more than X, you should use instead
[(1-a)/(1-a*wd^(1-a)*X^(a-1)]*(wd*B/D)*(sd/wd)^a

and it only took a few minutes, too (insert jealous grumbling here).

It would have taken more without my silicon overlord. Or less if it did a better job with the final simplification.

I don't think it would be off topic if you showed us how you derived that?

Wlog we assume wd*B/D=1. The pdf of sd for sd>=wd is wd/sd^2 and the payout is (sd/wd)^a. So without a cap and without a constant factor, the expected payout is

\int_{wd}^{\infty}(wd/sd^2)(sd/wd)^a\ sd

This is 1/(1-a), and thus we need a constant factor of (1-a) to make this equal to 1.

With sd capped to X the integral becomes

\int_{wd}^{X}(wd/sd^2)(sd/wd)^a\ sd + \int_X^{\infty}(wd/sd^2)(X/wd)^a\ sd

The second term is (X/wd)^(a-1) and the first term (by subtracting the primitive function at the endpoints) is (1-wd^(1-a)*X^(a-1))/(1-a). Add to get [(1-a*wd^(1-a)*X^(a-1))/(1-a)], so the constant term should be [(1-a)/(1-a*wd^(1-a)*X^(a-1))].

Meni has already done this for standard PPS, but I'm not sure if his derivation applies to random variables with infinite variance.

It's not. It would be interesting to figure out if it's possible to bound the bankruptcy probability with infinite variance, I'm inclined to think that it's impossible.

Now I'm not sure if the probability of bankruptcy is 1, or if it is bounded but only polynomially.

Discussion of the variance of this will follow.

With solo mining, the relative variance is roughly D/wd. With the uncapped pay-on-target payout, it is a^2/(1-2a). With the capped formula, the variance is
-1+((-1 + a)^2 X (-wd^(2 a) X + 2 a wd X^(2 a)))/((-1 + 2 a) (-wd^a X + a wd X^a)^2)
Which for a>1/2 grows like X^(2a-1). Whatever the variance, as long as it is finite it can be plugged into the PPS safety net analysis.

With a cap you can even make a greater than 1. Solo mining is essentially this with a = infinity and X = D. Normal PPS is X = wd and a can be anything.

[-ck]

Another issue that's bugging me is the effect vardiff has on share payment. It is totally reasonable that if the base diff is 10x higher then the value of diff 10 shares is different to diff 10 shares for diff 1 miners, but when the diff is above 10, the value of each share should actually converge (at some point, not sure where) from both diff 1 and diff 10 miners.

EDIT: (Yes I understand it's perfectly fair over an infinite time period and averages out to the same pps at whatever diff, but it would just be nice at diff 1 to be paid for finding a block as much as a diff 10 miner is paid for finding it. Nice, not logical, fair or reasonable. Just nice.)

[meowmeowbrowncow]

If you cap sd so that it is never more than X, you should use instead

[(1-a)/(1-a*wd^(1-a)*X^(a-1)]*(wd*B/D)*(sd/wd)^a

And then you will again have an expected payout of wd*B/D per share.

Discussion of the variance of this will follow.

Nice!

I don't think it would be off topic if you showed us how you derived that?

How do this maths?

[Meni Rosenfeld]

Another issue that's bugging me is the effect vardiff has on share payment. It is totally reasonable that if the base diff is 10x higher then the value of diff 10 shares is different to diff 10 shares for diff 1 miners, but when the diff is above 10, the value of each share should actually converge (at some point, not sure where) from both diff 1 and diff 10 miners.

Not sure that I agree. Edit: It should be fixable but it will greatly complicate the calculations. I'd need to figure out how.

[-ck]

Another issue that's bugging me is the effect vardiff has on share payment. It is totally reasonable that if the base diff is 10x higher then the value of diff 10 shares is different to diff 10 shares for diff 1 miners, but when the diff is above 10, the value of each share should actually converge (at some point, not sure where) from both diff 1 and diff 10 miners.

Not sure that I agree, anyway instead of (sd/wd)^a you could do sd^(a+1) / (wd + b*sd) for some b, but it will complicate the calculations.

EDIT: (Yes I understand it's perfectly fair over an infinite time period and averages out to the same pps at whatever diff, but it would just be nice at diff 1 to be paid for finding a block as much as a diff 10 miner is paid for finding it. Nice, not logical, fair or reasonable. Just nice.)

[organofcorti]

EDIT: (Yes I understand it's perfectly fair over an infinite time period and averages out to the same pps at whatever diff, but it would just be nice at diff 1 to be paid for finding a block as much as a diff 10 miner is paid for finding it. Nice, not logical, fair or reasonable. Just nice.)

This isn't exactly the answer, but if a block finder is paid a portion (or all of) the constant factor from the capped share reward function Meni describes, applied to all shares in the round, then at least a bonus could be paid that would be the same as for high and low diff miners.

A nice effect is that the bonus would be approximately proportional to the number of shares in a round - so if it takes moe shares to solve a block, then the bonus is larger. So having a cap actually makes a block finder bonus much simpler to apply, and at the same time encourage more miners to join and solve long blocks.

Edit: It also increases variance for miners at no risk to Ozcoin.

Edit 2: Huh. Never thought I'd see the day I'd work at finding a fair way to increase variance for miners.

[Graet]

EDIT: (Yes I understand it's perfectly fair over an infinite time period and averages out to the same pps at whatever diff, but it would just be nice at diff 1 to be paid for finding a block as much as a diff 10 miner is paid for finding it. Nice, not logical, fair or reasonable. Just nice.)

This isn't exactly the answer, but if a block finder is paid a portion (or all of) the constant factor from the capped share function Meni describes, applied to all shares in the round, then at least a bonus could be paid that would be the same as for high and low diff miners.

A nice effect is that the bonus would be approximately proportional to the number of shares in a round - so if it takes moe shares to solve a block, then the bonus is larger. So having a cap actually makes a block finder bonus much simpler to apply, and at the same time encourage more miners to join and solve long blocks.

Very interesting
I'm liking this

[organofcorti]

EDIT: (Yes I understand it's perfectly fair over an infinite time period and averages out to the same pps at whatever diff, but it would just be nice at diff 1 to be paid for finding a block as much as a diff 10 miner is paid for finding it. Nice, not logical, fair or reasonable. Just nice.)

This isn't exactly the answer, but if a block finder is paid a portion (or all of) the constant factor from the capped share function Meni describes, applied to all shares in the round, then at least a bonus could be paid that would be the same as for high and low diff miners.

A nice effect is that the bonus would be approximately proportional to the number of shares in a round - so if it takes moe shares to solve a block, then the bonus is larger. So having a cap actually makes a block finder bonus much simpler to apply, and at the same time encourage more miners to join and solve long blocks.

Very interesting
I'm liking this

I reckon a publishing running total of the bonus/jackpot on your home page would be a good way to get more miners in for long blocks. And they might stay.

[Graet]

EDIT: (Yes I understand it's perfectly fair over an infinite time period and averages out to the same pps at whatever diff, but it would just be nice at diff 1 to be paid for finding a block as much as a diff 10 miner is paid for finding it. Nice, not logical, fair or reasonable. Just nice.)

This isn't exactly the answer, but if a block finder is paid a portion (or all of) the constant factor from the capped share function Meni describes, applied to all shares in the round, then at least a bonus could be paid that would be the same as for high and low diff miners.

A nice effect is that the bonus would be approximately proportional to the number of shares in a round - so if it takes moe shares to solve a block, then the bonus is larger. So having a cap actually makes a block finder bonus much simpler to apply, and at the same time encourage more miners to join and solve long blocks.

Very interesting
I'm liking this

I reckon a publishing running total of the bonus/jackpot on your home page would be a good way to get more miners in for long blocks. And they might stay.

Nice idea, I'll store that away
cheers

[Roy Badami]

Personally I'd prefer a smaller a which would make the cap unnecessary.

The maximum value of a share is still effectively unbounded, even for smaller a, so a single share can still bankrupt the pool.  This seems to me to be a different type of risk from that which a PPS operator takes, for example - where the rate at which the pool can lose money is clearly bounded.

[organofcorti]

Personally I'd prefer a smaller a which would make the cap unnecessary.

The maximum value of a share is still effectively unbounded, even for smaller a, so a single share can still bankrupt the pool.  This seems to me to be a different type of risk from that which a PPS operator takes, for example - where the rate at which the pool can lose money is clearly bounded.

It's extremely unlikely though. If a is 0.5 and uncapped, after 1048576 shares have been submitted the pool has a probability of paying ~ < 1.03 * PPS  is 99.999999%

Edit: I just realised that figure is at beyond the limit of my accuracy. It's probably just the maximum for that calculation and the RVs I used. Still, the point stands.

[Wave]

Looking at feedback, thinking, talking with others our next experiment will be at a= 0.8 which brings back in high variance but share value will be capped at 1.5*D (5055272)
 to reduce chance of pool going broke

Thanks for persisting and all the feedback - I feel we can make this work and be fun
cheers
Graet

Excuse me for being lazy, but what would the max payout be under this potential scenario?

[organofcorti]

Looking at feedback, thinking, talking with others our next experiment will be at a= 0.8 which brings back in high variance but share value will be capped at 1.5*D (5055272)
 to reduce chance of pool going broke

Thanks for persisting and all the feedback - I feel we can make this work and be fun
cheers
Graet

Excuse me for being lazy, but what would the max payout be under this potential scenario?

I think rather than maxing the share value at 1.5*D it would be easier for miners to understand if there was a semi-permanent maximum payment - for example a 1/2 block reward.

[Meni Rosenfeld]

Personally I'd prefer a smaller a which would make the cap unnecessary.

The maximum value of a share is still effectively unbounded, even for smaller a, so a single share can still bankrupt the pool.  This seems to me to be a different type of risk from that which a PPS operator takes, for example - where the rate at which the pool can lose money is clearly bounded.

Yes, but it's a "so you're telling me there's a chance" can. With a=0.4 and wd=1, the chance that a share will cause a loss of more than a reward of a single block is about 1 in a quintillion, I think they can handle it.

[os2sam]

Personally I'd prefer a smaller a which would make the cap unnecessary.

The maximum value of a share is still effectively unbounded, even for smaller a, so a single share can still bankrupt the pool.  This seems to me to be a different type of risk from that which a PPS operator takes, for example - where the rate at which the pool can lose money is clearly bounded.

Yes, but it's a "so you're telling me there's a chance" can. With a=0.4 and wd=1, the chance that a share will cause a loss of more than a reward of a single block is about 1 in a quintillion, I think they can handle it.

There may be some wisdom in the KISS method by putting a reasonable cap on max reward as opposed to taking a "1 in a quintillion" chance of something astronomically bad happening.

Have any of us said "the chance of X happening is so remote that we don't need to worry about it?"  I have, and far too many times I've had to follow up by saying "ain't never seen that before".
Sam

[organofcorti]

Have any of us said "the chance of X happening is so remote that we don't need to worry about it?"  I have, and far too many times I've had to follow up by saying "ain't never seen that before".

Well, perhaps your analysis of the probability of X occurring was faulty? That said, I've always thought million-to-one chances happen nine time out of ten.

[os2sam]

Have any of us said "the chance of X happening is so remote that we don't need to worry about it?"  I have, and far too many times I've had to follow up by saying "ain't never seen that before".

Well, perhaps your analysis of the probability of X occurring was faulty? That said, I've always thought million-to-one chances happen nine time out of ten.

I rarely rely on my analysis of a probability of anything.  I used to rely on others analysis a little more often but have been taught by the School of Hard Knocks not to do that when the consequences are too high.

Graet will need to determine what his comfort level with the consequences are.

[abracadabra]

Have any of us said "the chance of X happening is so remote that we don't need to worry about it?"  I have, and far too many times I've had to follow up by saying "ain't never seen that before".

Well, perhaps your analysis of the probability of X occurring was faulty? That said, I've always thought million-to-one chances happen nine time out of ten.

Exactly... Like "storms of the century" seem to happen every year

oh.. and with all the math formulas being spewed here by meni and ooc, i'm beginning to think that both of them are actually wolfram alpha sock puppet accounts 

[Meni Rosenfeld]

There may be some wisdom in the KISS method

(1-a)*(wd*B/D)*(sd/wd)^a
is simpler than
[(1-a)/(1-a*wd^(1-a)*(1.5D)^(a-1))]*(wd*B/D)*(min(1.5D,sd)/wd)^a.

a^2/(1-2a) is simpler than -1+((-1 + a)^2 X (-wd^(2 a) X + 2 a wd X^(2 a)))/((-1 + 2 a) (-wd^a X + a wd X^a)^2). The expression for the variance is what you need to truly bound your risks.

by putting a reasonable cap on max reward as opposed to taking a "1 in a quintillion" chance of something astronomically bad happening.

Have any of us said "the chance of X happening is so remote that we don't need to worry about it?"  I have, and far too many times I've had to follow up by saying "ain't never seen that before".

You should distinguish
1. Hunches that something is unlikely, or derivation of probabilities based on strong assumptions of dubious truth value
from
2. Probability derivations for essentially pure random processes where there are virtually no relevant assumptions.

#1 are only as good as your process - in other words, usually not very good. #2 Really do mean something. Something that has a true probability of 1 in a billion to cause, say, my own death, is really nothing to worry about.

[hackjealousy]

I'd like to calculate the difference between what I would be making PPS (with a 4% fee) and with POT.  If S is the submitted share difficulty and T is the target difficulty, then the reward for the two methods is equal when S = T (1 / (1 - a))^(1/a).  For a = 1/2, we have S = 4 T.  A POT share at 4 times the difficulty of the target is thus worth as much as a standard PPS share at that target.

I'd like to use the "Average Share" on the "POT Statistics" page to determine if I'm doing better than PPS.  However, I have two issues:

1.  One of my miners is vardiff and I can't find an "Average Target Difficulty" in the statistics.
2.  I don't know if the "Average Share" is the true average or an average over a certain amount of time.

[GenTarkin]

1.  One of my miners is vardiff and I can't find an "Average Target Difficulty" in the statistics.
2.  I don't know if the "Average Share" is the true average or an average over a certain amount of time.

As per #2 - blak told me average share is just a rolling avg of.. last share * cur share / 2 .. so just a period in time. I would like to see an all time average too.

For #1 - there still is the question of what does valid shares actually reflect? Ive been told its shares submitted then based down to their 1diff equivilant, but in testing this seems to not mathmatically be correct. Then there is the other side, is it just a total of actual shares submitted, regardless of their vardiff. But, Im being told by developers the first one is how its figured, but it seems to actually be working more like my 2nd point.. so... /really confused.

[crazyates]

1.  One of my miners is vardiff and I can't find an "Average Target Difficulty" in the statistics.
2.  I don't know if the "Average Share" is the true average or an average over a certain amount of time.

As per #2 - blak told me average share is just a rolling avg of.. last share * cur share / 2 .. so just a period in time. I would like to see an all time average too.

This doesn't make any sense to me.

[GenTarkin]

1.  One of my miners is vardiff and I can't find an "Average Target Difficulty" in the statistics.
2.  I don't know if the "Average Share" is the true average or an average over a certain amount of time.

As per #2 - blak told me average share is just a rolling avg of.. last share * cur share / 2 .. so just a period in time. I would like to see an all time average too.

This doesn't make any sense to me.

sorry, last share diff + cur share diff / 2

[Wave]

I'm out gents, back to DGM for me.  At least for now.

-Wave

[Graet]

@all
Doing up some more user stats currently
My brain collapsed last night, had a sleep going to look at new formulae and feedback, appreciate the help, I feel we are moving in the right direction


Wave, thanks for giving it a go and the feedback, you posted just after i went to bed, the answer is
at work_difficulty diff 1 and D = 3370182 share_difficulty (1.5*D)= 5055273
( 1 * 24.25 / 3370182 ) * (( 1 - 0.8 )*( 5055273 / 1 )^0.8 )=0.331958715BTC

Thanks folks
Graet

[Roy Badami]

Yes, but it's a "so you're telling me there's a chance" can. With a=0.4 and wd=1, the chance that a share will cause a loss of more than a reward of a single block is about 1 in a quintillion, I think they can handle it.

Ok, if that's really the case then I withdraw my objection.  The probability of Ozcoin being wiped out at a=0.4 is many orders of magnitude lower than the probability of a meteor destroying all life on Earth :-)

roy

[os2sam]

Yes, but it's a "so you're telling me there's a chance" can. With a=0.4 and wd=1, the chance that a share will cause a loss of more than a reward of a single block is about 1 in a quintillion, I think they can handle it.

Ok, if that's really the case then I withdraw my objection.  The probability of Ozcoin being wiped out at a=0.4 is many orders of magnitude lower than the probability of a meteor destroying all life on Earth :-)

roy

Hmm, should I feel better now?

Just two more days to the end of the Aztec calendar you know .
Sam

[crazyates]

Ooh the Ozcoin page has updated with some cool stats, tracking your shares across rounds and comparing them to PPS. So far, over the past 15 rounds, I'm -0.0136 behind straight PPS. Right before this started, my highest was 600k, but since then I've barely gotten a single 10k share. I'll prolly keep going for another few days to see how it tracks when you do hit a really high share, and then I'll decide which method to keep using.

Oh, I'm only using a lone BFL Single, but my varr diff is manually set to 2. Would that affect my earnings much? From what I can tell, a manually set work_difficulty makes for higher-paying high-diff shares, but fewer low-paying low-diff shares. Is this correct?

[organofcorti]

Oh, I'm only using a lone BFL Single, but my varr diff is manually set to 2. Would that affect my earnings much? From what I can tell, a manually set work_difficulty makes for higher-paying high-diff shares, but fewer low-paying low-diff shares. Is this correct?

Sort of. You get paid the same as if the shares you submitted were only half the difficulty the are(since vardiff = work_difficulty =2), but multiplied by 2.

Think of it like this:

Reward per share = function(share_difficulty/work_difficulty) *  work_difficulty

[organofcorti]

Wlog we assume wd*B/D=1. The pdf of sd for sd>=wd is wd/sd^2 and the payout is (sd/wd)^a. So without a cap and without a constant factor, the expected payout is

\int_{wd}^{\infty}(wd/sd^2)(sd/wd)^a\ sd

This is 1/(1-a), and thus we need a constant factor of (1-a) to make this equal to 1.

With sd capped to X the integral becomes

\int_{wd}^{X}(wd/sd^2)(sd/wd)^a\ sd + \int_X^{\infty}(wd/sd^2)(X/wd)^a\ sd

The second term is (X/wd)^(a-1) and the first term (by subtracting the primitive function at the endpoints) is (1-wd^(1-a)*X^(a-1))/(1-a). Add to get [(1-a*wd^(1-a)*X^(a-1))/(1-a)], so the constant term should be [(1-a)/(1-a*wd^(1-a)*X^(a-1))].

Thanks for that. Nice clear way of showing how to think about the problem.

[kano]

Meanwhile ...
Rather than typing numbers into my desktop calculator over and over ... I wrote this:
http://tradebtc.net/potcalc.php

The defaults (which you can change before you press 'Calculate' are a=0.8 Cap=1.5 Fee=3%)
I'll change the defaults to whatever Graet sets them to ... when I notice they've changed

[Meni Rosenfeld]

Meanwhile ...
Rather than typing numbers into my desktop calculator over and over ... I wrote this:
http://tradebtc.net/potcalc.php

The defaults (which you can change before you press 'Calculate' are a=0.8 Cap=1.5 Fee=3%)
I'll change the defaults to whatever Graet sets them to ... when I notice they've changed

I don't think you used the constant factor that corrects for share capping.

[kano]

Meanwhile ...
Rather than typing numbers into my desktop calculator over and over ... I wrote this:
http://tradebtc.net/potcalc.php

The defaults (which you can change before you press 'Calculate' are a=0.8 Cap=1.5 Fee=3%)
I'll change the defaults to whatever Graet sets them to ... when I notice they've changed

I don't think you used the constant factor that corrects for share capping.

Yeah I was applying it to share count
I've changed it to cap the share value ... hopefully that's correct.

[Meni Rosenfeld]

Meanwhile ...
Rather than typing numbers into my desktop calculator over and over ... I wrote this:
http://tradebtc.net/potcalc.php

The defaults (which you can change before you press 'Calculate' are a=0.8 Cap=1.5 Fee=3%)
I'll change the defaults to whatever Graet sets them to ... when I notice they've changed

I don't think you used the constant factor that corrects for share capping.

Yeah I was applying it to share count
I've changed it to cap the share value ... hopefully that's correct.

I'm not sure we're on the same page, the formula for payout is

[(1-a)/(1-a*wd^(1-a)*X^(a-1))]*(wd*B/D)*(min(X,sd)/wd)^a

So letting a = 0.8, wd = 1, sd = 10, D = 3370181.7992778, X = 1.5D, B = 24.25 you should get
9.42407*10^-6
Rather than 9.08*10^-6 as in the site.

[organofcorti]

Meanwhile ...
Rather than typing numbers into my desktop calculator over and over ... I wrote this:
http://tradebtc.net/potcalc.php

The defaults (which you can change before you press 'Calculate' are a=0.8 Cap=1.5 Fee=3%)
I'll change the defaults to whatever Graet sets them to ... when I notice they've changed

I don't think you used the constant factor that corrects for share capping.

Yeah I was applying it to share count
I've changed it to cap the share value ... hopefully that's correct.

I'm not sure we're on the same page, the formula for payout is

[(1-a)/(1-a*wd^(1-a)*X^(a-1))]*(wd*B/D)*(min(X,sd)/wd)^a

So letting a = 0.8, wd = 1, sd = 10, D = 3370181.7992778, X = 1.5D you should get
9.42407*10^-6
Rather than 9.08*10^-6 as in the site.

He's including the 3% fee, which makes it closer. When are you applying the fee, kano?

[Meni Rosenfeld]

Meanwhile ...
Rather than typing numbers into my desktop calculator over and over ... I wrote this:
http://tradebtc.net/potcalc.php

The defaults (which you can change before you press 'Calculate' are a=0.8 Cap=1.5 Fee=3%)
I'll change the defaults to whatever Graet sets them to ... when I notice they've changed

I don't think you used the constant factor that corrects for share capping.

Yeah I was applying it to share count
I've changed it to cap the share value ... hopefully that's correct.

I'm not sure we're on the same page, the formula for payout is

[(1-a)/(1-a*wd^(1-a)*X^(a-1))]*(wd*B/D)*(min(X,sd)/wd)^a

So letting a = 0.8, wd = 1, sd = 10, D = 3370181.7992778, X = 1.5D you should get
9.42407*10^-6
Rather than 9.08*10^-6 as in the site.

He's including the 3% fee, which makes it closer. When are you applying the fee, kano?

Sorry, I included the fee too, ETA.
The calculator simply uses the (1-a) factor rather than the [(1-a)/(1-a*wd^(1-a)*X^(a-1))] factor.

[kano]

heh well I guess I need to check what OzCoin is using at the moment - coz that's what matters
(I'm not sure they've updated it yet to whatever the next version of the calculation is)
I put the equations I'm using at the moment at the bottom of the web page
(and the cap I'm using is simply a cap on 'Your Share Difficulty')

Edit: i.e. I'm using the OP post equation

[crazyates]

Oh, I'm only using a lone BFL Single, but my varr diff is manually set to 2. Would that affect my earnings much? From what I can tell, a manually set work_difficulty makes for higher-paying high-diff shares, but fewer low-paying low-diff shares. Is this correct?

Sort of. You get paid the same as if the shares you submitted were only half the difficulty the are(since vardiff = work_difficulty =2), but multiplied by 2.

Think of it like this:

Reward per share = function(share_difficulty/work_difficulty) *  work_difficulty

So playing around with Kano's calculator (Thanks, btw! Just what I was looking for), it seems that manually setting work_difficulty to a higher value does increase the payout per share by a bit, at almost any share_difficulty. How is this offset? Just the fact that fewer shares are submitted?

I understand your first formula (the on in the OP) pretty well, the second I'm having a harder time wading thru. At this point, I'm just trying to figure out practical applications.

[Meni Rosenfeld]

Oh, I'm only using a lone BFL Single, but my varr diff is manually set to 2. Would that affect my earnings much? From what I can tell, a manually set work_difficulty makes for higher-paying high-diff shares, but fewer low-paying low-diff shares. Is this correct?

Sort of. You get paid the same as if the shares you submitted were only half the difficulty the are(since vardiff = work_difficulty =2), but multiplied by 2.

Think of it like this:

Reward per share = function(share_difficulty/work_difficulty) *  work_difficulty

So playing around with Kano's calculator (Thanks, btw! Just what I was looking for), it seems that manually setting work_difficulty to a higher value does increase the payout per share by a bit, at almost any share_difficulty. How is this offset? Just the fact that fewer shares are submitted?

Yes. By upping the work_difficulty, shares which are less than the new value will not be paid at all. This offsets the higher payment for the shares that are paid.

I understand your first formula (the on in the OP) pretty well, the second I'm having a harder time wading thru. At this point, I'm just trying to figure out practical applications.

The second formula is what allows you to maintain the same average fee while capping the payout. It's more complicated, and that's part of the reason I'm not so enthusiastic about capping.

heh well I guess I need to check what OzCoin is using at the moment - coz that's what matters
(I'm not sure they've updated it yet to whatever the next version of the calculation is)
I put the equations I'm using at the moment at the bottom of the web page
(and the cap I'm using is simply a cap on 'Your Share Difficulty')

Edit: i.e. I'm using the OP post equation

Well if Graet is capping the shares but hasn't updated the formula, he's effectively taking 4% extra fee on top of the advertised fee. I hope this will be fixed soon.

[GenTarkin]

Well as it stands now, POT is horribly broken in my case. Im seeing negatives in the PPS difference column on almost every block(on the site stats)
My overall is like 83% pps currently. So, the formula (hopefully new generations of it) will help fix this. Seems like my luck should be avg'n out to at least 100% ozcoin pps overall =P not a deficit of 17% =(

[JWU42]

As expected unless you hit some 1M+ shares...

[GenTarkin]

As expected unless you hit some 1M+ shares...

LOL, 17% less than PPS? .. I dont think thats, "expected" .. "expected" would be hovering around 100% pps.. and deviate from that up n down .. if I can maintain a 117% pps for just as long a period, then I will retract my statement that the formula is broken...till that time, its broke =P

[Meni Rosenfeld]

As expected unless you hit some 1M+ shares...

LOL, 17% less than PPS? .. I dont think thats, "expected" .. "expected" would be hovering around 100% pps.. and deviate from that up n down .. if I can maintain a 117% pps for just as long a period, then I will retract my statement that the formula is broken...till that time, its broke =P

The Pay-on-Target payout distribution is highly asymmetric. You don't get roughly equal numbers of above-average and below-average shares; rather, you get (with a = 0.8 ) 87% of the shares to be lower than average, then once in a while you hit the jackpot. Maybe you will soon get that big win that will bring you back to the black, maybe not.

This of course does not rule out the possibility of an issue with the implementation.

[Mysil2]

As expected unless you hit some 1M+ shares...

LOL, 17% less than PPS? .. I dont think thats, "expected" .. "expected" would be hovering around 100% pps.. and deviate from that up n down .. if I can maintain a 117% pps for just as long a period, then I will retract my statement that the formula is broken...till that time, its broke =P

I can confirm the opposite. Running POT nearly 2 days with 4 Ghash/s now and I am at 18% above PPS rate. This is because I got an 3.18M share at diff 7.

Great idea with this new payout method, definitely bringing some fun into mining again - And I hope my luck won't faint...

[GenTarkin]

I hear what you guys are saying... but to me, if I take the "avg share diff 1" column value and plug that into my spreadsheet w/ a wdiff of 1 and submitted shares value of "avg share diff 1"(it shows me the pot PPS based on my "avg share diff 1" then multiply  by the value shown in "valid vardiff shares" column - that should be "ON AVERAGE" close to the cumulative paid amount per block row. Which, for nearly all my rows its about 20% short.

Meaning, the spreadsheet says, my calculated avg share diff 1 need to be a value of 8 to = ozco pps - fees.
But according to stats page, its looking like avg share diff 1 needs to be at least around 10+ to = ozco pps - fees....

[crazyates]

As expected unless you hit some 1M+ shares...

LOL, 17% less than PPS? .. I dont think thats, "expected" .. "expected" would be hovering around 100% pps.. and deviate from that up n down .. if I can maintain a 117% pps for just as long a period, then I will retract my statement that the formula is broken...till that time, its broke =P

I can confirm the opposite. Running POT nearly 2 days with 4 Ghash/s now and I am at 18% above PPS rate. This is because I got an 3.18M share at diff 7.

Great idea with this new payout method, definitely bringing some fun into mining again - And I hope my luck won't faint...

Right now I'm at 12% under PPS, but a single share of 1million would bring me up to 45% over PPS. Damn you PoT for stringing me along!

[Graet]

A few winners starting to appear
Site stats are getting better and thanks to kano for the calculator - I can see it getting some lots of use

We will be changing to the latest formula after Blaksmith finishes work today

Hopefully soon we can get something works for both sides

Please be aware that the nature of gambling is you can win or lose - this payout method is putting the luck back onto the miner - the shares you submit are what you are paid on, if your luck is bad you will lose, if good you will win.


Thanks for the feedback and help, apologies for the delays (at least you didn't have to pre-order - joke) it is taking a bit longer than expected to get sorted, I feel we are getting closer, thanks to miners that have persevered during the trial

Best wishes
Graet

[vapourminer]

Im 2.4% under. seems ok to me. most shares are under but the over ones do a pretty good job of evening it out so far.. and it IS a gamble of sorts.

Ill stick it out some more. makes coming home to see the stats fun again

[Graet]

had my whip out, Blaksmith has worked up a sweat pounding code on his anvil
new formula running

round((1 - $a) / (1 - $a * pow($wd, (1 - $a)) * pow($X, ($a - 1))), 10) * ($wd * $B / $D) * pow(($sd / $wd), $a)

a = 0.8
X = bitcoin_difficulty * 1.5
B =  Currently set to 24.25 (take out 3% fee)
D = bitcoin_difficulty
wd = work from pool
sd = work returned to pool from miner

Lets see how this goes
Good luck to anyone playing
Graet


One lucky blocksolver (the only POT block so far) 2012-12-21 01:26:19 share diff 19 work diff  5218578 paid 0.61359400 BTC
congrats

[-ck]

One lucky blocksolver (the only POT block so far) 2012-12-21 01:26:19 share diff 19 work diff  5218578 paid 0.61359400 BTC
congrats

W00t that one share was worth more than 86,000 PPS shares 

[runlinux]

That took me way to long to figure out the math... DOH!

I like this!

Now to figure out how to update cgminer in my bamt rigs....

[-ck]

Now to figure out how to update cgminer in my bamt rigs....

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=127622.0

[runlinux]

Now to figure out how to update cgminer in my bamt rigs....

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=127622.0

Thanks!

I'll have some more GH/s going to the pool as soon as I figure this out...

[kano]

Updated the POT calculator

http://tradebtc.net/potcalc.php

Also still shows the equation at the bottom.

[Graet]

Updated the POT calculator

http://tradebtc.net/potcalc.php

Also still shows the equation at the bottom.

Thanks kano - i'll pop the link in 1st post and somewhere on Ozcoin site if thats ok

[runlinux]

KK, moved all my rigs over here for a bit. We'll see how this goes.

Thanks for the help guys!

[Graet]

KK, moved all my rigs over here for a bit. We'll see how this goes.

Thanks for the help guys!

cool, good luck

[kano]

Updated the POT calculator

http://tradebtc.net/potcalc.php

Also still shows the equation at the bottom.

Thanks kano - i'll pop the link in 1st post and somewhere on Ozcoin site if thats ok

Yep fine by me

[JWU42]

One lucky blocksolver (the only POT block so far) 2012-12-21 01:26:19 share diff 19 work diff  5218578 paid 0.61359400 BTC
congrats

W00t that one share was worth more than 86,000 PPS shares 

Well - glad I could help with that...

Code:

Best share: 5.22M

 

[Meni Rosenfeld]

Updated the POT calculator

http://tradebtc.net/potcalc.php

Also still shows the equation at the bottom.

It seems broken to me:

a = 0.8
fee = 3%
share cap = 1.5

share diff = 56
work diff = 8
PPS percent = 100.42%

share diff = 56
work diff = 1
PPS percent = 519.67%  

It means the ratio between what you would get for a share with this work difficulty between PoT and normal PPS. With a lower work difficulty you get a lower absolute payout, but higher as a ratio of PPS (because the gap between work difficulty and share difficulty is higher).

[kano]

Updated the POT calculator

http://tradebtc.net/potcalc.php

Also still shows the equation at the bottom.

It seems broken to me:

a = 0.8
fee = 3%
share cap = 1.5

share diff = 56
work diff = 8
PPS percent = 100.42%

share diff = 56
work diff = 1
PPS percent = 519.67%  

If I understood it correctly, lower work diff should return less bitcoins per share.

Damn - I thought you were ignoring me ...

[organofcorti]

Unless value shown for PPS in second case is lower than in first case, it is worthless data since it is not showing clearly
that "higher work diff means higher PPS".

If this is confusing to you, just use the btc value field in kano's calculator.

[organofcorti]

Unless value shown for PPS in second case is lower than in first case, it is worthless data since it is not showing clearly
that "higher work diff means higher PPS".

If this is confusing to you, just use the btc value field in kano's calculator.

Whatever. Use BIN or HEX for values if you wish, it is not like I really care for this whole deal.

I just gave you the answer you wanted and you reply, "whatever".

If you don't "really care for this whole deal" why post questions about usability in this thread? I'm happy to answer your questions, but snarky replies (to the answers for which you asked) are not polite.

As an aside, I don't think anyone transacts btc in HEX or BIN. Luke-jr uses tonal bitcoin, so if you'd rather not use decimal you can try that.

[-ck]

Increasing the work difficulty to a fairly high level makes this much more like mining solo but at much lower difficulties Trying to decide how high you should set it and accept more variance is the trick though

[kano]

Anyone using my POT calculator:

At Blaksmith's suggestion I've included a Pool PPS Fee % option (default is 4% as per OzCoin) to give a correct result for the PPS comparison
... since of course there is a PPS Fee % that I missed

[GenTarkin]

Still waiting for some really lucky shares to offset the near 20% loss last couple days... Come on you gazillion sided die! Lol

[runlinux]

Still waiting for some really lucky shares to offset the near 20% loss last couple days... Come on you gazillion sided die! Lol

+1! 

[-ck]

I pushed variance to the maximum by setting my worker diff to 10000 which would only average 5 shares per day at my 2.7GH and got lucky with this:
 [2012-12-23 15:48:21] Accepted 00001e9b Diff 548K/10000 GPU 0 pool 0

POT Value    0.46005046 BTC
PPS Percent    666.00%

I only would earn .35BTC per day mining PPS, and gotta love that satanic percentage 

[Graet]

I pushed variance to the maximum by setting my worker diff to 10000 which would only average 5 shares per day at my 2.7GH and got lucky with this:
 [2012-12-23 15:48:21] Accepted 00001e9b Diff 548K/10000 GPU 0 pool 0

POT Value    0.46005046 BTC
PPS Percent    666.00%

I only would earn .35BTC per day mining PPS, and gotta love that satanic percentage 

Nice work

Pool API is being updated to include user PoT stats
Cheers
Graet

[makngeerwork]

Hey Guys.
        So I decided to try out the new platform, been changing my difficulty around and such.  I did notice that cgminer is showing a best share of 9.1k vs ozcoins POT stats of 830.  Does the error in cgminer's 'best share' happen often, just one of those blips?  No rejected shares.

Thanks.

[Blaksmith]

Hey Guys.
        So I decided to try out the new platform, been changing my difficulty around and such.  I did notice that cgminer is showing a best share of 9.1k vs ozcoins POT stats of 830.  Does the error in cgminer's 'best share' happen often, just one of those blips?  No rejected shares.

Thanks.

We have been tracking it down with Conman, and we think it is a cgminer bug at this point in time.

[makngeerwork]

Had a look at the cgminer thread, seems to be some sort of best share bug.  Restarted cgminer to try and repeat the problem, had a false reading again. I am ignoring cgm.  

Thanks.

This is why Ozcoin is best in class.

[philips]

Argh, this is really frustrating. I had several best shares (reported by cgminer) that never appeared in Ozcoin stats.
I just had one at 58.5k and the higher reported share is 278.

Few hours ago I had (at least) one at 61k, one at 40k and one at 980k, all of them lost...I mean come on, what´s the point?

Is cgminer still reporting false best shares...or something broken in between...?

(running cgminer 2.10.2 with the best share bug fixed)

[-ck]

Argh, this is really frustrating. I had several best shares (reported by cgminer) that never appeared in Ozcoin stats.
I just had one at 58.5k and the higher reported share is 278.

Few hours ago I had (at least) one at 61k, one at 40k and one at 980k, all of them lost...I mean come on, what´s the point?

Is cgminer still reporting false best shares...or something broken in between...?

(running cgminer 2.10.2 with the best share bug fixed)

Alas the best share bug is NOT fixed, sorry.

[Blaksmith]

Argh, this is really frustrating. I had several best shares (reported by cgminer) that never appeared in Ozcoin stats.
I just had one at 58.5k and the higher reported share is 278.

Few hours ago I had (at least) one at 61k, one at 40k and one at 980k, all of them lost...I mean come on, what´s the point?

Is cgminer still reporting false best shares...or something broken in between...?

(running cgminer 2.10.2 with the best share bug fixed)

From what we can tell so far, that somewhere inside cgminer, it is setting it... I have been doing some personal tests following a share from when it arrives on the server to where it gets credited, and I have seen the best share go up on cg, but not see it even enter the stream on ozcoin.  Conman has also confirmed that as well.

[philips]

Oh, OK thanks...at least I know what´s going on.
(crap, another false best share at 675k)

Is that fix from...the Unnamed one gonna solve the issue? (cgminer thread)

[-ck]

Oh, OK thanks...at least I know what´s going on.
(crap, another false best share at 675k)

Is that fix from...the Unnamed one gonna solve the issue? (cgminer thread)

I'm investigating, but I will not be pulling in his code.

Should be fixed in git now.

[philips]

@ckolivas

OK thanks, installed the latest git source tarball and see how it goes.

[mdude77]

I admit it, I didn't read all 6 or 7 pages of this.  It seems like a neat idea, but I don't follow the math.

I've been using this for almost 2 days now, give or take, and according to oz's POT stats page, I'm about 0.05BTC behind where I'd be if I was using PPS. 

Using the calculator on the first post, if you solve a block, or get the largest allowed share, your reward is:

POT Value    0.39800980 BTC

Yes, that's significantly larger than what you'd normally get, but it doesn't really seem like much for solving a block.  I get more by solving a block on my own p2pool node with NMC merged mining (at current BTC <--> NMC exchange rates)!

Am I missing something here?

M

[philips]

@ckolivas

OK thanks, installed the latest git source tarball and see how it goes.

From what I see the issue is gone, no more false high shares since last night.

However, now I can see that higher shares are quite rare in fact, and the whole POT thing kinda lost its appeal to me.
I get that is about luck and gambling, but since I started I kept going and going downhill and occasionally higher shares were not enough to get me back on track.

Maybe I am not lucky enough or most likely not patient enough...but there is too little time left until my GPU rig is going to scrap to gamble with it.

So long, and thanks for all the fish, it was really fun though

[Graet]

Thanks for the feedback and giving it a try guys
The trial period is not yet over and with the festive season upon us coders have been a little busy with non-Bitcoin related stuff.
We will assess the numbers and possibly tweak some more.

I also feel the cgminer incorrect best share in display has caused too much confusion - looking forward to next release

[philips]

Thanks for the feedback and giving it a try guys
The trial period is not yet over and with the festive season upon us coders have been a little busy with non-Bitcoin related stuff.
We will assess the numbers and possibly tweak some more.

I also feel the cgminer incorrect best share in display has caused too much confusion - looking forward to next release

I still think that this is a brilliant idea with a future.
Also, do you have any plans to implement this on your Litecoin pool (if possible) ?

[Graet]

Thanks for the feedback and giving it a try guys
The trial period is not yet over and with the festive season upon us coders have been a little busy with non-Bitcoin related stuff.
We will assess the numbers and possibly tweak some more.

I also feel the cgminer incorrect best share in display has caused too much confusion - looking forward to next release

I still think that this is a brilliant idea with a future.
Also, do you have any plans to implement this on your Litecoin pool (if possible) ?

Thanks, I think the idea has merit too, we will persevere

Most focus has been on the Bitcoin pool, we are currently investigating ecoinpool or stratum with DGM and PPS for Litecoin, if we go with stratum it would be easy to implement this payout system too

[-ck]

New version of cgminer, 2.10.3 should finally have fixed the "best share" displayed bug  . It also offers a Zero statistics button in the Display menu allowing people to reset stats.

[Graet]

Thinking about continuing trial and lowering a=0.8 to 0.75 or 0.7 reduces variance a little and raising cap to 5*D instead of 1.5*D

feedback welcome

[mdude77]

Thinking about continuing trial and lowering a=0.8 to 0.75 or 0.7 reduces variance a little and raising cap to 5*D instead of 1.5*D

feedback welcome

I'd consider coming back if a stayed at 0.8 and the cap increased.  Lowering it lowers the max payout.

Honestly, though, with difficulty decreasing significantly for both btc and nmc, I'm leaning towards staying on p2pool for a while.

M

[Graet]

Thinking about continuing trial and lowering a=0.8 to 0.75 or 0.7 reduces variance a little and raising cap to 5*D instead of 1.5*D

feedback welcome

I'd consider coming back if a stayed at 0.8 and the cap increased.  Lowering it lowers the max payout.

Honestly, though, with difficulty decreasing significantly for both btc and nmc, I'm leaning towards staying on p2pool for a while.

M

cool, lowering lowers max payout but raises minimum payout, also increasing the cap will raise maximum payout.

I don't mind where people mine - there has been demand for a payout system based on difficulty of submitted share, we are trying to fill that demand, I have deliberately pointed out it is a high variance payout system and also called it "gambling "
Also with difficulty lowering and D being a number in the equation the rate per share will go up when difficulty next drops.
cheers
Graet

[philips]

New version of cgminer, 2.10.3 should finally have fixed the "best share" displayed bug  . It also offers a Zero statistics button in the Display menu allowing people to reset stats.

Wow, so there really is a Santa!

[-ck]

Thinking about continuing trial and lowering a=0.8 to 0.75 or 0.7 reduces variance a little and raising cap to 5*D instead of 1.5*D

feedback welcome

I'd consider coming back if a stayed at 0.8 and the cap increased.  Lowering it lowers the max payout.

Honestly, though, with difficulty decreasing significantly for both btc and nmc, I'm leaning towards staying on p2pool for a while.

M

The higher the cap goes, the more risk the pool takes. The miner's per share income drops ever so slightly when the cap is raised, but almost a non-noticeable amount. So really, the miners should have nothing against raising the cap, it's up to the pool op to decide how much risk to take. On the other hand though, the a value changes dramatically how much variance the miner is likely to see (and then how high the reward would be at the max cap). I'm quite happy with a high a and the cap being equal to difficulty since I'm actually unlikely to find a block at my hashrate, but others may see things differently

[vapourminer]

Thinking about continuing trial and lowering a=0.8 to 0.75 or 0.7 reduces variance a little and raising cap to 5*D instead of 1.5*D

feedback welcome

sounds good to me.

just as a fyi. running about 12% behind here, been on it since the 19th. sorta a slow slide downwards, as it was about 2-3 % under for the 1st few days. not complaining, just spouting figures.

[Nemesis]

merry christmas

[Graet]

Hey Guys.
        So I decided to try out the new platform, been changing my difficulty around and such.  I did notice that cgminer is showing a best share of 9.1k vs ozcoins POT stats of 830.  Does the error in cgminer's 'best share' happen often, just one of those blips?  No rejected shares.

Thanks.

Hi do you have 2.10.3 version of cgminer? this version fixes the "wrong best share shown" bug

[Wave]

Thinking about continuing trial and lowering a=0.8 to 0.75 or 0.7 reduces variance a little and raising cap to 5*D instead of 1.5*D

feedback welcome

That is what I would like to see in POT rewards.  If my calculations are correct I think 5.6*D would be the magic number and provide a 1 BTC share for the block solve.

Edit  - As in max share block solve...

-Wave

[makngeerwork]

Hey Guys.
        So I decided to try out the new platform, been changing my difficulty around and such.  I did notice that cgminer is showing a best share of 9.1k vs ozcoins POT stats of 830.  Does the error in cgminer's 'best share' happen often, just one of those blips?  No rejected shares.

Thanks.

Hi do you have 2.10.3 version of cgminer? this version fixes the "wrong best share shown" bug

Hi Graet.
     I was using  the 10.2,  your boys figured out the problem quickly, switching over to 10.3 today, Currently mining at 500 difficulty, around p2p difficulty, have been down, up, down, up.  I am used to huge variance with p2p and will keep mining until asic's show up.   Keep up the great work!

Thanks.

[hackjealousy]

Here is a small patch against cgminer-2.10.3 that shows the value of each share calculated using PPS, POT, and the latest proposed system (PPOT.)  I do not include any pool fees in the calculations so the value will be high by a few percent.

I also modified the target and share difficulty display in the "Accepted" log message.  It now shows more accuracy.  (Average target and share difficulties are kept as well.)

Cut and paste the patch below into a file, cgminer.patch .  Then:

$ tar xvf ~/Downloads/cgminer-2.10.3.tar.bz2
$ patch -p0 < cgminer.patch

Configure and build as normal.

Code:

--- cgminer-2.10.3/cgminer.c	2012-12-25 14:38:50.000000000 -0800
+++ cgminer-2.10.3-share/cgminer.c	2012-12-26 12:35:49.583369271 -0800
@@ -186,6 +186,8 @@ static struct timeval total_tv_start, to
 pthread_mutex_t control_lock;
 pthread_mutex_t stats_lock;
 
+long double g_network_difficulty = 0, g_avg_target_difficulty = 0, g_avg_share_difficulty = 0, g_total_pps = 0, g_total_pot = 0, g_total_pro_pot = 0;
+
 int hw_errors;
 int total_accepted, total_rejected, total_diff1;
 int total_getworks, total_stale, total_discarded;
@@ -1943,7 +1945,10 @@ static void curses_print_status(void)
 	wclrtoeol(statuswin);
 	mvwprintw(statuswin, 5, 0, " Block: %s...  Diff:%s  Started: %s  Best share: %s   ",
 		  current_hash, block_diff, blocktime, best_share);
-	mvwhline(statuswin, 6, 0, '-', 80);
+	mvwprintw(statuswin, 6, 0, " PPS:  %3.8Lf BTC (Avg Target: %2.4Lf, Avg Share: %2.4Lf)       ", g_total_pps, g_avg_target_difficulty, g_avg_share_difficulty);
+	mvwprintw(statuswin, 7, 0, " POT:  %3.8Lf BTC, (%%%3.1Lf : %Lf BTC)       ", g_total_pot, 100.0L * g_total_pot / g_total_pps, g_total_pot - g_total_pps);
+	mvwprintw(statuswin, 8, 0, " PPOT: %3.8Lf BTC, (%%%3.1Lf : %Lf BTC)       ", g_total_pro_pot, 100.0L * g_total_pro_pot / g_total_pps, g_total_pro_pot - g_total_pps);
+	mvwhline(statuswin, 9, 0, '-', 80);
 	mvwhline(statuswin, statusy - 1, 0, '-', 80);
 	mvwprintw(statuswin, devcursor - 1, 1, "[P]ool management %s[S]ettings [D]isplay options [Q]uit",
 		have_opencl ? "[G]PU management " : "");
@@ -2204,6 +2209,107 @@ static void reject_pool(struct pool *poo
 	pool->enabled = POOL_REJECTING;
 }
 
+
+static void uncompress(uint32_t bits, uint32_t *target) {
+
+	uint32_t nb = 0, v;
+	int s = 0;
+
+	nb = ((bits >> 24) & 0xff) - 3;
+	v = bits & 0x00ffffff;
+
+	s = (nb % 4) * 8;
+	if (s == 0) {
+		s = 32;
+		nb--;
+	}
+
+	memset(target, 0, 32);
+	target[(nb >> 2) + 1] = v >> (32 - s);
+	target[nb >> 2] = v << s;
+}
+
+
+/*
+ * network difficulty, work target difficulty, share difficulty
+ */
+static long double diff1() {
+
+	static long double d1 = 0.0L;
+	static int diff1_init = 0;
+	static unsigned char diff1_8[32] = {
+		0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0xff, 0xff, 0x00, 0x00,
+		0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00,
+		0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00,
+		0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00
+	};
+
+	if(!diff1_init) {
+		int i;
+
+		for(i = 0; i < 32; i++) {
+			d1 *= 256;
+			d1 += diff1_8[i];
+		}
+		diff1_init = 1;
+	}
+
+	return d1;
+}
+
+
+static long double network_difficulty(const struct work *work) {
+
+	int i;
+	uint32_t bits;
+	unsigned char ntarget[32];
+	long double d = 0.0L;
+
+	bits = swab32(*((uint32_t *)(work->data + 72)));
+	uncompress(bits, (uint32_t *)ntarget);
+	for(i = 31; i >= 0; i--) {
+		d *= 256.0;
+		d += ntarget[i];
+	}
+	if(d == 0)
+		return -1;
+
+	return diff1() / d;
+}
+
+
+static long double work_target_difficulty(const struct work *work) {
+
+	int i;
+	long double d = 0.0L;
+
+	for(i = 31; i >= 0; i--) {
+		d *= 256.0;
+		d += work->target[i];
+	}
+	if(d == 0)
+		return -1;
+
+	return diff1() / d;
+}
+
+
+static long double share_difficulty(const struct work *work) {
+
+	int i;
+	long double d = 0.0L;
+
+	for(i = 31; i >= 0; i--) {
+		d *= 256.0;
+		d += work->hash[i];
+	}
+	if(d == 0)
+		return -1;
+
+	return diff1() / d;
+}
+
+
 /* Theoretically threads could race when modifying accepted and
  * rejected values but the chance of two submits completing at the
  * same time is zero so there is no point adding extra locking */
@@ -2215,6 +2321,29 @@ share_result(json_t *val, json_t *res, j
 	struct cgpu_info *cgpu = thr_info[work->thr_id].cgpu;
 
 	if (json_is_true(res) || (work->gbt && json_is_null(res))) {
+		long double nd, td, sd, ppsv, m, potv, ppotv, pf, ppf;
+
+		nd = network_difficulty(work);
+		td = work_target_difficulty(work);
+		sd = share_difficulty(work);
+		ppsv = 25.0L * td / nd; // BTC
+		/*
+		[(1-a)/(1-a*wd^(1-a)*X^(a-1))]*(wd*B/D)*(min(X,sd)/wd)^a
+		((1 - a) / (1 - a(td / X)^(1 - a))) * ppsv * (min(X, sd) / td)^a
+
+		a = 0.8 = 4/5, X = 1.5D
+		 */
+		m = (sd <= 1.5L * nd)? sd : 1.5L * nd;
+		pf = (1.0L / (5.0L - 4.0L * powl(1.5L * td / nd, 0.2L))) * powl(m / td, 0.8L);
+		potv = pf * ppsv;
+
+		/*
+		a = 0.75, X = 5D
+		 */
+		m = (sd <= 5.0L * nd)? sd : 5.0L * nd;
+		ppf = (1.0L / (4.0L - 3.0L * powl(0.2L * td / nd, 0.25L))) * powl(m / td, 0.75L);
+		ppotv = ppf * ppsv;
+
 		mutex_lock(&stats_lock);
 		cgpu->accepted++;
 		total_accepted++;
@@ -2222,6 +2351,14 @@ share_result(json_t *val, json_t *res, j
 		cgpu->diff_accepted += work->work_difficulty;
 		total_diff_accepted += work->work_difficulty;
 		pool->diff_accepted += work->work_difficulty;
+
+		g_network_difficulty = nd;
+		g_avg_target_difficulty = ((total_accepted - 1) * g_avg_target_difficulty + td) / ((long double)total_accepted);
+		g_avg_share_difficulty = ((total_accepted - 1) * g_avg_share_difficulty + sd) / ((long double)total_accepted);
+		g_total_pps += ppsv;
+		g_total_pot += potv;
+		g_total_pro_pot += ppotv;
+
 		mutex_unlock(&stats_lock);
 
 		pool->seq_rejects = 0;
@@ -2232,12 +2369,22 @@ share_result(json_t *val, json_t *res, j
 		pool->last_share_diff = work->work_difficulty;
 		applog(LOG_DEBUG, "PROOF OF WORK RESULT: true (yay!!!)");
 		if (!QUIET) {
-			if (total_pools > 1)
-				applog(LOG_NOTICE, "Accepted %s %s %d pool %d %s%s",
+			char logbuf[256];
+			unsigned int len;
+
+			if(total_pools > 1)
+				snprintf(logbuf, sizeof(logbuf), "Accepted %s %s %d pool %d %s%s", 
 				       hashshow, cgpu->api->name, cgpu->device_id, work->pool->pool_no, resubmit ? "(resubmit)" : "", worktime);
 			else
-				applog(LOG_NOTICE, "Accepted %s %s %d %s%s",
+				snprintf(logbuf, sizeof(logbuf), "Accepted %s %s %d %s%s", 
 				       hashshow, cgpu->api->name, cgpu->device_id, resubmit ? "(resubmit)" : "", worktime);
+			for(len = strlen(logbuf); len < 65; len++) {
+				logbuf[len] = ' ';
+				logbuf[len + 1] = 0;
+			}
+			snprintf(logbuf + len, sizeof(logbuf) - len, "PPS: %4.1Lf Satoshi (POT: %4.1Lf (%%%3.3Lf) PPOT: %4.1Lf (%%%3.3Lf))",
+			   100000000.0L * ppsv, 100000000.0L * potv, 100.0L * pf, 100000000.0L * ppotv, 100.0L * ppf);
+			applog(LOG_NOTICE, "%s", logbuf);
 		}
 		sharelog("accept", work);
 		if (opt_shares && total_accepted >= opt_shares) {
@@ -4484,12 +4631,19 @@ static void stratum_share_result(json_t
 	uint32_t *hash32;
 	char diffdisp[16];
 	int intdiff;
+	long double wd, sd;
+
+	wd = work_target_difficulty(work);
+	sd = share_difficulty(work);
 
 	hash32 = (uint32_t *)(work->hash);
 	intdiff = floor(work->work_difficulty);
 	suffix_string(sharediff, diffdisp, 0);
+	/*
 	sprintf(hashshow, "%08lx Diff %s/%d%s", (unsigned long)(hash32[6]), diffdisp, intdiff,
 		work->block? " BLOCK!" : "");
+	 */
+	sprintf(hashshow, "%08lx Diff %3.6Lf/%3.6Lf%s", (unsigned long)(hash32[6]), sd, wd, work->block? " BLOCK!" : "");
 	share_result(val, res_val, err_val, work, hashshow, false, "");
 }
 
@@ -6418,7 +6572,8 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
 	#endif // defined(WIN32)
 #endif
 
-	devcursor = 8;
+	// devcursor = 8;
+	devcursor = 11;
 	logstart = devcursor + 1;
 	logcursor = logstart + 1;

[philips]

So what are the a and cap values right now?

Edit: Sorry, what is this latest proposed system (PPOT) ? It is about the new a = 0.75, X = 5D proposed values ?
(I see it mentioned in the patch as pro_pot )

[Graet]

So what are the a and cap values right now?

not changed yet
a=0.8
cap=1.5D

I went back on Pot to do some testing
Highest Share: 3822430 (block)
paid 0.392286
makes my overall Pot positive

[philips]

So what are the a and cap values right now?

not changed yet
a=0.8
cap=1.5D

I went back on Pot to do some testing
Highest Share: 3822430 (block)
paid 0.392286
makes my overall Pot positive

Riiiight, rub it in now 

[philips]

Interesting, cgminer with hackjealousy patch:



On the left is Ozcoin where you can see a comparison between PPS, current POT and POT with a = 0.75, cap = 5D. Pool fees are not included.

[Graet]

updated OP
changing cap to 5*D
keeping a = 0.8
reducing fee to 2%
Best wishes
Graet

[-ck]

Love it 

* ckolivas keeps playing with manual diff settings to try and hedge his bets accordingly.

[kano]

Defaults updated:
http://tradebtc.net/potcalc.php

[philips]

 
I can see in cgminer shares still accepted alright by Ozcoin (POT) ...but acording to Ozcoin site my workers are dead for a while and of course no shares accepted since.

Also I can see around 300 shares accepted in DGM section on the current round although I am not on DGM.

[Blaksmith]

I can see in cgminer shares still accepted alright by Ozcoin (POT) ...but acording to Ozcoin site my worker are dead for a while and of course no shares accepted since.

Also I can see around 300 shares accepted in DGM section on the current round although I am not on DGM.

More work got done on the shares counting section, and a few bugs cropped up, and Wayno got them squashed.

Things should be proper now.

Edit: I just looked at things, and the "Round Shares" is, at least at this point in time, a normal thing.  You are not being paid DGM if you are not using DGM.  That same value is used for the bot in the IRC channel.  Sorry if it causes any confusion.

About your workers being dead on the site, I don't know about that one off hand.  Mine show as active, and I'm on PoT also.

[philips]

Still dead though, and sending shares...somewhere 

[Blaksmith]

Still dead though, and sending shares...somewhere  

Should be fixed now.  We found a break in a db sync.  All shares accounted for now.

[Graet]

Still dead though, and sending shares...somewhere 

They were cached on eu server, the db push had a hiccup when we opened port 80 for stratum mining ;/

[philips]

Yep, I can see them now.
1700 + shares appeared on POT status and 2800 + on DGM. All right, thanks.

Still, I was on POT the whole time, why DGM?

[Blaksmith]

Yep, I can see them now.
1700 + shares appeared on POT status and 2800 + on DGM. Al right, thanks.

Still, I was on POT the whole time, why DGM?

The "Round Shares" value is used for the bot in the IRC channel now.  You can either ignore it, or use it to your advantage while looking elsewhere on the site.  That value will show how many shares you have for this round, on either DGM, PPS, or POT.  It doesn't actually mean you are on DGM at the time any more.

[philips]

Yep, I can see them now.
1700 + shares appeared on POT status and 2800 + on DGM. Al right, thanks.

Still, I was on POT the whole time, why DGM?

The "Round Shares" value is used for the bot in the IRC channel now.  You can either ignore it, or use it to your advantage while looking elsewhere on the site.  That value will show how many shares you have for this round, on either DGM, PPS, or POT.  It doesn't actually mean you are on DGM at the time any more.

OK, got it 

[betatest512]

Still dead though, and sending shares...somewhere 

Should be fixed now.  We found a break in a db sync.  All shares accounted for now.

Still dead though, and sending shares...somewhere 

They were cached on eu server, the db push had a hiccup when we opened port 80 for stratum mining ;/

I had the same issue at your pool sometime back.

Also, I logged into my account and did not find any of the missing balance.

Can you please look into it?

[Graet]

Still dead though, and sending shares...somewhere 

Should be fixed now.  We found a break in a db sync.  All shares accounted for now.

Still dead though, and sending shares...somewhere 

They were cached on eu server, the db push had a hiccup when we opened port 80 for stratum mining ;/

I had the same issue at your pool sometime back.

Also, I logged into my account and did not find any of the missing balance.

Can you please look into it?

Hi betatest512
No it was not the same issue, you had a misconfigured proxy that was not submitting shares correctly, which you continued to use against advice.
If it was dbpush that was the issue your shares would have been cached as miners were yesterday my time (the issue you quoted).
Still waiting for logs to show some proof that shares were submitted - our database did not did not match your claims- we went over this in IRC at the time (around November 16th iirc) and we did look into it, but you were not being helpful.
Your issue had nothing to do with this payout method, please stay on topic in this thread.
Thank you
Graet

[runlinux]

Man, I wasn't on POT when i submitted my block solving share...

19.4M - would have gotten me 1.652 BTC with 16 work diff.

[Graet]

Man, I wasn't on POT when i submitted my block solving share...

19.4M - would have gotten me 1.652 BTC with 16 work diff.

2nd one I have heard that from today
and a couple of others that switched off POT and got 2M+ shares on other methods/pools

what can I say...?
but
Better luck next time

[runlinux]

Man, I wasn't on POT when i submitted my block solving share...

19.4M - would have gotten me 1.652 BTC with 16 work diff.

2nd one I have heard that from today
and a couple of others that switched off POT and got 2M+ shares on other methods/pools

what can I say...?
but
Better luck next time

Luck... haha... funny... 

[Blaksmith]

Hourly and by Block PoT statistics pages are up now. 

Block Statistics show the last 10 blocks found. 
24 Hour POT BTC Earning is 24 hours to the minute you refreshed (I.E. 13:02:00 UTC). (some stats do not refresh for 5 minutes)

Hourly Statistics show the last 24 hours in 1 hour increments.
24 Hour POT BTC Earnings is based on the starting hour (I.E. 13:00:00 UTC) to reflect balances of stats shown on the page

Cheers
Blaksmith

[Graet]

Hourly and by Block PoT statistics pages are up now. 

Block Statistics show the last 10 blocks found. 
24 Hour POT BTC Earning is 24 hours to the minute you refreshed (I.E. 13:02:00 UTC). (some stats do not refresh for 5 minutes)

Hourly Statistics show the last 24 hours in 1 hour increments.
24 Hour POT BTC Earnings is based on the starting hour (I.E. 13:00:00 UTC) to reflect balances of stats shown on the page

Cheers
Blaksmith

Great work
I cant thank Blaksmith enough
1BLAKSMTjnME4ZJX7VzzUyEgbQYLShvqgi if you would like to thank him too 

[runlinux]

A little something I worked out. It'll probably crash in a heartbeat if the API changes...  

[Graet]

A little something I worked out. It'll will probably crash in a heartbeat if the API changes...   

Nice work

gotmilk dropped back in from "real life" and has done some updates to our widget, couple of tweaks left and it will be released too

[Tittiez]

Damn, I'm totally unlucky right now..

Earned: 0.14840923
Difference of PPS: -0.06156306

[runlinux]

Is anyone making any coinage off this? I'm still down 10.42% from PPS.

[Tittiez]

Is anyone making any coinage off this? I'm still down 10.42% from PPS.

I'm down 40% from PPS.. 

[K1773R]

Is anyone making any coinage off this? I'm still down 10.42% from PPS.

I'm down 40% from PPS.. 

then continue with it until u hit a good share, afterwards if u dont want to continue get out. the longer you got bad luck, the higher the chance u will get good luck
but ahwell, to be correct there is nothing as luck, so hope the pseudo random generators do like you enough

[narousberg]

Hi Graet
something wrong with my hashrate statistic. Localy my system show 44Gh all the time, but if i check my pool statistic, i see only 1Gh and less.
I have checked my buckups pools, but no power was routed to buckup pools. Where go my hashrate??
This strange situation for last 14 hours. I am was connected over stratum and used POT. Check my POT hourly statistic and you can see strange numbers.
and 100% for this periode my income was not correct.

Thanks

[Graet]

Hi Graet
something wrong with my hashrate statistic. Localy my system show 44Gh all the time, but if i check my pool statistic, i see only 1Gh and less.
I have checked my buckups pools, but no power was routed to buckup pools. Where go my hashrate??
This strange situation for last 14 hours. I am was connected over stratum and used POT. Check my POT hourly statistic and you can see strange numbers.
and 100% for this periode my income was not correct.

Thanks

Hi narousberg
which stratum node are you connected to?

[narousberg]

Hi Graet
something wrong with my hashrate statistic. Localy my system show 44Gh all the time, but if i check my pool statistic, i see only 1Gh and less.
I have checked my buckups pools, but no power was routed to buckup pools. Where go my hashrate??
This strange situation for last 14 hours. I am was connected over stratum and used POT. Check my POT hourly statistic and you can see strange numbers.
and 100% for this periode my income was not correct.

Thanks

Hi narousberg
which stratum node are you connected to?

my connection params:
mining_proxy_1.2.0.exe -o au.ozco.in -p 3333 -sh 127.0.0.1 -sp 3333 -oh 127.0.0.1 -gp 8332 -nm

[Graet]

Hi Graet
something wrong with my hashrate statistic. Localy my system show 44Gh all the time, but if i check my pool statistic, i see only 1Gh and less.
I have checked my buckups pools, but no power was routed to buckup pools. Where go my hashrate??
This strange situation for last 14 hours. I am was connected over stratum and used POT. Check my POT hourly statistic and you can see strange numbers.
and 100% for this periode my income was not correct.

Thanks

Hi narousberg
which stratum node are you connected to?

my connection params:
mining_proxy_1.2.0.exe -o au.ozco.in -p 3333 -sh 127.0.0.1 -sp 3333 -oh 127.0.0.1 -gp 8332 -nm

I'll have to get Blaksmith to look when he is awake, I cannot see anything wrong on this side

Us stratum server is in need of a restart I thought you might have been on there

[hackjealousy]

runlinux's program will be more accurate as it queries Ozcoin for the actual numbers, but my stats patch against cgminer-2.10.4 (new patch below) will give a local estimate that can be used to make sure whatever pool you're on is accurate and honest.  (Ozcoin is the only pool that offers PoT, but cgminer will work on any pool with this patch.  It will show you the expected PPS value of your shares as well as what the PoT value would have been if you were mining PoT at Ozcoin.)

Keep in mind that I don't include pool fees in my estimate and that the estimate is for PPS and PoT, not, e.g., DGM.  That is, your actual results won't match exactly.  (Your expected results will, minus any pool fees.)

You can get my code here:
  https://github.com/hackjealousy/cgminer.git


Edit: removed patch, added git repo.

[kano]

Better to simply write a script to convert the log output (enough information there) or share log output (--sharelog - more than enough information there)
Or if you are smart enough you can even use -m on linux to have it send the output to a process

I've written a pair of shell scripts to use -m to log remotely

cgminer -m script.sh

Code:

#!/bin/sh
#
cat | nc remoteIP 7777 &
ncpid="$!"
trap "kill $ncpid" SIGINT SIGTERM EXIT
wait

Running on remoteIP:

Code:

#!/bin/sh
#
while true ; do
 echo "`date`: Opening new reader"
 nc -l 7777
 echo "`date`: Reader exited"
done

No doubt someone could spend effort to get that to do it

FYI the php to do the calculation on my web site is something like:

Code:

... get $btcperblock if required ...
... get $difficulty if required ...

$aval = '0.8';
$feeperc = '2';
$sharecap = '5';
$feepps = '3';
$sharediff = '10';
$workdiff = '1';

... get variables if supplied ...

$cap = $sharecap * $difficulty;
$btcperblockpaid = $btcperblock * (100 - $feeperc) / 100;
$a = $aval
$factor = (1-$a) / (1 - ($a * pow($workdiff, (1-$a)) * pow($cap, ($a-1))));
$shares = $workdiff * $factor * pow(min($sharediff, $cap) / $workdiff, $aval);
$sharevalue = $btcperblockpaid / $difficulty;
$potvalue = $shares * $sharevalue;
$ppsperc = ($shares / $workdiff) * 100 / (1 - $feepps / 100);

[hackjealousy]

Better to simply write a script to convert the log output (enough information there) or share log output (--sharelog - more than enough information there)
Or if you are smart enough you can even use -m on linux to have it send the output to a process
[...]
No doubt someone could spend effort to get that to do it

I agree that adding PoT value directly to cgminer status output isn't appropriate in the general case.  I simply wanted to have that in my curses status window so I could watch it for a while.  (And it was very easy to add to cgminer.)

The PPS value is the expected value for all (fair) pools though and that wouldn't be too bad to always display (or at least to have an option to display it in the status.)  As you say, it would be easy to reconstruct this value from log output.  It's just a bit more convenient to have in the miner.

[Tittiez]

I'm down 40% from PPS.. 

Its finally beginning to even out, 29% down. I like high variance so I shouldn't be complaining.

[crazyates]

I knew this would happen! I've been running PoT for over 2 weeks, and I was ~12% below PPS. So I switched back to DGM. Then I get a 7M block solver within 12 hours. My 3rd block with Ozcoin. Oh well.

[GenTarkin]

hehe, Im still in negative but good news found a 1.5mil diff share last night, helped get me closer to breakin even .. now for just a few more of those! This payout system still fun as hell even tho in negative =P

[Tittiez]

This payout system still fun as hell even tho in negative =P

I agree! Since I have such a low hashrate (400-450Mh/s), I enjoy the gambling because I know I wouldn't make much regardless.

[tvasconcelos]

Hi, i switched to POT too, i always like a bit of gambling. I'm just confused, or just plain stupid, with what to set at vardiff and how that translates to the overall performance of the miner. My hash power is around 450Mh/s too, so what should i set vardiff too? Currently i have it on 15. Is this just plain stupidity, ignorance or is it ok??

And if someone could explain in a simple way, how the value of vardiff affects your shares? I'm don't know how to read the stats in ozcoin. shares, vardiff shares, avg share diff 1 and so on...

Sorry for the noob questions, but i do like to learn, if someone has the will to teach!!
Thanks.

[os2sam]

Hi, i switched to POT too, i always like a bit of gambling. I'm just confused, or just plain stupid, with what to set at vardiff and how that translates to the overall performance of the miner. My hash power is around 450Mh/s too, so what should i set vardiff too? Currently i have it on 15. Is this just plain stupidity, ignorance or is it ok??

And if someone could explain in a simple way, how the value of vardiff affects your shares? I'm don't know how to read the stats in ozcoin. shares, vardiff shares, avg share diff 1 and so on...

Sorry for the noob questions, but i do like to learn, if someone has the will to teach!!
Thanks.

Well, with your diff set to 15 you will submit approximately 15 times fewer shares but they will be worth 15 times more so it should even out.  You don't really need to change your difficulty from diff1 until you get in the neighborhood 2 to 2.5 Ghs.

Now, I'm not sure how that would relate to POT since you want to submit higher diff shares anyway, but I would think it would hurt you with the low hash rate in the long run.  You should do some trial and error changes in 24hour increments.
Sam

Edit: Thought about my reply a bit.  I don't think you would loose any revenue in the long run.  Your just using less bandwidth which is probably low anyway at your hash rate.  But I still would do some tinkering for use with POT payout system.

[organofcorti]

Hi, i switched to POT too, i always like a bit of gambling. I'm just confused, or just plain stupid, with what to set at vardiff and how that translates to the overall performance of the miner. My hash power is around 450Mh/s too, so what should i set vardiff too? Currently i have it on 15. Is this just plain stupidity, ignorance or is it ok??

And if someone could explain in a simple way, how the value of vardiff affects your shares? I'm don't know how to read the stats in ozcoin. shares, vardiff shares, avg share diff 1 and so on...

Sorry for the noob questions, but i do like to learn, if someone has the will to teach!!
Thanks.

This might help:

http://organofcorti.blogspot.com/2012/10/71-variable-pool-difficulty.html

[K1773R]

how is your PoT working? are ppl still interested into?

[Graet]

how is your PoT working? are ppl still interested into?

Up and down
currently 27Gh on there, at times up to 500 or 600Gh

[doublec]

What's the best hash someone found on this payout method, do you know?

[jjiimm_64]

What's the best hash someone found on this payout method, do you know?

I found a 65M share, but it is capped at 5Xdiff

I am at    99.33 % pps according to the api stats.  -2.33340263    345.71995783

I go back and forth between pps and PoT.... which can hurt you. i hit a 115M share 5 minutes after getting a high share and switching to PPS.

[organofcorti]

What's the best hash someone found on this payout method, do you know?

I found a 65M share, but it is capped at 5Xdiff

I am at    99.33 % pps according to the api stats.  -2.33340263    345.71995783

I go back and forth between pps and PoT.... which can hurt you. i hit a 115M share 5 minutes after getting a high share and switching to PPS.

So, you tend to get high on PoT and then switch to pps?

[zvs]

This payout system still fun as hell even tho in negative =P

I agree! Since I have such a low hashrate (400-450Mh/s), I enjoy the gambling because I know I wouldn't make much regardless.

it's why I started mining on HHTT, although i've been doing consistent 128's for the last few weeks, I used to swap around between difficulties... 

e.g.

pushpool   2013-02-10 00:49:18   Y   Y      65536   0.49519937   00000000 00000029 8cccf8dc

max setting on there is 65536 though, not sure about this system

[FatMagic]

I agree! Since I have such a low hashrate (400-450Mh/s), I enjoy the gambling because I know I wouldn't make much regardless.

it's why I started mining on HHTT, although i've been doing consistent 128's for the last few weeks, I used to swap around between difficulties... 

e.g.

pushpool   2013-02-10 00:49:18   Y   Y      65536   0.49519937   00000000 00000029 8cccf8dc

max setting on there is 65536 though, not sure about this system

How do your returns look on this ZVS? My hash rate runs about 700 MH/s and I was curious if I should use this pool vs PPS elsewhere.

[gourmet]

Is there a chart for the (a bit complicated) formula from the OP somewhere? I mean the dependence of share reward on submitted share difficulty.
The link to the calculator in the OP doesn't work currently (503, temporarily unavailable).

[kano]

Is there a chart for the (a bit complicated) formula from the OP somewhere? I mean the dependence of share reward on submitted share difficulty.
The link to the calculator in the OP doesn't work currently (503, temporarily unavailable).

The equation is:

POT = (Work Diff * BTC Reward / Current Diff) * ((1-a) / (1 - (a * (WorkDiff ^ (1-a))) * (Cap ^ (a-1)))) * ((min(Share Diff, Cap) / Work Diff) ^ a)

Yes my server is silent at the moment.

Yeah I ordered a new VPS from MtGox over 2 weeks ago - Sep 8 - after the dedicated server the calculator was on, got ddosed
MtGox took my BTC and provided me with an IP address to a server that didn't exist.
On Sep 9 I requested in their support system, what was wrong and information on where my VPS was.
On Sep 23 I requested my BTC back and that I would request a scammer tag here on the forum
On Sep 24 they replied saying they are looking into it and would get back to me.

MtGox is bad news.

[GenTarkin]

too bad theres a cap... I just found a 2billion diff share on POT ...... it capped me at about 750mil .. lol, thats fine, I made 3 days worth of mining =P

2062804846

This is insane and I only have about 145GH/s

[kano]

New server is up.
http://tradebtc.net/potcalc.php

Running on a crowncloud.net VPS

[Graet]

New server is up.
http://tradebtc.net/potcalc.php

Running on a crowncloud.net VPS

Thanks kano