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

[ranlo]

Its not gamblers fallacy to predict the expected outcome of a series of events given a probability.

Like saying, given a set of 5 coin clips, we predict 3.125% of the time it will be all heads.


Gamblers fallacy would be:

I just had 4 heads, I am due for tails now!

or

I just had 4 heads, I am on a steak and will get heads


Calling probability gamblers fallacy is a complete reversal of the situation, the casino relies on probability to even out variance and ensure their profit over time.

When we predict the average time to find block, we are like the casino predicting the number of times the dealer wins on a game OVER TIME.


In other words, it is not gamblers fallacy to say given a hashrate of x, and a difficulty of y, we RELIABLY EXPECT it to take Z seconds to find a share.

Correct. I'm not speaking of probability of the expected outcome of a series of events that have not happened yet.  I'm directing that link to anyone that thinks that they calculated part of a share and lost something when we move to a new block.

Well if anyone really thinks that, excellent use of the fallacy.

Nobody has calculated "part" of a share. What I was saying earlier, getting accused of gamblers fallacy in the process, is that when you statistically are expected to only get a share 80% of the time on a given block, due to the race condition between you finding your share and the pool finding a block, it is FUNCTIONALLY the same (over time) to say it is "AS IF" you lose 20% of your hashpower, or, put another way, 20% of each share/total shares.

Different ways of mentally imagining the scenario, each mathematically correct, while technically there is no partial share.

What people aren't realizing is that the system is set up to give a rate of x%. That's mathematical.

If your rate is below that, for it to become accurate it then has to boost above it.

Ex. there are two blocks. The blockchain has a time of 30s.

Block 1: 15s
Block 2: 30s

For the average (average means add all three and divide by the total number) to equal 30 ((15+30+x)/3=30) you would need the last one to be:

Block 3: 45s

This is an ongoing process. If every block was above 30s, it would be impossible for the average to be 30s. That's just not how math works. The average is the average; if you change it, the average is no longer the average. For some reason, a lot of people here somehow can't grasp that concept.

So why does this matter?

You have a hash rate that statistically will take 1m to submit a share. A block is found in 30s.

Statistically, you will submit a share on a very small number of the blocks. For every block you DO submit one on, statistically speaking there are a MINIMUM of two more that you didn't. Why?

Block 1: 60s
Block 2: x
Block 3: x

(60 + x + x) / 3 = 20, x = 20

If the block took longer than 60s to be found, the number of blocks you would miss would go up even more. Let's say one was two minutes:

(120 + x + x + x + x + x) / 6 = 20, x = 20

Now you got a submit on one block but you missed 5 more in the process.

In other words, STATISTICALLY (mathematically proven, by the sheer nature of what an average is) you will always lose more than you gain. There's no other possible way to view it. If it were any other way, the average would no longer be the average and the entire concept of Bitcoin (and its derivatives) would be thrown out the window as being a failed concept.

[1714300903]

1714300903

[1714300903]

1714300903

[Liquidfire]

I was trying to figure out "where" people were getting hung up with how I've been trying to explain, and I think that might be it....

[Agrippa]

The problem with that reasoning is that it still assumes past hashing somehow has an affect on the future. And that an average has anything to do with interval (there's a reason standard deviation exists, you might want to look it up before you keep throwing around the word "statistics" with any air of authority)

Do you believe that in any given second your odds of getting a share are better or worse than any other second? If not, why would it matter when you switch?

Now, someone answer me this time. If I'm throwing dice in a box and I get a point for every six I throw, does it matter if someone keeps swapping in different boxes? if not, how does this differ from hashing?

[ranlo]

The problem with that reasoning is that it still assumes past hashing somehow has an affect on the future. And that an average has anything to do with interval (there's a reason standard deviation exists, you might want to look it up before you keep throwing around the word "statistics" with any air of authority)

Do you believe that in any given second your odds of getting a share are better or worse than any other second? If not, why would it matter when you switch?

Now, someone answer me this time. If I'm throwing dice in a box and I get a point for every six I throw, does it matter if someone keeps swapping in different boxes? if not, how does this differ from hashing?

Let's try this another way then.

Based on the average submission time, you would submit 4x 128 shares in the same time it would take 1x 512 shares. Nobody can really doubt this; that's the entire concept behind the share difficulty.

Would you rather lose 1x 128 share or 1x 512? Because when the switch happens you lose whichever share you were on. I would MUCH rather lose the 128 (512/128 = 25% so it's only 25% the amount of losing 512). Utilizing this concept:

1024 shares have gone by. You got one of the 512's on time. Your loss was 512.
1024 shares have gone by. This time you were on 128's. Your last share was rejected. Your loss was 128.

I seriously can't fathom how anyone could possibly argue that this isn't true. And this is based on the long-term because that's what an average is. Every time we lose a share, we are losing the equivalent of up to 512 shares, as opposed to a maximum of 128.

The longer this goes on doesn't mean the less impact it has. On the contrary, it means the impact is GROWING. Now instead of 10x 128 shares (1,280) lost it's 10x 512 (5,120). Now instead of 100x 128 shares (12,800) it's 100x 512 (51,200). The number continues to go up with every passing minute.

[fredeq]

All those pages filled with just one topic, please stahp!

If we would made diff lower to 256 or 128 people would at least catch one share instead of catching 0. Thats the casse, whats the point of all the sophisticated explanations?
Imagine if we go diff 1, you really think that wouldnt affect shares submitted?!

[Damnsammit]

I seriously can't fathom how anyone could possibly argue that this isn't true.

That's because you are wrong and you don't want to be wrong so you ignore all of the explanations that have shown you are wrong.

Anyways, you guys can believe whatever you want to.  There is now enough fact in this thread to close the case.

Difficulty does not matter in the long-term.

[mueslo]

[...] lose a share [...]

How are you supposed to 'lose' a share if it doesn't get rejected? Did it get stuck somewhere in the depth of the transistors?

[ranlo]

[...] lose a share [...]

How are you supposed to 'lose' a share if it doesn't get rejected? Did it get stuck somewhere in the depth of the transistors?

Because you COULD have submitted 3x 128 diff shares already. If a 512 diff share should take 1m, a 128 diff share should take 15s. Therefore if it takes you 63s to find a 512 diff share (note: this would have been stale/rejected since the block changed) you could have submitted 3x 128's that were accepted in that time.

[mueslo]

[Liquidfire]

[...] lose a share [...]

How are you supposed to 'lose' a share if it doesn't get rejected? Did it get stuck somewhere in the depth of the transistors?

Because you COULD have submitted 3x 128 diff shares already. If a 512 diff share should take 1m, a 128 diff share should take 15s. Therefore if it takes you 63s to find a 512 diff share (note: this would have been stale/rejected since the block changed) you could have submitted 3x 128's that were accepted in that time.

And you would almost be guaranteed to get at least one, still better than zero.


Heres something to remember:

A 2 G/h Miner at 512 diff = A 1 G/h miner at 256 diff

In terms of the amount, or intensity of this "wasting" effect.

That is why the faster miners have an edge. Their hashrate minimizes the effect. They lose smaller and smaller chunks of their work on block changes/stales/coin changes.

[Agrippa]

Yeah... that's how I feel too. I'm still waiting for an answer on my dice in box scenario. I can't wait to hear about all the "lost sixes" due to switching the box.

[ranlo]

Yeah... that's how I feel too. I'm still waiting for an answer on my dice in box scenario. I can't wait to hear about all the "lost sixes" due to switching the box.

If you really want to use dice, at least do it properly:

We have a guy who offers up a new game: rolling dice. Here's how it works:

Each person is able to roll dice. For one, the deal is that if they roll a 1, they get $1. For the other, the deal is that if they roll a 1 4x, they get $4. The stipulation is that every 10 rolls, the number they have to go for changes.

Roller 1 goes and gets:

1, 3, 6, 5, 2, 1, 4, 5, 6, 2

So he gets $2.

Roller 2 goes and gets:

1, 2, 3, 6, 1, 3, 1, 5, 2, 3

So he gets $0.

Now it's time for the next game!

We now start over again, with the requirement being a roll of 3:

Roller 1 goes and gets:

1, 3, 2, 6, 3, 5, 3, 2, 3, 1

He gets $4

Roller 2 goes and he gets:

1, 6, 5, 5, 3, 1, 2, 5, 6, 5

He gets $4


What's the difference here? The first guy got MORE because he could get PARTIAL amounts, rather than having to rely on the FULL amount. He has the SAME chance to get 4/4 as the other guy does to get 1/1, with the stipulation being that the first guy could also get 3/4 and be paid 3/4 the amount, while the second ONLY gets paid if he hits that 1/1. The second guy will therefore always come out behind.

[jamesc760]

I have mined at three other pools before joining middlecoin a few days ago. So far, I'm seeing less profit than the other pools I had mined before. Why is that? Could it be because the difficulty of 512 is too high for my miners? I have 4 GPU's: 1x6950, 1x7790, 1x7850, 1x7950. On other pools, I got about 1300 KH/S. Here, I'm getting 1000 KH/S. The other pools operated with vardiff; here, there's only one difficulty of 512.

You can talk statistics and probability and whatnot all day and night long. I can tell you from my day-to-day experience that this pool with a high diff set at 512 runs very inefficiently for me. Probably because of my gpus can't hash fast enough for the pool. I am going to have to return back to wemineltc.

[mueslo]

If you really want to use dice, at least do it properly:

We have a guy who offers up a new game: rolling dice. Here's how it works:

Each person is able to roll dice. For one, the deal is that if they roll a 1, they get $1. For the other, the deal is that if they roll a 1 4x, they get $4. The stipulation is that every 10 rolls, the number they have to go for changes.

Sigh.. Once again, that's not how shares work. Shares are INDEPENDENT OF TIME.  You don't have share bundles, you have higher difficulty shares. The correct example would be: One gets $1 if he rolls a 2 or lower, the other gets $2 if he rolls a 1.

[joris]

I have mined at three other pools before joining middlecoin a few days ago. So far, I'm seeing less profit than the other pools I had mined before. Why is that? Could it be because the difficulty of 512 is too high for my miners? I have 4 GPU's: 1x6950, 1x7790, 1x7850, 1x7950. On other pools, I got about 1300 KH/S. Here, I'm getting 1000 KH/S. The other pools operated with vardiff; here, there's only one difficulty of 512.

You can talk statistics and probability and whatnot all day and night long. I can tell you from my day-to-day experience that this pool with a high diff set at 512 runs very inefficiently for me. Probably because of my gpus can't hash fast enough for the pool. I am going to have to return back to wemineltc.

From my experience the earth is flat. I don't go too far out, since I might fall of.

[ranlo]

I have mined at three other pools before joining middlecoin a few days ago. So far, I'm seeing less profit than the other pools I had mined before. Why is that? Could it be because the difficulty of 512 is too high for my miners? I have 4 GPU's: 1x6950, 1x7790, 1x7850, 1x7950. On other pools, I got about 1300 KH/S. Here, I'm getting 1000 KH/S. The other pools operated with vardiff; here, there's only one difficulty of 512.

You can talk statistics and probability and whatnot all day and night long. I can tell you from my day-to-day experience that this pool with a high diff set at 512 runs very inefficiently for me. Probably because of my gpus can't hash fast enough for the pool. I am going to have to return back to wemineltc.

All your post does is show that the statistics and probability are *correct*. The people that keep arguing otherwise have yet to show any math to back it up, other than "you must not know anything about math." We've shown charts. We've broken things down into small pieces. We've used various analogies. The people arguing that we're wrong are still doing so without giving ANY reason why other than because they simply don't believe anything that's said, regardless as to how much proof there is to back it up.

These are the same people who would say "a gallon couldn't possibly be the equivalent of 4 quarts. Sure, you can sit here and show me all day long. You can even show me the conversion factor and math that proves it. But you're still wrong because I simply choose not to believe that proof matters; what I think is all that matters. And I need nothing to back it up because I believe what I want and you're all wrong."

[cverity]

I have mined at three other pools before joining middlecoin a few days ago. So far, I'm seeing less profit than the other pools I had mined before. Why is that? Could it be because the difficulty of 512 is too high for my miners? I have 4 GPU's: 1x6950, 1x7790, 1x7850, 1x7950. On other pools, I got about 1300 KH/S. Here, I'm getting 1000 KH/S. The other pools operated with vardiff; here, there's only one difficulty of 512.

You may be correct because of variance given the 512 difficulty, but if you were only on the pool for a few days, another possibility is that you haven't given it enough time. Our coins have to wait as they go through several stages (maturity, sending to cryptsy and waiting for confirmations, sending BTC back and waiting for confirmations).  NovaCoin blocks in particular take a looong time to mature.

If you already included the "Immature Unexchanged Balance" and "Unexchanged Balance" columns in your profit calculations, then nevermind

[ranlo]

Anyways, I'm done with the conversation. Clearly there's people here who are ignorant to anything other than *beliefs* and refuse to take any evidence into consideration. Guess this is why PMB's are so popular as well, huh? Which is funny because I dealt with the SAME thing there, when I brought up the math to prove that the current PMB's (at least at that time) would NEVER be able to provide a 100% ROI, regardless as to if you waited 1 year or 5000 years. People sat around arguing with me about how I'm wrong and this and that, and what happens? Less than 10 days later one of them started to tank and people called the PMB hoster a scammer because people FINALLY started to realize that they would never achieve ROI.

It's a little depressing that people sit around arguing this crap all day long, when in the future you're going to turn around and accept the fact that the data has been right all along, and then start acting like YOU'RE the one that figured it all out and feeling like you've been getting screwed the entire time. It's happened at least 2x on this forum that I know of (of which I've PERSONALLY been the one trying to enlighten people) and looks like it's going to happen again.

With that said, I'm out. Please don't PM me when you finally come to your senses and realize you were wrong the entire time. I've done what I feel is my duty; what you do or think from here on out is all you. Leave me out of it.

FYI, Cverity, I've run into the same problem as him. I've had 6.6 MH/s pointed at the pool for weeks now. It's not hours, or even days. I just stay here because it's easier than fighting the market/dealing with crap and I can just take what's given and move on.

[mueslo]

Anyways, I'm done with the conversation. Clearly there's people here who are ignorant to anything other than *beliefs* and refuse to take any evidence into consideration.

[...]

With that said, I'm out. Please don't PM me when you finally come to your senses and realize you were wrong the entire time. I've done what I feel is my duty; what you do or think from here on out is all you. Leave me out of it.

Funny you should stop writing exactly when your dice analogy breaks down.

Okay, then let me just ask you a different question, what is your background in maths and statistics?

[cverity]

FYI, Cverity, I've run into the same problem as him. I've had 6.6 MH/s pointed at the pool for weeks now. It's not hours, or even days. I just stay here because it's easier than fighting the market/dealing with crap and I can just take what's given and move on.

Fair enough. Another thing I've wondered is how much we are gaining / losing (most likely losing) from the time that elapses since a coin was the most profitable, to the time that it takes to mature and get sent to Cryptsy and gets sold (when it may no longer be the most profitable, or anywhere near if it was just a temporary pump spike)

It would take an investment on the pool op's part, but I've wondered what would happen if he maintained a "float" of all of the coins that we mine, so he could sell them as soon as we mined them (or at least as soon as they mature), and then the float would be replenished when the coins finally made it to Cryptsy.