bitHopper: Python Pool Hopper Proxy

[GenTarkin]

I was wondering, since we stay on slush for such a small amount of time, shouldnt it be given priority over the other eligible pools for hopping? Because, I notice it stil switches back and forth between all hoppable pools when a slush round starts. I would like it to stay on slush till it goes over the 11% threshold...
Or is doing this not matter?

[simonk83]

I was wondering, since we stay on slush for such a small amount of time, shouldnt it be given priority over the other eligible pools for hopping? Because, I notice it stil switches back and forth between all hoppable pools when a slush round starts. I would like it to stay on slush till it goes over the 11% threshold...
Or is doing this not matter?

Great minds like alike, lol

 Quick thought.  With the slicing, it's probably better off to stick with slush constantly until the 11% when the time comes, rather than switching between other eligible pools.  You get so little time at Slush anyway, it makes sense to give it all you've got for that 5 minutes rather than splitting it up.

What does everyone else think?

[paraipan]

I was wondering, since we stay on slush for such a small amount of time, shouldnt it be given priority over the other eligible pools for hopping? Because, I notice it stil switches back and forth between all hoppable pools when a slush round starts. I would like it to stay on slush till it goes over the 11% threshold...
Or is doing this not matter?

Great minds like alike, lol

 Quick thought.  With the slicing, it's probably better off to stick with slush constantly until the 11% when the time comes, rather than switching between other eligible pools.  You get so little time at Slush anyway, it makes sense to give it all you've got for that 5 minutes rather than splitting it up.

What does everyone else think?

it's being fixed right as we are speaking guys, on github

[GenTarkin]

Freakin awesome! And I just wanna say to the devels of this project... You guys FREAKIN ROCK!!! I see this becoming the end all be all to ultimate pool hopping! HAHA...
thanks again for all your hardwork....hope it lasts for quite some time!
Wish I knew how to program worth a damn...


Oh, while Im thinkin of it....is it best to hop the pools that have the higher gh/s rating, that way the hopper bounces around faster and it doesnt get stuck on a small pool tryin to do 43% for a long time?

[cirz8]

@bb
Um, I fixed a website.py bug. Not sure if that was the only one.

@zybron
thats a bug. I should fix it.

Code:

index = os.path.join(application_path, index_name)

stats-page works even when starting bithopper from another dir than the bithopper-dir, atleast with --scheduler=AltSliceScheduler

Code:

index = os.path.join(os.curdir(), index_name)

if one tries and start bithopper from another dir than the bithopper-dir, the stats-page(slice.index) fails to be located, atleast with --scheduler=AltSliceScheduler, as it's looking for the index.html in what ever dir you might be at when running the /path/to/bithopper

Assumption correct?

[gnaget]

quick question.. has anyone sent a single share to deepbit prop yet.. using the new c00w?

I have had it running with --startLP and mine_deepbit on both deepbit and btcguild since yesterday, and have yet to submit a single share.  I don't think it is working

[c00w]

Yeah. Neither have I. There were a lot of bugs. The latest version has all the ones we found fixed.

[bb]

@bb
Um, I fixed a website.py bug. Not sure if that was the only one.

@zybron
thats a bug. I should fix it.

Code:

index = os.path.join(application_path, index_name)

stats-page works even when starting bithopper from another dir than the bithopper-dir, atleast with --scheduler=AltSliceScheduler

Code:

index = os.path.join(os.curdir(), index_name)

if one tries and start bithopper from another dir than the bithopper-dir, the stats-page(slice.index) fails to be located, atleast with --scheduler=AltSliceScheduler, as it's looking for the index.html in what ever dir you might be at when running the /path/to/bithopper

Assumption correct?

Right now the stats page seems to be fixed.

It appears that the os.curdir line is only used in the except clause?

Edit: here the stats page is working with AltSliceScheduler, running from a different directory. So it could only be that you trigger an exception in website.py, lines 46-54. What OS are you on? How do you start the hopper?

[simonk83]

Hmm.  For some reason, even though I have it set to mine in user.cfg, Nofeemining always starts up disabled when I restart bitHopper....

[ewibit]

I have had it running with --startLP and mine_deepbit on both deepbit and btcguild since yesterday, and have yet to submit a single share. 

the same here...

[paraipan]

I have had it running with --startLP and mine_deepbit on both deepbit and btcguild since yesterday, and have yet to submit a single share. 

the same here...

+1

[bb]

Is anyone mining mmf again?

Their website used to say:

We currently have an administration fee of 0.5% on top of the 1% (for a total of 1.5% total fees) and utilize a cheat proof scoring algorithm for calculating a fair payout of your shares.

Now it says:

We currently have an pool administration fee of 0.5% and utilize a form of proportional scoring for calculating a fair payout of your shares.

[MaGNeT]

BTCserv.net found a block, if I'm right

[gnaget]

a form of proportional scoring for calculating a fair payout of your shares.

That pretty much kills it.  Sounds like a score method to me

[simonk83]

BTCserv.net found a block, if I'm right

Yep

[cirz8]

Right now the stats page seems to be fixed.
It appears that the os.curdir line is only used in the except clause?

Yes, working, missed a commit(567d172) to website.py and was only looking at that line, as that line made it work for me 
But then again, that was why I asked for logic validation on (d736afc) to begin with, as I don't know any python, at least it turned out to be the correct syntax, just the wrong place 

Only programming skills I have are some faint Turbo Pascal and ANSI C memories from high school some two decades ago 

[Keninishna]

Right now the stats page seems to be fixed.
It appears that the os.curdir line is only used in the except clause?

Yes, working, missed a commit(567d172) to website.py and was only looking at that line, as that line made it work for me 
But then again, that was why I asked for logic validation on (d736afc) to begin with, as I don't know any python, at least it turned out to be the correct syntax, just the wrong place 

Only programming skills I have are some faint Turbo Pascal and ANSI C memories from high school some two decades ago 

python is pretty easy to pick up http://hetland.org/writing/instant-python.html at least its suppose to resemble pseudo code

[organofcorti]

Good news everyone! 43% is dead!

We no longer have to hop at 0.43*difficulty!

I haven't been around much lately because I spent the last week running and rewriting 'byteHopper', a multiple pool hopping simulator. When when I got results I didn't want, I rewrote it from scratch. Three times.

Although I made it run faster each time the results are the same, and the cumulative distribution functions follow real world bitcoin results. So I'm finally happy with the results it gives.

I'm only posting a summary here and I'll get around to making blog posts on hoppersden to give more detail, but the gist of it is: If there are 3 or more hoppable pools, you can stay on pools as long as you want and still get the same long term reward as if you hopped on 0.43, but without needing backup and without pissing pool operators as much. Keep in mind that this is not a claim about one particular round, but over, say, 100000 rounds (which I used for the graphs below).

Of course in any given round, after total shares=diff, your shares are worth less than one. But over time the shorter rounds make up for it. Even with only 3 Prop and backup, your efficiency will always be about 1.83, unless you hop off *too soon*. With ten other pools you get about 250% over PPS - sound familiar?

tl;dr BOLD CLAIM: As long as you always hop to the pool with the lowest shares - regardless of hashspeed - you don't need to hop to backup at 0.43.

The ran up some quick graphs which show byteHopper results up to hopping at 3*diff for 0 other pools (ie one proportional pools and one PPS), 1 other pools, 3 other pools and 5 other pools, all plus pps when needed. '0 other pools' mean the same as Raulo's example, and gives the same results as his equation.

 This is basically not 'hopping' much at all. PPS only really has positive effect if you hop only one or two other pools.

                 

What variance on the pool total round shares did you use? It basically comes down to that.

E.g. if you are hopping five pools which are all at 9 million shares, it is way more profitable to mine on backup.

If you use no variance in you simulations it is ok to stay on the pool with the least shares, but the simulations are useless.

I used a Poisson random number generator. If there was no variance, it would not simulate the bitcoin finding process.


As I mentioned in the post, all the results I've generated, including those for one pool/one pps, all agree with prior art and the real world.  PLus I think you missed this:

 

Keep in mind that this is not a claim about one particular round, but over, say, 100000 rounds (which I used for the graphs below).

Sure, for any one particular round mining at 5*diff is not s good idea. However, if you have 10 other pools available another one will be along soon enough, and in the long run won't affect your payout. In fact in my sims I never mined a round all the way out to 5*diff.

This is not a big deal really but since jumping off at 43% has no purpose when there are more than three pools, change your jump off to say 'difficulty' might obscure you as a hopper, and not lose you coinage.

[paraipan]

@organofcorti I don't really get what you're trying to say, all the graphs seem to indicate overall eff. > 1 and that's what really matters to me (liked the 4th one)

[bb]

a form of proportional scoring for calculating a fair payout of your shares.

That pretty much kills it.  Sounds like a score method to me

Could still mean classic proportional though.