Why would pool hopping matter?

[undzeit]

Probably a total newb question, but I don't understand the advantage that pool hopping would give: A share is a share, and the fact that you leave a pool after getting 5 shares doesn't seem to me to make those shares less valuable than if you'd stayed to the end for an additional 50 shares, since leaving early only gets you paid for the 5 shares anyway.

What am I missing?

[Docibex]

It depends on how the pool pays out.

If the shares in a pool do not reset every time a new block is found on the network, you should join the pool that most recently found a block.

[JoelKatz]

What am I missing?

If a pool does not pay the same amount per share, that means some shares will get paid more than others. If a pool-hopper contributes shares only when the payout is expected to be above average, it means other miners get, on average, smaller payouts.

[undzeit]

Why would any pool not pay every share the same?

[Bloodred]

Some pools have so called proportional payment. This means you divide the number of shares you submitted by the total and multiply it by the block value (50). If you always join pools when they find a new block your chance of being in a short round increases. Short rounds are good for you because you get the same payment but in less mining time, therefore freeing you to mine somewhere else and yielding a profit vs mining one long round.
This is what hopping does, pool hopping programs make sure you always catch the start of the round and don't miss out on very short, valuable ones.

[JoelKatz]

Why would any pool not pay every share the same?

Because then sometimes the pool operator will make a profit (when the miners are lucky) and sometimes the pool operator will take a loss (when the miners are unlucky). Some prefer an arrangement where part of that risk (and therefore, part of the payment for taking that risk) is shared with the miners.

[spectra]

So, is pool hopping generally considered creating?

[Mad7Scientist]

On a proportional pool each time a block is solved the 50 BTC is split up between all the miners based on how much work they did. If you did 10% of the hashing power and everybody else did 90% you get 5 BTC.

A pool hopper looks for pools which have a round which is young and start mining (building up shares) there in the hopes that the pool will be lucky and solve the block quickly where for instance they will get their 10% of the 50 BTC reward after only mining for an hour. If the pool isn't lucky, they leave the pool and start mining in another pool which has a round which is young hoping it will solve the block soon. They do not lose anything by leaving the first pool because the other miners will stay there and continue until the block is solved and the pool hopper will still get paid.

If everybody sticks with one pool the whole time they will get paid according to their work when it solves the block. If somebody jumps around and is always on a pool which has a block that is only an hour old, he will eventually get paid the same amount in the same amount of time because sooner or later one of those blocks that are less than an hour old will solve, just as it would with the pool with an old block. HERE IS THE THING: We know that the pool hopper gets paid when the pool he is currently mining in solves a block. HE ALSO GETS PAID from all of the previous pools he spent a short time mining in and left. This is where his extra income comes from.

A PPS pool pays everybody the same amount per share regardless of how many blocks are found. These kinds of pools have buffers of bitcoins to be able to have constant payouts between block solves. Pool hopping doesn't work on this kind of pool.

[metacontent]

So, is pool hopping generally considered creating?

I think it is more just considered being a dick.

In some pools your pay out is decided by your ratio of completed shares, compared to other peoples ratio of completed shares those pools really encourage pool hopping because people come in with huge rigs do a massive amount of shares over a short period of time then leave and still manage to get a good payout because when the block is finished they will still have a larger ratio of completed shares than many of the miners with weaker mining equipment. So basically they make a disproportionate amount of money compared to others.

[spectra]

I think it is more just considered being a dick.

Hm... I think I get your point... But isn't the possibility of pool hopping open to anyone? I've been watching people worried in puting counter-measures in place to make pool hopping more difficult. Most of these measures end up harming the occasional miner (PPLNS, scores), or preventing new pools to get in the scene (PPS only works if the pool have some BTC in reserve)... I think that, if the possibility is open to anyone to exploit, why not leave it be. I can't see a pool hopper as a "dick", as you put it (or as a cheater, for that matters).

[JoelKatz]

I think it is more just considered being a dick.

Hm... I think I get your point... But isn't the possibility of pool hopping open to anyone? I've been watching people worried in puting counter-measures in place to make pool hopping more difficult. Most of these measures end up harming the occasional miner (PPLNS, scores), or preventing new pools to get in the scene (PPS only works if the pool have some BTC in reserve)... I think that, if the possibility is open to anyone to exploit, why not leave it be. I can't see a pool hopper as a "dick", as you put it (or as a cheater, for that matters).

Because if everyone in the pool is a pool hopper, the pool will die the first time it has bad luck. If every miner will only mine when the payout is more than he could get from a PPS pool, as soon as the payout is expected to be less, nobody will mine and the pool will die.

[spectra]

Because if everyone in the pool is a pool hopper, the pool will die the first time it has bad luck. If every miner will only mine when the payout is more than he could get from a PPS pool, as soon as the payout is expected to be less, nobody will mine and the pool will die.

That is really unlikely. First because not everyone in the pool is a pool hopper - at least the pool owner is not . Second, pool hoppers have a great incentive to keep a pool alive if they have invested time in it. IMHO, the whole "pool hopping is cheating" argument seems to don't take in account the power of economic incentive...

Besides, small pools might benefit from pool hoppers in the first place, since, at least for the time they hop into it, they might have more mining power than they would ever get otherwise.

[JoelKatz]

Besides, small pools might benefit from pool hoppers in the first place, since, at least for the time they hop into it, they might have more mining power than they would ever get otherwise.

Right, but the higher the percentage of pool hoppers, the higher the percentage of the time the pool's expected payout per share is below average. This means that the more pool hoppers, the lower the pool's payout to someone who contributes shares at a constant rate. That is, pool hoppers profit at the expense of the non-hoppers.

[spectra]

Right, but the higher the percentage of pool hoppers, the higher the percentage of the time the pool's expected payout per share is below average. This means that the more pool hoppers, the lower the pool's payout to someone who contributes shares at a constant rate. That is, pool hoppers profit at the expense of the non-hoppers.

As I said, that is not likely. If a bunch of pool hoopers have invested shares in a small pool in the begining of a block (they seem to do that until some point early in the block) and this pool is currently starving (left with a huge block to solve and little hashing power to do it), pool hoppers will go back to it helping finish it (as long as there's no more profitable alternatives).

And it's not accurate that "pool hoppers profit at the expense of the non-hoppers". After all, they have actually invested hashing power... they just point their hashing power to some (currently) more profitable pool... IMHO, it's the same as investing money in a more profitable stock.

[joulesbeef]

So, is pool hopping generally considered creating?

I think it is more just considered being a dick.

In some pools your pay out is decided by your ratio of completed shares, compared to other peoples ratio of completed shares those pools really encourage pool hopping because people come in with huge rigs do a massive amount of shares over a short period of time then leave and still manage to get a good payout because when the block is finished they will still have a larger ratio of completed shares than many of the miners with weaker mining equipment. So basically they make a disproportionate amount of money compared to others.

That is cause you are pissed you dont do it.
and dont seem to understand it, it would be foolish to not hop prop until they fix it.

tell me this... did you come to bitcoin mining before our after it became profitable.. will you leave if the price drops to a penny? if yes congrats you are a hopper.

Did you jump on namecoin when it was 2x as profitable to mine as bitcoin? congrats you are a hopper.

would you switch to namecoin if it was 10x as profitable.. congrats you are a hopper

Dont call me a dick cause i follow the rules and maximise my profits, you do the same thing but are too lazy to do it at a smaller scale.

99% of you wouldnt be here if bitcoins were not profitable and dont deny that.

If there are zero rules against hopping.
and ALL miners still get 50x(their shares/total shares)

then you really cant call us dicks.

And if you really hate hoppers and hopping, switch to a pool with a fair payout like PPS.. but I get tired of all the people who hopped onto bitcoin AFTER it became profitable, complaining about hoppers.


Some people think people who walk away from mortgages they can actually afford are dicks, but most of the time they are following the law, and it would be economically stupid to do anything else. It is economically retarded to not hop until they fix scoring.

[JoelKatz]

As I said, that is not likely. If a bunch of pool hoopers have invested shares in a small pool in the begining of a block (they seem to do that until some point early in the block) and this pool is currently starving (left with a huge block to solve and little hashing power to do it), pool hoppers will go back to it helping finish it (as long as there's no more profitable alternatives).

The problem in your reasoning is where I added emphasis. A pool hopper can always contributed to a PPS pool. So there will always be more profitable alternatives.

And it's not accurate that "pool hoppers profit at the expense of the non-hoppers". After all, they have actually invested hashing power... they just point their hashing power to some (currently) more profitable pool... IMHO, it's the same as investing money in a more profitable stock.

Pool hoppers do profit at the expense of the non-hoppers. The more pool hoppers in a pool, the less return per-share those who feed the pool shares at a constant rate get. That is a fact.

[spectra]

As I said, that is not likely. If a bunch of pool hoopers have invested shares in a small pool in the begining of a block (they seem to do that until some point early in the block) and this pool is currently starving (left with a huge block to solve and little hashing power to do it), pool hoppers will go back to it helping finish it (as long as there's no more profitable alternatives).

The problem in your reasoning is where I added emphasis. A pool hopper can always contributed to a PPS pool. So there will always be more profitable alternatives.

Hm... And what about Proportional pools? Should we all leave them? I don't think that is very civic... As long as there are pool owners holding Proportional pools, pool hoppers should be welcome into them. Actually, many small pools would not get any blocks if they were not Proportional, since people would rather mine in a well-stablished pool... this leave just the pool hoppers to get into that new pool.

IMHO, if your argument is "leave all the Proportional pools out to die of starvation", my point is made. No need for further discussion.

And it's not accurate that "pool hoppers profit at the expense of the non-hoppers". After all, they have actually invested hashing power... they just point their hashing power to some (currently) more profitable pool... IMHO, it's the same as investing money in a more profitable stock.

Pool hoppers do profit at the expense of the non-hoppers. The more pool hoppers in a pool, the less return per-share those who feed the pool shares at a constant rate get. That is a fact.

That is not a fact. I am sorry, but that seems to be an assumption you made based in some biased view of the game. Those "non-hoppers" that are in the pool might not even had what to share among them if not by the hashing power added (briefly) by the hoppers. Let me put it this way: if a non-hopper would be given this choice: (a) mine in a pool which accepts only non-hoppers and take a week to solve a block or (b) mine in a pool which accepts hoppers and non-hoppers and solve a block in half a week, what do you think the non-hopper would choose?

It all comes down to the fact that profit cannot be taken in account alone and depends on time. I want to have 1 million dollars in account, but I want it now... not when I am too old to spend it. So, non-hoppers would choose (b). So should everybody. And that is the (oversimplified) economics of it.

[JoelKatz]

That is not a fact. I am sorry, but that seems to be an assumption you made based in some biased view of the game. Those "non-hoppers" that are in the pool might not even had what to share among them if not by the hashing power added (briefly) by the hoppers. Let me put it this way: if a non-hopper would be given this choice: (a) mine in a pool which accepts only non-hoppers and take a week to solve a block or (b) mine in a pool which accepts hoppers and non-hoppers and solve a block in half a week, what do you think the non-hopper would choose?

The first choice, since it gives him a higher return per share.

It all comes down to the fact that profit cannot be taken in account alone and depends on time. I want to have 1 million dollars in account, but I want it now... not when I am too old to spend it. So, non-hoppers would choose (b). So should everybody. And that is the (oversimplified) economics of it.

Would you rather have a thousand dollars in a week or two thousand dollars in two weeks? Unless you either desperately need money now or are a moron, you would take the two thousand dollars in two weeks.

[spectra]

That is not a fact. I am sorry, but that seems to be an assumption you made based in some biased view of the game. Those "non-hoppers" that are in the pool might not even had what to share among them if not by the hashing power added (briefly) by the hoppers. Let me put it this way: if a non-hopper would be given this choice: (a) mine in a pool which accepts only non-hoppers and take a week to solve a block or (b) mine in a pool which accepts hoppers and non-hoppers and solve a block in half a week, what do you think the non-hopper would choose?

The first choice, since it gives him a higher return per share.

Unlikely. Unless one doesn't understand the randomic nature of the distribution of block rewards. In that spare half-week that same pool could have found 3 more blocks (or not )

It all comes down to the fact that profit cannot be taken in account alone and depends on time. I want to have 1 million dollars in account, but I want it now... not when I am too old to spend it. So, non-hoppers would choose (b). So should everybody. And that is the (oversimplified) economics of it.

Would you rather have a thousand dollars in a week or two thousand dollars in two weeks? Unless you either desperately need money now or are a moron, you would take the two thousand dollars in two weeks.

Hm... I might be dead in another week... Difficulty could sky-rocket and render my poor GPU unprofitable. Come on... this is basic economics... money now is more valuable than money in a week... All this argument is just because we don't agree on how much time should be considered. One more reason to let pool hoppers be. After all, as another poster says:

tell me this... did you come to bitcoin mining before our after it became profitable.. will you leave if the price drops to a penny? if yes congrats you are a hopper.

IMHO, calling pool hoopers dicks is the same as calling Satoshi Nakamoto or Gavin Andresen (or any of bitcoin starters) dicks.

[JoelKatz]

Hm... I might be dead in another week... Difficulty could sky-rocket and render my poor GPU unprofitable. Come on... this is basic economics... money now is more valuable than money in a week... All this argument is just because we don't agree on how much time should be considered. One more reason to let pool hoppers be. After all, as another poster says:

Your arguments are getting too ridiculous to be worth responding to. Have a nice day.