Luke-Jr (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1186
|
|
August 03, 2011, 08:54:24 PM Last edit: August 03, 2011, 09:05:39 PM by Luke-Jr |
|
BitcoinTalk forum stupidly disabled the ability to change votes when I added the new option for PPLLNS on the other poll, so we'll have to start over 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
- assume PPLNS and PPLLNS apply to both weighed and unweighed shares
There is presently no planned date or ETA for this change: it may happen next week, next month, or never.Summaries: See also: Real-world example graphs for most payout methods
|
|
|
|
|
|
You can see the statistics of your reports to moderators on the "Report to moderator" pages.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
iopq
|
|
August 04, 2011, 02:24:37 AM |
|
how long does it take you to go through difficulty * 8 shares? that might definitely influence my vote
|
|
|
|
Luke-Jr (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1186
|
|
August 04, 2011, 02:27:44 AM |
|
how long does it take you to go through difficulty * 8 shares? that might definitely influence my vote On average, 8 blocks...
|
|
|
|
Sukrim
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2618
Merit: 1006
|
|
August 04, 2011, 07:46:11 AM |
|
8 blocks on Eligius - not on the network, just to add.
|
|
|
|
GriphZero
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 20
Merit: 0
|
|
August 04, 2011, 04:17:04 PM |
|
In the example charts, what is the reason the total payout for Capped PPS with Backpay is so much higher than Pay Per Last N Shares?
|
|
|
|
Sukrim
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2618
Merit: 1006
|
|
August 04, 2011, 10:13:42 PM |
|
The data seems to show a bad luck streak. During good luck times (see the beginning for example), "short memory" methods should pay out more than pure PPS even.
|
|
|
|
Luke-Jr (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1186
|
|
August 04, 2011, 10:44:44 PM |
|
The data seems to show a bad luck streak. During good luck times (see the beginning for example), "short memory" methods should pay out more than pure PPS even. Most of the methods pay out PPS when the pool is lucky, so I had to drop blocks from the simulation to get what I considered a useful comparison.
|
|
|
|
GriphZero
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 20
Merit: 0
|
|
August 04, 2011, 11:31:33 PM |
|
True, PPLNS is ahead some of the time durring the first few days. But even before the bad luck streak, when everything falls below the PPS line, CPPSB is way ahead.
Also, intrestingly, CPPSB somehow earns a lot more than all the other *PPS methods. They don't seem to be able to stay on the PPS line like CPPSB does.
|
|
|
|
1bitc0inplz
Member
Offline
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
|
|
August 04, 2011, 11:36:16 PM |
|
One thing to keep in mind, is that the graph shows exceptionally bad luck over a very short term. To get a true picture of how a payout method effects a user (and a pool) one must consider all possible outcomes. When we were developing ESMPPS we created a simulator to plot the various possible outcomes of a payout system. It doesn't have a lot of these methods, because some we were not considering. But, it does currently simulate ESMPPS, PPPS, SMPPS and Prop (for a baseline). And, since it's open source, I highly encourage everyone to play with it and (perhaps) implement some of the above methods that are missing. The URL is: https://github.com/lowentropy/pool_sim
|
|
|
|
Sukrim
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2618
Merit: 1006
|
|
August 05, 2011, 01:56:38 AM |
|
True, PPLNS is ahead some of the time durring the first few days. But even before the bad luck streak, when everything falls below the PPS line, CPPSB is way ahead.
It would stay way below (at pure PPS value) during good luck times though, like all other *PPS methods. To me it seems as if it has less variance than other methods from that data. I would really like to see another graph with equally "lucky" data or at least have this one marked with "unlucky simulation"...
|
|
|
|
|