[OLD] Eligius: ASIC, no registration, no fee CPPSRB BTC + 105% PPS NMC, 877 #

[wizkid057]

The payout went smoothly with the new block.  I notice it seems less 'spendable', having 26 confirmations already but needing 94 more blocks, than BTC earned elsewhere.  Also the clear demarcation of 'Mined'.  I wonder if this will prove a problem with that obscure rule that mined bitcoins make one an international money transfer agent if one tries to use it for anything but barter.  Bitcoins mined on another pool have not that demarcation.

But the question I wish to ask, is the minimum payout stat changeable on the configuration page?  I have Bitcoin-QT on another machine than the one having the cookie storing the receive address.  I generated the signed message which included in the encrypted string a lowering of the minimum payout trigger to 0.1000btc but it didn't take.  After the initial payout since the signed message configuration change I expected the payout to be lowered but it was not.  Is the minimum not changeable below what is dictated by the value equation used by Eligius staff?

A standard bitcoin transaction is spendable after only one confirmation, and fully confirmed after 6 confirmations.  When a new block is mined, the coinbase transaction that gives the 25 BTC + transaction fees requires 120 confirmations before it is spendable.

Most pools send the output of the coinbase transaction to a pool-owned address, then pay you in a separate normal transaction.  It will appear in your wallet as 'unconfirmed' until one more block is mined (the confirmation).  Eligius (and also P2pool) pay miners directly from the coinbase transaction.  That's why the transaction shows up a a 'mined' transaction which shows up as 'immature', and takes 120 confirmations to mature.

You can set you minimum payout to anything >= 0.01 BTC.  If it didn't work, it probably means that the signature failed.  It should tell you whether if it passed or failed a few lines up toward the top of the page.

Again I misunderstand verifying messages.  When verifying, it doesn't decode and present the message, one needs to put coding address, the exact message, and the signature then if it is accurate it will say Message verified.  Which it just did.

If your minimum payout didn't change, I would try submitting a new set of settings with a new signed message and ensure that it gives you the message at the top afterwards telling you that the signatures passed.

As for the 120 confirmations required for mined coins, I'll note that other pools pay the coins to their own wallet first, wait the 120 confirmations, *then* send you the coins at some point after this making you wait for more confirmations.  Eligius's method is superior, in my opinion, as you can a) spend the coins immediately upon full confirmation, and b) the pool doesn't "touch" your coins and you don't risk losing them to any pool-side issue in the mean time.  For example, if Eligius is hacked, there are no miner coins available to be stolen, since the coins are already paid directly from the blocks to the miners.

-wk

Edit: I just noticed the later post where you had already gotten the settings to work.

[1713998969]

1713998969

[1713998969]

1713998969

[1713998969]

1713998969

[1713998969]

1713998969

[1713998969]

1713998969

[1713998969]

1713998969

[RoadTrain]

I've been thinking a bit on how to smoothen variance here.
One idea.

As pools' buffer is very unlikely to turn positive in the foreseeable future, intruduce the second buffer, which will be built from tx fees exclusively. Every lucky round it's increasing and can only be spent when the round is unlucky.
This way current miners will have some sort of buffer against future unluck, while currently during lucky rounds all credit goes to old miners.
Currently fees don't constitute much, but still can smoothen medium-term earnings.

[wizkid057]

I've been thinking a bit on how to smoothen variance here.
One idea.

As pools' buffer is very unlikely to turn positive in the foreseeable future, intruduce the second buffer, which will be built from tx fees exclusively. Every lucky round it's increasing and can only be spent when the round is unlucky.
This way current miners will have some sort of buffer against future unluck, while currently during lucky rounds all credit goes to old miners.
Currently fees don't constitute much, but still can still smoothen medium-term earnings.

This should make no real difference, long term, compared to the current setup of paying fees to the share log during all rounds.

[RoadTrain]

I've been thinking a bit on how to smoothen variance here.
One idea.

As pools' buffer is very unlikely to turn positive in the foreseeable future, intruduce the second buffer, which will be built from tx fees exclusively. Every lucky round it's increasing and can only be spent when the round is unlucky.
This way current miners will have some sort of buffer against future unluck, while currently during lucky rounds all credit goes to old miners.
Currently fees don't constitute much, but still can still smoothen medium-term earnings.

This should make no real difference, long term, compared to the current setup of paying fees to the share log during all rounds.

Long term yes, but short term? Having buffer will allow more shares to be paid during unlucky times.
Expecially since there are sometimes block with significant fees.

I proposed it because back when Eligius planned abandoning SMPPS, you were discussing options on how to prevent SMPPS credit from being a burden on active miners.

[wizkid057]

I've been thinking a bit on how to smoothen variance here.
One idea.

As pools' buffer is very unlikely to turn positive in the foreseeable future, intruduce the second buffer, which will be built from tx fees exclusively. Every lucky round it's increasing and can only be spent when the round is unlucky.
This way current miners will have some sort of buffer against future unluck, while currently during lucky rounds all credit goes to old miners.
Currently fees don't constitute much, but still can still smoothen medium-term earnings.

This should make no real difference, long term, compared to the current setup of paying fees to the share log during all rounds.

Long term yes, but short term?
Expecially since there are sometimes block with significant fees.

I proposed it because back when Eligius planned abandoning SMPPS, you were discussing options on how to prevent SMPPS credit from being a burden on active miners.

The only thing this change will do is add more variance to how transaction fees are distributed by basically flipping a coin as to whether or not to distribute them or not each round (lucky or unlucky), which is undesirable.

[RoadTrain]

I've been thinking a bit on how to smoothen variance here.
One idea.

As pools' buffer is very unlikely to turn positive in the foreseeable future, intruduce the second buffer, which will be built from tx fees exclusively. Every lucky round it's increasing and can only be spent when the round is unlucky.
This way current miners will have some sort of buffer against future unluck, while currently during lucky rounds all credit goes to old miners.
Currently fees don't constitute much, but still can still smoothen medium-term earnings.

This should make no real difference, long term, compared to the current setup of paying fees to the share log during all rounds.

Long term yes, but short term?
Expecially since there are sometimes block with significant fees.

I proposed it because back when Eligius planned abandoning SMPPS, you were discussing options on how to prevent SMPPS credit from being a burden on active miners.

The only thing this change will do is add more variance to how transaction fees are distributed by basically flipping a coin as to whether or not to distribute them or not each round (lucky or unlucky), which is undesirable.

Yep, looks like you're right, it seems to only make the system more complicated.

[HellDiverUK]

Stats stuck?  Seem to have the same stats for the last few hours.

[wizkid057]

Stats stuck?  Seem to have the same stats for the last few hours.

Stats look fine...

[spooderman]

Is there a way to find out how far back in the sharelog we are at any given time? Like, 'the shares being paid out now are from 4 months ago' when we have great luck....

[wizkid057]

Is there a way to find out how far back in the sharelog we are at any given time? Like, 'the shares being paid out now are from 4 months ago' when we have great luck....

This has actually been asked a few times recently.  The short answer is no.

The long answer is here in this post and the followup posts shortly behind it.

In the future I plan on adding a sort of histogram to show users where in the share log their shares are.

-wk

[spooderman]

Is there a way to find out how far back in the sharelog we are at any given time? Like, 'the shares being paid out now are from 4 months ago' when we have great luck....

This has actually been asked a few times recently.  The short answer is no.

The long answer is here in this post and the followup posts shortly behind it.

In the future I plan on adding a sort of histogram to show users where in the share log their shares are.

-wk

awesome ty. The lack of this feature speaks to the pool's efficient principles. Still, in the future....

[ionstorm]

I am finding that I am having inconsistent hash rates because I am either getting too low of pool difficulty or too high, for 24 hours I switched over to another pool that had manual difficulty setting, what I did was took ckolivas's advice by doing total Gh/s / 1.4 and was getting very consistent hash rates.  I see that the manual difficulty setting is not yet enabled, can the dev's update us on when this feature will be enabled so advanced miners may have a little more control over their hash rate fluctuations

[wizkid057]

I am finding that I am having inconsistent hash rates because I am either getting too low of pool difficulty or too high, for 24 hours I switched over to another pool that had manual difficulty setting, what I did was took ckolivas's advice by doing total Gh/s / 1.4 and was getting very consistent hash rates.  I see that the manual difficulty setting is not yet enabled, can the dev's update us on when this feature will be enabled so advanced miners may have a little more control over their hash rate fluctuations

With a higher difficulty you will get a much more inconsistent hash rate on the pool-side.  The current variable difficulty settings on Eligius are tried and tested and have proven to work perfectly.  There is no need to adjust the difficulty manually, ever.  Info to the contrary is simply incorrect.  The pool targets 32 shares per minute.  This ensures that a) You are never spinning your wheels, per se, working on too high of a difficulty work for your hash rate, b) ensures the pool gets sufficient shares from your miner to keep statistics variance low so that stats are still valid, c) makes it so you don't have to ever actually change anything since pool does it for you, and many other advantages over a static difficulty.

I will most likely be scrapping the manual difficulty setting option, since after much research and testing, it simply has no real purpose.

Basically, if you're setting a static difficulty on another pool and you're getting a better hash rate, either you've been fooled by variance or the pool is lying.

-wk

[fizzmine]

Is the 32 share per minute target per-worker or per-address?  Knowing that could help some configurations and allow the miner some flexibility in optimizing their configuration.

[rascal777]

So, are the bitcoin transaction fees (or a precentage of them) paid to the miners?  and if so,  how does this work in detail?

[ionstorm]

I am finding that I am having inconsistent hash rates because I am either getting too low of pool difficulty or too high, for 24 hours I switched over to another pool that had manual difficulty setting, what I did was took ckolivas's advice by doing total Gh/s / 1.4 and was getting very consistent hash rates.  I see that the manual difficulty setting is not yet enabled, can the dev's update us on when this feature will be enabled so advanced miners may have a little more control over their hash rate fluctuations

With a higher difficulty you will get a much more inconsistent hash rate on the pool-side.  The current variable difficulty settings on Eligius are tried and tested and have proven to work perfectly.  There is no need to adjust the difficulty manually, ever.  Info to the contrary is simply incorrect.  The pool targets 32 shares per minute.  This ensures that a) You are never spinning your wheels, per se, working on too high of a difficulty work for your hash rate, b) ensures the pool gets sufficient shares from your miner to keep statistics variance low so that stats are still valid, c) makes it so you don't have to ever actually change anything since pool does it for you, and many other advantages over a static difficulty.

I will most likely be scrapping the manual difficulty setting option, since after much research and testing, it simply has no real purpose.

Basically, if you're setting a static difficulty on another pool and you're getting a better hash rate, either you've been fooled by variance or the pool is lying.

-wk

thanks, well explained, happy to stay with Eligius!

[RoadTrain]

So, are the bitcoin transaction fees (or a precentage of them) paid to the miners?  and if so,  how does this work in detail?

Shares are paid from newest to oldest until block subsidy+fees is paid.

[Luke-Jr]

Is the 32 share per minute target per-worker or per-address?  Knowing that could help some configurations and allow the miner some flexibility in optimizing their configuration.

Per worker.

[t1000]

Why is the payout queue empty?

[wizkid057]

Why is the payout queue empty?

Because I want to keep all of the coins to myself today </troll>

Just kidding.  Just a fail-safe event from block 269074... for some reason the core database got a little lagged around that time and the CPPSRB code paused pending my doubling checking of everything.  I have it catching up now and the payout queue should be back to normal soon.  (Looks like about 90 minutes).

-wk