|
Jack1Rip1BurnIt
|
 |
May 19, 2012, 05:22:37 PM |
|
Cool. I learn something new everyday. Thans again
|
Successful trades with bels, misterbigg, ChrisNelson, shackleford, geniusboy91, and Isokivi.
|
|
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
|
|
|
|
|
CheezWiz
Jr. Member
 Offline
Activity: 31
|
|
May 20, 2012, 02:03:35 AM |
|
I am getting much better rewards for short rounds than I used to. Did Slush already implement the new anti-hopping system? Or has there just been less hopping lately?
|
-------------
Cheez\/\/iz
|
|
|
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1876
Poor impulse control.
|
|
May 20, 2012, 03:01:47 AM |
|
The current payout system is not DGM. The reason you'e seeing better rewards is probably due to the reduced pool hashrate and increased difficulty. This makes hopping less profitable. The downside is that it significantly increases variance for for fulltime miners, for rounds longer than ~ 0.1 x D.
|
|
|
|
Meni Rosenfeld
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1876
|
|
May 20, 2012, 09:16:10 AM |
|
The current payout system is not DGM. The reason you'e seeing better rewards is probably due to the reduced pool hashrate and increased difficulty. This makes hopping less profitable. The downside is that it significantly increases variance for for fulltime miners, for rounds longer than ~ 0.1 x D.
This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The smaller the pool, the greater the % lost to hoppers. |
|
|
|
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1876
Poor impulse control.
|
|
May 20, 2012, 03:12:45 PM |
|
The current payout system is not DGM. The reason you'e seeing better rewards is probably due to the reduced pool hashrate and increased difficulty. This makes hopping less profitable. The downside is that it significantly increases variance for for fulltime miners, for rounds longer than ~ 0.1 x D.
This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The smaller the pool, the greater the % lost to hoppers. At a non-score proportional pool, sure. As you know, the exponential scoring system here is affected by difficulty and pool hashrate. If 'c' remains at 300 when pool hashrate decreases and difficulty increases, the 'hop point' is reduced. Today, an expected share value of 1 occurs at about 0.1 x D, but two months ago it was about 0.16 x D. The average round profit for a strategic miner decreases as the 'hop point' decreases. |
|
|
|
Meni Rosenfeld
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1876
|
|
May 20, 2012, 05:13:27 PM |
|
The current payout system is not DGM. The reason you'e seeing better rewards is probably due to the reduced pool hashrate and increased difficulty. This makes hopping less profitable. The downside is that it significantly increases variance for for fulltime miners, for rounds longer than ~ 0.1 x D.
This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The smaller the pool, the greater the % lost to hoppers. At a non-score proportional pool, sure. As you know, the exponential scoring system here is affected by difficulty and pool hashrate. If 'c' remains at 300 when pool hashrate decreases and difficulty increases, the 'hop point' is reduced. Today, an expected share value of 1 occurs at about 0.1 x D, but two months ago it was about 0.16 x D. The average round profit for a strategic miner decreases as the 'hop point' decreases. Right, I forgot to take into account the effects of the temporal scale of this pool. |
|
|
|
werdna94
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 9
|
|
May 20, 2012, 06:53:31 PM |
|
Hello slush pool! I dove in for a swim yesterday for the first time, and I'm curious as to how long it takes to validate blocks and why invalid blocks exist in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
slush
|
|
May 20, 2012, 07:09:31 PM |
|
Any update on the double geometric payout?
I'm still working on update, however I had many problems to solve because of that. I even had sources with DGM online (it was that fault update few days ago), but I had to revert it to original sources. Again, I'm working on it and it will be soon... |
|
|
|
|
slush
|
|
May 20, 2012, 07:10:44 PM |
|
I'm sorry for those invalid blocks yesterday, it was fixed manually few hours later. Yes, it was because of blockexplorer.com.
|
|
|
|
|
slush
|
|
May 20, 2012, 07:13:49 PM |
|
Hello slush pool! I dove in for a swim yesterday for the first time, and I'm curious as to how long it takes to validate blocks and why invalid blocks exist in the first place.
Hello werdna94, it takes 100 another blocks to validate freshly mined block, it's part of Bitcoin protocol rules. There are few reasons why block can be invalid: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Invalid_block |
|
|
|
|
crazydownloaded
|
|
May 22, 2012, 07:16:46 AM |
|
Hi Slush, Hi Everyone,
Is waiting 100 confirmations really necessary? Did you ever saw a block with 10 or even 5 confirmations to be invalid?
Like many, I don't like waiting for confirmations... Blocks get confirmed ~20 hours after being discovered, I think this is way too much waiting...
Also, I hope DGM will come soon, because I don't like hoppers (but I like slush's pool, don't want to switch to ozcoin...)
|
|
|
|
ajstar
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 22
|
|
May 22, 2012, 11:53:51 AM |
|
Hi Slush, Hi Everyone,
Is waiting 100 confirmations really necessary? Did you ever saw a block with 10 or even 5 confirmations to be invalid?
Like many, I don't like waiting for confirmations... Blocks get confirmed ~20 hours after being discovered, I think this is way too much waiting...
Also, I hope DGM will come soon, because I don't like hoppers (but I like slush's pool, don't want to switch to ozcoin...)
What's the big deal? Mining is longterm business, couple of hours won't kill you. Yes, there are pools that pay right after block discovery, but they are doing it at their own risk. Slush's pool is in this way very conservative (and this is IMHO good). Maybe 50 would be enough, but that makes no difference though - 10 or 20 hours vs. weeks or months of mining.... |
|
|
|
|
|
crazydownloaded
|
|
May 22, 2012, 12:00:25 PM |
|
What's the big deal? Mining is longterm business, couple of hours won't kill you.
Yes, there are pools that pay right after block discovery, but they are doing it at their own risk. Slush's pool is in this way very conservative (and this is IMHO good).
Maybe 50 would be enough, but that makes no difference though - 10 or 20 hours vs. weeks or months of mining....
No big deal, but comfort... It's useless to wait that much, even 10 confirmations (<2 hours !) is more than enough. I guess a lot of people don't like to wait either, I've read some that don't mine at Slush because of this and the more hashing power Slush get, the better for us (less variance for everybody...). |
|
|
|
|
slush
|
|
May 23, 2012, 09:58:14 AM |
|
No big deal, but comfort... It's useless to wait that much, even 10 confirmations (<2 hours !) is more than enough.
Well, then ask Satoshi why he defined 100 blocks for validation in Bitcoin protocol :-). My original idea was to implement pooled mining with the same rules as original Bitcoin network, which I'm still keeping. But I agree that it has some PR drawbacks. I'll think about paying blocks faster... |
|
|
|
CheezWiz
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 31
|
|
May 24, 2012, 01:15:58 AM |
|
I like the wait... Something Zen about it I suppose...
I would imagine that is a built-in safety to better allow for the detection of fraud or manipulation.
|
-------------
Cheez\/\/iz
|
|
|
Boognish
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 55
|
|
May 24, 2012, 01:33:05 AM |
|
Can anyone explain the benefit of DGM over PPLNS? Pool hopping is also prevented by PPLNS and seems like it would be much easier to implement. From what I gather, DGM helps 'absorb' a little bit of variation but I would imagine that isn't as big a deal on a larger pool like Slush's.
|
|
|
|
|
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1876
Poor impulse control.
|
|
May 24, 2012, 01:39:00 AM |
|
Can anyone explain the benefit of DGM over PPLNS? Pool hopping is also prevented by PPLNS and seems like it would be much easier to implement. From what I gather, DGM helps 'absorb' a little bit of variation but I would imagine that isn't as big a deal on a larger pool like Slush's.
PPLNS is a subset of DGM solutions. DGM has much more flexibility than PPLNS: variance and maturity time can be tuned to the miners' and pool op's needs and wants. PPLNS cannot. All of the info (not just my interpretation of it) is here.Btw there are a number of DGM pools now, so it can't be too much harder than PPLNS to implement here - especially when Slush has more experience than anyone at running a pool using exponential scoring). |
|
|
|
|
slush
|
|
May 24, 2012, 05:55:14 AM |
|
...so it can't be too much harder than PPLNS to implement here - especially when Slush has more experience than anyone at running a pool using exponential scoring).
The main difference between current score implementation is that score equation needs only time as an input, but proper implementation of DGM need to know also count of already submitted shares (across all backends). Pool core is designed quite scalable, there's no online synchronization between backends necessary, but it goes against DGM requirements. And it's the pain and the reason why it takes so much time. Originally I expect that it won't be so hard, but I felt into solving strange threading issues (cause framework which I'm currently using doesn't natively support user's threads). |
|
|
|
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1876
Poor impulse control.
|
|
May 24, 2012, 06:36:26 AM |
|
The main difference between current score implementation is that score equation needs only time as an input, but proper implementation of DGM need to know also count of already submitted shares (across all backends). Pool core is designed quite scalable, there's no online synchronization between backends necessary, but it goes against DGM requirements. And it's the pain and the reason why it takes so much time. Originally I expect that it won't be so hard, but I felt into solving strange threading issues (cause framework which I'm currently using doesn't natively support user's threads).
Thanks for your input there - it's interesting to know how the differences in payout implementation affect pool operators. Would moving to PPLNS temporarily be a possibility? Or would you be changing one difficult to solve problem for another? |
|
|
|
|
slush
|
|
May 24, 2012, 07:00:09 AM |
|
Would moving to PPLNS temporarily be a possibility? Or would you be changing one difficult to solve problem for another?
At this moment is simplier to finish DGM than do all coding and testing for PPLNS and then DGM again... |
|
|
|
|
Poll
