Dragonmint B29 Decred Miner

[luxortech]

THANK YOU!!!! This was exactly what I was looking for. Seriously - thank you. And that's the research I found out too bc I didn't think anyone would respond.

I will say that for anyone interested to know, Luxor pool makes significantly less earnings. 

Hi ReadyPlayer1, first of all thanks for the compliment on our support. We pride ourselves in our community, on Drift, Discord, and Twitter. I really suggest giving us another try, and comparing the payments after a week at each pool. You'll find that PPLNS and Proportional payments (Coinmine and Suprnova) are based on variance. Sometimes they pay more, sometimes alot less.

At Luxor, we pay PPS. I want to take this excerpt from our friends at SiaMining, that have this great descriptor comparing both:

Despite the similar names, PPS (Pay Per Share) and PPLNS (Pay Per Last N Shares) are two very different reward systems.


PPLNS is a modification of the proportional system. The proportional system is perhaps the most natural way to distribute rewards: whenever the pool finds a block, it distributes its value (minus a fee) to miners proportionally to how many shares they have submitted since the previous block. This naive approach is unfortunately easily exploitable by using a technique called pool hopping. PPLNS corrects this issue by considering only the last N shares submitted right before a block was found, and disregarding the rest. If the value of N is chosen appropriately, the system becomes resistant to hopping, but with one side effect: in order to receive fair retribution, in a PPLNS system miners must maintain a relatively constant hashrate at all times. Being a proportional system, PPLNS only rewards miners when a block is found and confirmed by the network, and since finding a block can take considerable time, rewards have a high variance. Additionally, from time to time the pool may find a block that never confirms because another block was found and confirmed before it. Such blocks, called orphans, have no value, and result in missed rewards for miners.


PPS rewards miners with a certain amount (the PPS rate) for every valid share submitted. This amount is determined based on the expected number of shares needed to find a block, and on the reward that finding a block would yield. Note that we say “expected” because mining is a random process, so we can know how many shares will be needed on average in the long run, but not how many will be effectively needed. Since shares are much easier to find than blocks, a miner typically finds several every minute, which drastically reduces the variance of rewards. It is therefore possible for a miner to reliably estimate his earnings, as they do not depend on the luck of the pool. Because miners get paid per share and can tally how many shares they submit, they can easily verify that the promised reward is given, making it impossible for the pool operator to cheat. For the same reason, PPS is completely immune to pool hopping. All in all, PPS arguably offers the fairest payouts for all miners, regardless of hashrate or frequency. The one downside to PPS is for the pool operator, who has to take on the risk of bad luck in finding blocks. To compensate for this risk, PPS pools traditionally charge a higher fee.

Everything else being equal (fee, difficulty, and block reward), in the long run both systems are expected to find the same amount of blocks, but since PPLNS cannot pay for orphaned blocks, PPS miners are expected to receive slightly higher payouts. There are several places on the internet where it is stated that PPLNS yields higher rewards than PPS. The only reason for this is that for a long time PPS pools have had much higher fees than their PPLNS counterparts. For instance DeepBit, which was once the biggest Bitcoin pool, used to charge 3% for PPLNS, but 10% for PPS.

At Luxor, we charge a flat 3% fee for PPS, which is very competitive in the market as of now.

[1714903583]

1714903583

[1714903583]

1714903583

[klwolf2000]

THANK YOU!!!! This was exactly what I was looking for. Seriously - thank you. And that's the research I found out too bc I didn't think anyone would respond.

I will say that for anyone interested to know, Luxor pool makes significantly less earnings. 

Hi ReadyPlayer1, first of all thanks for the compliment on our support. We pride ourselves in our community, on Drift, Discord, and Twitter. I really suggest giving us another try, and comparing the payments after a week at each pool. You'll find that PPLNS and Proportional payments (Coinmine and Suprnova) are based on variance. Sometimes they pay more, sometimes alot less.

At Luxor, we pay PPS. I want to take this excerpt from our friends at SiaMining, that have this great descriptor comparing both:

Despite the similar names, PPS (Pay Per Share) and PPLNS (Pay Per Last N Shares) are two very different reward systems.


PPLNS is a modification of the proportional system. The proportional system is perhaps the most natural way to distribute rewards: whenever the pool finds a block, it distributes its value (minus a fee) to miners proportionally to how many shares they have submitted since the previous block. This naive approach is unfortunately easily exploitable by using a technique called pool hopping. PPLNS corrects this issue by considering only the last N shares submitted right before a block was found, and disregarding the rest. If the value of N is chosen appropriately, the system becomes resistant to hopping, but with one side effect: in order to receive fair retribution, in a PPLNS system miners must maintain a relatively constant hashrate at all times. Being a proportional system, PPLNS only rewards miners when a block is found and confirmed by the network, and since finding a block can take considerable time, rewards have a high variance. Additionally, from time to time the pool may find a block that never confirms because another block was found and confirmed before it. Such blocks, called orphans, have no value, and result in missed rewards for miners.


PPS rewards miners with a certain amount (the PPS rate) for every valid share submitted. This amount is determined based on the expected number of shares needed to find a block, and on the reward that finding a block would yield. Note that we say “expected” because mining is a random process, so we can know how many shares will be needed on average in the long run, but not how many will be effectively needed. Since shares are much easier to find than blocks, a miner typically finds several every minute, which drastically reduces the variance of rewards. It is therefore possible for a miner to reliably estimate his earnings, as they do not depend on the luck of the pool. Because miners get paid per share and can tally how many shares they submit, they can easily verify that the promised reward is given, making it impossible for the pool operator to cheat. For the same reason, PPS is completely immune to pool hopping. All in all, PPS arguably offers the fairest payouts for all miners, regardless of hashrate or frequency. The one downside to PPS is for the pool operator, who has to take on the risk of bad luck in finding blocks. To compensate for this risk, PPS pools traditionally charge a higher fee.

Everything else being equal (fee, difficulty, and block reward), in the long run both systems are expected to find the same amount of blocks, but since PPLNS cannot pay for orphaned blocks, PPS miners are expected to receive slightly higher payouts. There are several places on the internet where it is stated that PPLNS yields higher rewards than PPS. The only reason for this is that for a long time PPS pools have had much higher fees than their PPLNS counterparts. For instance DeepBit, which was once the biggest Bitcoin pool, used to charge 3% for PPLNS, but 10% for PPS.

At Luxor, we charge a flat 3% fee for PPS, which is very competitive in the market as of now.

I like your sia pool but the decred pool fees need to go down to 1% at most. Anyone adding their b29 to the pool will be paying about $135 a month just to use the pool which is the cost for hosting at a data center.

[Truthchanter]

Thanks for the explanation of PPS vs PPLNS.. I still don't understand pool hopping completely, or orphan blocks though...

I will consider pointing my decred miner at luxor for sure.. I think I used to mine dcr at suprnova before.. guessing they were PPLNS

[Wolfy10]

THANK YOU!!!! This was exactly what I was looking for. Seriously - thank you. And that's the research I found out too bc I didn't think anyone would respond.

I will say that for anyone interested to know, Luxor pool makes significantly less earnings. 

Hi ReadyPlayer1, first of all thanks for the compliment on our support. We pride ourselves in our community, on Drift, Discord, and Twitter. I really suggest giving us another try, and comparing the payments after a week at each pool. You'll find that PPLNS and Proportional payments (Coinmine and Suprnova) are based on variance. Sometimes they pay more, sometimes alot less.

At Luxor, we pay PPS. I want to take this excerpt from our friends at SiaMining, that have this great descriptor comparing both:

Despite the similar names, PPS (Pay Per Share) and PPLNS (Pay Per Last N Shares) are two very different reward systems.


PPLNS is a modification of the proportional system. The proportional system is perhaps the most natural way to distribute rewards: whenever the pool finds a block, it distributes its value (minus a fee) to miners proportionally to how many shares they have submitted since the previous block. This naive approach is unfortunately easily exploitable by using a technique called pool hopping. PPLNS corrects this issue by considering only the last N shares submitted right before a block was found, and disregarding the rest. If the value of N is chosen appropriately, the system becomes resistant to hopping, but with one side effect: in order to receive fair retribution, in a PPLNS system miners must maintain a relatively constant hashrate at all times. Being a proportional system, PPLNS only rewards miners when a block is found and confirmed by the network, and since finding a block can take considerable time, rewards have a high variance. Additionally, from time to time the pool may find a block that never confirms because another block was found and confirmed before it. Such blocks, called orphans, have no value, and result in missed rewards for miners.


PPS rewards miners with a certain amount (the PPS rate) for every valid share submitted. This amount is determined based on the expected number of shares needed to find a block, and on the reward that finding a block would yield. Note that we say “expected” because mining is a random process, so we can know how many shares will be needed on average in the long run, but not how many will be effectively needed. Since shares are much easier to find than blocks, a miner typically finds several every minute, which drastically reduces the variance of rewards. It is therefore possible for a miner to reliably estimate his earnings, as they do not depend on the luck of the pool. Because miners get paid per share and can tally how many shares they submit, they can easily verify that the promised reward is given, making it impossible for the pool operator to cheat. For the same reason, PPS is completely immune to pool hopping. All in all, PPS arguably offers the fairest payouts for all miners, regardless of hashrate or frequency. The one downside to PPS is for the pool operator, who has to take on the risk of bad luck in finding blocks. To compensate for this risk, PPS pools traditionally charge a higher fee.

Everything else being equal (fee, difficulty, and block reward), in the long run both systems are expected to find the same amount of blocks, but since PPLNS cannot pay for orphaned blocks, PPS miners are expected to receive slightly higher payouts. There are several places on the internet where it is stated that PPLNS yields higher rewards than PPS. The only reason for this is that for a long time PPS pools have had much higher fees than their PPLNS counterparts. For instance DeepBit, which was once the biggest Bitcoin pool, used to charge 3% for PPLNS, but 10% for PPS.

At Luxor, we charge a flat 3% fee for PPS, which is very competitive in the market as of now.

I like your sia pool but the decred pool fees need to go down to 1% at most. Anyone adding their b29 to the pool will be paying about $135 a month just to use the pool which is the cost for hosting at a data center.

Hi, I think you're overestimating the fee a bit. Still, PPS covers for all the variance of the pool which can have a huge cost. On top of that, Luxor pays for orphans and rejects which the rest of Decred pools don't. So, Luxor's real fee is lower than 3% since you get paid for each an every share you submit.

[klwolf2000]

THANK YOU!!!! This was exactly what I was looking for. Seriously - thank you. And that's the research I found out too bc I didn't think anyone would respond.

I will say that for anyone interested to know, Luxor pool makes significantly less earnings. 

Hi ReadyPlayer1, first of all thanks for the compliment on our support. We pride ourselves in our community, on Drift, Discord, and Twitter. I really suggest giving us another try, and comparing the payments after a week at each pool. You'll find that PPLNS and Proportional payments (Coinmine and Suprnova) are based on variance. Sometimes they pay more, sometimes alot less.

At Luxor, we pay PPS. I want to take this excerpt from our friends at SiaMining, that have this great descriptor comparing both:

Despite the similar names, PPS (Pay Per Share) and PPLNS (Pay Per Last N Shares) are two very different reward systems.


PPLNS is a modification of the proportional system. The proportional system is perhaps the most natural way to distribute rewards: whenever the pool finds a block, it distributes its value (minus a fee) to miners proportionally to how many shares they have submitted since the previous block. This naive approach is unfortunately easily exploitable by using a technique called pool hopping. PPLNS corrects this issue by considering only the last N shares submitted right before a block was found, and disregarding the rest. If the value of N is chosen appropriately, the system becomes resistant to hopping, but with one side effect: in order to receive fair retribution, in a PPLNS system miners must maintain a relatively constant hashrate at all times. Being a proportional system, PPLNS only rewards miners when a block is found and confirmed by the network, and since finding a block can take considerable time, rewards have a high variance. Additionally, from time to time the pool may find a block that never confirms because another block was found and confirmed before it. Such blocks, called orphans, have no value, and result in missed rewards for miners.


PPS rewards miners with a certain amount (the PPS rate) for every valid share submitted. This amount is determined based on the expected number of shares needed to find a block, and on the reward that finding a block would yield. Note that we say “expected” because mining is a random process, so we can know how many shares will be needed on average in the long run, but not how many will be effectively needed. Since shares are much easier to find than blocks, a miner typically finds several every minute, which drastically reduces the variance of rewards. It is therefore possible for a miner to reliably estimate his earnings, as they do not depend on the luck of the pool. Because miners get paid per share and can tally how many shares they submit, they can easily verify that the promised reward is given, making it impossible for the pool operator to cheat. For the same reason, PPS is completely immune to pool hopping. All in all, PPS arguably offers the fairest payouts for all miners, regardless of hashrate or frequency. The one downside to PPS is for the pool operator, who has to take on the risk of bad luck in finding blocks. To compensate for this risk, PPS pools traditionally charge a higher fee.

Everything else being equal (fee, difficulty, and block reward), in the long run both systems are expected to find the same amount of blocks, but since PPLNS cannot pay for orphaned blocks, PPS miners are expected to receive slightly higher payouts. There are several places on the internet where it is stated that PPLNS yields higher rewards than PPS. The only reason for this is that for a long time PPS pools have had much higher fees than their PPLNS counterparts. For instance DeepBit, which was once the biggest Bitcoin pool, used to charge 3% for PPLNS, but 10% for PPS.

At Luxor, we charge a flat 3% fee for PPS, which is very competitive in the market as of now.

I like your sia pool but the decred pool fees need to go down to 1% at most. Anyone adding their b29 to the pool will be paying about $135 a month just to use the pool which is the cost for hosting at a data center.

Hi, I think you're overestimating the fee a bit. Still, PPS covers for all the variance of the pool which can have a huge cost. On top of that, Luxor pays for orphans and rejects which the rest of Decred pools don't. So, Luxor's real fee is lower than 3% since you get paid for each an every share you submit.

Currently I'm mining at coinmine.pl and my miner stats show at 100% efficiency and only 4 rejects for the past week so I'm still not seeing the benefit of paying 3%... If there is something else I'm missing or that they don't show in the stats I would like to know but the payouts have been good. They also charge only a 1% fee.

[Wolfy10]

Thanks for the explanation of PPS vs PPLNS.. I still don't understand pool hopping completely, or orphan blocks though...

I will consider pointing my decred miner at luxor for sure.. I think I used to mine dcr at suprnova before.. guessing they were PPLNS

Pool hopping is mining in a pool only during good time and leaving during bad luck. By doing so, pool hoppers get rewarded for more than the work they contribute to the pool. This comes at expense of all the other miners in the pool. Pool hopping affects mostly PROP pools and not PPLNS.

An orphan is basically when the pool solves a block and within the time that data gets added to the blockchain some else submits a solution. There you have two valid blocks and the one that reaches the chain first is the one that gets paid. Luxor pays for this work whereas other pools don't. This payout comes out from the fees we charge so the real fee is less since you get paid for work you otherwise wouldn't.

[Wolfy10]

THANK YOU!!!! This was exactly what I was looking for. Seriously - thank you. And that's the research I found out too bc I didn't think anyone would respond.

I will say that for anyone interested to know, Luxor pool makes significantly less earnings. 

Hi ReadyPlayer1, first of all thanks for the compliment on our support. We pride ourselves in our community, on Drift, Discord, and Twitter. I really suggest giving us another try, and comparing the payments after a week at each pool. You'll find that PPLNS and Proportional payments (Coinmine and Suprnova) are based on variance. Sometimes they pay more, sometimes alot less.

At Luxor, we pay PPS. I want to take this excerpt from our friends at SiaMining, that have this great descriptor comparing both:

Despite the similar names, PPS (Pay Per Share) and PPLNS (Pay Per Last N Shares) are two very different reward systems.


PPLNS is a modification of the proportional system. The proportional system is perhaps the most natural way to distribute rewards: whenever the pool finds a block, it distributes its value (minus a fee) to miners proportionally to how many shares they have submitted since the previous block. This naive approach is unfortunately easily exploitable by using a technique called pool hopping. PPLNS corrects this issue by considering only the last N shares submitted right before a block was found, and disregarding the rest. If the value of N is chosen appropriately, the system becomes resistant to hopping, but with one side effect: in order to receive fair retribution, in a PPLNS system miners must maintain a relatively constant hashrate at all times. Being a proportional system, PPLNS only rewards miners when a block is found and confirmed by the network, and since finding a block can take considerable time, rewards have a high variance. Additionally, from time to time the pool may find a block that never confirms because another block was found and confirmed before it. Such blocks, called orphans, have no value, and result in missed rewards for miners.


PPS rewards miners with a certain amount (the PPS rate) for every valid share submitted. This amount is determined based on the expected number of shares needed to find a block, and on the reward that finding a block would yield. Note that we say “expected” because mining is a random process, so we can know how many shares will be needed on average in the long run, but not how many will be effectively needed. Since shares are much easier to find than blocks, a miner typically finds several every minute, which drastically reduces the variance of rewards. It is therefore possible for a miner to reliably estimate his earnings, as they do not depend on the luck of the pool. Because miners get paid per share and can tally how many shares they submit, they can easily verify that the promised reward is given, making it impossible for the pool operator to cheat. For the same reason, PPS is completely immune to pool hopping. All in all, PPS arguably offers the fairest payouts for all miners, regardless of hashrate or frequency. The one downside to PPS is for the pool operator, who has to take on the risk of bad luck in finding blocks. To compensate for this risk, PPS pools traditionally charge a higher fee.

Everything else being equal (fee, difficulty, and block reward), in the long run both systems are expected to find the same amount of blocks, but since PPLNS cannot pay for orphaned blocks, PPS miners are expected to receive slightly higher payouts. There are several places on the internet where it is stated that PPLNS yields higher rewards than PPS. The only reason for this is that for a long time PPS pools have had much higher fees than their PPLNS counterparts. For instance DeepBit, which was once the biggest Bitcoin pool, used to charge 3% for PPLNS, but 10% for PPS.

At Luxor, we charge a flat 3% fee for PPS, which is very competitive in the market as of now.

I like your sia pool but the decred pool fees need to go down to 1% at most. Anyone adding their b29 to the pool will be paying about $135 a month just to use the pool which is the cost for hosting at a data center.

Hi, I think you're overestimating the fee a bit. Still, PPS covers for all the variance of the pool which can have a huge cost. On top of that, Luxor pays for orphans and rejects which the rest of Decred pools don't. So, Luxor's real fee is lower than 3% since you get paid for each an every share you submit.

Currently I'm mining at coinmine.pl and my miner stats show at 100% efficiency and only 4 rejects for the past week so I'm still not seeing the benefit of paying 3%... If there is something else I'm missing or that they don't show in the stats I would like to know but the payouts have been good. They also charge only a 1% fee.

Coinmine.pl had an orphan rate of 0.34% in the past 4 weeks which translates into over 100 DCR that Luxor would have paid to miners. So to compare fees you could add that rate to their 1% (which by the way you don't have an actual way to prove they charge that since they are PPLNS) and at the same time you could subtract that 0.34% from our fee.

On top of that we stake 10% of our fee in a wallet to help Decred get listed on more exchanges or some other community proposal. That's another 0.3%.

Now the real fee difference is 1% and we provide consistent payouts every day. The pool operator is assuming all the variance risk just for 1% extra, at most.

Coinmine.pl stats: https://www2.coinmine.pl/dcr/index.php?page=statistics&action=blocks

[klwolf2000]

THANK YOU!!!! This was exactly what I was looking for. Seriously - thank you. And that's the research I found out too bc I didn't think anyone would respond.

I will say that for anyone interested to know, Luxor pool makes significantly less earnings. 

Hi ReadyPlayer1, first of all thanks for the compliment on our support. We pride ourselves in our community, on Drift, Discord, and Twitter. I really suggest giving us another try, and comparing the payments after a week at each pool. You'll find that PPLNS and Proportional payments (Coinmine and Suprnova) are based on variance. Sometimes they pay more, sometimes alot less.

At Luxor, we pay PPS. I want to take this excerpt from our friends at SiaMining, that have this great descriptor comparing both:

Despite the similar names, PPS (Pay Per Share) and PPLNS (Pay Per Last N Shares) are two very different reward systems.


PPLNS is a modification of the proportional system. The proportional system is perhaps the most natural way to distribute rewards: whenever the pool finds a block, it distributes its value (minus a fee) to miners proportionally to how many shares they have submitted since the previous block. This naive approach is unfortunately easily exploitable by using a technique called pool hopping. PPLNS corrects this issue by considering only the last N shares submitted right before a block was found, and disregarding the rest. If the value of N is chosen appropriately, the system becomes resistant to hopping, but with one side effect: in order to receive fair retribution, in a PPLNS system miners must maintain a relatively constant hashrate at all times. Being a proportional system, PPLNS only rewards miners when a block is found and confirmed by the network, and since finding a block can take considerable time, rewards have a high variance. Additionally, from time to time the pool may find a block that never confirms because another block was found and confirmed before it. Such blocks, called orphans, have no value, and result in missed rewards for miners.


PPS rewards miners with a certain amount (the PPS rate) for every valid share submitted. This amount is determined based on the expected number of shares needed to find a block, and on the reward that finding a block would yield. Note that we say “expected” because mining is a random process, so we can know how many shares will be needed on average in the long run, but not how many will be effectively needed. Since shares are much easier to find than blocks, a miner typically finds several every minute, which drastically reduces the variance of rewards. It is therefore possible for a miner to reliably estimate his earnings, as they do not depend on the luck of the pool. Because miners get paid per share and can tally how many shares they submit, they can easily verify that the promised reward is given, making it impossible for the pool operator to cheat. For the same reason, PPS is completely immune to pool hopping. All in all, PPS arguably offers the fairest payouts for all miners, regardless of hashrate or frequency. The one downside to PPS is for the pool operator, who has to take on the risk of bad luck in finding blocks. To compensate for this risk, PPS pools traditionally charge a higher fee.

Everything else being equal (fee, difficulty, and block reward), in the long run both systems are expected to find the same amount of blocks, but since PPLNS cannot pay for orphaned blocks, PPS miners are expected to receive slightly higher payouts. There are several places on the internet where it is stated that PPLNS yields higher rewards than PPS. The only reason for this is that for a long time PPS pools have had much higher fees than their PPLNS counterparts. For instance DeepBit, which was once the biggest Bitcoin pool, used to charge 3% for PPLNS, but 10% for PPS.

At Luxor, we charge a flat 3% fee for PPS, which is very competitive in the market as of now.

I like your sia pool but the decred pool fees need to go down to 1% at most. Anyone adding their b29 to the pool will be paying about $135 a month just to use the pool which is the cost for hosting at a data center.

Hi, I think you're overestimating the fee a bit. Still, PPS covers for all the variance of the pool which can have a huge cost. On top of that, Luxor pays for orphans and rejects which the rest of Decred pools don't. So, Luxor's real fee is lower than 3% since you get paid for each an every share you submit.

Currently I'm mining at coinmine.pl and my miner stats show at 100% efficiency and only 4 rejects for the past week so I'm still not seeing the benefit of paying 3%... If there is something else I'm missing or that they don't show in the stats I would like to know but the payouts have been good. They also charge only a 1% fee.

Coinmine.pl had an orphan rate of 0.34% in the past 4 weeks which translates into over 100 DCR that Luxor would have paid to miners. So to compare fees you could add that rate to their 1% (which by the way you don't have an actual way to prove they charge that since they are PPLNS) and at the same time you could subtract that 0.34% from our fee.

On top of that we stake 10% of our fee in a wallet to help Decred get listed on more exchanges or some other community proposal. That's another 0.3%.

Now the real fee difference is 1% and we provide consistent payouts every day. The pool operator is assuming all the variance risk just for 1% extra, at most.

Coinmine.pl stats: https://www2.coinmine.pl/dcr/index.php?page=statistics&action=blocks

There still isn't a 1% difference its 1.66% and with PPLNS there is also luck involved which can increase earnings over longer periods of mining where PPS doesn't include luck... The current mining rate for the B29 will net about $4600 a month and even at the 1.66% difference that is $76 a month extra which is a lot when you consider most GPU's don't even make that much in a month.

[Wolfy10]

THANK YOU!!!! This was exactly what I was looking for. Seriously - thank you. And that's the research I found out too bc I didn't think anyone would respond.

I will say that for anyone interested to know, Luxor pool makes significantly less earnings.  

Hi ReadyPlayer1, first of all thanks for the compliment on our support. We pride ourselves in our community, on Drift, Discord, and Twitter. I really suggest giving us another try, and comparing the payments after a week at each pool. You'll find that PPLNS and Proportional payments (Coinmine and Suprnova) are based on variance. Sometimes they pay more, sometimes alot less.

At Luxor, we pay PPS. I want to take this excerpt from our friends at SiaMining, that have this great descriptor comparing both:

Despite the similar names, PPS (Pay Per Share) and PPLNS (Pay Per Last N Shares) are two very different reward systems.


PPLNS is a modification of the proportional system. The proportional system is perhaps the most natural way to distribute rewards: whenever the pool finds a block, it distributes its value (minus a fee) to miners proportionally to how many shares they have submitted since the previous block. This naive approach is unfortunately easily exploitable by using a technique called pool hopping. PPLNS corrects this issue by considering only the last N shares submitted right before a block was found, and disregarding the rest. If the value of N is chosen appropriately, the system becomes resistant to hopping, but with one side effect: in order to receive fair retribution, in a PPLNS system miners must maintain a relatively constant hashrate at all times. Being a proportional system, PPLNS only rewards miners when a block is found and confirmed by the network, and since finding a block can take considerable time, rewards have a high variance. Additionally, from time to time the pool may find a block that never confirms because another block was found and confirmed before it. Such blocks, called orphans, have no value, and result in missed rewards for miners.


PPS rewards miners with a certain amount (the PPS rate) for every valid share submitted. This amount is determined based on the expected number of shares needed to find a block, and on the reward that finding a block would yield. Note that we say “expected” because mining is a random process, so we can know how many shares will be needed on average in the long run, but not how many will be effectively needed. Since shares are much easier to find than blocks, a miner typically finds several every minute, which drastically reduces the variance of rewards. It is therefore possible for a miner to reliably estimate his earnings, as they do not depend on the luck of the pool. Because miners get paid per share and can tally how many shares they submit, they can easily verify that the promised reward is given, making it impossible for the pool operator to cheat. For the same reason, PPS is completely immune to pool hopping. All in all, PPS arguably offers the fairest payouts for all miners, regardless of hashrate or frequency. The one downside to PPS is for the pool operator, who has to take on the risk of bad luck in finding blocks. To compensate for this risk, PPS pools traditionally charge a higher fee.

Everything else being equal (fee, difficulty, and block reward), in the long run both systems are expected to find the same amount of blocks, but since PPLNS cannot pay for orphaned blocks, PPS miners are expected to receive slightly higher payouts. There are several places on the internet where it is stated that PPLNS yields higher rewards than PPS. The only reason for this is that for a long time PPS pools have had much higher fees than their PPLNS counterparts. For instance DeepBit, which was once the biggest Bitcoin pool, used to charge 3% for PPLNS, but 10% for PPS.

At Luxor, we charge a flat 3% fee for PPS, which is very competitive in the market as of now.

I like your sia pool but the decred pool fees need to go down to 1% at most. Anyone adding their b29 to the pool will be paying about $135 a month just to use the pool which is the cost for hosting at a data center.

Hi, I think you're overestimating the fee a bit. Still, PPS covers for all the variance of the pool which can have a huge cost. On top of that, Luxor pays for orphans and rejects which the rest of Decred pools don't. So, Luxor's real fee is lower than 3% since you get paid for each an every share you submit.

Currently I'm mining at coinmine.pl and my miner stats show at 100% efficiency and only 4 rejects for the past week so I'm still not seeing the benefit of paying 3%... If there is something else I'm missing or that they don't show in the stats I would like to know but the payouts have been good. They also charge only a 1% fee.

Coinmine.pl had an orphan rate of 0.34% in the past 4 weeks which translates into over 100 DCR that Luxor would have paid to miners. So to compare fees you could add that rate to their 1% (which by the way you don't have an actual way to prove they charge that since they are PPLNS) and at the same time you could subtract that 0.34% from our fee.

On top of that we stake 10% of our fee in a wallet to help Decred get listed on more exchanges or some other community proposal. That's another 0.3%.

Now the real fee difference is 1% and we provide consistent payouts every day. The pool operator is assuming all the variance risk just for 1% extra, at most.

Coinmine.pl stats: https://www2.coinmine.pl/dcr/index.php?page=statistics&action=blocks

There still isn't a 1% difference its 1.66% and with PPLNS there is also luck involved which can increase earnings over longer periods of mining where PPS doesn't include luck... The current mining rate for the B29 will net about $4600 a month and even at the 1.66% difference that is $76 a month extra which is a lot when you consider most GPU's don't even make that much in a month.

With the introduction of Baikals, B29s and Innosilicon just announced another miner for DCR GPU miners don't have much space mining DCR. It won't be profitable anymore. That comparison is useless.


Luxor "nominal fee" is 3% - 0.3% Donation - 0.34% orphan rate = 2.36%.

Coinmine fee is 1%. Therefore, the fee difference is 1.3%.

I think our user experience and product is much better. I would personally pay a 1% difference for better support, help the Decred project to succeed and have a better UI than a generic pool. You may not value that stuff and you prefer 1% less and that's ok.

Happy hashing! Cheers!

[klwolf2000]

THANK YOU!!!! This was exactly what I was looking for. Seriously - thank you. And that's the research I found out too bc I didn't think anyone would respond.

I will say that for anyone interested to know, Luxor pool makes significantly less earnings.  

Hi ReadyPlayer1, first of all thanks for the compliment on our support. We pride ourselves in our community, on Drift, Discord, and Twitter. I really suggest giving us another try, and comparing the payments after a week at each pool. You'll find that PPLNS and Proportional payments (Coinmine and Suprnova) are based on variance. Sometimes they pay more, sometimes alot less.

At Luxor, we pay PPS. I want to take this excerpt from our friends at SiaMining, that have this great descriptor comparing both:

Despite the similar names, PPS (Pay Per Share) and PPLNS (Pay Per Last N Shares) are two very different reward systems.


PPLNS is a modification of the proportional system. The proportional system is perhaps the most natural way to distribute rewards: whenever the pool finds a block, it distributes its value (minus a fee) to miners proportionally to how many shares they have submitted since the previous block. This naive approach is unfortunately easily exploitable by using a technique called pool hopping. PPLNS corrects this issue by considering only the last N shares submitted right before a block was found, and disregarding the rest. If the value of N is chosen appropriately, the system becomes resistant to hopping, but with one side effect: in order to receive fair retribution, in a PPLNS system miners must maintain a relatively constant hashrate at all times. Being a proportional system, PPLNS only rewards miners when a block is found and confirmed by the network, and since finding a block can take considerable time, rewards have a high variance. Additionally, from time to time the pool may find a block that never confirms because another block was found and confirmed before it. Such blocks, called orphans, have no value, and result in missed rewards for miners.


PPS rewards miners with a certain amount (the PPS rate) for every valid share submitted. This amount is determined based on the expected number of shares needed to find a block, and on the reward that finding a block would yield. Note that we say “expected” because mining is a random process, so we can know how many shares will be needed on average in the long run, but not how many will be effectively needed. Since shares are much easier to find than blocks, a miner typically finds several every minute, which drastically reduces the variance of rewards. It is therefore possible for a miner to reliably estimate his earnings, as they do not depend on the luck of the pool. Because miners get paid per share and can tally how many shares they submit, they can easily verify that the promised reward is given, making it impossible for the pool operator to cheat. For the same reason, PPS is completely immune to pool hopping. All in all, PPS arguably offers the fairest payouts for all miners, regardless of hashrate or frequency. The one downside to PPS is for the pool operator, who has to take on the risk of bad luck in finding blocks. To compensate for this risk, PPS pools traditionally charge a higher fee.

Everything else being equal (fee, difficulty, and block reward), in the long run both systems are expected to find the same amount of blocks, but since PPLNS cannot pay for orphaned blocks, PPS miners are expected to receive slightly higher payouts. There are several places on the internet where it is stated that PPLNS yields higher rewards than PPS. The only reason for this is that for a long time PPS pools have had much higher fees than their PPLNS counterparts. For instance DeepBit, which was once the biggest Bitcoin pool, used to charge 3% for PPLNS, but 10% for PPS.

At Luxor, we charge a flat 3% fee for PPS, which is very competitive in the market as of now.

I like your sia pool but the decred pool fees need to go down to 1% at most. Anyone adding their b29 to the pool will be paying about $135 a month just to use the pool which is the cost for hosting at a data center.

Hi, I think you're overestimating the fee a bit. Still, PPS covers for all the variance of the pool which can have a huge cost. On top of that, Luxor pays for orphans and rejects which the rest of Decred pools don't. So, Luxor's real fee is lower than 3% since you get paid for each an every share you submit.

Currently I'm mining at coinmine.pl and my miner stats show at 100% efficiency and only 4 rejects for the past week so I'm still not seeing the benefit of paying 3%... If there is something else I'm missing or that they don't show in the stats I would like to know but the payouts have been good. They also charge only a 1% fee.

Coinmine.pl had an orphan rate of 0.34% in the past 4 weeks which translates into over 100 DCR that Luxor would have paid to miners. So to compare fees you could add that rate to their 1% (which by the way you don't have an actual way to prove they charge that since they are PPLNS) and at the same time you could subtract that 0.34% from our fee.

On top of that we stake 10% of our fee in a wallet to help Decred get listed on more exchanges or some other community proposal. That's another 0.3%.

Now the real fee difference is 1% and we provide consistent payouts every day. The pool operator is assuming all the variance risk just for 1% extra, at most.

Coinmine.pl stats: https://www2.coinmine.pl/dcr/index.php?page=statistics&action=blocks

There still isn't a 1% difference its 1.66% and with PPLNS there is also luck involved which can increase earnings over longer periods of mining where PPS doesn't include luck... The current mining rate for the B29 will net about $4600 a month and even at the 1.66% difference that is $76 a month extra which is a lot when you consider most GPU's don't even make that much in a month.

With the introduction of Baikals, B29s and Innosilicon just announced another miner for DCR GPU miners don't have much space mining DCR. It won't be profitable anymore. That comparison is useless.


Luxor "nominal fee" is 3% - 0.3% Donation - 0.34% orphan rate = 2.36%.

Coinmine fee is 1%. Therefore, the fee difference is 1.3%.

I think our user experience and product is much better. I would personally pay a 1% difference for better support, help the Decred project to succeed and have a better UI than a generic pool. You may not value that stuff and you prefer 1% less and that's ok.

Happy hashing! Cheers!

Coinmine.pl: 1% + 0.34% - Luck%= ?%<1.34%
Luxormining: 3% + 0 = 3% (Doesn't matter what else changes because its 3% anyway you put it since there is no luck factored in with PPS. Also this number gets put into POS which also nets Luxor more $$$ and becomes a loss for miners since they can't reinvest.)

I would really love to mine at luxor pool because I do like the new GUI and the support but unfortunately the fee difference compared to coinmine alone, is the cost of hosting fees per month. Sure after time this will change as more miners enter the arena but the coins value will also increase leveling everything out until the market is too saturated with miners. Since owners of the B29 miners paid $11,000 each, they need to make their capital back ASAP before new miners hit the market like the new Innosilicon D9's. If Luxor changed their pool to PPLNS and dropped their fees down to 1% that went towards projects or POS or whatever it doesn't seem unreasonable to me and I'd join no problem.

[Wolfy10]

THANK YOU!!!! This was exactly what I was looking for. Seriously - thank you. And that's the research I found out too bc I didn't think anyone would respond.

I will say that for anyone interested to know, Luxor pool makes significantly less earnings.  

Hi ReadyPlayer1, first of all thanks for the compliment on our support. We pride ourselves in our community, on Drift, Discord, and Twitter. I really suggest giving us another try, and comparing the payments after a week at each pool. You'll find that PPLNS and Proportional payments (Coinmine and Suprnova) are based on variance. Sometimes they pay more, sometimes alot less.

At Luxor, we pay PPS. I want to take this excerpt from our friends at SiaMining, that have this great descriptor comparing both:

Despite the similar names, PPS (Pay Per Share) and PPLNS (Pay Per Last N Shares) are two very different reward systems.


PPLNS is a modification of the proportional system. The proportional system is perhaps the most natural way to distribute rewards: whenever the pool finds a block, it distributes its value (minus a fee) to miners proportionally to how many shares they have submitted since the previous block. This naive approach is unfortunately easily exploitable by using a technique called pool hopping. PPLNS corrects this issue by considering only the last N shares submitted right before a block was found, and disregarding the rest. If the value of N is chosen appropriately, the system becomes resistant to hopping, but with one side effect: in order to receive fair retribution, in a PPLNS system miners must maintain a relatively constant hashrate at all times. Being a proportional system, PPLNS only rewards miners when a block is found and confirmed by the network, and since finding a block can take considerable time, rewards have a high variance. Additionally, from time to time the pool may find a block that never confirms because another block was found and confirmed before it. Such blocks, called orphans, have no value, and result in missed rewards for miners.


PPS rewards miners with a certain amount (the PPS rate) for every valid share submitted. This amount is determined based on the expected number of shares needed to find a block, and on the reward that finding a block would yield. Note that we say “expected” because mining is a random process, so we can know how many shares will be needed on average in the long run, but not how many will be effectively needed. Since shares are much easier to find than blocks, a miner typically finds several every minute, which drastically reduces the variance of rewards. It is therefore possible for a miner to reliably estimate his earnings, as they do not depend on the luck of the pool. Because miners get paid per share and can tally how many shares they submit, they can easily verify that the promised reward is given, making it impossible for the pool operator to cheat. For the same reason, PPS is completely immune to pool hopping. All in all, PPS arguably offers the fairest payouts for all miners, regardless of hashrate or frequency. The one downside to PPS is for the pool operator, who has to take on the risk of bad luck in finding blocks. To compensate for this risk, PPS pools traditionally charge a higher fee.

Everything else being equal (fee, difficulty, and block reward), in the long run both systems are expected to find the same amount of blocks, but since PPLNS cannot pay for orphaned blocks, PPS miners are expected to receive slightly higher payouts. There are several places on the internet where it is stated that PPLNS yields higher rewards than PPS. The only reason for this is that for a long time PPS pools have had much higher fees than their PPLNS counterparts. For instance DeepBit, which was once the biggest Bitcoin pool, used to charge 3% for PPLNS, but 10% for PPS.

At Luxor, we charge a flat 3% fee for PPS, which is very competitive in the market as of now.

I like your sia pool but the decred pool fees need to go down to 1% at most. Anyone adding their b29 to the pool will be paying about $135 a month just to use the pool which is the cost for hosting at a data center.

Hi, I think you're overestimating the fee a bit. Still, PPS covers for all the variance of the pool which can have a huge cost. On top of that, Luxor pays for orphans and rejects which the rest of Decred pools don't. So, Luxor's real fee is lower than 3% since you get paid for each an every share you submit.

Currently I'm mining at coinmine.pl and my miner stats show at 100% efficiency and only 4 rejects for the past week so I'm still not seeing the benefit of paying 3%... If there is something else I'm missing or that they don't show in the stats I would like to know but the payouts have been good. They also charge only a 1% fee.

Coinmine.pl had an orphan rate of 0.34% in the past 4 weeks which translates into over 100 DCR that Luxor would have paid to miners. So to compare fees you could add that rate to their 1% (which by the way you don't have an actual way to prove they charge that since they are PPLNS) and at the same time you could subtract that 0.34% from our fee.

On top of that we stake 10% of our fee in a wallet to help Decred get listed on more exchanges or some other community proposal. That's another 0.3%.

Now the real fee difference is 1% and we provide consistent payouts every day. The pool operator is assuming all the variance risk just for 1% extra, at most.

Coinmine.pl stats: https://www2.coinmine.pl/dcr/index.php?page=statistics&action=blocks

There still isn't a 1% difference its 1.66% and with PPLNS there is also luck involved which can increase earnings over longer periods of mining where PPS doesn't include luck... The current mining rate for the B29 will net about $4600 a month and even at the 1.66% difference that is $76 a month extra which is a lot when you consider most GPU's don't even make that much in a month.

With the introduction of Baikals, B29s and Innosilicon just announced another miner for DCR GPU miners don't have much space mining DCR. It won't be profitable anymore. That comparison is useless.


Luxor "nominal fee" is 3% - 0.3% Donation - 0.34% orphan rate = 2.36%.

Coinmine fee is 1%. Therefore, the fee difference is 1.3%.

I think our user experience and product is much better. I would personally pay a 1% difference for better support, help the Decred project to succeed and have a better UI than a generic pool. You may not value that stuff and you prefer 1% less and that's ok.

Happy hashing! Cheers!

Coinmine.pl: 1% + 0.34% - Luck%= ?%<1.34%
Luxormining: 3% + 0 = 3% (Doesn't matter what else changes because its 3% anyway you put it since there is no luck factored in with PPS. Also this number gets put into POS which also nets Luxor more $$$ and becomes a loss for miners since they can't reinvest.)

I would really love to mine at luxor pool because I do like the new GUI and the support but unfortunately the fee difference compared to coinmine alone, is the cost of hosting fees per month. Sure after time this will change as more miners enter the arena but the coins value will also increase leveling everything out until the market is too saturated with miners. Since owners of the B29 miners paid $11,000 each, they need to make their capital back ASAP before new miners hit the market like the new Innosilicon D9's. If Luxor changed their pool to PPLNS and dropped their fees down to 1% that went towards projects or POS or whatever it doesn't seem unreasonable to me and I'd join no problem.

We would like you to join in the future. We will run a 0% promotional fee upon getting 100 RTs on Twitter so look forward to that.

We could stop paying for orphans and rejects or supporting the Decred project and we could cut the fee in half. If we switched to PPLNS we could potentially don't charge a fee at all. We want Luxor to be different and that comes with a higher cost right now.

[klwolf2000]

THANK YOU!!!! This was exactly what I was looking for. Seriously - thank you. And that's the research I found out too bc I didn't think anyone would respond.

I will say that for anyone interested to know, Luxor pool makes significantly less earnings.  

Hi ReadyPlayer1, first of all thanks for the compliment on our support. We pride ourselves in our community, on Drift, Discord, and Twitter. I really suggest giving us another try, and comparing the payments after a week at each pool. You'll find that PPLNS and Proportional payments (Coinmine and Suprnova) are based on variance. Sometimes they pay more, sometimes alot less.

At Luxor, we pay PPS. I want to take this excerpt from our friends at SiaMining, that have this great descriptor comparing both:

Despite the similar names, PPS (Pay Per Share) and PPLNS (Pay Per Last N Shares) are two very different reward systems.


PPLNS is a modification of the proportional system. The proportional system is perhaps the most natural way to distribute rewards: whenever the pool finds a block, it distributes its value (minus a fee) to miners proportionally to how many shares they have submitted since the previous block. This naive approach is unfortunately easily exploitable by using a technique called pool hopping. PPLNS corrects this issue by considering only the last N shares submitted right before a block was found, and disregarding the rest. If the value of N is chosen appropriately, the system becomes resistant to hopping, but with one side effect: in order to receive fair retribution, in a PPLNS system miners must maintain a relatively constant hashrate at all times. Being a proportional system, PPLNS only rewards miners when a block is found and confirmed by the network, and since finding a block can take considerable time, rewards have a high variance. Additionally, from time to time the pool may find a block that never confirms because another block was found and confirmed before it. Such blocks, called orphans, have no value, and result in missed rewards for miners.


PPS rewards miners with a certain amount (the PPS rate) for every valid share submitted. This amount is determined based on the expected number of shares needed to find a block, and on the reward that finding a block would yield. Note that we say “expected” because mining is a random process, so we can know how many shares will be needed on average in the long run, but not how many will be effectively needed. Since shares are much easier to find than blocks, a miner typically finds several every minute, which drastically reduces the variance of rewards. It is therefore possible for a miner to reliably estimate his earnings, as they do not depend on the luck of the pool. Because miners get paid per share and can tally how many shares they submit, they can easily verify that the promised reward is given, making it impossible for the pool operator to cheat. For the same reason, PPS is completely immune to pool hopping. All in all, PPS arguably offers the fairest payouts for all miners, regardless of hashrate or frequency. The one downside to PPS is for the pool operator, who has to take on the risk of bad luck in finding blocks. To compensate for this risk, PPS pools traditionally charge a higher fee.

Everything else being equal (fee, difficulty, and block reward), in the long run both systems are expected to find the same amount of blocks, but since PPLNS cannot pay for orphaned blocks, PPS miners are expected to receive slightly higher payouts. There are several places on the internet where it is stated that PPLNS yields higher rewards than PPS. The only reason for this is that for a long time PPS pools have had much higher fees than their PPLNS counterparts. For instance DeepBit, which was once the biggest Bitcoin pool, used to charge 3% for PPLNS, but 10% for PPS.

At Luxor, we charge a flat 3% fee for PPS, which is very competitive in the market as of now.

I like your sia pool but the decred pool fees need to go down to 1% at most. Anyone adding their b29 to the pool will be paying about $135 a month just to use the pool which is the cost for hosting at a data center.

Hi, I think you're overestimating the fee a bit. Still, PPS covers for all the variance of the pool which can have a huge cost. On top of that, Luxor pays for orphans and rejects which the rest of Decred pools don't. So, Luxor's real fee is lower than 3% since you get paid for each an every share you submit.

Currently I'm mining at coinmine.pl and my miner stats show at 100% efficiency and only 4 rejects for the past week so I'm still not seeing the benefit of paying 3%... If there is something else I'm missing or that they don't show in the stats I would like to know but the payouts have been good. They also charge only a 1% fee.

Coinmine.pl had an orphan rate of 0.34% in the past 4 weeks which translates into over 100 DCR that Luxor would have paid to miners. So to compare fees you could add that rate to their 1% (which by the way you don't have an actual way to prove they charge that since they are PPLNS) and at the same time you could subtract that 0.34% from our fee.

On top of that we stake 10% of our fee in a wallet to help Decred get listed on more exchanges or some other community proposal. That's another 0.3%.

Now the real fee difference is 1% and we provide consistent payouts every day. The pool operator is assuming all the variance risk just for 1% extra, at most.

Coinmine.pl stats: https://www2.coinmine.pl/dcr/index.php?page=statistics&action=blocks

There still isn't a 1% difference its 1.66% and with PPLNS there is also luck involved which can increase earnings over longer periods of mining where PPS doesn't include luck... The current mining rate for the B29 will net about $4600 a month and even at the 1.66% difference that is $76 a month extra which is a lot when you consider most GPU's don't even make that much in a month.

With the introduction of Baikals, B29s and Innosilicon just announced another miner for DCR GPU miners don't have much space mining DCR. It won't be profitable anymore. That comparison is useless.


Luxor "nominal fee" is 3% - 0.3% Donation - 0.34% orphan rate = 2.36%.

Coinmine fee is 1%. Therefore, the fee difference is 1.3%.

I think our user experience and product is much better. I would personally pay a 1% difference for better support, help the Decred project to succeed and have a better UI than a generic pool. You may not value that stuff and you prefer 1% less and that's ok.

Happy hashing! Cheers!

Coinmine.pl: 1% + 0.34% - Luck%= ?%<1.34%
Luxormining: 3% + 0 = 3% (Doesn't matter what else changes because its 3% anyway you put it since there is no luck factored in with PPS. Also this number gets put into POS which also nets Luxor more $$$ and becomes a loss for miners since they can't reinvest.)

I would really love to mine at luxor pool because I do like the new GUI and the support but unfortunately the fee difference compared to coinmine alone, is the cost of hosting fees per month. Sure after time this will change as more miners enter the arena but the coins value will also increase leveling everything out until the market is too saturated with miners. Since owners of the B29 miners paid $11,000 each, they need to make their capital back ASAP before new miners hit the market like the new Innosilicon D9's. If Luxor changed their pool to PPLNS and dropped their fees down to 1% that went towards projects or POS or whatever it doesn't seem unreasonable to me and I'd join no problem.

We would like you to join in the future. We will run a 0% promotional fee upon getting 100 RTs on Twitter so look forward to that.

We could stop paying for orphans and rejects or supporting the Decred project and cut the fee in half. If we switched to PPLNS we could potentially don't charge a fee at all. We want Luxor to be different and that comes with a higher cost right now.

Please do that and I will join the pool in a heat beat!!! 

[Wolfy10]

THANK YOU!!!! This was exactly what I was looking for. Seriously - thank you. And that's the research I found out too bc I didn't think anyone would respond.

I will say that for anyone interested to know, Luxor pool makes significantly less earnings.  

Hi ReadyPlayer1, first of all thanks for the compliment on our support. We pride ourselves in our community, on Drift, Discord, and Twitter. I really suggest giving us another try, and comparing the payments after a week at each pool. You'll find that PPLNS and Proportional payments (Coinmine and Suprnova) are based on variance. Sometimes they pay more, sometimes alot less.

At Luxor, we pay PPS. I want to take this excerpt from our friends at SiaMining, that have this great descriptor comparing both:

Despite the similar names, PPS (Pay Per Share) and PPLNS (Pay Per Last N Shares) are two very different reward systems.


PPLNS is a modification of the proportional system. The proportional system is perhaps the most natural way to distribute rewards: whenever the pool finds a block, it distributes its value (minus a fee) to miners proportionally to how many shares they have submitted since the previous block. This naive approach is unfortunately easily exploitable by using a technique called pool hopping. PPLNS corrects this issue by considering only the last N shares submitted right before a block was found, and disregarding the rest. If the value of N is chosen appropriately, the system becomes resistant to hopping, but with one side effect: in order to receive fair retribution, in a PPLNS system miners must maintain a relatively constant hashrate at all times. Being a proportional system, PPLNS only rewards miners when a block is found and confirmed by the network, and since finding a block can take considerable time, rewards have a high variance. Additionally, from time to time the pool may find a block that never confirms because another block was found and confirmed before it. Such blocks, called orphans, have no value, and result in missed rewards for miners.


PPS rewards miners with a certain amount (the PPS rate) for every valid share submitted. This amount is determined based on the expected number of shares needed to find a block, and on the reward that finding a block would yield. Note that we say “expected” because mining is a random process, so we can know how many shares will be needed on average in the long run, but not how many will be effectively needed. Since shares are much easier to find than blocks, a miner typically finds several every minute, which drastically reduces the variance of rewards. It is therefore possible for a miner to reliably estimate his earnings, as they do not depend on the luck of the pool. Because miners get paid per share and can tally how many shares they submit, they can easily verify that the promised reward is given, making it impossible for the pool operator to cheat. For the same reason, PPS is completely immune to pool hopping. All in all, PPS arguably offers the fairest payouts for all miners, regardless of hashrate or frequency. The one downside to PPS is for the pool operator, who has to take on the risk of bad luck in finding blocks. To compensate for this risk, PPS pools traditionally charge a higher fee.

Everything else being equal (fee, difficulty, and block reward), in the long run both systems are expected to find the same amount of blocks, but since PPLNS cannot pay for orphaned blocks, PPS miners are expected to receive slightly higher payouts. There are several places on the internet where it is stated that PPLNS yields higher rewards than PPS. The only reason for this is that for a long time PPS pools have had much higher fees than their PPLNS counterparts. For instance DeepBit, which was once the biggest Bitcoin pool, used to charge 3% for PPLNS, but 10% for PPS.

At Luxor, we charge a flat 3% fee for PPS, which is very competitive in the market as of now.

I like your sia pool but the decred pool fees need to go down to 1% at most. Anyone adding their b29 to the pool will be paying about $135 a month just to use the pool which is the cost for hosting at a data center.

Hi, I think you're overestimating the fee a bit. Still, PPS covers for all the variance of the pool which can have a huge cost. On top of that, Luxor pays for orphans and rejects which the rest of Decred pools don't. So, Luxor's real fee is lower than 3% since you get paid for each an every share you submit.

Currently I'm mining at coinmine.pl and my miner stats show at 100% efficiency and only 4 rejects for the past week so I'm still not seeing the benefit of paying 3%... If there is something else I'm missing or that they don't show in the stats I would like to know but the payouts have been good. They also charge only a 1% fee.

Coinmine.pl had an orphan rate of 0.34% in the past 4 weeks which translates into over 100 DCR that Luxor would have paid to miners. So to compare fees you could add that rate to their 1% (which by the way you don't have an actual way to prove they charge that since they are PPLNS) and at the same time you could subtract that 0.34% from our fee.

On top of that we stake 10% of our fee in a wallet to help Decred get listed on more exchanges or some other community proposal. That's another 0.3%.

Now the real fee difference is 1% and we provide consistent payouts every day. The pool operator is assuming all the variance risk just for 1% extra, at most.

Coinmine.pl stats: https://www2.coinmine.pl/dcr/index.php?page=statistics&action=blocks

There still isn't a 1% difference its 1.66% and with PPLNS there is also luck involved which can increase earnings over longer periods of mining where PPS doesn't include luck... The current mining rate for the B29 will net about $4600 a month and even at the 1.66% difference that is $76 a month extra which is a lot when you consider most GPU's don't even make that much in a month.

With the introduction of Baikals, B29s and Innosilicon just announced another miner for DCR GPU miners don't have much space mining DCR. It won't be profitable anymore. That comparison is useless.


Luxor "nominal fee" is 3% - 0.3% Donation - 0.34% orphan rate = 2.36%.

Coinmine fee is 1%. Therefore, the fee difference is 1.3%.

I think our user experience and product is much better. I would personally pay a 1% difference for better support, help the Decred project to succeed and have a better UI than a generic pool. You may not value that stuff and you prefer 1% less and that's ok.

Happy hashing! Cheers!

Coinmine.pl: 1% + 0.34% - Luck%= ?%<1.34%
Luxormining: 3% + 0 = 3% (Doesn't matter what else changes because its 3% anyway you put it since there is no luck factored in with PPS. Also this number gets put into POS which also nets Luxor more $$$ and becomes a loss for miners since they can't reinvest.)

I would really love to mine at luxor pool because I do like the new GUI and the support but unfortunately the fee difference compared to coinmine alone, is the cost of hosting fees per month. Sure after time this will change as more miners enter the arena but the coins value will also increase leveling everything out until the market is too saturated with miners. Since owners of the B29 miners paid $11,000 each, they need to make their capital back ASAP before new miners hit the market like the new Innosilicon D9's. If Luxor changed their pool to PPLNS and dropped their fees down to 1% that went towards projects or POS or whatever it doesn't seem unreasonable to me and I'd join no problem.

We would like you to join in the future. We will run a 0% promotional fee upon getting 100 RTs on Twitter so look forward to that.

We could stop paying for orphans and rejects or supporting the Decred project and cut the fee in half. If we switched to PPLNS we could potentially don't charge a fee at all. We want Luxor to be different and that comes with a higher cost right now.

Please do that and I will join the pool in a heat beat!!! 

There you go: https://twitter.com/LuxorTechTeam/status/986314452751601669

[hot cheetos]

OP how much are you doing now with your B29 miners? Its been about 2 weeks since you posted im curious how the difficulty changes have affected you?

Also, does anyone know how many b29 miners were sold exactly? Isn't that a number that we should be interested in to see how its going to affect the difficulty and in turn the diminishing profit per day?

[MA3A]

Talking about ASIC's and FPGA's - not sure what SAMSUNGis producing and for whom, but INTEL, just announced they got FASTEST IN THE WORLD FPGA:
https://newsroom.intel.com/news/intel-chip-performs-10-trillion-calculations-per-second/

- get those properly programmed and stacked up in 1 miner and i bet it will beat anything thats out there right now. Interesting point that we may be seeing high end FPGA based miners to come out soon, which can be adopted to forks. BEWARE

[shahabz]

So I have (2) B29 Dragonmint miners to mine Decred and hooked them up for the past few days. According to Awesome Miner and the miner status page on my local IP, they're hashing at 2.4TH/s and very stable (low reject rate and HW errors). But on the Decred pool (I'm on coinmine.pl pool), they're not stable at all...hashing all over the place from 1.5TH/s to 2.1TH/s. Sometimes it goes up for a while but then will come back down.

I'm assuming this is not normal but I don't know what could cause this? The miners seem to be hashing fine from what I can tell but it's just the pool I'm having issue with. Any ideas what might be causing this?

I have the same issue... awsomeminer showing full hash rate but coinmine showing highly variable... hash rate does come up when I reboot the miner.  I also tried Supernova pool but don't but get a higher number of rejects.  Also the miner seems to be stuck on "auto-tuning" mode indefinitely.  Is that normal?

[Wolfy10]

So I have (2) B29 Dragonmint miners to mine Decred and hooked them up for the past few days. According to Awesome Miner and the miner status page on my local IP, they're hashing at 2.4TH/s and very stable (low reject rate and HW errors). But on the Decred pool (I'm on coinmine.pl pool), they're not stable at all...hashing all over the place from 1.5TH/s to 2.1TH/s. Sometimes it goes up for a while but then will come back down.

I'm assuming this is not normal but I don't know what could cause this? The miners seem to be hashing fine from what I can tell but it's just the pool I'm having issue with. Any ideas what might be causing this?

I have the same issue... awsomeminer showing full hash rate but coinmine showing highly variable... hash rate does come up when I reboot the miner.  I also tried Supernova pool but don't but get a higher number of rejects.  Also the miner seems to be stuck on "auto-tuning" mode indefinitely.  Is that normal?

Halongs are bumping their performance within their UI. You're not actually hashing at 2.4 TH/s.

Feel free to try mining.luxor.tech pool PPS, transparent and reliable.

[CryptoShiekh]

I really need some help!!!

I have 6 Decred miners

And I can't seem to get them to connect to the pool

I put in the information

stratum+tcp://dcr-us.coinmine.pl
My Worker id   
and password

Waited almost two hours and nothing happened? The hashing info never showed back up and the pool itself didn't show my miner connected

If I reset the miners they keep trying to "autotune" be no matter how long I leave them they never seem to finish
I also tried to see if there was a firmware update but nothing shows up


Is there something I'm doing wrong!?
I have to get these up and running asap

Please help

[yrk1957]

I really need some help!!!

I have 6 Decred miners

And I can't seem to get them to connect to the pool

I put in the information

stratum+tcp://dcr-us.coinmine.pl
My Worker id   
and password

Waited almost two hours and nothing happened? The hashing info never showed back up and the pool itself didn't show my miner connected

If I reset the miners they keep trying to "autotune" be no matter how long I leave them they never seem to finish
I also tried to see if there was a firmware update but nothing shows up


Is there something I'm doing wrong!?
I have to get these up and running asap

Please help

You are missing port number in the URL?

[chris-swiss]

I really need some help!!!

I have 6 Decred miners

And I can't seem to get them to connect to the pool

I put in the information

stratum+tcp://dcr-us.coinmine.pl
My Worker id   
and password

Waited almost two hours and nothing happened? The hashing info never showed back up and the pool itself didn't show my miner connected

If I reset the miners they keep trying to "autotune" be no matter how long I leave them they never seem to finish
I also tried to see if there was a firmware update but nothing shows up


Is there something I'm doing wrong!?
I have to get these up and running asap

Please help

stratum+tcp://dcr-us.coinmine.pl:2222

for looking if its work , you can be test directly with anonymous , you just
stratum+tcp://dcr-us.coinmine.pl:2222
wallet adress 
password : x

for me i dont have problem