Bitcoin Forum
July 20, 2019, 11:18:43 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 [60] 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 ... 538 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [ANN] profit switching auto-exchanging pool - www.middlecoin.com  (Read 809784 times)
metamine
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 43
Merit: 0


View Profile
August 20, 2013, 07:46:33 AM
 #1181


For faster coins, if you cannot submit 1 (high difficulty = 512) share, you get paid nothing. So if we mine those coins for 1 hour, the slow miner will earn nothing during that period.

Is that share mined by a single GPU or is it distributed by all GPUs in one rig?

You would still have the same (proportional) reject/stale-rate as miners with more hashrate. Over time it will even out. But yes, looking at a shorter timespan it looks as if you are not earning anything. Each share is (always) mined by a single GPU. (In reality, by a single thread running on a GPU).

If you mine a fast coin for an hour and can not submit a single share (regardless of stale or not) something is wrong with your setup. If you can submit, but only stales, you have a latency-issue. A closer server or better connection can fix that, but it isn't a diff-problem. Remember, your miner will submit shares (non-solutions, as proof of work to the pool) but also REAL-solutions that are used in the blockchain. So if you find the actual block you will get paid as well, as if it was a ordinary share.

Look at it like this:
If you have 4 GPUs, and stick them all in the same box, you will earn as much as if they were 4 separate computers with a single GPU each.

Total hashrate is all that counts. My advise to all that are worried: Try it out for a few days, and look at the profits/day after a few days (when unmatured balances have been sold) and compare that to your alternatives. Do not look at single days, look at the trend and average.

Every miner has to decide for him/herself what to do and when to call it quits...
1563664723
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1563664723

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1563664723
Reply with quote  #2

1563664723
Report to moderator
1563664723
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1563664723

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1563664723
Reply with quote  #2

1563664723
Report to moderator
1563664723
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1563664723

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1563664723
Reply with quote  #2

1563664723
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1563664723
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1563664723

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1563664723
Reply with quote  #2

1563664723
Report to moderator
CoinBuzz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250



View Profile
August 20, 2013, 11:49:21 AM
 #1182

Enough about the difficulty-issue already...

Difficulty influence on reject shares, and reject shares is waste of computing power that can results in more block!

That's what really matter.

Rejects is waste of your GPU and electricity for nothing, you should minimize it.

Liquidfire
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28
Merit: 0


View Profile
August 20, 2013, 12:36:21 PM
Last edit: August 20, 2013, 01:13:01 PM by Liquidfire
 #1183

Enough about the difficulty-issue already...

Difficulty influence on reject shares, and reject shares is waste of computing power that can results in more block!

That's what really matter.

Rejects is waste of your GPU and electricity for nothing, you should minimize it.

Ok, I have been away for a bit, and it seems like there has been continued debate about the difficulty. It seems like the pool owner is getting frustrated with it, based on the new message on the FAQ. He deserves nothing but praise for his efforts on this pool. Seriously. However, I don't think this debate is going away.

*The way I see it is the more the pool moves on to the next block or switches coins, the more small miners are effected. The amounts are fake for the sake of illustrating the point.

If it takes me 1 minute to get a share, when a new block/switch happens I am going to lose a random amount of hashing power equivalent to between 0 seconds and 60 seconds.

If it takes someone else 10 seconds to get a share, when a new block/switch happens they will lose an amount of hashing power equivalent to between 0 seconds and 10 seconds.

Therefore, over time, the small miner is hurt. Somebody that is a math ninja could probably chart this out and graph it, but there is the principle.

Assume for the sake of argument all the coins have the same difficulty. Say we have a new block or switch coins 100 times per day. (in reality its probably thousands). Smaller miner will lose, statistically, 30 seconds per switch of hashing power. That's 50 minutes. Big miner will statistically lose 5 seconds per change. That's a little over 8 minutes.... forget about the minutes, since my numbers are fictitious, yet the principle still applies.

Again, I read the pool owners message on the FAQ, not trying to ruffle feathers and I certainly commend him for the improvements to this pool so far. However, I can't ignore this and pretend it doesn't have some effect.

*Edited for clarity
ranlo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1638
Merit: 1002



View Profile
August 20, 2013, 12:58:12 PM
 #1184

The exact same thing applies to mining in a pool with different difficulties. Diff 512 or 128 does not matter. On average, you will get paid the same. It does not really matter if you submit 10 x "512-shares" or 40 x "128-shares" (conceptually).

Your "concept" is highly flawed. If you submitted 10x 512-shares and 40x 128-shares, they WOULD be equal. But here's how it works:

Scenario A:

128 A 07:41
128 A 07:42
128 A 07:43
128 A 07:44
128 A 07:45
128 A 07:46
128 A 07:47
128 A 07:48
128 R 07:49

Scenario B:

512 A 07:44
512 R 07:49

What's the difference here? With A you got 8x 128 submitted on time. That gives you a share count of (128*8=1024). With B, you got 1x 512 submitted on time. That gives you a share count of (1*512=512).

Therefore, while your GPU's worked at the SAME speed, you got half the share count.

Now, on things like LTC where the block time is large anyways, this is not such a big problem. But let's look at a fast-block coin:

Scenario A) fast miner:

512 A 08:13 B1
512 A 08:13 B2
512 R 08:14 B3
512 A 08:14 B4
512 A 08:14 B5
512 R 08:14 B6

Now a slow miner:

512 R 08:14 B1
512 R 08:15 B2
512 R 08:15 B3
512 R 08:16 B4
512 R 08:16 B5
512 A 08:17 B6

The fast miner got credit for 4/6 blocks. The second miner got credit for 1/6 blocks. Therefore the slower miner is being screwed out of the vast majority of all earnings. For 5/6 of these blocks, the slow miner got absolutely nothing, despite using power and wear&tear on their GPU.
Eastwind
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896
Merit: 1000



View Profile
August 20, 2013, 01:03:22 PM
 #1185

The exact same thing applies to mining in a pool with different difficulties. Diff 512 or 128 does not matter. On average, you will get paid the same. It does not really matter if you submit 10 x "512-shares" or 40 x "128-shares" (conceptually).

Your "concept" is highly flawed. If you submitted 10x 512-shares and 40x 128-shares, they WOULD be equal. But here's how it works:

Scenario A:

128 A 07:41
128 A 07:42
128 A 07:43
128 A 07:44
128 A 07:45
128 A 07:46
128 A 07:47
128 A 07:48
128 R 07:49

Scenario B:

512 A 07:44
512 R 07:49

What's the difference here? With A you got 8x 128 submitted on time. That gives you a share count of (128*8=1024). With B, you got 1x 512 submitted on time. That gives you a share count of (1*512=512).

Therefore, while your GPU's worked at the SAME speed, you got half the share count.

Now, on things like LTC where the block time is large anyways, this is not such a big problem. But let's look at a fast-block coin:

Scenario A) fast miner:

512 A 08:13 B1
512 A 08:13 B2
512 R 08:14 B3
512 A 08:14 B4
512 A 08:14 B5
512 R 08:14 B6

Now a slow miner:

512 R 08:14 B1
512 R 08:15 B2
512 R 08:15 B3
512 R 08:16 B4
512 R 08:16 B5
512 A 08:17 B6

The fast miner got credit for 4/6 blocks. The second miner got credit for 1/6 blocks. Therefore the slower miner is being screwed out of the vast majority of all earnings. For 5/6 of these blocks, the slow miner got absolutely nothing, despite using power and wear&tear on their GPU.

I concur.
joris
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 141
Merit: 100


View Profile
August 20, 2013, 01:14:14 PM
 #1186

The fast miner will deliver 6 shares in the time the slow miner submits 1 share, so your comparison is flawed in itself...

Mining speed is measured in khash/s and every hash can be a winner, independent of your total hashing output.

Difficulty affects variance, not the amount of accepted shares in the long run.

Connection speed between your rig and pool server and pool server and the coin network influences your reject percentage.

;-)
TierNolan
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232
Merit: 1002


View Profile
August 20, 2013, 01:18:36 PM
 #1187

What's the difference here? With A you got 8x 128 submitted on time. That gives you a share count of (128*8=1024). With B, you got 1x 512 submitted on time. That gives you a share count of (1*512=512).

The issue is that it is random, you don't get blocks every 10 seconds.  Every second, you have a 10% chance of getting a block.

If you have 10% of the hashing power, you have a 10% chance of getting the block.

It is not a race between the fast and the slow miners, where the slower miners always lose.  It is like a dice roll where you win if a 1 comes up.

Someone who rolls the dice faster will get more 1's, but the slower thrower will still get 1's.

Latency can matter.  If 2 people win at the same time, then the one who submits first wins the block (but that only matters when a block is found).

Having said that, when a switch happens, the pool should still accept shares for the old chain. 

What would happen here?

- miner finds a LTC block
- pool switches to some other chain
- miner submits LTC block to pool

Would that count as a rejected block?

1LxbG5cKXzTwZg9mjL3gaRE835uNQEteWF
Damnsammit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406
Merit: 250



View Profile
August 20, 2013, 01:30:20 PM
 #1188

lol you guys are stupid... that is all there is to it... get a better rig and stop complaining.

Have you ever loaded up CGMiner with a 400KH/s rig on Middlecoin and instantly saw a share submitted?  I have.

If you don't know why that is important then just go pitch a fit and cry about the difficulty.  It took me a few ah-ha moments to figure it out, but if you can't understand it after the beautiful explanation by metamine, then you never will get it.

As far as ranlo's theory goes... just stop.

No hashrate allows you to submit shares precisely at a given interval.  A 400KH/s rig could submit two 512-difficulty shares within a few seconds of each other.  A 1MH/s rig could go a full minute without submitting a share.

ya-dee-ya-da... go mine Bitcoin, dummies Tongue

kirk46
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 91
Merit: 10


View Profile
August 20, 2013, 02:27:07 PM
 #1189

IMO its pointless mining LTC on this pool

if i want to mine LTC il go back to the LTC pool i was on...

also the exchange rate LTC/BTC is terrible atm so it cant be that profitable?
BTC is at 117. LTC is at .023. 1 LTC = $2.69
When BTC is at 90 and LTC is at .027, 1 LTC = $2.43
I'm not sure in which world that's terrible.

im taking about the LTC/BTC exchange not to USD as i would sell my LTC for a higher price on ebay not shitty exchange prices
Kuroth
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196
Merit: 100



View Profile WWW
August 20, 2013, 02:43:48 PM
 #1190

lol you guys are stupid... that is all there is to it... get a better rig and stop complaining.

Have you ever loaded up CGMiner with a 400KH/s rig on Middlecoin and instantly saw a share submitted?  I have.

If you don't know why that is important then just go pitch a fit and cry about the difficulty.  It took me a few ah-ha moments to figure it out, but if you can't understand it after the beautiful explanation by metamine, then you never will get it.

As far as ranlo's theory goes... just stop.

No hashrate allows you to submit shares precisely at a given interval.  A 400KH/s rig could submit two 512-difficulty shares within a few seconds of each other.  A 1MH/s rig could go a full minute without submitting a share.

ya-dee-ya-da... go mine Bitcoin, dummies Tongue



LOL..  That is why I dont talk about this subject..  Because I dont know anything about this subject..  LOL

Damnsammit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406
Merit: 250



View Profile
August 20, 2013, 02:53:09 PM
 #1191


LOL..  That is why I dont talk about this subject..  Because I dont know anything about this subject..  LOL


Hell!  I don't know anything about it either, but I can definitely say I know more than some of these people posing theories that don't make a lick of sense!

Cheesy
sQueeZer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 303
Merit: 250


View Profile
August 20, 2013, 03:39:53 PM
 #1192


The only time it would matter, as i see it, is if a coin is mined just a few minutes, so that a small miner does not even get one share submitted. But then again, it would not be a big deal, statistics dictate that what you lose in one period is made up for in another. So all you loose is the difference between profitability between the two coins mined.



For faster coins, if you cannot submit 1 (high difficulty = 512) share, you get paid nothing. So if we mine those coins for 1 hour, the slow miner will earn nothing during that period.

Is that share mined by a single GPU or is it distributed by all GPUs in one rig?

Sorry dude but you are completly wrong (for this pool).

There is a BIG Difference while using 128 diff <> 512 diff.

Just example numbers: A 600khs Card needs avg. 20sec to generate a >512 diff share.
Unfortunately the Pool is mining a Coin with ~10-15sec blocktarget.

As soon as a new Block is found your current work instantly gets USELESS and your card starts hashing on the new block.
(10sec ++ of work lost, 0khs submitted to the pool due high share-diff)

If we had this pool working on ~32diff the card would have been able to create some x32 Diff-shares and
sumbit them to the pool.

There should be a vardiff adjustment while swiching to coins with fast block-target.
I mined for ~1 day here and just saw my cgminers reporting stales and 'work restart from pool'.

RIG is a 3x7950's machine running avg. @ 2130kh. It is submitting a ~1970WU on litecoinpools,
here i get sth like 1500WU which underlines my argumentation.

Just my 50cents
Damnsammit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406
Merit: 250



View Profile
August 20, 2013, 03:44:45 PM
 #1193

Just because it AVERAGES a certain time does not mean that it MUST TAKE that same time.

Example:
Calculations say that you should get a block once every 2 hours.  You mine for 6 hours and hit 3 blocks.  Every single block hits EXACTLY 120 minutes apart.  This is typical behavior of mining, right?  No?  Well hell, how could that be?!

Liquidfire
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28
Merit: 0


View Profile
August 20, 2013, 03:52:04 PM
Last edit: August 20, 2013, 04:09:03 PM by Liquidfire
 #1194

lol you guys are stupid... that is all there is to it... get a better rig and stop complaining.

Wow... we'ere all stupid and get a better rig... But if we need a better rig aren't you admitting we are correct? Theres no need for that kind of crap.


I threw some number in excel to try and discover how the faster coins effect the miner based on their hashpower. Feel free to try and pick it apart, i may have made a mistake but I think this illustrates exactly what a lot of us are talking about. By lowering the difficulty, you would push the slower miners stats to look closer and closer to how the fast miner looks in my chart.

Now obviously there are downsides to a diff to low for the fast guys, which is why I think variable diff is the only good solution.

http://i.imgur.com/BqV8Hg3.png?1


As you can see, there is an exponential curve forming. Meaning, as the coins approach very fast block change speeds, and as hash rate goes down, you begin to see some extreme losses, if the curve continued it would approach 100%.

Edit: Couple things I dont like the wording on now: When I said "Time for 1 share" it really should say "time for block change". I also should have been more clear that "average loss per block change"  ALSO means something more like "average time to find a share". Hope that clears confusion.
ranlo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1638
Merit: 1002



View Profile
August 20, 2013, 03:53:57 PM
 #1195

Just because it AVERAGES a certain time does not mean that it MUST TAKE that same time.

Example:
Calculations say that you should get a block once every 2 hours.  You mine for 6 hours and hit 3 blocks.  Every single block hits EXACTLY 120 minutes apart.  This is typical behavior of mining, right?  No?  Well hell, how could that be?!



Average: calculated by adding a group of numbers together and dividing the total by the amount of numbers

You're basing your views on a short period of time. Just because someone won the lottery with a single ticket in no way means everyone who buys one ticket is going to win the lottery. It means ONE person did on their first try.

Learn what averaging is:

Average block time is 30s
Someone finds block in 15s. To equal this out, a block will statistically take 45s.

If you're submitting blocks every minute or so (on *average* -- seriously, you need to look that word up) on a block that has a 30s block generation time *on average* -- again, look this word up -- you're getting screwed.

This is basic mathematics. Just because you want to use this flawed vision that "it doesn't matter because it's just the lottery" is irrelevant. It is what it is.

Take some classes on statistical probability and maybe you'll start to understand what words like "average" mean and how they relate to things, because as it is you're pushing your ignorant ideas on to others who know better. Math doesn't lie; people do.
Damnsammit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406
Merit: 250



View Profile
August 20, 2013, 03:54:50 PM
 #1196


Wow... we'ere all stupid and get a better rig... But if we need a better rig aren't you admitting we are correct?

Better rig = more profits

Lower difficulty = same profits

Unless your sample size is 8-12 hours like most of the complainers seem to mine before saying the difficulty is too high and they should be mining LTC.
Liquidfire
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28
Merit: 0


View Profile
August 20, 2013, 03:59:01 PM
 #1197


Wow... we'ere all stupid and get a better rig... But if we need a better rig aren't you admitting we are correct?

Better rig = more profits

Lower difficulty = same profits

Unless your sample size is 8-12 hours like most of the complainers seem to mine before saying the difficulty is too high and they should be mining LTC.

I like how you just ignored all of the math in my post.
Damnsammit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406
Merit: 250



View Profile
August 20, 2013, 04:01:42 PM
 #1198

This is basic mathematics. Just because you want to use this flawed vision that "it doesn't matter because it's just the lottery" is irrelevant. It is what it is.

You shouldn't use quotes to put words in people's mouths.

I actually think from your post that you don't know what the word average means.  No sense in going around in circles.  Just join a lower difficulty pool since that is what will make you happy.

fredeq
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1460
Merit: 1005


View Profile WWW
August 20, 2013, 04:12:28 PM
 #1199

This is basic mathematics. Just because you want to use this flawed vision that "it doesn't matter because it's just the lottery" is irrelevant. It is what it is.

You shouldn't use quotes to put words in people's mouths.

I actually think from your post that you don't know what the word average means.  No sense in going around in circles.  Just join a lower difficulty pool since that is what will make you happy.



You are just being very undude past few days. Go and have a chillpill.

https://whattomine.com - Check what to mine Smiley
Damnsammit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406
Merit: 250



View Profile
August 20, 2013, 04:15:41 PM
 #1200


I like how you just ignored all of the math in my post.

The picture is blocked on my work computer.  Not really interested in it, though Cheesy

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_work

If you have a 100KH/s "rig" then you have 100,000 chances every second to submit a share.  Difficulty isn't important.  Average time is just a measurement of past success, and is not a good prediction of future success in this instance because the past is a small percentage of the total picture.

And to borrow from Mr. Lottery's words, let's review what a target is as well...

Quote
It's important to realize that block generation is not a long, set problem (like doing a million hashes), but more like a lottery. Each hash basically gives you a random number between 0 and the maximum value of a 256-bit number (which is huge). If your hash is below the target, then you win. If not, you increment the nonce (completely changing the hash) and try again.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Target

I understand the math, but you guys are just overthinking it based on a few hours of data from the pool and projecting those miniscule "averages" as if they are solid fact.  Get a few years of data and then maybe you can make a good projection.  It's equivalent to projecting a MLB hitters run average based on his first game (less than 1% of the duration of the season).

Pages: « 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 [60] 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 ... 538 »
  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!