Bitcoin Forum
December 07, 2016, 02:53:20 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: How should Eligius pay miners?
Geometric - 7 (5.9%)
Maximum Pay Per Share - 27 (22.9%)
Pay Per Last N Shares (Diff*2) - 18 (15.3%)
Shared Maximum Pay Per Share - 63 (53.4%)
Other - 3 (2.5%)
Total Voters: 95

Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Eligius: New payout method POLL  (Read 5551 times)
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086



View Profile
June 24, 2011, 04:29:59 PM
 #1

Ok, new difficulty is here way too soon... let's get this over with ASAP!

Please vote your preference(s) for Eligius's new payout method. Please only vote if you at least intend to use Eligius after the upgrade (assume your vote is chosen for payout method). Please only vote if you understand the payout methods, and shortcomings of each method. Note that you can vote for more than one option, if you want.

Notable misconceptions:
  • MaxPPS: While you do lose "credit" if you change addresses, you do not lose out on being paid for mining work you did.
  • MaxPPS: Both variables converge on average of once per day based on graphing real-world data, which means you can reasonably time an address change to not lose even any "credit"
  • PPLNS: If a block is shorter than diff*2 shares, it will go back and pay shares from the previous round(s) again

Summaries:
See also: Real-world example graphs for most payout methods

1481122400
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481122400

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481122400
Reply with quote  #2

1481122400
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481122400
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481122400

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481122400
Reply with quote  #2

1481122400
Report to moderator
1481122400
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481122400

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481122400
Reply with quote  #2

1481122400
Report to moderator
Artefact2
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 124


View Profile WWW
June 24, 2011, 04:32:46 PM
 #2

Shared MaxPPS looks really good. Very simple too, I like it.

A pool-biased blockchain representation, by me: pident (WTFPL)
bitcoin0918
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56



View Profile
June 24, 2011, 04:52:55 PM
 #3

I would like to add Other: 100% goes to me. Grin

"So you think that money is the root of all evil?" said Francisco d'Aconia. "Have you ever asked what is the root of money?" [contd.]
N4rk0
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28


View Profile
June 24, 2011, 05:18:21 PM
 #4

The problem with Shared Maximum Pay Per Share is that in short lucky runds you get payed per share , instead if you get a long rounds streak there is the possibility that the credit isn't enough to pay all the shares and it switches to proportional method !!
This goes in favour to the pool hopping cheat!!
Btw we are in a very unlucky round Tongue 18 hours and still no block. Sad
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086



View Profile
June 24, 2011, 06:43:04 PM
 #5

The problem with Shared Maximum Pay Per Share is that in short lucky runds you get payed per share , instead if you get a long rounds streak there is the possibility that the credit isn't enough to pay all the shares and it switches to proportional method !!
This goes in favour to the pool hopping cheat!!
1. Pool hopping isn't cheating.
2. SMPPS never switches to proportional.

bitcoin0918
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56



View Profile
June 24, 2011, 07:24:05 PM
 #6

Btw we are in a very unlucky round Tongue 18 hours and still no block. Sad
The pool was down for about 4 hours, but still it is an unlucky round.

"So you think that money is the root of all evil?" said Francisco d'Aconia. "Have you ever asked what is the root of money?" [contd.]
tim85254
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 10


View Profile
June 24, 2011, 07:32:23 PM
 #7

Why does the poll have fewer options than are presented on that Payout Methods screen?  I've already voted but I'm just curious.
Coolty
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 17


View Profile
June 24, 2011, 08:04:25 PM
 #8

Why does the poll have fewer options than are presented on that Payout Methods screen?  I've already voted but I'm just curious.

I'm in the same boat as you.
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086



View Profile
June 24, 2011, 08:08:17 PM
 #9

Why does the poll have fewer options than are presented on that Payout Methods screen?
  • Slush Score -- rejected because arguably copyrighted, and unfair to legitimate miners
  • Daily Proportional -- rejected because it doesn't solve the problem (just changes the hopping algorithm)
  • Proportional -- rejected because it has the problem
  • Pay Per Share -- rejected because I'm not willing to run a pool at negative income

Artefact2
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 124


View Profile WWW
June 24, 2011, 08:50:55 PM
 #10

  • Slush Score -- rejected because arguably copyrighted, and unfair to legitimate miners

Also, still vulnerable somewhat to pool-hopping.

A pool-biased blockchain representation, by me: pident (WTFPL)
iopq
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644


View Profile
June 24, 2011, 11:49:32 PM
 #11

What's the drawback of geometric? It seems completely reasonable

Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086



View Profile
June 25, 2011, 12:35:03 AM
 #12

What's the drawback of geometric? It seems completely reasonable
For me, the main drawbacks are that I can't understand it, and if I simply implement it as-is, Python errors because of insane exponents.

BkkCoins
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784


firstbits:1MinerQ


View Profile WWW
June 25, 2011, 01:22:11 PM
 #13

I'm not worried about whatever method you choose.

I just wish I didn't have to wait until 1 BTC for payout. I moved to another pool because they will payout above 0.10 BTC. That works better for me because I'm doing low end mining just for fun. Having to wait for 1 BTC is like having to wait for $100 on Google Adsense. Lots of small ops never get there.

Not that the money matters so much but it's discouraging to know you'll never get it.

tschaboo
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42


View Profile
June 25, 2011, 02:08:22 PM
 #14

Not that the money matters so much but it's discouraging to know you'll never get it.

You should get it after one week of inactivity. You might just use two different payout addresses and change between them every eight days!

1AZNkFqcm2AK6wrMauNoVT4ZJGrYMrv2Yo
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086



View Profile
June 25, 2011, 03:08:08 PM
 #15

I just wish I didn't have to wait until 1 BTC for payout. I moved to another pool because they will payout above 0.01 BTC. That works better for me because I'm doing low end mining just for fun. Having to wait for 1 BTC is like having to wait for $100 on Google Adsense. Lots of small ops never get there.
The new version should support requesting a payout with signmessage.

Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086



View Profile
June 25, 2011, 10:09:05 PM
 #16

Well, Shared Maximum Pay Per Share has obviously won by a landslide... now it's up to me to code it!

Barek
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168


View Profile
June 26, 2011, 01:47:31 AM
 #17

Maybe I do not understand MaxPPS correctly, but ...
what happens if there is a long dry spell?

The missing solved blocks will lead to the pool being short on funds.
Short funds means less than expected PPS.
If the current PPS goes too low, people will leave.
With less people mining it will take longer for things to average out.
The longer it takes, the more people leave.

So you may potentially be setting yourself up for a dead pool if a long dry spell hits.

What am I missing?
scottk
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 21


View Profile
June 26, 2011, 02:23:05 AM
 #18

I can't seem to vote, but if I could, I'd vote for Shared Maximum Pay Per Share.
iopq
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644


View Profile
June 26, 2011, 04:23:40 AM
 #19

Well, Shared Maximum Pay Per Share has obviously won by a landslide... now it's up to me to code it!
I don't understand if that method deals with pool hopping at all
if not, Multipool will be happy with this

yxejamir
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 5


View Profile
June 26, 2011, 05:48:45 AM
 #20

So you may potentially be setting yourself up for a dead pool if a long dry spell hits.

What am I missing?
That is true for the current proportional method, as well as for solo mining. And if it was not, then the pool operator would take the risk on himself, with such low fees, and then you would definitely be left without a pool..

I don't understand if that method deals with pool hopping at all
if not, Multipool will be happy with this
The whole point of this discussion was that the old method is susceptible to pool-hopping, so yes, all the methods suggested above deal with it.
Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  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!