Bitcoin Forum
September 29, 2016, 11:49:47 PM *
News: Due to DDoS attacks, there may be periodic downtime.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: What type of pool payouts do you prefer?
Bitcoins - 3152 (80.4%)
Bank transfer / USD - 407 (10.4%)
Gold/silver coins and bars - 359 (9.2%)
Total Voters: 3916

Pages: « 1 ... 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 [261] 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 ... 1104 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [40+ PH] SlushPool (slushpool.com); World's First Mining Pool  (Read 3857920 times)
Jack1Rip1BurnIt
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350


Trust me, these default swaps will limit the risks


View Profile
May 19, 2012, 05:22:37 PM
 #5201

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.
1475192987
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1475192987

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1475192987
Reply with quote  #2

1475192987
Report to moderator
1475192987
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1475192987

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1475192987
Reply with quote  #2

1475192987
Report to moderator
CheezWiz
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 31



View Profile
May 20, 2012, 02:03:35 AM
 #5202

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 Offline

Activity: 1876


Poor impulse control.


View Profile WWW
May 20, 2012, 03:01:47 AM
 #5203

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.

Bitcoin network and pool analysis 12QxPHEuxDrs7mCyGSx1iVSozTwtquDB3r
follow @oocBlog for new post notifications
Meni Rosenfeld
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1876



View Profile WWW
May 20, 2012, 09:16:10 AM
 #5204

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.

1EofoZNBhWQ3kxfKnvWkhtMns4AivZArhr   |   Who am I?   |   bitcoin-otc WoT
Bitcoil - Exchange bitcoins for ILS (thread)   |   Israel Bitcoin community homepage (thread)
Analysis of Bitcoin Pooled Mining Reward Systems (thread, summary)  |   PureMining - Infinite-term, deterministic mining bond
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1876


Poor impulse control.


View Profile WWW
May 20, 2012, 03:12:45 PM
 #5205

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.



Bitcoin network and pool analysis 12QxPHEuxDrs7mCyGSx1iVSozTwtquDB3r
follow @oocBlog for new post notifications
Meni Rosenfeld
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1876



View Profile WWW
May 20, 2012, 05:13:27 PM
 #5206

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.

1EofoZNBhWQ3kxfKnvWkhtMns4AivZArhr   |   Who am I?   |   bitcoin-otc WoT
Bitcoil - Exchange bitcoins for ILS (thread)   |   Israel Bitcoin community homepage (thread)
Analysis of Bitcoin Pooled Mining Reward Systems (thread, summary)  |   PureMining - Infinite-term, deterministic mining bond
werdna94
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 9


View Profile
May 20, 2012, 06:53:31 PM
 #5207

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile WWW
May 20, 2012, 07:09:31 PM
 #5208

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile WWW
May 20, 2012, 07:10:44 PM
 #5209

I'm sorry for those invalid blocks yesterday, it was fixed manually few hours later. Yes, it was because of blockexplorer.com.

slush
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile WWW
May 20, 2012, 07:13:49 PM
 #5210

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
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 148

Crazy!


View Profile WWW
May 22, 2012, 07:16:46 AM
 #5211

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 Offline

Activity: 22


View Profile
May 22, 2012, 11:53:51 AM
 #5212

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
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 148

Crazy!


View Profile WWW
May 22, 2012, 12:00:25 PM
 #5213

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile WWW
May 23, 2012, 09:58:14 AM
 #5214

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 Offline

Activity: 31



View Profile
May 24, 2012, 01:15:58 AM
 #5215

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 Offline

Activity: 55



View Profile
May 24, 2012, 01:33:05 AM
 #5216

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 Offline

Activity: 1876


Poor impulse control.


View Profile WWW
May 24, 2012, 01:39:00 AM
 #5217

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).

Bitcoin network and pool analysis 12QxPHEuxDrs7mCyGSx1iVSozTwtquDB3r
follow @oocBlog for new post notifications
slush
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile WWW
May 24, 2012, 05:55:14 AM
 #5218

...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 Offline

Activity: 1876


Poor impulse control.


View Profile WWW
May 24, 2012, 06:36:26 AM
 #5219

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?

Bitcoin network and pool analysis 12QxPHEuxDrs7mCyGSx1iVSozTwtquDB3r
follow @oocBlog for new post notifications
slush
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile WWW
May 24, 2012, 07:00:09 AM
 #5220

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...

Pages: « 1 ... 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 [261] 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 ... 1104 »
  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!