Eligius: 0% Fee BTC, 105% PPS NMC, No registration, CPPSRB

[praeluceo]

Now this is much better luck today! Finally!!! I was beginning to feel like I was mining on Slush's pool...!

A 48 minute round, 2 hour round, and an amazing 16 minute round!!! We've clawed back some of our share reward percent, but it'll still take several more blocks to overcome the losses accumulated over the last several days.

[1714485450]

1714485450

[1714485450]

1714485450

[1714485450]

1714485450

[1714485450]

1714485450

[1714485450]

1714485450

[1714485450]

1714485450

[btcmner]

Now this is much better luck today! Finally!!! I was beginning to feel like I was mining on Slush's pool...!

A 48 minute round, 2 hour round, and an amazing 16 minute round!!! We've clawed back some of our share reward percent, but it'll still take several more blocks to overcome the losses accumulated over the last several days.

Well, that's quite comforting to see that, after more than a week of despair. 

[wizkid057]

i have shares rewarded 47,88%
i will get paid in the future for these shares?

Maybe yes.  Maybe no.  Luck is luck.

Generally, though, if you continuously mine, as mentioned previously, your shares rewarded will tend towards 100% and land in the upper 90s% over time.  If you get a low shares rewarded over a short period, then quit mining, chances are much smaller of getting a higher shares rewarded percentage.

Well, you keep talking about long term averages. Define long term, please. In finances long term is >1year.
I am telling you that I had one machine working almost constantly for 1 year with 94% average (this machine stopped working just before the recent calamity) and another working with some gaps for >1 year with 91.6% now (and still going down from the same 94% three weeks ago)
So here are my facts. I don't know what is causing a difference between expected 98% and 94% that I see. I would discount 91.6% (from 94) to bad luck in the last 2-3 weeks, but I won't discount 94 vs 98% expected.

What could be a potential cause?
I would like to hear possible explanation re this. Could it be that extended payout times caused it (because of higher probability of hitting an orphan during non-pay period)? Something else?

Hard to say without seeing the actual stats.  If you PM me the addresses of the accounts in question I'd gladly look into it.

My guess is that your definition of "almost constantly" isn't as close to constantly as needed and that the gaps in mining coincided with periods of good luck for the pool.  In that case, as an example, lets say you're mining away, the pool hits a long block or a few long blocks in a row and you quit mining for a bit or pool hop or whatever causes you not to be mining on Eligius.  No biggie.  However, then while you're away, after all of your shares are shelved (buried under active miners), the pool hits some quick/lucky blocks.  Well, you'd left, so your shelved shares are buried under the people actively mining, and perhaps don't get fully reached, thus throwing your percentage off with a bias towards less shares rewarded.  Then you come back and start mining again, you didn't get paid for anything for the lucky rounds that weren't quite lucky enough to pay your shelved shares.  So, this biases your shares rewarded percentage to be worse.

Likewise, the opposite can happen during a lucking time artificially showing higher shares rewarded.

[Biomech]

I haven't mined BTC in quite a while, but when I did, it was almost always here, with a failover to eclipse PPS and guild. I rarely failed over. I never actually calculated my percentage/luck, but I did watch my bottom line. Almost without exception, even with a tiny mining rig, my payouts were significantly higher from eligius, even vs the "luckless" PPS system. (5% fee can eat a lot of profits )

Eligius is a pretty small pool on today's market. I really doubt that there is anything more sinister than that going on. The majority of the hashpower will, on average, have better luck overall simply BECAUSE it's the majority. If y'all want more consistent results on Eligius, talk more miners into pointing their rigs here.

[Biodom]

i have shares rewarded 47,88%
i will get paid in the future for these shares?

Maybe yes.  Maybe no.  Luck is luck.

Generally, though, if you continuously mine, as mentioned previously, your shares rewarded will tend towards 100% and land in the upper 90s% over time.  If you get a low shares rewarded over a short period, then quit mining, chances are much smaller of getting a higher shares rewarded percentage.

Well, you keep talking about long term averages. Define long term, please. In finances long term is >1year.
I am telling you that I had one machine working almost constantly for 1 year with 94% average (this machine stopped working just before the recent calamity) and another working with some gaps for >1 year with 91.6% now (and still going down from the same 94% three weeks ago)
So here are my facts. I don't know what is causing a difference between expected 98% and 94% that I see. I would discount 91.6% (from 94) to bad luck in the last 2-3 weeks, but I won't discount 94 vs 98% expected.

What could be a potential cause?
I would like to hear possible explanation re this. Could it be that extended payout times caused it (because of higher probability of hitting an orphan during non-pay period)? Something else?

Hard to say without seeing the actual stats.  If you PM me the addresses of the accounts in question I'd gladly look into it.

My guess is that your definition of "almost constantly" isn't as close to constantly as needed and that the gaps in mining coincided with periods of good luck for the pool.  In that case, as an example, lets say you're mining away, the pool hits a long block or a few long blocks in a row and you quit mining for a bit or pool hop or whatever causes you not to be mining on Eligius.  No biggie.  However, then while you're away, after all of your shares are shelved (buried under active miners), the pool hits some quick/lucky blocks.  Well, you'd left, so your shelved shares are buried under the people actively mining, and perhaps don't get fully reached, thus throwing your percentage off with a bias towards less shares rewarded.  Then you come back and start mining again, you didn't get paid for anything for the lucky rounds that weren't quite lucky enough to pay your shelved shares.  So, this biases your shares rewarded percentage to be worse.

Likewise, the opposite can happen during a lucking time artificially showing higher shares rewarded.

Thank you for your kind offer. I will sent the address in PM in a few sec.
Would be very curious of your analysis.

I haven't mined BTC in quite a while, but when I did, it was almost always here, with a failover to eclipse PPS and guild. I rarely failed over. I never actually calculated my percentage/luck, but I did watch my bottom line. Almost without exception, even with a tiny mining rig, my payouts were significantly higher from eligius, even vs the "luckless" PPS system. (5% fee can eat a lot of profits )

Eligius is a pretty small pool on today's market. I really doubt that there is anything more sinister than that going on. The majority of the hashpower will, on average, have better luck overall simply BECAUSE it's the majority. If y'all want more consistent results on Eligius, talk more miners into pointing their rigs here.

this is a bit strange suggestion. You could say that it would be smoother and less "lumpy", but i doubt that you can say that it would be higher in the long run.
re pointing more rigs-it is a catch-22 situation.

[Biomech]

i have shares rewarded 47,88%
i will get paid in the future for these shares?

Maybe yes.  Maybe no.  Luck is luck.

Generally, though, if you continuously mine, as mentioned previously, your shares rewarded will tend towards 100% and land in the upper 90s% over time.  If you get a low shares rewarded over a short period, then quit mining, chances are much smaller of getting a higher shares rewarded percentage.

Well, you keep talking about long term averages. Define long term, please. In finances long term is >1year.
I am telling you that I had one machine working almost constantly for 1 year with 94% average (this machine stopped working just before the recent calamity) and another working with some gaps for >1 year with 91.6% now (and still going down from the same 94% three weeks ago)
So here are my facts. I don't know what is causing a difference between expected 98% and 94% that I see. I would discount 91.6% (from 94) to bad luck in the last 2-3 weeks, but I won't discount 94 vs 98% expected.

What could be a potential cause?
I would like to hear possible explanation re this. Could it be that extended payout times caused it (because of higher probability of hitting an orphan during non-pay period)? Something else?

Hard to say without seeing the actual stats.  If you PM me the addresses of the accounts in question I'd gladly look into it.

My guess is that your definition of "almost constantly" isn't as close to constantly as needed and that the gaps in mining coincided with periods of good luck for the pool.  In that case, as an example, lets say you're mining away, the pool hits a long block or a few long blocks in a row and you quit mining for a bit or pool hop or whatever causes you not to be mining on Eligius.  No biggie.  However, then while you're away, after all of your shares are shelved (buried under active miners), the pool hits some quick/lucky blocks.  Well, you'd left, so your shelved shares are buried under the people actively mining, and perhaps don't get fully reached, thus throwing your percentage off with a bias towards less shares rewarded.  Then you come back and start mining again, you didn't get paid for anything for the lucky rounds that weren't quite lucky enough to pay your shelved shares.  So, this biases your shares rewarded percentage to be worse.

Likewise, the opposite can happen during a lucking time artificially showing higher shares rewarded.

Thank you for your kind offer. I will sent the address in PM in a few sec.
Would be very curious of your analysis.

I haven't mined BTC in quite a while, but when I did, it was almost always here, with a failover to eclipse PPS and guild. I rarely failed over. I never actually calculated my percentage/luck, but I did watch my bottom line. Almost without exception, even with a tiny mining rig, my payouts were significantly higher from eligius, even vs the "luckless" PPS system. (5% fee can eat a lot of profits )

Eligius is a pretty small pool on today's market. I really doubt that there is anything more sinister than that going on. The majority of the hashpower will, on average, have better luck overall simply BECAUSE it's the majority. If y'all want more consistent results on Eligius, talk more miners into pointing their rigs here.

this is a bit strange suggestion. You could say that it would be smoother and less "lumpy", but i doubt that you can say that it would be higher in the long run.
re pointing more rigs-it is a catch-22 situation.

It is probably a misstatement of the math, I am just saying that more shovels make a bigger hole. When you have enough hashpower to get a significant portion of the blocks, the end result will be better in the short run. Long term, as I understand it, it should all even out. But long term is an extremely variable term.

[Luke-Jr]

Bigger miners are closer to the ideal (technically speaking, not philosophically) of complete centralisation, so they suffer less from stale blocks (which are a result of decentralisation). For example, "51%" attackers have zero stale block risk.

Luck should be the same long-term still, but it's true that long-term can be very long.

[organofcorti]

Thank you for your kind offer. I will sent the address in PM in a few sec.
Would be very curious of your analysis.

I haven't mined BTC in quite a while, but when I did, it was almost always here, with a failover to eclipse PPS and guild. I rarely failed over. I never actually calculated my percentage/luck, but I did watch my bottom line. Almost without exception, even with a tiny mining rig, my payouts were significantly higher from eligius, even vs the "luckless" PPS system. (5% fee can eat a lot of profits )

Eligius is a pretty small pool on today's market. I really doubt that there is anything more sinister than that going on. The majority of the hashpower will, on average, have better luck overall simply BECAUSE it's the majority. If y'all want more consistent results on Eligius, talk more miners into pointing their rigs here.

this is a bit strange suggestion. You could say that it would be smoother and less "lumpy", but i doubt that you can say that it would be higher in the long run.
re pointing more rigs-it is a catch-22 situation.

It is probably a misstatement of the math, I am just saying that more shovels make a bigger hole. When you have enough hashpower to get a significant portion of the blocks, the end result will be better in the short run. Long term, as I understand it, it should all even out. But long term is an extremely variable term.

This post explains 'luck' (except for orphans) and how to calculate it: http://organofcorti.blogspot.com/2015/07/faq-bitcoin-mining-and-luck-statistic.html

[RealMalatesta]

Thank you for your kind offer. I will sent the address in PM in a few sec.
Would be very curious of your analysis.

I haven't mined BTC in quite a while, but when I did, it was almost always here, with a failover to eclipse PPS and guild. I rarely failed over. I never actually calculated my percentage/luck, but I did watch my bottom line. Almost without exception, even with a tiny mining rig, my payouts were significantly higher from eligius, even vs the "luckless" PPS system. (5% fee can eat a lot of profits )

Eligius is a pretty small pool on today's market. I really doubt that there is anything more sinister than that going on. The majority of the hashpower will, on average, have better luck overall simply BECAUSE it's the majority. If y'all want more consistent results on Eligius, talk more miners into pointing their rigs here.

this is a bit strange suggestion. You could say that it would be smoother and less "lumpy", but i doubt that you can say that it would be higher in the long run.
re pointing more rigs-it is a catch-22 situation.

It is probably a misstatement of the math, I am just saying that more shovels make a bigger hole. When you have enough hashpower to get a significant portion of the blocks, the end result will be better in the short run. Long term, as I understand it, it should all even out. But long term is an extremely variable term.

This post explains 'luck' (except for orphans) and how to calculate it: http://organofcorti.blogspot.com/2015/07/faq-bitcoin-mining-and-luck-statistic.html

I read your explanation everytime we have bad luck... especially point 2: Bad luck lasts longer. :-)

It's like driving with a bike: You always remember when you fall off, but you do not compare it with all the miles you drove without falling.

However, bad luck hurts anyway :-)

[wizkid057]

Some emergency maintenance at our datacenter may cause some connection instability over the next 90 minutes

[wizkid057]

Continuing work on back end upgrades.  Apologies for any instability.

[btcmner]

Continuing work on back end upgrades.  Apologies for any instability.

That looks ok from this end, if there are instabilities, they are barely noticeable. 
BTW it seems luck is back to normal, currently.

[Biodom]

Continuing work on back end upgrades.  Apologies for any instability.

That looks ok from this end, if there are instabilities, they are barely noticeable. 
BTW it seems luck is back to normal, currently.

I don't know if I can say the same.
Frankly, I don't understand how what is displayed is calculated:

Example:

at 9:35 am estimated change X BTC luck 178%
at 12:03 pm estimated change X-0.000167BTC luck 118%
expected amount of production in 2 hr 46 min equals 0.0043 btc

OK, why instead of +0.0043 BTC I see -0.000167 BTC (since last block)
Totals are essentially frozen since 9:35 am.

I don't have time to sit all day staring at it, but it is very unclear to me how it is calculated.

[matty990]

Hello all,  newer to the forum but been mining on eligius on and off for 2 years. Was just wonder when the name coin payouts get sent. It sounds like this has been fixed recently by wizkid057 in updating to the latest namecoind. Thanks for Maintaining for what I believe to be the best and most honest pool I have used over the years.

[wizkid057]

Continuing work on back end upgrades.  Apologies for any instability.

That looks ok from this end, if there are instabilities, they are barely noticeable.  
BTW it seems luck is back to normal, currently.

I don't know if I can say the same.
Frankly, I don't understand how what is displayed is calculated:

Example:

at 9:35 am estimated change X BTC luck 178%
at 12:03 pm estimated change X-0.000167BTC luck 118%
expected amount of production in 2 hr 46 min equals 0.0043 btc

OK, why instead of +0.0043 BTC I see -0.000167 BTC (since last block)
Totals are essentially frozen since 9:35 am.

I don't have time to sit all day staring at it, but it is very unclear to me how it is calculated.

I don't know where you're getting these numbers.  The estimated change in BTC can never be and is never negative.  "As of last block" is locked in as of the last block, assuming that block stays valid.

If your hash rate is constant, the pool hash rate is constant, and you have < 100% shares rewarded as of the last block, then the estimated change in BTC will not change hardly at all (aside from normal variance) until the pool finds another block or the network difficulty changes.

Also, estimating things on the order of minutes or hours is pointless as it can change dramatically in the short term.

Hello all,  newer to the forum but been mining on eligius on and off for 2 years. Was just wonder when the name coin payouts get sent. It sounds like this has been fixed recently by wizkid057 in updating to the latest namecoind. Thanks for Maintaining for what I believe to be the best and most honest pool I have used over the years.

Namecoin payouts have been manual and infrequent for a while now.  Unfortunately it just isn't worth the time to do them more frequently to send pennies to miners.  Best to let it build up to some useful amount for most before doing so, which I'm trying to make sure happens every couple of weeks.  The minimum NMC payout is 0.1 NMC, which is something like less than $0.05 worth of namecoin last I checked.

[Biodom]

I don't know if I can say the same.
Frankly, I don't understand how what is displayed is calculated:

Example:

at 9:35 am estimated change X BTC luck 178%
at 12:03 pm estimated change X-0.000167BTC luck 118%
expected amount of production in 2 hr 46 min equals 0.0043 btc

OK, why instead of +0.0043 BTC I see -0.000167 BTC (since last block)
Totals are essentially frozen since 9:35 am.

I don't have time to sit all day staring at it, but it is very unclear to me how it is calculated.

I don't know where you're getting these numbers.  The estimated change in BTC can never be and is never negative.  "As of last block" is locked in as of the last block, assuming that block stays valid.

If your hash rate is constant, the pool hash rate is constant, and you have < 100% shares rewarded as of the last block, then the estimated change in BTC will not change hardly at all (aside from normal variance) until the pool finds another block or the network difficulty changes.

Also, estimating things on the order of minutes or hours is pointless as it can change dramatically in the short term.
 

I am glad that you say that it is cannot be a negative number.
However, the estimated change WAS negative if you compare 9:35am and 12:13pm time stamp (I will post 12:13 instead of 12:03).
I did not say that it was a negative number per se.
i said that the number accumulated in more than 2.5hr is a NEGATIVE number.

9:35 estimated change 0.01400888
12:35 estimated change 0.01383340
0.01383340-0.01400888= negative 0.0001758
theoretically, this miner should have mined ~0.0038 BTC during this time period.
In any case, even with lower luck or NO luck, it could not have gone negative and statistics shows 4.723 TH average hash in 3hr period, which covers it.
Here are direct imgur links if you want to look at it:
https://i.imgur.com/ijPQwLJ.png
and
https://i.imgur.com/ijPQwLJ.png

let me know what is your take on this.

[wizkid057]

I don't know if I can say the same.
Frankly, I don't understand how what is displayed is calculated:

Example:

at 9:35 am estimated change X BTC luck 178%
at 12:03 pm estimated change X-0.000167BTC luck 118%
expected amount of production in 2 hr 46 min equals 0.0043 btc

OK, why instead of +0.0043 BTC I see -0.000167 BTC (since last block)
Totals are essentially frozen since 9:35 am.

I don't have time to sit all day staring at it, but it is very unclear to me how it is calculated.

I don't know where you're getting these numbers.  The estimated change in BTC can never be and is never negative.  "As of last block" is locked in as of the last block, assuming that block stays valid.

If your hash rate is constant, the pool hash rate is constant, and you have < 100% shares rewarded as of the last block, then the estimated change in BTC will not change hardly at all (aside from normal variance) until the pool finds another block or the network difficulty changes.

Also, estimating things on the order of minutes or hours is pointless as it can change dramatically in the short term.
 

I am glad that you say that it is cannot be a negative number.
However, the estimated change WAS negative if you compare 9:35am and 12:13pm time stamp (I will post 12:13 instead of 12:03).
I did not say that it was a negative number per se.
i said that the number accumulated in more than 2.5hr is a NEGATIVE number.

9:35 estimated change 0.01400888
12:35 estimated change 0.01383340
0.01383340-0.01400888= negative 0.0001758
theoretically, this miner should have mined ~0.0038 BTC during this time period.
In any case, even with lower luck or NO luck, it could not have gone negative and statistics shows 4.723 TH average hash in 3hr period, which covers it.
Here are direct imgur links if you want to look at it:
https://i.imgur.com/ijPQwLJ.png
and
https://i.imgur.com/ijPQwLJ.png

let me know what is your take on this.

I see no negative number in the estimated change anywhere.

[not.you]

Namecoin payouts have been manual and infrequent for a while now.  Unfortunately it just isn't worth the time to do them more frequently to send pennies to miners.  Best to let it build up to some useful amount for most before doing so, which I'm trying to make sure happens every couple of weeks.  The minimum NMC payout is 0.1 NMC, which is something like less than $0.05 worth of namecoin last I checked.

I don't care overly much but I was mining on two addresses on Eligius but they both had the same NMC payout address and I only ever received single payouts to the NMC address.  In other words when NMC payouts came there was only one.  So I am just wondering if it was already accounting for the fact that both of my Eligius mining addresses were using the same NMC payout and they were already added together or if I was only paid part of what I should have been?  Again mostly just curious since NMC isn't worth beans.

[wizkid057]

Namecoin payouts have been manual and infrequent for a while now.  Unfortunately it just isn't worth the time to do them more frequently to send pennies to miners.  Best to let it build up to some useful amount for most before doing so, which I'm trying to make sure happens every couple of weeks.  The minimum NMC payout is 0.1 NMC, which is something like less than $0.05 worth of namecoin last I checked.

I don't care overly much but I was mining on two addresses on Eligius but they both had the same NMC payout address and I only ever received single payouts to the NMC address.  In other words when NMC payouts came there was only one.  So I am just wondering if it was already accounting for the fact that both of my Eligius mining addresses were using the same NMC payout and they were already added together or if I was only paid part of what I should have been?  Again mostly just curious since NMC isn't worth beans.

Ah. Yeah, nmc addresses are all combined.

[Biodom]

I see no negative number in the estimated change anywhere.

at 9:35am estimated change is HIGHER than at 12:13pm.
Subtracting later (12:13pm) estimated change from earlier (9:35am) estimated change yields a negative number, which means that estimated change has gone LOWER from 9:35am to 12:13 pm. Am I wrong?