[ANN] profit switching auto-exchanging pool - www.middlecoin.com

[juhakall]

Assume a constant difficulty.

Assume pool produces a new block every 30 seconds on average, for a particular coin and at the pools particular total hashrate.

Miner A has 0.5 megahash hashrate

Miner B has 5 megahash hashrate


Assume these hashrates translate to finding a share every 30 seconds, or 3 seconds respectively (again, on average).



Miner A will only find a share in time approx 50% of the time. So half the time he has 1 share, half the time he has 0 shares. He will have worked an average of 15 seconds for nothing when the block changes.

Miner B will find an average of 10 shares. He, as well, would have been working towards another share when the block changes. However, on average, he will have only been doing so for 1.5 seconds.

So the difference for Miner A is the difference between all or nothing.

The difference for Miner B is between, say, 9 and 10 shares... or maybe 10 and 11 shares...

Do you see it yet?

The bolded part is not correct. Sometimes the miner will have 0 shares, sometimes 1, sometimes more than 1. On average, 1.

[Liquidfire]

Assume a constant difficulty.

Assume pool produces a new block every 30 seconds on average, for a particular coin and at the pools particular total hashrate.

Miner A has 0.5 megahash hashrate

Miner B has 5 megahash hashrate


Assume these hashrates translate to finding a share every 30 seconds, or 3 seconds respectively (again, on average).



Miner A will only find a share in time approx 50% of the time. So half the time he has 1 share, half the time he has 0 shares. He will have worked an average of 15 seconds for nothing when the block changes.

Miner B will find an average of 10 shares. He, as well, would have been working towards another share when the block changes. However, on average, he will have only been doing so for 1.5 seconds.

So the difference for Miner A is the difference between all or nothing.

The difference for Miner B is between, say, 9 and 10 shares... or maybe 10 and 11 shares...

Do you see it yet?

The bolded part is not correct. Sometimes the miner will have 0 shares, sometimes 1, sometimes more than 1. On average, 1.

I stated he finds a share on average every 30 seconds of work. If he finds it in 29 seconds, great he gets a share. 31 Seconds? Nothing.

For every time he grabs one in 15 seconds, an equal number of times it will take 45 seconds.

Therefore on average he gets 0.5 shares per block.


It is of course possible that he could get 2, 3, 4 shares with some extreme luck. This is balanced by the fact that the pool, as well, could go on a streak and get 2, 3, 4 blocks quickly with the same level of luck.

[TierNolan]

Miner A will only find a share in time approx 50% of the time. So half the time he has 1 share, half the time he has 0 shares. He will have worked an average of 15 seconds for nothing when the block changes.

Miner B will find an average of 10 shares. He, as well, would have been working towards another share when the block changes. However, on average, he will have only been doing so for 1.5 seconds.

So the difference for Miner A is the difference between all or nothing.

The difference for Miner B is between, say, 9 and 10 shares... or maybe 10 and 11 shares...

Miner A can get 0, 1, 2, ... etc.  He could be lucky and get one block every 5 seconds, for example.

The actual odds are

0: 0.3673
1: 0.3685
2: 0.1842
3: 0.0612
4: 0.0152
5: 0.0030
6: 0.0005
7: 0.0001
8: 0.0000

If you work it out you get an average of 1 block.

For a miner with 10X the power, the distribution is

0: 0.0000
1: 0.0004
2: 0.0020
3: 0.0070
4: 0.0179
5: 0.0366
6: 0.0620
7: 0.0897
8: 0.1133
9: 0.1268
10: 0.1272
11: 0.1157
12: 0.0961
13: 0.0734
14: 0.0519
15: 0.0341
16: 0.0210
17: 0.0121
18: 0.0065
19: 0.0033
20: 0.0016

It is balanced around 10.  

Again, if you work it out, it averages to 1.

However, the more powerful miner gets lower variance.

[willittobe]

On the current/previous topic: does anyone think it is actually a *bad* idea to go ahead and implement Vardiff on this pool!? Would it do anything but help?

And on another topic: what can be used (or are you using) for a backup/failover pool when mining on middlecoin? I would just set an LTC pool as the backup, but, from what I can tell this is not going to work correctly: third line of cgminer readme - "Do not use on multiple block chains at the same time!"

So is there any way to set a backup for a multi-coin pool? Perhaps a third-party workaround? It's just a little nerve racking to trust a single pool completely with no failover option...

[juhakall]

All miners produce diff 1 shares at the same speed relative to hashrate (let's ignore the variance there). They do this no matter what share difficulty is wanted by the pool. Every one of those shares has 1/pool_diff chance of being accepted by the pool. Saying "it would've taken 31 seconds to finally get that share, but because the block took only 30 seconds I never had a chance" is just blatantly wrong.

[cverity]

While your description of Gambler's Fallacy is accurate and apt to the statistics described for share calculation, your choice of slot machines as the example is probably the worst possible choice.  Gambling laws around the world regulate the RTP (Theoretical Payout Percentage) for slots and that is controlled by firmware/software. Las Vegas has a minimum payout of 75% and Atlantic City 83%. The slots are individually tweaked upon setup and are audited.  If they pay too much to the House over thousands of pulls, then the casino is fined.   Also, there is a record kept of each pull, winnings paid, pulls per session (if a casino card is used), etc. These all factor in to the calculations/controls. So yes, slot machines have a memory if you pulled 500 times.

So... There is a "progress" of sorts, because over the course of hours, if there isn't at least one payout at that particular machine up to the threshold established by law, the firmware "forces" a win of a certain amount to meet the ratio of winnings needed. Not pure chance then.

What does this have to do with Middlecoin, Hashrates/shares and difficulty? Nada

More info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slot_machine#Payout_percentage

Slot firmware absolutely does not "force" a win.  So long as the casino is using a firmware that has been certified to yield a minimum RTP, they are in compliance. The RTP is, as you said, theoretical over a long series of pulls.  I quote from your link: "Slot machines are typically programmed to pay out as winnings 82% to 98% of the money that is wagered by players. This is known as the "theoretical payout percentage" or RTP, "return to player." The minimum theoretical payout percentage varies among jurisdictions and is typically established by law or regulation. For example, the minimum payout in Nevada is 75%, in New Jersey, 83%, and in Mississippi 80%. The winning patterns on slot machines – the amounts they pay and the frequencies of those payouts – are carefully selected to yield a certain fraction of the money played to the "house" (the operator of the slot machine), while returning the rest to the players during play. Suppose that a certain slot machine costs $1 per spin and has a return to player (RTP) of 95%. It can be calculated that over a sufficiently long period, such as 1,000,000 spins, that the machine will return an average of $950,000 to its players, who have inserted $1,000,000 during that time"

That's all that happens. The machine uses a new RNG roll for each pull, looks that up against a payout matrix designed to give a certain percentage back over time, and the result of that roll is the result given to the player.  Nothing more, nothing less.

[Liquidfire]

Miner A can get 0, 1, 2, ... etc.  He could be lucky and get one block every 5 seconds, for example.

Yes he can. He can also be extremely unlucky and have it take the equivalent of 1 minutes (although once the block his found the entire scenario resets, so he doesn't actually proceed to that minute).

And as I also already stated, the pool, as well, can get lucky and rapidly produce blocks, in such a case making it even harder for Miner A to get a share. The extreme right ends of the share/block scale work against each other.


If it takes 30 seconds on average to find a share, by the definition of an average, the distribution of "made it" or "didn't make it" when 30 seconds is the cut-off is evenly distributed between < 30 and > 30.

[TierNolan]

If it takes 30 seconds on average to find a share, by the definition of an average, the distribution of "made it" or "didn't make it" when 30 seconds is the cut-off is evenly distributed between < 30 and > 30.

I have the actual odds in my post

0: 0.3673
1: 0.3685
2: 0.1842
3: 0.0612
4: 0.0152
5: 0.0030
6: 0.0005
7: 0.0001
8: 0.0000

So, 37% of the time you get nothing, 37% of the time you get 1 block and 26.5% of the time you get 2 or more.  However, you get 1 block on average.

[Liquidfire]

All miners produce diff 1 shares at the same speed relative to hashrate (let's ignore the variance there). They do this no matter what share difficulty is wanted by the pool. Every one of those shares has 1/pool_diff chance of being accepted by the pool. Saying "it would've taken 31 seconds to finally get that share, but because the block took only 30 seconds I never had a chance" is just blatantly wrong.

That doesn't make any sense. The whole point of a 512 diff rate is you send data to the server 1/512th of the time vs 1 diff. If they never get sent, how are they going to be accepted.

[Damnsammit]

I have the actual odds in my post

He is not interested in actual odds.  He is only interested in averages and times.  That's why it is impossible to argue with him.  

All miners produce diff 1 shares at the same speed relative to hashrate (let's ignore the variance there). They do this no matter what share difficulty is wanted by the pool. Every one of those shares has 1/pool_diff chance of being accepted by the pool. Saying "it would've taken 31 seconds to finally get that share, but because the block took only 30 seconds I never had a chance" is just blatantly wrong.

That doesn't make any sense. The whole point of a 512 diff rate is you send data to the server 1/512th of the time vs 1 diff. If they never get sent, how are they going to be accepted.

This make me think that you don't actually know what a nonce is or how difficulty mining works.

[Agrippa]

Interestingly, I didn't realize modern slot machines were programmed to change their odds depending on previous outcomes. Are you sure? That doesn't even really sound legal. I don't actually have much experience with them and was basing my hypothetical scenario on old-school mechanical slot machines, assuming they worked like that at some point. In any case, I'll stick with hypothetical, perfectly-balanced dice for any further analogies.

Unless I've been misunderstanding how a computer solves a block/share, it's not a solution in the same way a human would sit down and solve a differential equation by methodically working through it. Rather the computer just spams thousands to millions of potential answers until one works. This is were it is like throwing dice.

If you throw an endless stream of dice over and over again into a box and you get one point for every 6 that comes up, you will get one point on average every six rolls. This is actually very different from saying that you should expect every sixth roll to be a six. The actual sequence of rolls is random, but due to the six equally probable outcomes of each roll you should expect that in a large set, 6 will account for 1/6 of the total number of rolls (as would every other individual number). If I decide to swap your box every few seconds, it shouldn't matter. Sometimes a box will go by without you rolling a six, other times you'll roll one, two or more sixes into a given box and it will still average out to 1/6. If I swap the boxes even faster, it still doesn't change your chances on each individual roll. Unless you roll a six as I'm switching the box and it hits the side instead of going in, which I suppose is a rejected share in this analogy.

[Liquidfire]

I have the actual odds in my post

He is not interested in actual odds.  He is only interested in averages and times.  That's why it is impossible to argue with him.  

All miners produce diff 1 shares at the same speed relative to hashrate (let's ignore the variance there). They do this no matter what share difficulty is wanted by the pool. Every one of those shares has 1/pool_diff chance of being accepted by the pool. Saying "it would've taken 31 seconds to finally get that share, but because the block took only 30 seconds I never had a chance" is just blatantly wrong.

That doesn't make any sense. The whole point of a 512 diff rate is you send data to the server 1/512th of the time vs 1 diff. If they never get sent, how are they going to be accepted.

This make me think that you don't actually know what a nonce is or how difficulty mining works.

There you go again. Instead of explaining why you think I was wrong, you just reuse someone elses ad hominem attack. Not even your own! I thought you told me you were done being an ass.

Anyway, I'm done. I know I am not the only one who is seeing this. I don't understand why, but this seems to be a divisive topic. I have laid it out in every way I know how, you guys are either going to understand what I'm saying or not.

The only reason I care so much is because I love the idea of this pool, I love 95% of what H20 has done, and I want it to succeed. I was not the first one to point out that the diff might be affecting things. This didn't come in as a theoretical idea, people were watching their miners when we were mining fast coins and seeing this effect played out.

[juhakall]

All miners produce diff 1 shares at the same speed relative to hashrate (let's ignore the variance there). They do this no matter what share difficulty is wanted by the pool. Every one of those shares has 1/pool_diff chance of being accepted by the pool. Saying "it would've taken 31 seconds to finally get that share, but because the block took only 30 seconds I never had a chance" is just blatantly wrong.

That doesn't make any sense. The whole point of a 512 diff rate is you send data to the server 1/512th of the time vs 1 diff. If they never get sent, how are they going to be accepted.

It's simple. The miner generates diff 1 shares. If a pool requests diff 512, the miner checks every share against that requirement. The miner ends up sending on average 512 times less shares, but every share is checked locally by the miner, and so has a chance. There is no magical 'buildup' to diff 512 that takes a random amount of time.

[Liquidfire]

All miners produce diff 1 shares at the same speed relative to hashrate (let's ignore the variance there). They do this no matter what share difficulty is wanted by the pool. Every one of those shares has 1/pool_diff chance of being accepted by the pool. Saying "it would've taken 31 seconds to finally get that share, but because the block took only 30 seconds I never had a chance" is just blatantly wrong.

That doesn't make any sense. The whole point of a 512 diff rate is you send data to the server 1/512th of the time vs 1 diff. If they never get sent, how are they going to be accepted.

It's simple. The miner generates diff 1 shares. If a pool requests diff 512, the miner checks every share against that requirement. The miner ends up sending on average 512 times less shares, but every share is checked locally by the miner, and so has a chance. There is no magical 'buildup' to diff 512 that takes a random amount of time.

Its 512 times harder to solve, therefore it happens 512 times less frequently. During that longer period of time, if a block is found, your work isn't recognized. That's all shares do, prove you did work.

[Agrippa]

That doesn't make any sense. The whole point of a 512 diff rate is you send data to the server 1/512th of the time vs 1 diff. If they never get sent, how are they going to be accepted.

Um... I'm pretty sure that that - what you just said there - is what actually doesn't make any sense.
By the way, it's not ad hominem to point out when someone is wrong. And based on what you just said, I think you just lost what little credibility you had. I think you should go read up on how mining actually works before arguing any more.

[Liquidfire]

That doesn't make any sense. The whole point of a 512 diff rate is you send data to the server 1/512th of the time vs 1 diff. If they never get sent, how are they going to be accepted.

Um... I'm pretty sure that that - what you just said there - is what actually doesn't make any sense.
By the way, it's not ad hominem to point out when someone is wrong. And based on what you just said, I think you just lost what little credibility you had. I think you should go read up on how mining actually works before arguing any more.

What doesn't make sense? If something is 512 times harder to solve, a solution will be found/sent 1/512th of the time. If a block is found before the share, the work is never sent.

If you never send your proof-of-work its not counted.

What exactly doesn't make sense.

[juhakall]

That doesn't make any sense. The whole point of a 512 diff rate is you send data to the server 1/512th of the time vs 1 diff. If they never get sent, how are they going to be accepted.

Um... I'm pretty sure that that - what you just said there - is what actually doesn't make any sense.
By the way, it's not ad hominem to point out when someone is wrong. And based on what you just said, I think you just lost what little credibility you had. I think you should go read up on how mining actually works before arguing any more.

What doesn't make sense? If something is 512 times harder to solve, a solution will be found/sent 1/512th of the time. If a block is found before the share, the work is never sent.

If you never send your proof-of-work its not counted.

What exactly doesn't make sense.

And next round you might send way more diff 512 than expected with your hashrate. Yes, that round could turn out to suck by being longer / having smaller PPS% from the coin. It could also be better than the round which you missed by chance. Is that what you're arguing is the problem?

[Damnsammit]

There you go again. Instead of explaining why you think I was wrong, you just reuse someone elses ad hominem attack. Not even your own! I thought you told me you were done being an ass.

Anyway, I'm done. I know I am not the only one who is seeing this. I don't understand why, but this seems to be a divisive topic. I have laid it out in every way I know how, you guys are either going to understand what I'm saying or not.

It's not that we don't understand what you are saying.  It's that what you are saying is incorrect.  Several of us have tried to correct you over the past few pages of this topic.  You just refuse to believe that you are anything but 100% correct.

You have a misunderstanding of how mining works and it is clear from reading your posts.  You might understand statistics, but you need to stop getting defensive when someone corrects you or questions you.

Also, PMing me saying "sorry I made you feel stupid" is being more of an ass than pointing out that you don't comprehend the fundamentals of how mining works.  You didn't make me feel stupid yesterday.  You frustrated me because you simply don't understand how difficulty works and are constantly trying to belittle people for not understanding your incorrect logic and analysis.  We don't agree with each other and we have both tried to point it out several times.  You are still stuck on your averages and "building a share" logic which is just not correct.  I'm sorry you cannot see that and that you get upset when people attempt to explain it to you.

Best of luck to ya, mate!  

[Agrippa]

It doesn't make sense because - here, let me spell it out to you once more. There. Is. No. Set. Interval. Between. Submissions.

[Liquidfire]

There you go again. Instead of explaining why you think I was wrong, you just reuse someone elses ad hominem attack. Not even your own! I thought you told me you were done being an ass.

Anyway, I'm done. I know I am not the only one who is seeing this. I don't understand why, but this seems to be a divisive topic. I have laid it out in every way I know how, you guys are either going to understand what I'm saying or not.

It's not that we don't understand what you are saying.  It's that what you are saying is incorrect.  Several of us have tried to correct you over the past few pages of this topic.  You just refuse to believe that you are anything but 100% correct.

You have a misunderstanding of how mining works and it is clear from reading your posts.  You might understand statistics, but you need to stop getting defensive when someone corrects you or questions you.

Also, PMing me saying "sorry I made you feel stupid" is being more of an ass than pointing out that you don't comprehend the fundamentals of how mining work.  You didn't make me feel stupid yesterday.  You frustrated me because you simply don't understand how difficulty works and are constantly trying to belittle people for not understanding your incorrect logic and analysis.  We don't agree with each other and we have both tried to point it out several times.  You are still stuck on your averages and "building a share" logic which is just not correct.  I'm sorry you cannot see that and that you get upset when people attempt to explain it to you.

Best of luck to ya, mate!  

I do understand how mining works, and I know you don't "build" a share. I stated that probability creates the same effect, over time, as if it did work that way. Anytime I said "half a share" I am speaking in a probability sense, not a literal sense.