Bitcoin Forum
December 03, 2016, 02:01:59 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: What type of pool payouts do you prefer?
Bitcoins - 3160 (80.5%)
Bank transfer / USD - 407 (10.4%)
Gold/silver coins and bars - 359 (9.1%)
Total Voters: 3924

Pages: « 1 ... 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 [540] 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 ... 1105 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [40+ PH] SlushPool (slushpool.com); World's First Mining Pool  (Read 3926345 times)
trasla
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 662



View Profile
June 28, 2013, 10:47:59 AM
 #10781

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems that this payout strategy is obviously vulnerable to hopping.

If there's any time a miner can identify where he gets a higher payout than he would get solo mining, the pool is vulnerable to hopping. Obviously, the payouts can't always be better than solo mining. So if it's sometimes better, it must also sometimes be worse. If a miner can tell when it's better, he can mine only when it's better.

Say it's the very beginning of the round. If I mine a block before anyone else submits a share, I get the whole 25 BTC. So the payout at the very beginning of a round is as good as solo mining. And if I don't mine a block and someone else does very shortly after me, I get a non-zero payout. Thus mining at the beginning of a round is better than solo mining.

I must be missing something because this is pretty obvious.

Mining at the beginning of a round is only better _if_ a block is found quick, because if not, the exponential rise of score per share submitted will make your early shares obsolete quite fast. If you could predict how long a round takes, you could just mine in the short ones. But switching to solo or another pool after a certain time in the round will very likely result in no reward (or a very very small) for the round, since shares submitted by others after you leave will get a much higher score for them.

Besides, in your example, if someone else submits a share and you mine a block very shortly after, you only get part of it - thats not better than solo.
1480773719
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480773719

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480773719
Reply with quote  #2

1480773719
Report to moderator
1480773719
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480773719

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480773719
Reply with quote  #2

1480773719
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
ibfr33k
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 75


View Profile
June 28, 2013, 12:32:54 PM
 #10782

243758 is not ours  Embarrassed

I'm a noob just starting, all donations are welcome.  13DXKRXQncUnWAFtemSwNH7boRZfEfsg5a
n0creativity
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 65


Sys Admin


View Profile
June 28, 2013, 04:05:22 PM
 #10783

I am curious about the large fluctuations in the total network hashrate. I mean 20,000 GH/s is the size of Slush's entire pool, how does that much compute power come and go so quickly?  Its like someone with 40 BFL Mini Rigs is dropping in and out of the network.

Network hashrate is calculated from the count of blocks found, there's no other way to determine it. But block frequency varies according to the luck. As we can't determine current luck, we have to take it into account always being 100 %. Sure this is not true, and so we are observing variations in network hashrate that don't exist in fact.
Certainly I don't want to say there aren't any variations. They are. But I can't tell how big they really are. Can someone go further and calculate the probable contribution of this effect to the total variation?

Miners' workers can tell their hashrate exactly.
The pools calculate their hashrates from shares of difficulty 1 or more. With ASICs comming, there'll be more of "more", and the accuracy will go down. Well only absolutely, maybe, and the relative accuracy can be maintained, as the hashrate increases also.
The whole network has no means to determine its total hashrate other than from the blocks found, as stated above. [edit:] With increasing difficulty, variations will increase and the accuracy will continue going down.

Thanks for the "Oh yeah.... DUH"  moment, gourmet.  Haha!   Embarrassed
That makes sense, I guess I thought the network as a whole was aware of every share submitted by miners regardless if they are solo or pool.
Learn something new every day.  I guess I need to read whitepaper from satoshi again... and pay more attention this time.
Happy Friday to everyone, btw. And a shout out to all the Chicago Blackhawk fans on here (if any)! Lord Stanley's Cup has returned to its rightful place!

~~~~~~~~
Software is like sex: it's better when it's free... Linus Torvalds
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If I helped ya, feel free to drop me some coins... 1JF91kFQWnVAkwG1chn2fnrzotNyg1TxDQ
~~~~~~~~
gourmet
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 311


View Profile
June 28, 2013, 05:04:26 PM
 #10784

Thanks for the "Oh yeah.... DUH"  moment, gourmet.  Haha!   Embarrassed
That makes sense, I guess I thought the network as a whole was aware of every share submitted by miners regardless if they are solo or pool.
Learn something new every day.  I guess I need to read whitepaper from satoshi again... and pay more attention this time.
Happy Friday to everyone, btw.

Thanks.
I've just made some addition and formating to the original post, for even better understandability, I hope. Smiley

Yeah, the link.
bspurloc
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 569


View Profile
June 28, 2013, 06:38:08 PM
 #10785

243758 is not ours  Embarrassed

  Shocked 
stinkers!
gbx
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 219


View Profile
June 28, 2013, 08:06:22 PM
 #10786

this is not directed at any one person but in general to the @AMD 7870 posts above: I just recently upgraded my gaming rig to 7870 ghz edition (hit a 185$ deal on newegg ~2 weeks ago?) and i run it on win7 latest drivers and I get ~405 Mh/s average just using guiminer, which everyone loves to hate it seems, but it runs fine with latest drivers... so I am happy. I am more of a gamer than a miner tho, so my priorities are skewed.

for people who are more knowledgeable i am wondering: my gpu clock is set at 1100. what kind of Mh/s would I be getting if I did do a driver-downgrade and ran cgminer instead...? would it really be so much higher than the ~405Mh/s that i currently get with guiminer?

You should be able to squeeze more out of it.  Check out cgminer and ditch guiminer.

http://stratum.bitcoin.cz:3333  74.0 c 99% 444.53 Mh/s 11751 / 27 0.23% 7800 Series 69% (2605) 1185 Mhz 1035 Mhz 1.25v
JoelKatz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386


Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.


View Profile WWW
June 29, 2013, 04:59:03 AM
 #10787

Mining at the beginning of a round is only better _if_ a block is found quick, because if not, the exponential rise of score per share submitted will make your early shares obsolete quite fast.
No, that's not true. Mining at the beginning of a round is better no matter what. It's better because if you find a block before anyone else submits a share, you get the same reward as if you were solo mining and if a block is found shortly after you submit a share, you get a non-zero payout. Thus mining at the very beginning of a round is better than solo mining and clearly it cannot always be better than solo mining.

All you must do to show that a pool is vulnerable to hopping is show that there is some point that an attacker can identify at which the expected return exceeds the expected return for solo mining. If I understand this payout method correctly, it has such a point -- before the first share is submitted in a round.

Quote
If you could predict how long a round takes, you could just mine in the short ones. But switching to solo or another pool after a certain time in the round will very likely result in no reward (or a very very small) for the round, since shares submitted by others after you leave will get a much higher score for them.
That's all true, but has nothing to do with anything. Sure, there are lots of ways one could hop pools that don't work. The question is whether there are any ways that do.

Quote
Besides, in your example, if someone else submits a share and you mine a block very shortly after, you only get part of it - thats not better than solo.
I agree. That's why the pool is vulnerable to hopping. There are good times to mine and worse times to mine. (Assuming I correctly understand how the pool pays out, which I hope I don't, since this is really an obvious flaw.)

I am an employee of Ripple.
1Joe1Katzci1rFcsr9HH7SLuHVnDy2aihZ BM-NBM3FRExVJSJJamV9ccgyWvQfratUHgN
trasla
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 662



View Profile
June 29, 2013, 07:12:54 AM
 #10788

Okay, yeah, sure, if you manage to submit the first share, thats always good.
But if somehow someone else just got some shares in on his own before your first share in the round reaches the server, your plan will not work any more. So you should tell me how to make sure no one calculates and submits a share faster than you, and then tell me how big the advantage of a single share with better average payout is. You would get one of those per round.

Even if the very first share you calculate after getting provided with work for the new round is a winning one - i bet there will ne other shares reported to the server when yours is verified, and with a high probability. So your average payout for submitting the winning share will be far below solo mining. Solo mining it will always be 25 + x, in the pool, if 10 other workers submitted their first difficulty 1 one share at the same, you get far less.
Tsunamirain
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 217

Incakoin= Incagold


View Profile WWW
June 29, 2013, 07:34:55 AM
 #10789

Problems?

gourmet
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 311


View Profile
June 29, 2013, 07:57:17 AM
 #10790

Mining at the beginning of a round is better no matter what. It's better because if you find a block before anyone else submits a share, you get the same reward as if you were solo mining and if a block is found shortly after you submit a share, you get a non-zero payout. Thus mining at the very beginning of a round is better than solo mining and clearly it cannot always be better than solo mining.

All you must do to show that a pool is vulnerable to hopping is show that there is some point that an attacker can identify at which the expected return exceeds the expected return for solo mining. If I understand this payout method correctly, it has such a point -- before the first share is submitted in a round.

Quote
Besides, in your example, if someone else submits a share and you mine a block very shortly after, you only get part of it - thats not better than solo.
I agree. That's why the pool is vulnerable to hopping.

That's why it is not.

Besides, in your example, if someone else submits a share and you mine a block very shortly after, you only get part of it - thats not better than solo.

That's the point.

You have to take into account all possibilities.

Consider the first two shares in the round, one of them being the block.
  • You 1st, block, other 2nd, no block
  • You 1st, no block, other 2nd, block
  • Other 1st, block, you 2nd, no block
  • Other 1st, no block, you 2nd, block
When you find a block, your payout is worse than in solo, as you have to share your reward.
When you don't find, you're better, you get some share on the reward.
Together, it's like solo.
You can't just select one of the possibilities and omit the others. They're all equaly (im)probable. Smiley
JoelKatz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386


Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.


View Profile WWW
June 29, 2013, 08:03:01 AM
 #10791

Consider the first two shares in the round, one of them being the block.
  • You 1st, block, other 2nd, no block
  • You 1st, no block, other 2nd, block
  • Other 1st, block, you 2nd, no block
  • Other 1st, no block, you 2nd, block
When you find a block, your payout is worse than in solo, as you have to share your reward.
When you don't find, you're better, you get some share on the reward.
Together, it's like solo.
You can't just select one of the possibilities. They're all equaly (un)probable. Smiley
They're not equally probable. The probability depends on latency to the pool and mining speed. All that's necessary to prove that a pool is not hop proof is to show that there exists some time an attacker can identify where the payout is greater than the payout from solo mining. The claim is that the payout method is mathematically proven to be hop proof. That seems impossible, again, unless I misunderstand the method.

All that's needed is for my latency and mining rate to be sufficiently good that the reward I expect for my first share if I don't find a block outweighs the risk that someone else will submit a share before I find my first share. If I understand this method correctly, it cannot be mathematically proven to be hop proof because you have to make assumptions about latency and mining rate.

I am an employee of Ripple.
1Joe1Katzci1rFcsr9HH7SLuHVnDy2aihZ BM-NBM3FRExVJSJJamV9ccgyWvQfratUHgN
Tsunamirain
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 217

Incakoin= Incagold


View Profile WWW
June 29, 2013, 08:36:59 AM
 #10792

Are we down. I cannot connect to server.

gourmet
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 311


View Profile
June 29, 2013, 08:41:20 AM
 #10793

They're not equally probable. The probability depends on latency to the pool and mining speed. All that's necessary to prove that a pool is not hop proof is to show that there exists some time an attacker can identify where the payout is greater than the payout from solo mining. The claim is that the payout method is mathematically proven to be hop proof. That seems impossible, again, unless I misunderstand the method.

All that's needed is for my latency and mining rate to be sufficiently good that the reward I expect for my first share if I don't find a block outweighs the risk that someone else will submit a share before I find my first share. If I understand this method correctly, it cannot be mathematically proven to be hop proof because you have to make assumptions about latency and mining rate.


Well, then try your method on the pool. And don't forget to report your success here.
Good luck!
:-)))))))))))))))
JoelKatz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386


Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.


View Profile WWW
June 29, 2013, 08:57:49 AM
 #10794

Well, then try your method on the pool. And don't forget to report your success here.
Good luck!
:-)))))))))))))))
I don't think it's exploitable under most practical conditions. You'd need to control a significant fraction of the mining power in the pool and probably also have better latency to the pool than every other miner. Nevertheless, it's a poor choice of methods given that it's so easy to construct a method that's provably hop proof. Again, assuming I understand the payout method correctly, which seems very hard to believe given that the pool claims to have a payout method mathematically proven to be hop-proof and the method as explained on their web page clearly isn't.

I am an employee of Ripple.
1Joe1Katzci1rFcsr9HH7SLuHVnDy2aihZ BM-NBM3FRExVJSJJamV9ccgyWvQfratUHgN
Tsunamirain
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 217

Incakoin= Incagold


View Profile WWW
June 29, 2013, 09:05:33 AM
 #10795

Well, then try your method on the pool. And don't forget to report your success here.
Good luck!
:-)))))))))))))))
I don't think it's exploitable under most practical conditions. You'd need to control a significant fraction of the mining power in the pool and probably also have better latency to the pool than every other miner. Nevertheless, it's a poor choice of methods given that it's so easy to construct a method that's provably hop proof. Again, assuming I understand the payout method correctly, which seems very hard to believe given that the pool claims to have a payout method mathematically proven to be hop-proof and the method as explained on their web page clearly isn't.
alot of spam huh

Tsunamirain
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 217

Incakoin= Incagold


View Profile WWW
June 29, 2013, 09:07:30 AM
 #10796

Really guys. Is the pool down. I cannot get work with stratum.
Been down 5 1/2 hrs? What's the deal?

gourmet
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 311


View Profile
June 29, 2013, 09:14:21 AM
 #10797

alot of spam huh

Unlike other themes, at least this discussion has been about Slush's pool, about its payout scheme.
Tsunamirain
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 217

Incakoin= Incagold


View Profile WWW
June 29, 2013, 09:25:40 AM
 #10798

alot of spam huh

Unlike other themes, at least this discussion has been about Slush's pool, about its payout scheme.
I kid I Kid. But I'm being ignored. Is the pool down?

natbyte
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile
June 29, 2013, 09:36:42 AM
 #10799

Seems fine for me at the moment.
-Redacted-
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378



View Profile
June 29, 2013, 11:07:39 AM
 #10800

Maybe your definition of hoppable is too specific.  I successfully "hop" Slush from time to time (when I have the time to monitor things on a minute-by-minute basis), especially when the pool's luck is running under 100%.  I define hoppable as:

Pool x is hoppable if there exists a scheme that allows you to switch between mining on pool x and some other pool y in some manner that nets you  more by mining on the combination of x and y than straight mining on pool x alone would pay out if you were mining there full time.

Now hanging out on Atomic-Trade.com...
Pages: « 1 ... 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 [540] 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 ... 1105 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

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