[1423GH] ABCPool PPS - Proxy Pool For High & Steady Mining Rewards

[urstroyer]

Here is a link to proof why the pool should use poolserverj -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=33142.msg602707#msg602707

I am now an official psj cheerleader.  

Those are some impressive graphs, at first glance! However.. I notice they're from november 1, and you were mining on yourbtc.net. A quote from their main page:

Higher Stale Rates fixed
Submitted by urstroyer on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 16:50

The problem is hotfixed for now.

We are now accepting stale shares from NMC chain as a valid share until we have a more advanced solution.
So you won't have any disadvantage using cgminer now.

So it seems you've been a victim of faked stats.

This is an excellent example of masking invalid shares. From your screenshot it seems the pool has good rates. While in fact there's no net improvement at all: nothing has changed in the income of the pool and nothing has changed in the payouts of the pool. The rewards are just redistributed, now favoring those who would otherwise have more stales. Of course, this takes earnings away from people who are actually mining efficiently. But they conveniently forget to mention that fact..

There's an additional problem with masking stale shares: It becomes harder to tweak your rigs/setup because you don't get any useful feedback on stale shares anymore.

Sorry, you are just wrong. These stats are far from faked.

The invalid share detection works perfectly fine for BOTH blockchains (BTC/NMC) since 2011-10-31.
The mining client gets feedback of invalid shares from the main blockchain (BTC) only, so thats the stale rate that can be compared to both merged mining and non-merged mining pools like abc.

You can take a look at my comment here: https://yourbtc.net/comment/145#comment-145

But even if NMC blockchain stale shares where accepted as valid shares, there is exactly zero difference to invalid share handling on btc blockchain, because valid/invalid shares are handled seperated for each btc and nmc.

[1714162587]

1714162587

[1714162587]

1714162587

[bitlane]

In response to:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=33586.msg604648#msg604648

For the record..... I now ONLY MINE PPS (no share-type variants...never PROP, ONLY PURE PPS for the past 2 months...and to continue forward) and have fine tuned my system's hourly share average to an extremely predictable range, using Top PPS Pools to do so. I consider my setup has the ability to make an honest and accurate benchmark of a PPS Pool's performance because of this.....along with my familiarity of my setup, thanks to it's steady performance.

...therefore, MY system is in fact predictable (as I stated) and maintains 99.50%++ VALID SHARE AVERAGE on all top PPS Pools that I have used.

I stand behind what I have said about my particular setup, 100%.

To reiterate.....

I hate to say it, but your Pool is anything BUT predictable....yet extremely predictable all at the same time.

The 'Unpredictable'
My measly little 4GH/s mining setup is very optomized and I would even go as far as to say that it runs with the stability and reliability of a finely tuned Swiss Time piece, constantly able to maintain a minimum of 99.50% or higher, of VALID shares on all of the current 'TOP POOLS', yet on ABC, it's performance (my mining setup that is) is more like that of a cheap chinese Rolex knock-off that could barely maintain a 96%+ VALID Share percentage yesterday. I am familiar enough with even the minute-to-minute performance of my setup and it's benchmarked performance on many other pools, that I feel confident enough to comment on it's sad showing yesterday.....with only an address change and nothing else.

The sadly 'Predictable'
Since your Pool is marketed as "Paying for Stales", It was quite interesting, considering my horrible VALID percentage, to see just how many of those non-valid shares were 'ABC-CLASSIFIED' as INVALIDS (not being paid) rather than STALES (that are 'paid').

With my past history, the known stability as well as the overall steady performance of my setup, it was quite disturbing to see that not only was my VALID percentage LOW, but those shares which would have been valid anywhere else on the planet.....and STALES at worst, were further subject to an additional 'slap in the face', being ABC-classified as UNPAID INVALIDS - most of which appeared following a long-polling notification. It was also quite odd to see that the UNPAID INVALIDS were continuously 3 to 3.5x greater an amount than the PAID STALES.........but like I said, SADLY PREDICTABLE.

The Pool's stats are however quite impressive to say the least (298++ GH/s) and are left to speak for themselves.....

It was another type of learning experience on the Bitcoin Road for me. The introduction to "The ABC Invalid"
Allan

[Chlorine]

In response to:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=33586.msg604648#msg604648
...therefore, MY system is in fact predictable (as I stated) and maintains 99.50%++ VALID SHARE AVERAGE on all top PPS Pools that I have used.

Hi bitlane. How much is the fee of the pools where you get a 99.5%+ valid share average? In other words how much do you get paid per share?

In our opinion, the only thing that counts is earnings.

Chlorine.

[bitlane]

In response to:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=33586.msg604648#msg604648
...therefore, MY system is in fact predictable (as I stated) and maintains 99.50%++ VALID SHARE AVERAGE on all top PPS Pools that I have used.

Hi bitlane. How much is the fee of the pools where you get a 99.5%+ valid share average? In other words how much do you get paid per share?

In our opinion, the only thing that counts is earnings.

Chlorine.

Well, for example, 1 of the pools is 5%.....but considering not only my VALID Share average is down, but also my TOTAL SHARES SUBMITTED is less as well, the 5% pool seems to prevail once again and pay me more than a free pool does.

5% Pool = 3360 Shares/hour, 99.50% Valid ...................... Free Pool = 3110 Shares/hour, 96% Valid = perhaps too close to call.

[farfiman]

In response to:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=33586.msg604648#msg604648
...therefore, MY system is in fact predictable (as I stated) and maintains 99.50%++ VALID SHARE AVERAGE on all top PPS Pools that I have used.

Hi bitlane. How much is the fee of the pools where you get a 99.5%+ valid share average? In other words how much do you get paid per share?

In our opinion, the only thing that counts is earnings.

Chlorine.

That kind of sounds like an admission that the pool is scraping some earnings from strange invalids etc INSTEAD of taking a fee....

[bitlane]

In all fairness to the pool though, IT WAS A SHORT TEST and I bailed after .... just short of a couple (under 2 hours) hours because I had become frustrated with my stats, especially when I KNOW how my setup performs. I failed to see how it would get any better considering my INVALID amounts were climbing at a rate of OVER 3:1 over the regular STALES......

I will try set aside some hardware to do a full 1 or 2 day test and see the results after that.

You have to admit.....for a Pool that pays for STALE Shares, there sure seem to be alot of INVALIDS. Just an observation

Total Shares ...5125 (100%)
------------------------------
Total Valid ......4966 (96.90%) - PAID
Total Stale ........37  (0.72%) - PAID ................ (23.27% of 159 stales+invalids total)
Total Invalid .....122  (2.38%) - NOT PAID ......... (76.73% of 159 stales+invalids total)

[rTech]

My statistics are nice and im pretty happy with my results. Been fulltime abc miner like 2-3 weeks.

24-hour running totals:
99.22% valid (13285), 0.52% stale (70), 0.25% invalid (34).

[abracadabra]

I'd suggest abcpool take a look a poolserverj

shadders has done some great work on it.

[chunglam]

I was a long time abc miner, my stats are pretty good

Lifetime Valid: 5419969 shares
Lifetime Stale: 35531 shares
Lifetime Invalid: 29292 shares

Recently my account was hacked and lost 2 btc, it was mainly my fault because my account password is too simple and hasn't been changed for several weeks. But I would suggest MintCondition/Chlorine to improve user account security/protection like https access, payout notification, account setting change confirmation, etc...

[jamesg]

So it seems you've been a victim of faked stats.

I would just like you to test out the software before coming to conclusions as to what is going on. I would not donate to a project, nor spend my time giving you the suggestion to use the psj software, unless I thought that the results it produced were valid.

[MintCondition]

Here is a link to proof why the pool should use poolserverj -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=33142.msg602707#msg602707

Those are some impressive graphs, at first glance! However.. I notice they're from november 1, and you were mining on yourbtc.net. A quote from their main page:

We are now accepting stale shares from NMC chain as a valid share until we have a more advanced solution.

This is an excellent example of masking invalid shares. From your screenshot it seems the pool has good rates. While in fact there's no net improvement at all: nothing has changed in the income of the pool and nothing has changed in the payouts of the pool. The rewards are just redistributed, now favoring those who would otherwise have more stales. Of course, this takes earnings away from people who are actually mining efficiently. But they conveniently forget to mention that fact..

There's an additional problem with masking stale shares: It becomes harder to tweak your rigs/setup because you don't get any useful feedback on stale shares anymore.

Sorry, you are just wrong. These stats are far from faked. [..] You can take a look at my comment here: https://yourbtc.net/comment/145#comment-145

I see; then my statement was in error. I applaud yourbtc.net for trying to communicate how they are handling shares, not every pool is that open about it. Now if only that linked comment had also been a news item on the front page, I probably would have seen it

My point remains (and it applies to all pools, including our own) that a pool owner can never prove to its miners that the reported stats are correct, without giving everyone complete access to his systems. While the whole Bitcoin concept is based on proof: proof of work, proof of transaction, etc., Pool stats cannot be proven correct without full access.

[MintCondition]

In response to:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=33586.msg604648#msg604648
...therefore, MY system is in fact predictable (as I stated) and maintains 99.50%++ VALID SHARE AVERAGE on all top PPS Pools that I have used.

I stand behind what I have said about my particular setup, 100%.

I'm sure your valid share rate at other pools is as you say, and that it is lower at ABCPool. My point is that it is irrelevant. What is relevant is the *absolute number* of valid shares you produce in a day at each pool, *not the percentage*. Let's say you produce 80000 valid shares + 400 invalids at some pool, giving you a 99.5% valid rate. Now you come to ABCPool and generate 80000 valid + 3333 invalids, giving you a 96% valid rate but with exactly the same payout. And that's part of what's been happening lately at ABCPool; many invalids are retries of shares that were already accepted as valid. As you see, it does not matter if you also generate thousands of invalid shares due to to various reasons; as long as the number of valid shares is what you'd expect, your payout will be the same.

Therefore the better question to ask is: how do your valid share counts, and consequently your payouts, compare between pools? You certainly need longer than a few hours to measure those.

We would be glad to welcome you back for a longer test-run!
MC

[MintCondition]

I would just like you to test out the software before coming to conclusions as to what is going on.

I would not donate to a project, nor spend my time giving you the suggestion to use the psj software, unless I thought that the results it produced were valid.

After you first mentioned it, I reviewed the PoolServerJ source code and was impressed by its high quality. Its pluggable design is also admirable; seems like a top notch backend all-in-all, certainly worthy of a donation!

So thanks for bringing it to our attention

[urstroyer]

I would just like you to test out the software before coming to conclusions as to what is going on.

I would not donate to a project, nor spend my time giving you the suggestion to use the psj software, unless I thought that the results it produced were valid.

After you first mentioned it, I reviewed the PoolServerJ source code and was impressed by its high quality. Its pluggable design is also admirable; seems like a top notch backend all-in-all, certainly worthy of a donation!

So thanks for bringing it to our attention

Agreed! Already merged mining ready out of the box, really easy to set it up and of course compatible to pushpool database tables.

Next version will even be huge: psj will generate work and blocks internally. bitcoind won't be a bottleneck for pools anymore.

[Mad7Scientist]

I hope the pool starts charging a fee soon (like 2-4% maybe) since the way it is there is no way the pool is making a profit!

I just makes me concerned this is yet another "0% fee" pool that plans to make money by stealing.

I would rather have 10% fee and know that the pool is honest.

Oh an by the way I have my donation set as 0%! It's not fair to donate when most of the others on the pool probably don't. Just make 1% fee for everyone!

[plastic.elastic]

I would just like you to test out the software before coming to conclusions as to what is going on.

I would not donate to a project, nor spend my time giving you the suggestion to use the psj software, unless I thought that the results it produced were valid.

After you first mentioned it, I reviewed the PoolServerJ source code and was impressed by its high quality. Its pluggable design is also admirable; seems like a top notch backend all-in-all, certainly worthy of a donation!

So thanks for bringing it to our attention

I would love to come back to ABC if you PoolserverJ. Mergedmining and better code, why not?

[rTech]

Just make 1% fee for everyone!

second that.

[ciuciu]

Hello there,

There is a problem with the automatic payment.
I had an automatic payment of 25 bitcoins which went to a different address which is not mine.
Here is a pic:
The top address is not mine and the actual address in the account is still 1ATRa5im91QsuNDYL81BpvhENuJWE78Ets.
Please advise!

[bitlane]

Hello there,

There is a problem with the automatic payment.
I had an automatic payment of 25 bitcoins which went to a different address which is not mine.

Please advise!

Did they (the BTC) go to the address in your control panel ?

Anyways, consider them LOST FOREVER.....that's a sad fact about Bitcoin.

Why would you do a 25 BTC tranfer on an untested setup ? I always go a .5 BTC or less as my first transfer from a pool to ensure that it gets to where it needs to go, before I wait and transfer larger amounts.

Sorry about your luck......that is, if you ended up sending it to the wrong address.

If you had the correct address in your control panel and it was the Pool's fault, I would expect a 100% refund or some sort of compensation (again, 100% worth) from the Pool OP.

If you made the mistake, consider it an $80 lesson

[ciuciu]

It is the address with which I registered and it is the actual address from the control panel. I did not change anything. They sent the payment to the wrong address.