Eligius: Reward method POLL: 2011 August

[Luke-Jr]

BitcoinTalk Forum has screwed up the poll. Please vote on the new one here.

Please:

• vote your preference(s) for Eligius's next reward method (you can choose more than one!)
• only vote if you at least intend to use Eligius after the change (assume your vote is chosen)
• only vote if you understand the different reward methods, and shortcomings of each method

There is presently no planned date or ETA for this change: it may happen next week, next month, or never.

Summaries:

• Pay Per Last N Shares
• Pay Per Last Limit-N Shares
• Equalized Shared Maximum Pay Per Share
• Proportional / Pay Per Share
• Capped Pay Per Share with Backpay
• Capped Pay Per Share with Equalized Backpay

See also: Real-world example graphs for most payout methods

[twmz]

Any thoughts on recoding the payout system as part of this? 

Knowing if payouts would still be exclusively via ~50 BTC generate txs or if you are looking at mixing in (or otherwise using in some automated way) sendmany txs will make a difference in which reward methods I would vote for.

[Luke-Jr]

Any thoughts on recoding the payout system as part of this? 

Knowing if payouts would still be exclusively via ~50 BTC generate txs or if you are looking at mixing in (or otherwise using in some automated way) sendmany txs will make a difference in which reward methods I would vote for.

For now, let's assume the payout system will be rewritten to match the reward system.

[iopq]

PPLNS is the only one that pays more when pool has good luck, right?

[coblee]

I'd like to propose a variant of CPPS that borrows from RSMPPS. Maybe call it RCPPS.
This variant will pay out full PPS pay to the most recent unpaid X shares, where X is the difficulty. So every time a block is found, the last X shares that were not paid will be paid. If the latest round is a short round, most recent unpaid shares from previous rounds (if any) will be paid.

This does a better at focusing on the current and future miners. The downside is that pool needs to keep track of more info about each share.

Luke-Jr, what do you think?

[twmz]

PPLNS is the only one that pays more when pool has good luck, right?

Yes.  

Regarding Proportional / Pay Per Share isn't it the case that once the pool is in a round that has taken it into the negative, that there is no incentive to stay at the pool.  i.e. As long as there is at least one other pool somewhere that is not in the same situation, it makes sense to hop to them because staying at Eligius when the pool's funds are exhausted means getting paid possibly significantly below "normal reward per share" with no counterbalance mechanism in future rounds.  

It's not as obvious in the sample graphs because the unlucky streaks are mostly at the end and the graphs don't show what happens if those 14 days were followed by 2-3 days of better than average luck.  All of the schemes other than Prop/PPS would have shot back up and gotten close to the overall theoretical PPS line, but Prop/PPS would have stayed 1.5 BTC below that line forever.

Bailing on a Prop/PPS pool when it goes negative is a different kind of hopping than 43% hopping that doesn't harm the other miners on the pool by taking earnings out of their pockets.  That said, if everyone does it, then the pool shrivels up and dies if even a 3-4 day long bad luck streak ever happens.  What am I missing?  I feel like I must be missing something since so many people are voting for it.

[Luke-Jr]

I'd like to propose a variant of CPPS that borrows from RSMPPS. Maybe call it RCPPS.

CPPSRB would fit with the existing names better.

Luke-Jr, what do you think?

I think I intentionally left RSMPPS off the poll, and voted for PPLNS and CPPSB

Bailing on a Prop/PPS pool when it goes negative is a different kind of hopping than 43% hopping that doesn't harm the other miners on the pool by taking earnings out of their pockets.  That said, if everyone does it, then the pool shrivels up and dies if even a 3-4 day long bad luck streak ever happens.  What am I missing?  I feel like I must be missing something since so many people are voting for it.

There is a significant risk when PPPS is negative, but the upside is that it gets to rebuild a buffer sooner rather than trying to pay people off first and possibly getting even further into the negative. So in theory, it might stay on the up-side more often than a *MPPS or CPPS*B method.

[SleeperUnit]

There is a significant risk when PPPS is negative, but the upside is that it gets to rebuild a buffer sooner rather than trying to pay people off first and possibly getting even further into the negative. So in theory, it might stay on the up-side more often than a *MPPS or CPPS*B method.

I might be wrong about this but I imagine PPPS would actually rebuild it's buffer slower due to the fact that all the "sensible" miners will have left as soon as the pool looks like it will go into the negatives. The resulting mass-exodus will cut down the pool's hashing rate and prolong the time it takes to find future blocks.

[Luke-Jr]

There is a significant risk when PPPS is negative, but the upside is that it gets to rebuild a buffer sooner rather than trying to pay people off first and possibly getting even further into the negative. So in theory, it might stay on the up-side more often than a *MPPS or CPPS*B method.

I might be wrong about this but I imagine PPPS would actually rebuild it's buffer slower due to the fact that all the "sensible" miners will have left as soon as the pool looks like it will go into the negatives. The resulting mass-exodus will cut down the pool's hashing rate and prolong the time it takes to find future blocks.

Well, I mean if the pool survives the block. Once the block is over, might as well come back.

[jojkaart]

I can't quite understand why people vote for PPPS... It's the only one I didn't vote for myself.

Luke, if you do end up implementing PPPS as the reward system, make sure you have an easy way to switch it to ... well, any one of the others.

[Xephan]

I can't quite understand why people vote for PPPS... It's the only one I didn't vote for myself.

Luke, if you do end up implementing PPPS as the reward system, make sure you have an easy way to switch it to ... well, any one of the others.

Well, maybe the hoppers are all voting

[jojkaart]

Well, maybe the hoppers are all voting

Oh, true, people might be mistaking it for the regular proportional. It's named in a way that might confuse people.

[Artefact2]

Inb4 Meni Rosenfeld saying "PPLNS is the only one worth choosing".

[iopq]

capped pay per share is the same as PPNLS that pays each share only once (the variant that goes back and pays the unpaid shares instead of double paying the same shares) and N = difficulty

[Luke-Jr]

capped pay per share is the same as PPNLS that pays each share only once (the variant that goes back and pays the unpaid shares instead of double paying the same shares) and N = difficulty

No, because on short rounds, the extra goes toward the N on future rounds in a buffer. Also, straight CPPS isn't being considered, just the CPPSB and CPPSEB variants.

[Bobnova]

I like the current setup, ideally the change would be to use the "server" funds to pay outstanding balances as well as the 50btc from blocks.
It'd be perfect at that point IMO.

[Luke-Jr]

I like the current setup, ideally the change would be to use the "server" funds to pay outstanding balances as well as the 50btc from blocks.
It'd be perfect at that point IMO.

The closest match in this poll to the current setup is ESMPPS

[Jack of Diamonds]

I voted for PPLNS, although a low-fee pure PPS wouldn't be too bad either.

Even better if you could somehow select which payment mode you prefer.

[iopq]

capped pay per share is the same as PPNLS that pays each share only once (the variant that goes back and pays the unpaid shares instead of double paying the same shares) and N = difficulty

No, because on short rounds, the extra goes toward the N on future rounds in a buffer. Also, straight CPPS isn't being considered, just the CPPSB and CPPSEB variants.

straight CPPS is better, you don't want people mining only when there's a large buffer and hopping off when it seems that the buffer is getting small

[Luke-Jr]

capped pay per share is the same as PPNLS that pays each share only once (the variant that goes back and pays the unpaid shares instead of double paying the same shares) and N = difficulty

No, because on short rounds, the extra goes toward the N on future rounds in a buffer. Also, straight CPPS isn't being considered, just the CPPSB and CPPSEB variants.

straight CPPS is better, you don't want people mining only when there's a large buffer and hopping off when it seems that the buffer is getting small

That doesn't make sense. People are more likely to hop off with straight CPPS than with the variants thereof.