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

[organofcorti]

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.

A miner can't do much about LPs. Just making sure BlackPrapor realises this.

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.

Why is this? Workers on different accounts wont receive LPs sequentially afaik.

[1714309913]

1714309913

[1714309913]

1714309913

[1714309913]

1714309913

[1714309913]

1714309913

[DutchBrat]

Isn't the race to be the first to get the LP also a lottery like who get's to deliver the solution to the hash ?

i.e. If you have 100 rigs setup with 1 GPU you have 100 lottery tickets to be the first to get a LP as opposed to 20 rigs with 5 GPU's where you have only 20 tickets....

For the really short rounds (in the hundreds/few thousands of shares) your hashing power isn't so much what counts as it is the time in which you get the LP (and then of course deliver a solution before the round ends)

[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.

A miner can't do much about LPs. Just making sure BlackPrapor realises this.

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.

Why is this? Workers on different accounts wont receive LPs sequentially afaik.

Unless I've completely missed something about non-broadcast TCP/IP packets travelling around the internet ...
... how can all the network packets arrive at the same time?

Even if the pool has multiple threads sending out the packets, they still have a sequential ordering through at least some the devices as they travel across the net - and of course the pool itself will not have as many threads as there are miners, that will be sending out the LP notices.

[kano]

Isn't the race to be the first to get the LP also a lottery like who get's to deliver the solution to the hash ?

i.e. If you have 100 rigs setup with 1 GPU you have 100 lottery tickets to be the first to get a LP as opposed to 20 rigs with 5 GPU's where you have only 20 tickets....

For the really short rounds (in the hundreds/few thousands of shares) your hashing power isn't so much what counts as it is the time in which you get the LP (and then of course deliver a solution before the round ends)

Hmm what was the comment I made in IRC 9 hours ago to a pool OP ...

13:05 < kanoi> so ... ***** ... how does the pool decide the order it sends out LPs ...
(yes that is a rather controversial question, but only if the answer isn't truly random

[organofcorti]

Isn't the race to be the first to get the LP also a lottery like who get's to deliver the solution to the hash ?

i.e. If you have 100 rigs setup with 1 GPU you have 100 lottery tickets to be the first to get a LP as opposed to 20 rigs with 5 GPU's where you have only 20 tickets....

For the really short rounds (in the hundreds/few thousands of shares) your hashing power isn't so much what counts as it is the time in which you get the LP (and then of course deliver a solution before the round ends)

That's pretty much the way I see it along with delays caused by geographical distance. I did some analysis here and found that I could model the LP response fairly well (although I wasn't sure it was due to LP at the time, I am now) . The response time was distributed as a log normal distribution, mean 0.7 seconds, sd 1.65 seconds.

So I think I see Kano's point now - LP variations will have an effect on your variance for very short rounds. If the model above holds, the mean lag time is about 7.5 seconds, median 2.01 seconds and a standard deviation of about 30. It's quite skewed, half of the miners getting LPs before 2 seconds, and the rest receiving the LPs from 2 seconds up to around 100 seconds after the start of the round.

Edit: This isn't taking into account the time for the share to get from the miner to the pool. Also, the mode is 0.13 seconds, so most miners will have received their LPs by then.

[organofcorti]

Why is this? Workers on different accounts wont receive LPs sequentially afaik.

Unless I've completely missed something about non-broadcast TCP/IP packets travelling around the internet ...
... how can all the network packets arrive at the same time?

Even if the pool has multiple threads sending out the packets, they still have a sequential ordering through at least some the devices as they travel across the net - and of course the pool itself will not have as many threads as there are miners, that will be sending out the LP notices.

Having more accounts doesn't mean you're going to increase the average time to get LPs, which is what I thought you were saying in the post. It just means a reduction in overall LP variance.

[rjk]

Isn't the race to be the first to get the LP also a lottery like who get's to deliver the solution to the hash ?

i.e. If you have 100 rigs setup with 1 GPU you have 100 lottery tickets to be the first to get a LP as opposed to 20 rigs with 5 GPU's where you have only 20 tickets....

For the really short rounds (in the hundreds/few thousands of shares) your hashing power isn't so much what counts as it is the time in which you get the LP (and then of course deliver a solution before the round ends)

Hmm what was the comment I made in IRC 9 hours ago to a pool OP ...

13:05 < kanoi> so ... ***** ... how does the pool decide the order it sends out LPs ...
(yes that is a rather controversial question, but only if the answer isn't truly random

I know that Slush prioritizes the LPs he sends out based on hashrate - I don't know whether Deepbit does this or not, but I think Slush is one of the only ones that does that.

[organofcorti]

I know that Slush prioritizes the LPs he sends out based on hashrate - I don't know whether Deepbit does this or not, but I think Slush is one of the only ones that does that.

Interesting. Prioritising by hashrate is probably a good way to reduce overall stales.

[P4man]

Bitminter does it too. Then again, with 100-150 GH there arent that many 1 minute rounds.

[DutchBrat]

Isn't the race to be the first to get the LP also a lottery like who get's to deliver the solution to the hash ?

i.e. If you have 100 rigs setup with 1 GPU you have 100 lottery tickets to be the first to get a LP as opposed to 20 rigs with 5 GPU's where you have only 20 tickets....

For the really short rounds (in the hundreds/few thousands of shares) your hashing power isn't so much what counts as it is the time in which you get the LP (and then of course deliver a solution before the round ends)

Hmm what was the comment I made in IRC 9 hours ago to a pool OP ...

13:05 < kanoi> so ... ***** ... how does the pool decide the order it sends out LPs ...
(yes that is a rather controversial question, but only if the answer isn't truly random

I know that Slush prioritizes the LPs he sends out based on hashrate - I don't know whether Deepbit does this or not, but I think Slush is one of the only ones that does that.

So that effectively means that the higher your hash rate the more chance you have of submitting a share in a very short round.... so smaller miners will have less of a chance to participate in a 'more profitable' round than big miners. That means quick rounds don't even out based on variance... so the model becomes statistically biased as big miners will have  a bigger chance to begin with (of course you have to factor in geographics / network speed / etc etc)

Edit: Mind you, it is all mostly a hypothetical discussion as there aren't that many rounds where not all miners participate (on Deepbit) and even though it would be nice to get a 'huge' payoff in a round from time to time, I have the feeling that not participating in such a round won't affect your overall 'expected' payout that much....

[organofcorti]

We don't know that Deepbit prioritises based on hashrate. Unless Deepbit mentions it, you could only work it out if large representative sample of miners agrees to post a couple of weeks earnings per round somewhere. If Deepbit is prioritising based on hashrate then I wouldn't be surprised if most pools are, and then it's a level playing field - doesn't matter which pool you mine at.

[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.

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

Hello, I have PM my login name yesterday, and after 24 hours, still getting "Account_locked".

[DeepBit]

Hello, I have PM my login name yesterday, and after 24 hours, still getting "Account_locked".

Unlocked, see PM.

[Mousepotato]

What happened to the "Avg shares in the last 24hrs" at the top of the Stats page?

[DeepBit]

What happened to the "Avg shares in the last 24hrs" at the top of the Stats page?

Nothing was changed in the last months.

[kano]

...
What I'm trying to get to here is to be able to buy _low cost_ products on the go, where BTC has the greatest advantage (no fees) against VISA, Mastercard, etc. Most stores don't accept card payment under a certain amount, BTC would spread like wildfire if they could add a QR code for immediate BTC payment.
...

Bitcoin has fees - and when the payments get low enough, the fee % effectively gets quite high ...
(and many people seem to want to enforce them more strictly or make them higher)
Yes in general those fees are lower than Credit Cards, but saying there are "(no fees)" is simply incorrect.

Aside: then of course when you try to convert BTC to $ - wow most of the fees charged by the BTC people would make the banks envious ...
(I'm amazed at the number of times I read 'no fees' when looking at exchanges from BTC to $ only to wonder why losing 30% in the process is considered no fees ...)

[dmoldovan]

Hello,

I switched my workers to PPS, and the reward is rather strange:
I have about 1300 MHashes/sec, and, some rewards are like this:


                          Time         My hashes         total hashes          reward
26.04 13:14:10   0h 47m    1335                      2335729              0.00774512
26.04 07:42:51   2h 32m    3332                      7452024              0.00206964


That is, on the "bigger", there are 2.5 times more hashes than in the first block, BUT, the reward is less than the reward for the first block.

There must be some mistake in calculation here.

PS: all rewards are mixed up since I switched to PPS

Please somebody check this out.

Regards,
Dan

[os2sam]

Hello,

I switched my workers to PPS, and the reward is rather strange:
I have about 1300 MHashes/sec, and, some rewards are like this:


                          Time         My hashes         total hashes          reward
26.04 13:14:10   0h 47m    1335                      2335729              0.00774512
26.04 07:42:51   2h 32m    3332                      7452024              0.00206964


That is, on the "bigger", there are 2.5 times more hashes than in the first block, BUT, the reward is less than the reward for the first block.

There must be some mistake in calculation here.

PS: all rewards are mixed up since I switched to PPS

Please somebody check this out.

Regards,
Dan

The reward column only shows Proportional rewards.  If you are only doing PPS then this column will show PPS in it.  If you are doing both PPS and Proportional only the proportional value shows.  The PPS and Prop shares are added together in the Shares Total column so it looks like your getting paid less than you really are.

Sam

[dmoldovan]

OK, got it;

Thanks for the info.

[smracer]

It looks like the block times are messing up again.  shows 3 and 4 hour+ blocks for small ones on the stats page.