[20 gh] NMCBit pool 3% fee prop 6.6% PPS

[bitlane]

....yet you still disregard my plea to change the following, further misleading more people (FIRST POST IN THIS THREAD)

3% is the fee, that will be given back many times to early adopters.

...with NO mention of any other fees or percentages.

Shouldn't it read:

The PPS Fee is currently 6.6%. PROP is NO FEE, although both are subject to an additional 3% withdrawl fee, making PPS a total of 9.6% and PROP a total of 3% in Fees.

? ? ? ? ?

Regardless, I have uncovered far more disturbing statistics that affect me, that make this almost irrelevant.
ENJOY !

[DavinciJ15]

....yet you still disregard my plea to change the following, further misleading more people (FIRST POST IN THIS THREAD)

3% is the fee, that will be given back many times to early adopters.

...with NO mention of any other fees or percentages.

Shouldn't it read:

The PPS Fee is currently 6.6%. PROP is NO FEE, although both are subject to an additional 3% withdrawl fee, making PPS a total of 9.6% and PROP a total of 3% in Fees.

? ? ? ? ?

Regardless, I have uncovered far more disturbing statistics that affect me, that make this almost irrelevant.
ENJOY !

Again you don't understand how it would more confusing to post a 10% fee then the PPS amount and people see a 3% fee.  If you are smart enough to know that PPS is diff/50 then you can figure out how my site works.  Also your statement...

The PPS Fee is currently 6.6%. PROP is NO FEE, although both are subject to an additional 3% withdrawl fee, making PPS a total of 9.6% and PROP a total of 3% in Fees.

is even more confusing.

So why should I change information that has no effect on you because you know what the deal is?

What stat did you uncover?

[bitlane]

What stat did you uncover?

That everyone really needs to calculate their valid share per hour average, regardless of where they are mining.

With so many users (myself included) busy shopping Pool Stats/Fees/Percentages.....they completely disregard their own performance and how they are able to perform on the pool of their choosing.

Using a big chunk of historical data along with more recent stats, I was able to establish that for me (only me), mining with your pool actually resulted in me generating less BTC than my previous pool due to my own real world performance..... and had nothing to do with the generous offering of what was 'on paper' (or, the website as it were).

Low fees & merged mining mean nothing if a miner's hourly share rate average is garbage due to things beyond his/her control and have more to do with either the Pool's performance or connectivity issues.

[DavinciJ15]

What stat did you uncover?

That everyone really needs to calculate their valid share per hour average, regardless of where they are mining.

With so many users (myself included) busy shopping Pool Stats/Fees/Percentages.....they completely disregard their own performance and how they are able to perform on the pool of their choosing.

Using a big chunk of historical data along with more recent stats, I was able to establish that for me (only me), mining with your pool actually resulted in me generating less BTC than my previous pool due to my own real world performance..... and had nothing to do with the generous offering of what was 'on paper' (or, the website as it were).

Low fees & merged mining mean nothing if a miner's hourly share rate average is garbage due to things beyond his/her control and have more to do with either the Pool's performance or connectivity issues.

Do you have data you wish to share?  If there is a problem I will gladly correct it.

[bitlane]

Do you have data you wish to share?  If there is a problem I will gladly correct it.

I realize now that it would be completely unfair of me to make any statements with specifics and I'd rather not get into those specifics in a public forum, because it will look completely 1 sided and seem as though I am attacking 1 pool while being a fanboy of another. You work hard as both a BTC & NMC supporter as a whole and I respect that.

You and I did stumble across (what I believe to be) the main problem when I first joined up @ NMCBIT last week and that had more to do with geographical location of miner vs pool and the route between them. Once you provided me with an alternate route (to coinserver4) most of the problem went away.

With 100% same hash rates on my end (same settings, equipment etc, only pool address changed) I simply noticed, during my 'calculations' today, that my average share per hour count was approx 3010 shares/hour at one pool, while it was approx 3360 shares/hour at another, using approx 13.67 hours of data initially to come to the conclusion. I am going to re-read a few of my posts and edit them to reflect meaningful info rather than 'heat of the moment' rants etc....lol

Again, I do respect what you have done for the community and to overlook that would be silly on my part.

Allan.

[DavinciJ15]

Do you have data you wish to share?  If there is a problem I will gladly correct it.

I realize now that it would be completely unfair of me to make any statements with specifics and I'd rather not get into those specifics in a public forum, because it will look completely 1 sided and seem as though I am attacking 1 pool while being a fanboy of another. You work hard as both a BTC & NMC supporter as a whole and I respect that.

You and I did stumble across (what I believe to be) the main problem when I first joined up @ NMCBIT last week and that had more to do with geographical location of miner vs pool and the route between them. Once you provided me with an alternate route (to coinserver4) most of the problem went away.

With 100% same hash rates on my end (same settings, equipment etc, only pool address changed) I simply noticed, during my 'calculations' today, that my average share per hour count was approx 3010 shares/hour at one pool, while it was approx 3360 shares/hour at another, using approx 13.67 hours of data initially to come to the conclusion. I am going to re-read a few of my posts and edit them to reflect meaningful info rather than 'heat of the moment' rants etc....lol

Again, I do respect what you have done for the community and to overlook that would be silly on my part.

Allan.

I am speaking with shadders the creator of PoolServerJ to find out if your claims have merit I can assure you I am taking this very seriously.  If we discover an issue rest assured you will be compensated.  If you have any more information you wish to share please do.

Regards

Davinci

[bitlane]

I am speaking with shadders the creator of PoolServerJ to find out if your claims have merit I can assure you I am taking this very seriously.  If we discover an issue rest assured you will be compensated.  If you have any more information you wish to share please do.

Regards

Davinci

FYI....both pools I used in the comparison above currently run PoolserverJ  (probably not what you wanted to hear...lol)

I appreciate you looking into this though,
Allan

[DavinciJ15]

I am speaking with shadders the creator of PoolServerJ to find out if your claims have merit I can assure you I am taking this very seriously.  If we discover an issue rest assured you will be compensated.  If you have any more information you wish to share please do.

Regards

Davinci

FYI....both pools I used in the comparison above currently run PoolserverJ  (probably not what you wanted to hear...lol)

I appreciate you looking into this though,
Allan

Can you let me know what pool?  And the name of the operator?

[DeathAndTaxes]

I am speaking with shadders the creator of PoolServerJ to find out if your claims have merit I can assure you I am taking this very seriously.  If we discover an issue rest assured you will be compensated.  If you have any more information you wish to share please do.

Regards

Davinci

FYI....both pools I used in the comparison above currently run PoolserverJ  (probably not what you wanted to hear...lol)

I appreciate you looking into this though,
Allan

Did that pool have merged mining?  It not, then just speculating it could be something on the backend setup that was causing higher than normal stales or delays in issuing work.

[bitlane]

Did that pool have merged mining?  It not, then just speculating it could be something on the backend setup that was causing higher than normal stales or delays in issuing work.

That's a good possibility. The NMCBIT stales were also well within acceptable ranges (under 1%) yet the overall valid shares were approx 11.5% lower, compared to the other pool I use as reference (which I am currently mining on & monitoring for fresh data). With everything said and done (using a bit of past as well as current 'other' pool data), I actually profited 8.5% less on NMCBIT (with merged mining) than I would have if I had used the other pool in question, which is not even doing merged mining at the moment.

Again, everything 100% same, except for Pool address.....

My 24hr monitoring of the 'other' pool ends in about 20mins, so I will recalculate everything then and report back.

[DavinciJ15]

Did that pool have merged mining?  It not, then just speculating it could be something on the backend setup that was causing higher than normal stales or delays in issuing work.

That's a good possibility. The NMCBIT stales were also well within acceptable ranges (under 1%) yet the overall valid shares were approx 11.5% lower, compared to the other pool I use as reference (which I am currently mining on & monitoring for fresh data). With everything said and done (using a bit of past as well as current 'other' pool data), I actually profited 8.5% less on NMCBIT (with merged mining) than I would have if I had used the other pool in question, which is not even doing merged mining at the moment.

Again, everything 100% same, except for Pool address.....

My 24hr monitoring of the 'other' pool ends in about 20mins, so I will recalculate everything then and report back.

I look forward to viewing your results and I will be working on determining if your statements are true by setting up PSJ without merged mining and repeating the same tests.

To help you figure stuff out I do a targeted 24hr query if you give me the times and miner usernames used for your test thus giving you accurate sums to compare.

Regards

Davinci

[bitlane]

I look forward to viewing your results and I will be working on determining if your statements are true by setting up PSJ without merged mining and repeating the same tests.

Well, in all fairness, my 'statement' is really only a share per hour comparison between what I specificlly get from 2 different pools.

Over a period of 13.67 hrs, I received an average of 3010 valid shares per hour on first pool.

Over a period of 24.00 hrs, I received an average of 3320 valid shares per hour from the other pool (was 3330/hr @ 14hrs).
(current previous '24hr running total' at posting this, 3210/hr after service disruption & maintenance by pool OP)

As far as them being true.....the data and payouts speak for themselves, part of the data you already have access to.

[DavinciJ15]

I look forward to viewing your results and I will be working on determining if your statements are true by setting up PSJ without merged mining and repeating the same tests.

Well, in all fairness, my 'statement' is really only a share per hour comparison between what I specificlly get from 2 different pools.

Over a period of 13.67 hrs, I received an average of 3010 valid shares per hour on one.

Over a period of 24.00 hrs, I received an average of 3320 valid shares per hour from the other (was 3330/hr @ 14hrs, current at posting this, 3210/hr after service disruption & maintenance by pool OP).

As far as them being true.....the data and payouts speak for themselves, part of the data you already have access to.

Keep in mind finding a share also has to do with luck and you will see a variance in a 1 hour test.  With that said I'm going to assume your issue is legitimate as I have felt the same way about the amount of BTCs I earned, but since I have always mined proportional it's not the same.

I am going to do an upgrade of PoolServerJ to Merged-mined version tonight if all goes well I will run some tests.  I would wait and upgrade after the test but the new version will help improve the pool's luck.

Regards

Davinci

[bitlane]

It still could be a route issue or connectivity though, right ? if you recall, coinserver4 helped me out immensly, in comparison to the main server.

Anyways, the NMCBIT data I used was the first 13hrs 40 mins (13.67 hrs) of BTC block# 22, at which point, I switched things over to compare and the 24hr data I showed above. I will paste the 25.5 hr data from my current pool test as well, as it will be ready in about 10 mins.

[DavinciJ15]

It still could be a route issue or connectivity though, right ? if you recall, coinserver4 helped me out immensly, in comparison to the main server.

Anyways, the NMCBIT data I used was the first 13hrs 40 mins (13.67 hrs) of BTC block# 22, at which point, I switched things over to compare and the 24hr data I showed above. I will paste the 25.5 hr data from my current pool test as well, as it will be ready in about 10 mins.

I will also PoolServerJ on all the different Amazon locations once I have an upgrade process in place.  This means you will be able to connect to west coast server.  I will also look into auto switching the nearest server so you don't need to select one near you.

[bitlane]

Here are the last set of figures, NOT INCLUDING NMC (as it seemed pointless considering the BTC share gap):

NMCBIT (merged mining, but NO NMC added to totals) 9.6% total fees:
13.67hrs = 41507 total BTC shares = 1.5612433725 (1.60952925 minus 3%)
= 3036.36 BTC Shares/Hour @ (PPS-3%) 0.000037613977648747 = 0.1142095771734067 BTC/hr Earnings = 2.741029852161761 BTC/day/24hrs (all fees accounted for)

COMPARISON POOL (no merged mining) 5% total fees:
25.50hrs = 84389 total BTC shares = 3.33079136 (0.0000394694967.../share)
= 3309.37 BTC Shares/Hour @ 0.00003946949672652 = 0.1306191683817773 BTC/hr Earnings = 3.134860041162655 BTC/day/24hrs (all fees accounted for)


2.741029852161761 BTC/day/24hrs (all fees accounted for) ...VS... 3.134860041162655 BTC/day/24hrs (all fees accounted for)
= = = = = = = = = = = = (equals) = = = = = 12.56% or 0.393830189 Daily loss average on BTC.

***NO NMC WAS USED TO OFFSET ANY BALANCE**

So, assuming all of the above to be accurate, my NMC earnings would have to have been OVER 12.56% of total daily BTC to break even.

[DavinciJ15]

So, assuming all of the above to be accurate, my NMC earnings would have to have been OVER 12.56% of total daily BTC to break even.

Mining for a bitcoin you a variance has high as 20% in ether direction.  Thus your test needs to be carried out over a long period of time to be valid as one pool you can have many shares found fast and another be unlucky and find shares slower.

With that said I would prefer your test gave my pool more than 13.67 hours but I will assume there is still a problem.  If you are willing to work with me to resolve it.

I will run my test if I find nothing I will assume it's a latency issue.

Can you give me the ping time for my pool and the comparison pool?

[bitlane]

Mining for a bitcoin you a variance has high as 20% in ether direction.  Thus your test needs to be carried out over a long period of time to be valid as one pool you can have many shares found fast and another be unlucky and find shares slower.

Doesn't that kinda defeat the sole purpose of PPS mining ? I don't see how a variance of up to 20% would ever come into play, especially with PPS and the fact that current mining software has built-in work-unit timeouts (60secs by default in CGMiner). I just don't see it.....

I will run my test if I find nothing I will assume it's a latency issue. Can you give me the ping time for my pool and the comparison pool?

Unfortunately I am unable to ping anything on/inside your domain. No reply, all timeouts....obviously security on your end.

However, quick ping stats to the 'other' server (with a bit of anonymity to keep this from looking like a You vs. Them competition):

Pinging xxx.xxx [1xx.x0.xx.1xx] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 1xx.x0.xx.1xx: bytes=32 time=94ms TTL=55
Reply from 1xx.x0.xx.1xx: bytes=32 time=91ms TTL=55
Reply from 1xx.x0.xx.1xx: bytes=32 time=95ms TTL=55
Reply from 1xx.x0.xx.1xx: bytes=32 time=89ms TTL=55

Ping statistics for 1xx.x0.xx.1xx:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 89ms, Maximum = 95ms, Average = 92ms

Hope that helps, atleast a bit.....as again, your servers do not respond to my pings.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Mining for a bitcoin you a variance has high as 20% in ether direction.  Thus your test needs to be carried out over a long period of time to be valid as one pool you can have many shares found fast and another be unlucky and find shares slower.

Doesn't that kinda defeat the sole purpose of PPS mining ? I don't see how a variance of up to 20% would ever come into play, especially with PPS and the fact that current mining software has built-in work-unit timeouts (60secs by default in CGMiner). I just don't see it.....

There is always variance.  Each individual hash has roughly a 1 in 2^32 chance of being a valid share (1/4294967296).

On average you will find one share every 4294967296 hashes but you won't find one share every 4294967296 hashes.  There is still a random element, you could find two shares back to back or not find any shares in 40 billion hashes. 

How much variance one should see in 24 hours I am not sure.  I think there is something beyond standard variance just be aware variance does exist. 

[bitlane]

How much variance one should see in 24 hours I am not sure.  I think there is something beyond standard variance just be aware variance does exist. 

I admit, I am definately aware of it....but just not +/-20% worth using PPS (or so I would hope....lol)