Bitcoin Forum
July 16, 2019, 09:46:55 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 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 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 ... 538 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [ANN] profit switching auto-exchanging pool - www.middlecoin.com  (Read 809784 times)
cverity
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 31
Merit: 0


View Profile
August 21, 2013, 09:55:04 PM
 #1341

Quote
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.
1563313615
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1563313615

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1563313615
Reply with quote  #2

1563313615
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1563313615
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1563313615

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1563313615
Reply with quote  #2

1563313615
Report to moderator
Agrippa
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14
Merit: 0


View Profile
August 21, 2013, 09:58:29 PM
 #1342

As has been mentioned, your dice analogy is flawed. By requiring for independent rolls you've imposed a condition that give progress and then takes it away if the condition is not fulfilled. How about this: Guy 1 gets $6 every time he rolls a four, guy two gets $20 every time he rolls a four, but he's using a d20.
joris
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 141
Merit: 100


View Profile
August 21, 2013, 09:59:51 PM
 #1343

We finally exhausted ranlo ;-) But don't worry dear zealot: someone else will soon stand up to enlighten us dumb, illogical folks about how we're screwed by nothing else but a high, hardcoded difficulty on this pool. Is Liquidfire out of the running yet?

h2odysee, keep up the good work on all things that matter for the profit.

;-)
h2odysee
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 238
Merit: 100


View Profile WWW
August 21, 2013, 10:01:38 PM
 #1344

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.

I'm not willing to have several thousand dollars worth of volatile coins.

I wish there was a way to short coins. Or an options exchange, like vircurex used to have. Then I could do what you suggested without having to actually have the coins.

http://middlecoin.com - profit-switching, auto-exchanging scrypt pool that pays out in BTC
fredeq
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1460
Merit: 1005


View Profile WWW
August 21, 2013, 10:02:30 PM
 #1345

I still dare you to answer my case!

Imagine we go diff 1, you will have many shares acceppted in those 30 secs, or even 10 secs. That proves that lowering diff affects singleminer income for cases with fast block coins. End of proof.

https://whattomine.com - Check what to mine Smiley
joris
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 141
Merit: 100


View Profile
August 21, 2013, 10:04:12 PM
 #1346

I still dare you to answer my case!

Imagine we go diff 1, you will have many shares acceppted in those 30 secs, or even 10 secs. That proves that lowering diff affects singleminer income for cases with fast block coins. End of proof.

Shares don't earn anything for the pool, only blocks found by the pool do.

;-)
fredeq
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1460
Merit: 1005


View Profile WWW
August 21, 2013, 10:10:17 PM
 #1347

I still dare you to answer my case!

Imagine we go diff 1, you will have many shares acceppted in those 30 secs, or even 10 secs. That proves that lowering diff affects singleminer income for cases with fast block coins. End of proof.

Shares don't earn anything for the pool, only blocks found by the pool do.

Let me bold you this one before i go to bed.

That proves that lowering diff affects singleminer income for cases with fast block coins.

Edit: And edit that I meant lowhashrate rigs slow singleminers.

https://whattomine.com - Check what to mine Smiley
joris
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 141
Merit: 100


View Profile
August 21, 2013, 10:11:40 PM
 #1348

Where does the pool pay the singleminer from?

Edit: it will only affect variance of income of lowhashrate rigs slow singleminers.

;-)
cverity
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 31
Merit: 0


View Profile
August 21, 2013, 10:16:58 PM
 #1349

Because I can't resist the prospect of getting flamed, here is my analogy.

A guy writes down a number from 1-100 on the back of a postcard.  You guess what that number is, and if you choose the correct number, you win.  You keep guessing as fast as you can.

Every 30 seconds, the guy tears up the postcard and creates another one with a new number.

Can we agree that your previous guesses have no bearing on your chances of choosing the correct number now?  Same when a block changes.

Expanding the analogy to include difficulty makes no difference. You now need to choose a number from 1-500, so it's going to take you longer to find a correct answer. But when the guy tears up the postcard and writes down a new number, your previous guesses does not effect your new guesses.

BTW: I am all for lowering difficulty to reduce *variance*, and I'm sure there is some flaw in that analogy, so flame away Smiley
cverity
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 31
Merit: 0


View Profile
August 21, 2013, 10:24:23 PM
 #1350

Quote
I'm not willing to have several thousand dollars worth of volatile coins.

I wish there was a way to short coins. Or an options exchange, like vircurex used to have. Then I could do what you suggested without having to actually have the coins.

I had assumed that you wouldn't be willing to do that, I'm just curious if you have any stats showing original anticipated BTC value vs the actual sale value over time?
Agrippa
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14
Merit: 0


View Profile
August 21, 2013, 10:35:23 PM
 #1351

Not to beat a dead horse too badly, but if anyone was interested, ranlo's deceptively "same odds" dice variation is actually anything but. For a set of 10 rolls, the odds of the same number occurring in the set are as follows:

zero times: 16.15%, once: 32.3%, twice: 29.07%, three times: 15.5%, four times: 5.43%, five times: 1.30%, six times: 0.22% seven times: 0.025%, eight times: 0.00186%, nine times: 0.000083% and ten times: 0.0000017%.

The actual average payout for the guy who gets $1 for every four is $1.67 per ten-roll game. Guy two, who needs to roll four fours for $4 (I don't think I've ever used the "for" sound in my head that many times before), contrary to being 20% worse off as ranlo suggested, is actually averaging $0.23 per game: about 86% worse off. How fortunate that mining doesn't work like that at all.
Liquidfire
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28
Merit: 0


View Profile
August 21, 2013, 11:10:06 PM
Last edit: August 21, 2013, 11:25:36 PM by Liquidfire
 #1352

Because I can't resist the prospect of getting flamed, here is my analogy.

A guy writes down a number from 1-100 on the back of a postcard.  You guess what that number is, and if you choose the correct number, you win.  You keep guessing as fast as you can.

Every 30 seconds, the guy tears up the postcard and creates another one with a new number.

Can we agree that your previous guesses have no bearing on your chances of choosing the correct number now?  Same when a block changes.

Expanding the analogy to include difficulty makes no difference. You now need to choose a number from 1-500, so it's going to take you longer to find a correct answer. But when the guy tears up the postcard and writes down a new number, your previous guesses does not effect your new guesses.

BTW: I am all for lowering difficulty to reduce *variance*, and I'm sure there is some flaw in that analogy, so flame away Smiley

Your analogy only works if you are SOLO mining.

The correct analogy, following your setup would be something more like this.

You have 100 people each trying to guess a number from 1-10000 on a card.

As soon as somebody guesses the number, the game is over for that round (the block is solved).

However, if anyone comes within say, 10 numbers of the true number, they get a 'ticket'.



The problem is, every one is guessing at different rates. One person might guess at a rate of once per minute. Another person might guess at a rate of once per second. Rate of guesses spans that entire range amongst the 100 people.


Now, say a researchers watches people play this game for 1000 sessions. He compiles his data, and finds out that on average, the number is guessed in 5 minutes.


Therefore, on average the guy who guesses once a minute gets 5 guesses. He is not going to get within 10 very often. But, you wouldn't expect him too right? After all, he is 60 times slower than the fastest guy, so you'd expect him to get 1/60th of the tickets that the fast guys does.


Lets say that a correct guess occurs in 4 minutes, 50 seconds. Slow guy only got 4 guesses. Had the guess happened 10 seconds later, he would have gotten one more guess in.

He lost 20% of his guesses.


Fast guy got 290 guesses. He was working on his 291th guess when the number was solved. He too, lost one guess. But instead of losing 20% of his guesses, he only lost 0.0035% of his guesses.


If you mapped this out over all 100, an EXPONENTIAL curve would form. This exponential curve could then be reverse engineered into an equation, that would tell you exactly what percent of guesses you would expect to lose.




One last way of thinking about it... if it takes you an average of 30 seconds to find a share... say you don't make it in time, block changes...your most likely range to be sitting at when the block change happens might look something like 15-45, or using the same deviation, 5-15 for the faster miner. Which amount of time would you rather go unrewarded? But guess what, the block was found, everyone gets paid... its just that the fast guy is getting some of your cut, but cause maybe hes 10x faster and got in 19 shares when you only got in 1. Had you got 2, and he got 20, all would be fair, but statistically you are going to get screwed over time.


Edit: Thought of one more


Would you rather flip one coin to see if you get an entire pie, or get nothing? Or would you rather have 7 pieces secured and be flipping a coin to see if you do or do not get the 8th piece?

This represents being "on the bubble", hoping you get your "next" share in before the block change. If you manage to get your whole pie, and the other guy manages to get his 8th piece, its all the same. But what if you both fail? If you both fail, you get nothing. The other guy still got 7 pieces.

You had 512 diff. He had 64.

(note to people who are going to pick that apart - I know its mathematically possible for the first guy to get 2 pies, 3 pies 4 pies. I know its possible for the second guy to get 3 slices, 10 slices, or 45 slices. But, for every time such a thing happens, we can count on the opposite happening with the same frequency. That is why we can trust probability. Given enough time, probability always takes us to the answer we expect. Everyone keeps talking about variance. Well there's your variance! As more time passes, are variance goes down and the whole pie guy WILL get screwed).
Agrippa
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14
Merit: 0


View Profile
August 21, 2013, 11:21:56 PM
 #1353

I'll play your game and assume for the sake of argument that the average occurs at set intervals - it doesn't at all, just because the guy gets an average successful guess of once per minute it in no way means that he was "going" to get it in ten seconds just because 50 had already elapsed - but even if it did, if it's just a guess anyways why would it be any less valid for the next card? He wasn't homing in on the correct number, his guesses are random. It is just as likely he will get a guess on the next card in those next ten second if we assume average=interval (which it does not).
Liquidfire
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28
Merit: 0


View Profile
August 21, 2013, 11:26:53 PM
Last edit: August 21, 2013, 11:42:26 PM by Liquidfire
 #1354

I'll play your game and assume for the sake of argument that the average occurs at set intervals - it doesn't at all, just because the guy gets an average successful guess of once per minute it in no way means that he was "going" to get it in ten seconds just because 50 had already elapsed - but even if it did, if it's just a guess anyways why would it be any less valid for the next card? He wasn't homing in on the correct number, his guesses are random. It is just as likely he will get a guess on the next card in those next ten second if we assume average=interval (which it does not).

Its an AVERAGE. Every time he he gets it quicker he necessarily gets it just as later another time. Otherwise it wouldn't be the average anymore.

Edit:

To your other point, about it not cointing towards not next "game" (block)

When a block changes, the whole thing resets. Everyone starts from scratch. He is once again up against the same probabilities, the same as everyone else. His guess will be useful for the next game, but so will everyone elses. Just as his very next guess could be a winner, anyone elses could too... no advantage over anyone else.
Agrippa
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14
Merit: 0


View Profile
August 21, 2013, 11:46:00 PM
 #1355

I just though of something. What about all those future shares those poor fast people lose! Some poor guy gets a useless hash that would have solved the next block, if only he had waited a few more seconds to submit it. Why, over time the number of wasted hashes that would have yielded shares on the next block must be exponential, but instead they were wasted in the stupid past and present. In fact, how sad to think of all the wasted hashes that would have solved an infinite number of future shares if only people held off on submitting them.

I should make a graph on just how many future shares people lose due to premature hashing.
Liquidfire
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28
Merit: 0


View Profile
August 21, 2013, 11:53:07 PM
 #1356

I just though of something. What about all those future shares those poor fast people lose! Some poor guy gets a useless hash that would have solved the next block, if only he had waited a few more seconds to submit it. Why, over time the number of wasted hashes that would have yielded shares on the next block must be exponential, but instead they were wasted in the stupid past and present. In fact, how sad to think of all the wasted hashes that would have solved an infinite number of future shares if only people held off on submitting them.

I should make a graph on just how many future shares people lose due to premature hashing.

This doesn't make any sense. All the hashes that DID solve a share would be worthless on any other share, too.
sQueeZer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 303
Merit: 250


View Profile
August 21, 2013, 11:57:31 PM
 #1357

Liquid... Just give up. Some people dont know anything about how mining works.
That your current hashes always rely on the last block found...

You are wasting your time.
And people are wasting their energy (powercosts) if they think its efficient to mine on a pool where they lose like ~25% of their raw hashrate.

The idea of that pool is great, the auto exchange also.
But vardiff is missing to make that thing make sence.
Agrippa
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14
Merit: 0


View Profile
August 22, 2013, 12:00:30 AM
 #1358

It doesn't make sense? No kidding, eh?

I think you've missed my point. You're claiming that people are losing shares because the block changes before they can find the next valid share. That is to say, at some point during the next block they come by a hash that would have yielded a share on a previous block, but is now useless. By this logic, you might as well be upset about all the hashes you zip by that would have given you a share on the next block as well.
Liquidfire
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28
Merit: 0


View Profile
August 22, 2013, 12:00:58 AM
 #1359

Liquid... Just give up. Some people dont know anything about how mining works.
That your current hashes always rely on the last block found...

You are wasting your time.
And people are wasting their energy (powercosts) if they think its efficient to mine on a pool where they lose like ~25% of their raw hashrate.

The idea of that pool is great, the auto exchange also.
But vardiff is missing to make that thing make sence.

If there ever was a pool that needed variable diff, its one that mines a wide range of coins that have vastly different block solve times... In addition to the traditional problem of varied hashrates - which itself is enough for a lot of pools to implement vardiff.
Liquidfire
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28
Merit: 0


View Profile
August 22, 2013, 12:03:39 AM
 #1360

It doesn't make sense? No kidding, eh?

I think you've missed my point. You're claiming that people are losing shares because the block changes before they can find the next valid share. That is to say, at some point during the next block they come by a hash that would have yielded a share on a previous block, but is now useless. By this logic, you might as well be upset about all the hashes you zip by that would have given you a share on the next block as well.


That's not what I was saying at all. I'm not talking about one block. I am talking about probability over a thousand, a million blocks. Is this going to hurt me more times than it will help me, over 10,000 blocks?
Pages: « 1 ... 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 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 ... 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!