Liquidfire
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 28
Merit: 0


August 21, 2013, 04:55:44 PM 

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.








Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.




Agrippa
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 14
Merit: 0


August 21, 2013, 05:06:40 PM 

Anytime I said "half a share" I am speaking in a probability sense, not a literal sense.
That's there problem. There is no "halfway" in the probability sense. That's exactly what the gambler's fallacy is all about. If you're throwing dice and trying to roll a six and the first three aren't six, it's incorrect to say "Well gee, it's a 1/6 chance and I've thrown it 3 times, so I must be halfway there!" The harsh reality is you've accomplished nothing. No amount of missed rolls bring you any closer to what you're after. You could roll one hundred nonsixes in a row and the 101st roll would still be a 1/6 chance; no more likely then the first roll. A die is just a piece of wood or plastic, the way physics behaves on it remains the same.




mueslo
Member
Offline
Activity: 94
Merit: 10


August 21, 2013, 05:26:58 PM 

That's there problem. There is no "halfway" in the probability sense. That's exactly what the gambler's fallacy is all about. If you're throwing dice and trying to roll a six and the first three aren't six, it's incorrect to say "Well gee, it's a 1/6 chance and I've thrown it 3 times, so I must be halfway there!" The harsh reality is you've accomplished nothing. No amount of missed rolls bring you any closer to what you're after. You could roll one hundred nonsixes in a row and the 101st roll would still be a 1/6 chance; no more likely then the first roll. A die is just a piece of wood or plastic, the way physics behaves on it remains the same.
Wellsaid. At first I also thought the difficulty would change things, but that's because I didn't really know how the difficulty worked, I thought it was a bundle of diff1 shares. I'm not quite sure where Liquidfire's problem in understanding lies, I suspect it's the statistics side.




cverity
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 31
Merit: 0


August 21, 2013, 05:28:55 PM 

Anytime I said "half a share" I am speaking in a probability sense, not a literal sense.
That's there problem. There is no "halfway" in the probability sense. That's exactly what the gambler's fallacy is all about. If you're throwing dice and trying to roll a six and the first three aren't six, it's incorrect to say "Well gee, it's a 1/6 chance and I've thrown it 3 times, so I must be halfway there!" The harsh reality is you've accomplished nothing. No amount of missed rolls bring you any closer to what you're after. You could roll one hundred nonsixes in a row and the 101st roll would still be a 1/6 chance; no more likely then the first roll. A die is just a piece of wood or plastic, the way physics behaves on it remains the same. If we are speaking of probability before the events occur, then it is correct to say that over the course of 6 rolls, on average 3 will be heads and 3 will be tails. But yes, once you actually start making the flips, you cannot make any determinations of the next flip, based on the previous ones. Same with mining. One can calculate beforehand, the average number of shares that they might submit for a given difficulty over a period of time, but the actual results will vary and have no bearing on previous results. A higher difficulty is going to to have a higher variance, and one can argue that a lower difficulty should be used to provide more "fair" (or even) payouts over the short term. But if you are mining for weeks/months, it should all even out. Some days you will be unlucky and get less than you "should", other days you will be lucky and get more than you "should". The whole point of difficulty is to let the pool know how much you are working. Ideally you would submit every single *hash* that you produce to the pool. In that case the pool's hashrate would exactly match your hashrate, and you would be paid perfectly based on your percentage of work. But that's obviously completely impractical. With a higher difficulty, you submit shares less often, which will cause some variance between your hashrate, and the hashrate that the pool assumes you are producing. The tradeoff between difficulties is reasonable to debate, but it boils down to how long a period of time is required to even out the variance. I personally believe that the current difficulty is too high for low hashers to receive a reasonable variance, but that's just my opinion.




btcdrak
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1064
Merit: 1000


August 21, 2013, 05:42:06 PM 

Actually, while we are on the topic. Can someone explain how mining pools prevent people from just submitting a found block as their own? So normally a pool miner submits shares to prove they are working on a block. If they happen to find the block, surely the could just submit it as their own? Or am I missing something?




ranlo
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1652
Merit: 1002


August 21, 2013, 05:43:42 PM 

I'll ask again since nobody replied the last time...
If difficulty doesn't matter, why do pools even have a choice on what difficulty to go with? Why is there VarDiff? Since difficulty is meaningless, people who spent all the time developing those systems (as well as those who implemented them into their miners) wasted their time on something that supposedly means absolutely nothing.
Since difficulty has no real value, every pool/miner should be set at a hardcoded 1024 or 2048 or (insert difficulty here). We clearly have no need for more than one option.




cverity
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 31
Merit: 0


August 21, 2013, 05:44:36 PM 

Actually, while we are on the topic. Can someone explain how mining pools prevent people from just submitting a found block as their own? So normally a pool miner submits shares to prove they are working on a block. If they happen to find the block, surely the could just submit it as their own? Or am I missing something?
This can't happen. The solution that you are trying to solve includes the pool op's payout address.




mueslo
Member
Offline
Activity: 94
Merit: 10


August 21, 2013, 05:46:19 PM 

Actually, while we are on the topic. Can someone explain how mining pools prevent people from just submitting a found block as their own? So normally a pool miner submits shares to prove they are working on a block. If they happen to find the block, surely the could just submit it as their own? Or am I missing something?
As I understand it, the hash the pool gives you to crack is essentially a signature for the transaction of the block payout the pool operator wants. So if you knew where he wants to pay out, you could. But then it would payout exactly there. I'll ask again since nobody replied the last time...
If difficulty doesn't matter, why do pools even have a choice on what difficulty to go with? Why is there VarDiff? Since difficulty is meaningless, people who spent all the time developing those systems (as well as those who implemented them into their miners) wasted their time on something that supposedly means absolutely nothing.
Since difficulty has no real value, every pool/miner should be set at a hardcoded 1024 or 2048 or (insert difficulty here). We clearly have no need for more than one option.
Pooled mining is all about reducing variance. Vardiff enables you to achieve the same variance throughout the range of hashrates. I personally believe that the current difficulty is too high for low hashers to receive a reasonable variance, but that's just my opinion.
I think for anyone whose hashrate is above 250 KH/s, the current share difficulty is fine if you mine for more than 24h.




btcdrak
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1064
Merit: 1000


August 21, 2013, 05:50:13 PM 

I'll ask again since nobody replied the last time...
If difficulty doesn't matter, why do pools even have a choice on what difficulty to go with? Why is there VarDiff? Since difficulty is meaningless, people who spent all the time developing those systems (as well as those who implemented them into their miners) wasted their time on something that supposedly means absolutely nothing.
Since difficulty has no real value, every pool/miner should be set at a hardcoded 1024 or 2048 or (insert difficulty here). We clearly have no need for more than one option.
I would like to hear what OP/h20 has to say in reply to this.




cverity
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 31
Merit: 0


August 21, 2013, 05:51:37 PM 

I'll ask again since nobody replied the last time...
If difficulty doesn't matter, why do pools even have a choice on what difficulty to go with? Why is there VarDiff? Since difficulty is meaningless, people who spent all the time developing those systems (as well as those who implemented them into their miners) wasted their time on something that supposedly means absolutely nothing.
Since difficulty has no real value, every pool/miner should be set at a hardcoded 1024 or 2048 or (insert difficulty here). We clearly have no need for more than one option.
Ideally you want the lowest difficulty that doesn't overload the servers or your bandwidth, which will vary on your hashrate. If you have one GPU, you don't want the diff so high that you aren't telling the pool that you are working very often. If you have a GPU farm, there is no need to have a low diff that is constantly sending the pool shares. As I discussed in more detail a dozen posts or so above, it doesn't matter over the longterm, but lower difficulty will give more reasonable daytoday variance to slow hashers.




Damnsammit


August 21, 2013, 05:55:28 PM 

At first I also thought the difficulty would change things, but that's because I didn't really know how the difficulty worked Same here! I am very glad that I joined the discussion yesterday because I learned a lot about difficulty and mining that I thought I previously already knew. I never thought it would change the overall profits of the pool, but like Liquidfire, I thought it was skewing the profits towards the larger hashrate miners. That's not the case though and I found that out over the past couple of days thanks to all of the discussion and some research




Damnsammit


August 21, 2013, 05:59:43 PM 

As I discussed in more detail a dozen posts or so above, it doesn't matter over the longterm, but lower difficulty will give more reasonable daytoday variance to slow hashers. This. Difficulty is most useful to curb excessive bandwidth to the pool server.




h2odysee


August 21, 2013, 06:04:22 PM 

For the record, here is what I believe:
Difficulty does not affect profits. For the pool as a whole, or for miners individually, even if they have low hashrate. It only affects variance.
If I were to lower the difficulty, my database would have difficulty keeping up. In fact, some large pools charge higher fees for users that use lower difficulty settings. The bandwidth isn't really an issue. CPU usage is.
Implementing vardiff isn't as easy as switching it on, like most pools, because a lot of the code in my pool is custom, and I didn't bother with vardiff.
Even implementing a difficulty other than 512 would take a while, because I never coded for varying difficulties.




rtgornik
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 20
Merit: 0


August 21, 2013, 06:33:25 PM 

I'll ask again since nobody replied the last time...
If difficulty doesn't matter, why do pools even have a choice on what difficulty to go with? Why is there VarDiff? Since difficulty is meaningless, people who spent all the time developing those systems (as well as those who implemented them into their miners) wasted their time on something that supposedly means absolutely nothing.
Since difficulty has no real value, every pool/miner should be set at a hardcoded 1024 or 2048 or (insert difficulty here). We clearly have no need for more than one option.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appealtoauthority




Damnsammit


August 21, 2013, 06:37:15 PM 

Bookmarked! What a great little website Cheers!




cverity
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 31
Merit: 0


August 21, 2013, 07:02:46 PM 





Liquidfire
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 28
Merit: 0


August 21, 2013, 07:11:25 PM 

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.




cverity
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 31
Merit: 0


August 21, 2013, 07:23:41 PM 

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.




Liquidfire
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 28
Merit: 0


August 21, 2013, 07:31:29 PM 

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.




joris


August 21, 2013, 07:35:56 PM 

0 === 32 === 59 === 95 === 119 === BLOCKS
0 S============SS======R===S== SHARES SLOW MINER (lucky one)
0 ===R=RS===RRS===R=S==SR===== SHARES FAST MINER (unlucky one: doesn't hash the data to be hashed)
Blocks and hashes are independent, share rejects happen during the communication latency around a found block.
It does'nt take x seconds to find a share, at AVERAGE your miner finds a share every x seconds.

;)



