[DEAD] DeepBit.net PPS+Prop,instant payouts, we pay for INVALID BLOCKS too

[BlackPrapor]

So you're saying that it more depends (or completely depends) on the number of pool users, and not their hash rate?

It depends entirely on your share of the pools hash rate, so

P.S. Would I be able to reduce variance on luck for small blocks if I have 50 accounts with smaller hash speed, instead of 1 fast?

No. Join a smaller pool where your % is larger. That will decrease the variability of your % on short blocks, but of course your overall variability will only increase because a smaller pool has a bigger per day or per week variability.  

I get what you're saying. I know that. Ceteris paribus, in a small pool you have larger block luck variance, but smaller small block luck variance (if you get what I mean), but only if your luck for small blocks really depends on your proportion of the total pool speed (not the number of users, as DeepBit suggests). My theory is, that there should be a certain pool speed for your farm to produce with less total variance (that is total block size variance + small block variance where you have a chance of not getting a share at all), which depends on a weighted average of two variables. That is your proportion of the pool's speed and your proportion on the pool's number of users.

P.S. I have no idea what's the weight of each variable though.

[1714314612]

1714314612

[1714314612]

1714314612

[1714314612]

1714314612

[1714314612]

1714314612

[1714314612]

1714314612

[P4man]

I get what you're saying. I know that. You're confusing block luck variance and getting a share in a small block variance.

No, Im not. But you can only decrease one at the expense of the other with a given hashrate.

To look at the extreme ends of the spectrum, you can eliminate the "share per small block variance" completely only by mining solo, then you will always have 100%. You can eliminate the the block length variance only by going PPS. You can can have almost anything inbetween, but you cant have both. Deepbit prop is as close to PPS as you will get on a proportional payout scheme, its therefore logical the per share in short block variance is as high as it gets, because your % of the overall hashrate is minimal.  Deepbit will sometimes find blocks in the time it takes you to find a single share. There is no way around that. That can work out both ways though, as either very lucky or unlucky.

[BlackPrapor]

P.S. Would I be able to reduce variance on luck for small blocks if I have 50 accounts with smaller hash speed, instead of 1 fast?

No. Join a smaller pool where your % is larger. That will decrease the variability of your % on short blocks, but of course your overall variability will only increase because a smaller pool has a bigger per day or per week variability. 

Well, Deepbit is saying that when it comes to submitting a share for a small block, it doesn't matter what's your hash rate, it's totally depends on whever you will be one of those who receive getwork for that block. So, that means it depends on your proportion of the "number" of pool users. Then it seems logical that when only a small number of pool users get that work, the larger your user account number, the more your chances of getting that work are. What do you think?

[P4man]

Well, Deepbit is saying that when it comes to submitting a share for a small block, it doesn't matter what's your hash rate, it's totally depends on whever you will be one of those who receive getwork for that block. So, that means it depends on your proportion of the "number" of pool users. Then it seems logical that when only a small number of pool users get that work, the larger your user account number, the more your chances of getting that work are. What do you think?

I think deepbit is mostly wrong. You have to get the getwork of course, but in a round that takes 1 minute, you should get it. Processing and submitting a valid share based on it within 1 minute is something else entirely, and the higher your hashrate, obviously, the better your odds. So hashrate does matter. 

What I think he means, is that for overall profits it doesnt matter, and then he is right. Higher hashrate will mean (slightly) lower variability, but your overall expected revenue per MH is the same. Its just like mining solo, the bigger your hashrate, the lower the variance, but it has no impact on your expected overall btc/MH.

[BlackPrapor]

I get what you're saying. I know that. You're confusing block luck variance and getting a share in a small block variance.

No, Im not. But you can only decrease one at the expense of the other with a given hashrate.

To look at the extreme ends of the spectrum, you can eliminate the "share per small block variance" completely only by mining solo, then you will always have 100%. You can eliminate the the block length variance only by going PPS. You can can have almost anything inbetween, but you cant have both. Deepbit prop is as close to PPS as you will get on a proportional payout scheme, its therefore logical the per share in short block variance is as high as it gets, because your % of the overall hashrate is minimal.  Deepbit will sometimes find blocks in the time it takes you to find a single share. There is no way around that. That can work out both ways though, as either very lucky or unlucky.

Yes, I think it's possible to have both with certain hash rate and a proportion of the pool you're in (or solo, as you mentioned). That's why large scale mining farms would be more profitable (I think Vladimir already knows that  ). But it's still should be possible to find a certain pool size and number of users for your hash rate, where you get low variance of both "lucks", maybe even close to 0% chance of not getting small block share.

[BlackPrapor]

Well, Deepbit is saying that when it comes to submitting a share for a small block, it doesn't matter what's your hash rate, it's totally depends on whever you will be one of those who receive getwork for that block. So, that means it depends on your proportion of the "number" of pool users. Then it seems logical that when only a small number of pool users get that work, the larger your user account number, the more your chances of getting that work are. What do you think?

I think deepbit is mostly wrong. You have to get the getwork of course, but in a round that takes 1 minute, you should get it. Processing and submitting a valid share based on it within 1 minute is something else entirely, and the higher your hashrate, obviously, the better your odds. So hashrate does matter.  

What I think he means, is that for overall profits it doesnt matter, and then he is right. Higher hashrate will mean (slightly) lower variability, but your overall expected revenue per MH is the same. Its just like mining solo, the bigger your hashrate, the lower the variance, but it has no impact on your expected overall btc/MH.

The good thing is, that in due time I would be able to do an experiment with 50 miners and see who's right. I could setup 50 accounts, and then merge them into 1 and see which one option gives me more chances with getting shares in small blocks. Untill then I guess it doesn't matter what we think about this =)

P.S. P4Man, I think you're right about the number of accounts relevance to the luck variance. If the work is distributed among the workers as per thread, not user account, then it doesn't really matter how many accounts you have, it matters how many threads your workers have in total and their total hash rate.

[P4man]

Yes, I think it's possible to have both with certain hash rate and a proportion of the pool you're in (or solo, as you mentioned). That's why large scale mining farms would be more profitable

Not true. It doesnt matter. Think of it this way, with your one card, granted,  you may miss some small blocks, but OTOH its also possibly you will get 5x more than average on that short block. heck, theoretically you could make 50BTC on a single share block. The larger the hashrate, the more improbable such luck becomes (per MH!), just as the more improbable bad luck becomes. But good and bad luck even out, really, there is no difference  in revenue per MH for small miners or huge farms. For every short block you got unlucky on, there will be one where you got lucky.

If you want to improve your revenue per MH, simply go mine somewhere where fees are lower. That really does make a difference .

[organofcorti]

BlackPrapor you requested someone work out the variance you can expect for you? I'll go one better.

If you have a 6970, I'm guessing you have a hashrate of 350 Mhps? Then you're submitting on average 4.88 difficulty 1 shares per minute. At the current pool hashrate of 3500Ghps, 50000 shares will take 61 seconds. Since the number of shares you submit in a given time is a poisson distributed variable, both the mean and the variance of your submissions in 61 seconds = 4.97. Let's round that to 5.

That might not be helpful, but below is a table of probabilities that you will submit a given number of shares in 61 seconds:

Code:

Shares     Probability  
0          0.006737947
1          0.033689735
2          0.084224337
3          0.140373896
4          0.175467370
5          0.175467370
6          0.146222808
7          0.104444863
8          0.065278039
9          0.036265577
10         0.018132789

At current difficulty  the probability of a round lasting 25000 to 75000 shares is about 0.03. At the current pool hashrate, a block will be solved on average every 32 minutes, or 315 rounds per week. So in a week you'd see 10 rounds between 25000 and 75000 shares.

So you see it's not unlikely, but certainly not usual, that in a week there would be a 50000 share round in which you'd submit no shares.

[DeepBit]

Well, Deepbit is saying that when it comes to submitting a share for a small block, it doesn't matter what's your hash rate, it's totally depends on whever you will be one of those who receive getwork for that block. So, that means it depends on your proportion of the "number" of pool users.

I think deepbit is mostly wrong. You have to get the getwork of course, but in a round that takes 1 minute, you should get it.

Initially I was talking about the chance of getting a share in that 29-shares round, which depends not only on mining luck, as usual, but also on the LP reaction delay/luck because it lasted just a fraction of a second.
(EDIT: No, the 29-shares-round discussion was on the previous page)

But this doesn't affects anything too. About 200 pages ago this question was already answered many times: not getting a share in short block won't affect your average reward because sometimes you WILL get a share in similar conditions and it will average out.

So you're saying that it more depends (or completely depends) on the number of pool users, and not their hash rate?
P.S. Would I be able to reduce variance on luck for small blocks if I have 50 accounts with smaller hash speed, instead of 1 fast?

No, accounts number won't make any difference. I just mean that there are LOTS of miners who submitted a share in that block, but THIS time you weren't among them.
If there were any troubles with short blocks then we would notice considerable hashrate drops at those moments.

[BlackPrapor]

BlackPrapor you requested someone work out the variance you can expect for you? I'll go one better.

If you have a 6970, I'm guessing you have a hashrate of 350 Mhps? Then you're submitting on average 4.88 difficulty 1 shares per minute. At the current pool hashrate of 3500Ghps, 50000 shares will take 61 seconds. Since the number of shares you submit in a given time is a poisson distributed variable, both the mean and the variance of your submissions in 61 seconds = 4.97. Let's round that to 5.

That might not be helpful, but below is a table of probabilities that you will submit a given number of shares in 61 seconds:

Code:

Shares     Probability  
0          0.006737947
1          0.033689735
2          0.084224337
3          0.140373896
4          0.175467370
5          0.175467370
6          0.146222808
7          0.104444863
8          0.065278039
9          0.036265577
10         0.018132789

At current difficulty  the probability of a round lasting 25000 to 75000 shares is about 0.03. At the current pool hashrate, a block will be solved on average every 32 minutes, or 315 rounds per week. So in a week you'd see 10 rounds between 25000 and 75000 shares.

So you see it's not unlikely, but certainly not usual, that in a week there would be a 50000 share round in which you'd submit no shares.

Thanks a lot for the info. As you can see here, my chances of getting 0 shares for small blocks are around 0.6%. I've been mining here for around 17 days, and got a few 0 share bloks already  ...which makes me think I'm special  .
I wasn't implying that you can get higher profits. If you read carefully, all I was after is reduced variance. Both variances. Deepbit, you're saying that you have to be lucky to get a share in a small block and in time it averages out anyway. All I'm asking is whether I'll be able to reduce variance by having many accounts, and getting a share in a small block at least with some of those accounts. Since this topic already been discussed earlier, I wont bugger you guys with these questions anymore =) Thanks.

P.S. BTW, I'm using proportional payouts and my hash speed for the last 7 shares reported on account page is quite weird. I get anything from 190Mhs up to 933Mhs per round. My card's speed is stable though, at 362,8Mhs (not overclocked)

[DeepBit]

All I'm asking is whether I'll be able to reduce variance by having many accounts, and getting a share in a small block at least with some of those accounts.

Number of accounts won't make any difference. All shares are equal anyway.

P.S. BTW, I'm using proportional payouts and my hash speed for the last 7 shares reported on account page is quite weird. I get anything from 190Mhs up to 933Mhs per round. My card's speed is stable though, at 362,8Mhs (not overclocked)

Measuring hashrate with your last 7 shares won't give any anything even remotely correct.
Set your averaging window to 30-40 minutes and you'll see better results.

[macbook-air]

Hello, I am getting "Account_locked" while trying to create a new worker or change name of an existing worker. Why? I can still make manually payout.

[DeepBit]

Hello, I am getting "Account_locked" while trying to create a new worker or change name of an existing worker. Why? I can still make manually payout.

Probably it was accidentally locked because of poolhopping. PM me your login name.

[BlackPrapor]

Number of accounts won't make any difference. All shares are equal anyway.

You're answering like a real politician 

Measuring hashrate with your last 7 shares won't give any anything even remotely correct.
Set your averaging window to 30-40 minutes and you'll see better results.

I imagine my stated hash rate for each of the last 7 blocks should be somewhere around my real hash rate. I can setup averaging window to see my reported speed for the last X nimutes, but its still deviates alot in the last 7 blocks column. I point to this fact because I get paid based on those numbers. I guess it's just another variable which doesn't affect your income in the long run.

[organofcorti]

Number of accounts won't make any difference. All shares are equal anyway.

You're answering like a real politician 

OK then: Your variance depends on total shares submitted. It doesn't matter if you submit them from one account or many.

Measuring hashrate with your last 7 shares won't give any anything even remotely correct.
Set your averaging window to 30-40 minutes and you'll see better results.

I imagine my stated hash rate for each of the last 7 blocks should be somewhere around my real hash rate. I can setup averaging window to see my reported speed for the last X nimutes, but its still deviates alot in the last 7 blocks column. I point to this fact because I get paid based on those numbers. I guess it's just another variable which doesn't affect your income in the long run.

Your round hashrate (in Mhps) is:

Code:

shares submitted for round * 2^32/10^6/time for round(in seconds)

Remember that the probability mass function (probabilities I gave above) is quite 'shallow' so variance is large. If the pool hashrate is stable, then your variance in round hashrate will be the same as your variance in shares submitted in a given round. For larger hashrates, the Poisson distribution variance is comparatively lower than for a low hashrate. So you're going to see significant variances in hashrate if you're looking at what the pool reports.

Asking about the variance of your shares submitted in a minute is the same as asking about the variance of your hashrate in a round.

[jkminkov]

BlackPrapor you requested someone work out the variance you can expect for you? I'll go one better.

If you have a 6970, I'm guessing you have a hashrate of 350 Mhps? Then you're submitting on average 4.88 difficulty 1 shares per minute. At the current pool hashrate of 3500Ghps, 50000 shares will take 61 seconds. Since the number of shares you submit in a given time is a poisson distributed variable, both the mean and the variance of your submissions in 61 seconds = 4.97. Let's round that to 5.

That might not be helpful, but below is a table of probabilities that you will submit a given number of shares in 61 seconds:

Code:

Shares     Probability  
0          0.006737947
1          0.033689735
2          0.084224337
3          0.140373896
4          0.175467370
5          0.175467370
6          0.146222808
7          0.104444863
8          0.065278039
9          0.036265577
10         0.018132789

At current difficulty  the probability of a round lasting 25000 to 75000 shares is about 0.03. At the current pool hashrate, a block will be solved on average every 32 minutes, or 315 rounds per week. So in a week you'd see 10 rounds between 25000 and 75000 shares.

So you see it's not unlikely, but certainly not usual, that in a week there would be a 50000 share round in which you'd submit no shares.

take a note, that some miners use 2 threads per GPU(cgminer by default), so your numbers need recalculation I think :]

[organofcorti]

BlackPrapor you requested someone work out the variance you can expect for you? I'll go one better.

If you have a 6970, I'm guessing you have a hashrate of 350 Mhps? Then you're submitting on average 4.88 difficulty 1 shares per minute. At the current pool hashrate of 3500Ghps, 50000 shares will take 61 seconds. Since the number of shares you submit in a given time is a poisson distributed variable, both the mean and the variance of your submissions in 61 seconds = 4.97. Let's round that to 5.

That might not be helpful, but below is a table of probabilities that you will submit a given number of shares in 61 seconds:

Code:

Shares     Probability  
0          0.006737947
1          0.033689735
2          0.084224337
3          0.140373896
4          0.175467370
5          0.175467370
6          0.146222808
7          0.104444863
8          0.065278039
9          0.036265577
10         0.018132789

At current difficulty  the probability of a round lasting 25000 to 75000 shares is about 0.03. At the current pool hashrate, a block will be solved on average every 32 minutes, or 315 rounds per week. So in a week you'd see 10 rounds between 25000 and 75000 shares.

So you see it's not unlikely, but certainly not usual, that in a week there would be a 50000 share round in which you'd submit no shares.

take a note, that some miners use 2 threads per GPU(cgminer by default), so your numbers need recalculation I think :]

No, for this analysis the way shares are created isn't important - only the total you send to the pool in a given period of time is. If you send more shares than your effective hashrate is higher.

[kano]

And yet ... that is ignoring a few of the facts that do affect this:
Firstly there is a delay from when the pool gets a block until it informs each miner of that new block via an LP - and the 'miner' receives the LP
Secondly there is the delay from that LP to the time when the first share is expected to be found based on the mining power
Thirdly there is the delay in sending the share back to the pool

The miner will have an LP delay + expected time + reply delay that is either within the short block time or not ...

... and a VERY specific example would be a BFL mining device that will not return a share for LP delay + 5.x seconds + reply delay ...

[organofcorti]

So how does that change if you have several accounts?

[kano]

So how does that change if you have several accounts?

Well since the discussion started about getting shares in short rounds ...
and both you and DeepBit have stated that the number of accounts doesn't matter ...
My comments were pointing out that the hash rate is not the ONLY factor in determining if you will get shares in the short rounds.

However, now that you mention it, if you have more accounts, then you will have to receive more LP messages.
This will slow down the first item I listed above - such that the average time to get the LP for each account will increase since every account after the first one to receive the LP will of course receive it later.