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

[[Tycho]]

I sent it, but so far no response.

I got your message and will reply when the cause will be found. Sorry for delay.

[jkminkov]

we all gave up hoppin and took up mormonism.
but really yall shouldnt notice, we arent even a spec compared to the hash rate here. And the speed of blocks being found makes efficient hoping nearly impossible which is why most hoppers just use deepbit for backup

Please don't try to mislead people, I know the truth

real truth is that it assumes that every block after long poll belongs to DP and mines here for ~5 minutes, try it and see yourself...

[CanaryInTheMine]

Tycho,

What is this pool's policy on hopping?

[[Tycho]]

What is this pool's policy on hopping?

Hoppers are not welcome here.

This policy is not yet added to the pool rules because my hopping-detection routine is not ready. When I'll be able to detect poolhoppers with low enough number of false positives, this policy may become forced.
I know that some people call proportional method "flawed", but since there are lots of users that like this method, I have to protect them from evil ones.

[d3m0n1q_733rz]

What is this pool's policy on hopping?

Hoppers are not welcome here.

This policy is not yet added to the pool rules because my hopping-detection routine is not ready. When I'll be able to detect poolhoppers with low enough number of false positives, this policy may become forced.
I know that some people call proportional method "flawed", but since there are lots of users that like this method, I have to protect them from evil ones.

My hero!   

[CanaryInTheMine]

What is this pool's policy on hopping?

Hoppers are not welcome here.

This policy is not yet added to the pool rules because my hopping-detection routine is not ready. When I'll be able to detect poolhoppers with low enough number of false positives, this policy may become forced.
I know that some people call proportional method "flawed", but since there are lots of users that like this method, I have to protect them from evil ones.

why not just post the verbiage anyway then when ready implement detection when ready.

[Sukrim]

What is this pool's policy on hopping?

Hoppers are not welcome here.

This policy is not yet added to the pool rules because my hopping-detection routine is not ready. When I'll be able to detect poolhoppers with low enough number of false positives, this policy may become forced.
I know that some people call proportional method "flawed", but since there are lots of users that like this method, I have to protect them from evil ones.

What is a "low enough number of false positives" - meaning: How many % of legitimate users are you willing to screw over?!

It is NOT "evil" to start and stop mining whenever you please! It is "evil" however to have a payout system that is mathematically proven to be flawed(!) and taking counter measures that will always also impact users that don't even know of pool hopping at all.

Many of your users are completely new and unaware of any 50% attacks, that other pools are also existing (because many forum threads that were started some time ago only mention deepbit, as it was nearly the only pool around) or that there are alternatives to prop + PPS. Please reconsider delaying stats + forcing policies that won't be able to only hit pool hoppers (and which most likely will be circumventable) and switching to a proven secure payout system instead.
PPLNS for example still lets users earn more if the pool has a luck streak (no crazy 0.07 BTC shares most likely though...), is dead simple to explain and is actually more "proportional" than prop., as it takes the hash rate into account more.

[CanaryInTheMine]

What is this pool's policy on hopping?

Hoppers are not welcome here.

This policy is not yet added to the pool rules because my hopping-detection routine is not ready. When I'll be able to detect poolhoppers with low enough number of false positives, this policy may become forced.
I know that some people call proportional method "flawed", but since there are lots of users that like this method, I have to protect them from evil ones.

What is a "low enough number of false positives" - meaning: How many % of legitimate users are you willing to screw over?!

It is NOT "evil" to start and stop mining whenever you please! It is "evil" however to have a payout system that is mathematically proven to be flawed(!) and taking counter measures that will always also impact users that don't even know of pool hopping at all.

Many of your users are completely new and unaware of any 50% attacks, that other pools are also existing (because many forum threads that were started some time ago only mention deepbit, as it was nearly the only pool around) or that there are alternatives to prop + PPS. Please reconsider delaying stats + forcing policies that won't be able to only hit pool hoppers (and which most likely will be circumventable) and switching to a proven secure payout system instead.
PPLNS for example still lets users earn more if the pool has a luck streak (no crazy 0.07 BTC shares most likely though...), is dead simple to explain and is actually more "proportional" than prop., as it takes the hash rate into account more.

fuck this rant!  this is all bullshit.  i want a simple payout system, which we have here.  i don't want some exotic variations that will fuck me over if my miner goes down.  nor am i interested in debating this.

the "solution/s" , as I read about them on different post, are too frikin complicated.  thus never ready for prime time.
All in all, the simplest solution is the best one.

Simple solution:

- post the rules.  now anyone still hopping on deepbit is violating TOS.

- identify hopping behavior (very easy to do) and suspend the account.

- when the person logs in, tell them that their account has been flagged as hopping.

- give them another opportunity to Agree to TOS that spell out: "not going to hop"

- if they violate again. suspend the account.

since this would be automated, let them open a million accounts. and get a million accounts banned.  an automated system won't get tired.  a hopper, will on the other hand.
 

[[Tycho]]

What is a "low enough number of false positives" - meaning: How many % of legitimate users are you willing to screw over?!

No legitimate users are planned to be screwed at all.

It is NOT "evil" to start and stop mining whenever you please! It is "evil" however to have a payout system that is mathematically proven to be flawed(!) and taking counter measures that will always also impact users that don't even know of pool hopping at all.

Bank robbery is just "an optimized approach to withdraw funds", yeah ? :)
It's not evil to start and stop mining whenever one pleases, but it's evil to deliberately use some automated techniques that are known to hurt other users and the pool itself.
Currently we don't have any counter-measures that can impact legitimate users.

Please reconsider delaying stats + forcing policies that won't be able to only hit pool hoppers (and which most likely will be circumventable) and switching to a proven secure payout system instead.

I'm thinking about adding a third payment mode for a long time already, but even then I'll have to protect Proportional users as long as they like to use that method.

[Sukrim]

What is a "low enough number of false positives" - meaning: How many % of legitimate users are you willing to screw over?!

No legitimate users are planned to be screwed at all.

So how is anyone who submits valid shares during a round not legitimate?

It is NOT "evil" to start and stop mining whenever you please! It is "evil" however to have a payout system that is mathematically proven to be flawed(!) and taking counter measures that will always also impact users that don't even know of pool hopping at all.

Bank robbery is just "an optimized approach to withdraw funds", yeah ?
It's not evil to start and stop mining whenever one pleases, but it's evil to deliberately use some automated techniques that are known to hurt other users and the pool itself.
Currently we don't have any counter-measures that can impact legitimate users.

Pool hopping is like using something like http://geizhals.at/ to compare online shops for best prices - why on earth do you compare it to bank robbery? Noone gets paid anything less or more than the proportional payout for the shares he/she/it submits. Pool hoppers ONLY gain more from this because other miners are "loyal" enough to mine knowingly at a loss during longer blocks, which is a bad economic decision. They are hurt by these decisions, not by pool hoppers. It is not even possible for anyone except you as the operator to determine exactly how far into a round you are, so for an average user it is not even possible to know whether he is mining at a loss or not! And THIS is called "protection" of your users?

Also @CanaryInTheMine:
Please watch your tone.

It is NOT trivial to identify hoppers without the possibility that some (un)fortunate users who did not inted to hop but show the same patterns get targeted too. It is actually impossible to do so unless you can identify hoppers via a user agent - something that would have been possible, but since another pool already tried that it's no longer an option.

Also as you said - creating an account is easy... and as long as CAPTCHAs can be solved cheaper than the potential gain from pool hopping, any counter measures on an account basis are useless.

Oh, btw. anti hopping measures are exactly what you don't want: Some exotic variation that will fuck you over if your miner goes down.

[CanaryInTheMine]

What is a "low enough number of false positives" - meaning: How many % of legitimate users are you willing to screw over?!

No legitimate users are planned to be screwed at all.

So how is anyone who submits valid shares during a round not legitimate?

It is NOT "evil" to start and stop mining whenever you please! It is "evil" however to have a payout system that is mathematically proven to be flawed(!) and taking counter measures that will always also impact users that don't even know of pool hopping at all.

Bank robbery is just "an optimized approach to withdraw funds", yeah ?
It's not evil to start and stop mining whenever one pleases, but it's evil to deliberately use some automated techniques that are known to hurt other users and the pool itself.
Currently we don't have any counter-measures that can impact legitimate users.

Pool hopping is like using something like http://geizhals.at/ to compare online shops for best prices - why on earth do you compare it to bank robbery? Noone gets paid anything less or more than the proportional payout for the shares he/she/it submits. Pool hoppers ONLY gain more from this because other miners are "loyal" enough to mine knowingly at a loss during longer blocks, which is a bad economic decision. They are hurt by these decisions, not by pool hoppers. It is not even possible for anyone except you as the operator to determine exactly how far into a round you are, so for an average user it is not even possible to know whether he is mining at a loss or not! And THIS is called "protection" of your users?

Also @CanaryInTheMine:
Please watch your tone.

It is NOT trivial to identify hoppers without the possibility that some (un)fortunate users who did not inted to hop but show the same patterns get targeted too. It is actually impossible to do so unless you can identify hoppers via a user agent - something that would have been possible, but since another pool already tried that it's no longer an option.

Also as you said - creating an account is easy... and as long as CAPTCHAs can be solved cheaper than the potential gain from pool hopping, any counter measures on an account basis are useless.

Oh, btw. anti hopping measures are exactly what you don't want: Some exotic variation that will fuck you over if your miner goes down.

Do explain "Please watch your tone."  what is this? some sort of censorship?

I don't agree with your assessment of triviality to detect hopping.  Are you familiar with probabilities and statistics? Confidence intervals etc...?  I guess not...

counter measures are not useless.  they make you a harder target.

You misunderstood my exotic variation comment.  it's a direct reference to specific, currently in place payout algos on other pools.  On some pools that employ these exotic payout schemes, if your miner goes down (say half way into the round) you are SOL (more so depending on length of time).

my exotic variation was not about detection algorithms, but existing payout algos that attempt to discourage hoppers.

But ultimately, it is the pool's policy that has to drive this.  As long as the Terms Of Service of a pool do not prohibit hopping explicitly, I hate to break it to you all: hopping is OK.  If you want it out of your pool, set the rules first.

Lack of spelled out rules only creates debates and apparently the need to watch my tone.

[os2sam]

Do explain "Please watch your tone."  what is this? some sort of censorship?

I haven't heard anyone suggest/imply any censorship, and I certainly wouldn't want that.

But I could do without the profanity.
Sam

[burp]

If you want to ban users that show "suspicious behaviour" I hope you publish a detailed definition of what hopping is. I mean, can anyone define pool hopping for me please? If you say _exactly_ what you mean by pool hopping users can decide to stay or not.

Does pool hopping mean _always_ staying less than 43%? What if I stay always until 45%? Will you ban me? What if I stay in 10% of the rounds until the end of the round. Will you ban me then? Without a precise definition you are going for an unfair system.

@Tycho It's silly to compare pool hopping with bank robbery and you know it. I can just assume you show this behaviour because the majority of people apparently don't really understand what pool hopping is and how it exactly works. It's a hard to grasp thing, statistics can be hard to grasp. See the gamblers fallacy. It's hard to understand why leaving the pool at ~43% is optimal. But it's not stealing or such a thing of any kind! What you do is further spread misinformation, and if you call pool hopping bank robbery, I call this spreading of misinformation a crime.

I can understand that you want to keep your current hashing power and the pool size. Most or at least the visible majority doesn't seem to grasp pool hopping the way it is, so you hop onto their misunderstandings and keep the flawed proportional system. Why don't you try to convice people and help them understand the very simple(!) and perfectly fair PPLNS system?

The _only_ solution is to switch to a fair system or keep a fair one. What fair is, is also a matter of definiton, it might be proportional or PPLNS, but it's certainly not proportional with banning some users because of their miners schedule!

[sharky112065]

You know hopping is wrong. You know you are screwing the people that do not hop. If every one hopped very few blocks would get solved. The pool op has stated very clearly "Pool hoppers are not welcome here".

Use all the justifications that make it OK in your head that you want. It is still wrong to do it and you know it.

The current system allows for an occasional problem when a miner is having issues and you still get paid for shares submitted. Pool hoppers abuse this and eventually we will all be screwed because of the changes made to stop them.

Stop being childish, hold yourself accountable for your actions and stop blame shifting.

[burp]

You know hopping is wrong. You know you are screwing the people that do not hop. If every one hopped very few blocks would get solved. The pool op has stated very clearly "Pool hoppers are not welcome here".

I know what he has stated, and as soon as I can read this on the deepbit page I will take my consequences. You are not right saying that if everyone hopped very few blocks would get solved. If everyone hopped there were other problems, such that all hashing power would be concentrated at one point, but it surely doesn't lead to no blocks solved.

Use all the justifications that make it OK in your head that you want. It is still wrong to do it and you know it.

I use no justifications to make something OK in my head. Please accept that there are different understanding of pool hopping, and I _seriously_(!) think that it is OK. Will the next thing be that you accuse me of being crazy because I have a different opinion and understanding of it?

The current system allows for an occasional problem when a miner is having issues and you still get paid for shares submitted. Pool hoppers abuse this and eventually we will all be screwed because of the changes made to stop them.

Stop being childish, hold yourself accountable for your actions and stop blame shifting.

Please let's stay on a calm level. People make such aggressive discussions on pool hopping because quite everyone mining, does it purely for profit. If you really cared about profit, you would hop. If you don't care about profits so much you would not care mining at a pool that is not the most profitable anymore, and don't start with something like "ethics", this is nothing about ethics. Bitcoin is a currency and the additional funds in the transaction blocks are created to motivate mining. Apparently it's possible for a great profit with or without hopping.

And again I see the common misunderstanding that an other system like PPLNS will be unfair or screw occasional miners. It's wrong, and I'm not talking about an opinion here. Just the variance increases slightly. This is exactly the issue I was talking about, the lack of really understanding pool hopping and why a system like PPLNS prevents it and is fair even for occasional miners! The common misbelief is spread by people like you and Tycho, because it is hard to understand. I give up at this point.

[Sukrim]

If every one hopped very few blocks would get solved.

No, if everyone hopped, as soon as a prop. pool doesn't hit a block within 43.5% of difficulty shares, it dies out and either has to close or switch to a payout system that is also fair to miners, not just pool operators.

Unless there is very clearly specified which actions are considered "Pool Hopping" and are being punished, there is no real way to tell even IF I'm currently pool hopping or not for me as a user - especialy since stats are delayed, so I cannot see how far into a round I am for certain.

Another pool (bitcoinpool.com) has a very clear policy outlined what they view as pool hopping and what they are doing about this - I hope the system at deepbit looks similar (not from an architecture view, the one at bitcoinpool can be easily broken - but from a transparency angle). http://bitcoinpool.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=103

About PPLNS:
You can make N relative to the current difficulty, the higher N is, the less likely it gets that shares will not be paid anything (Luke-Jr posted somewhere that N=8*diff pays ~99% of all valid shares or so). The "downside" of higher Ns is that the heatup phase until your MH/s rate relative to the pool's rate matches the relative amount of shares in the last N shares gets higher too. The cooldown phase however after you stop mining also takes that long, so it balances out (if you stop mining and N=10*diff, you could still earn on any block during the next ~18 million shares which is ~3-4 hours on deepbit currently).

Solo mining would be the edge case of N=1 share, and the communism/pyramid game approach would be to pay every share ever submitted (N = oo)

If you have any more questions or concerns regarding payout systems, please try to formulate them here or in a seperate thread - often there are misunderstandings, but EVERY system has it's potential downsides/attack vectors (either for miners, operators or both) too. Prop. for example is a system that enables/encourages pool hopping but has 0 risk (actually a lot of benefits!) for the operator, so it's up to the miners to complain.

[Reckman]

+1 tycho thanks for running a good pool, hoppers should just hop the pools that want/need them instead of spamming here

[mb300sd]

Would having more than 1 miner on the same worker account cause a problem?

[os2sam]

Would having more than 1 miner on the same worker account cause a problem?

Nope.  I do that allot.
Sam

[[Tycho]]

Would having more than 1 miner on the same worker account cause a problem?

No problems unless you want to run more than 20 miners on same worker account.
But different worker accounts are better.