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

[Xevious75]

Congratulations on keeping positive Whizkid!

Ignore the whiners, you have proved yourself as both honourable and trustworthy too many times. The veteran/supporting miners and those that understand that variance means 'have multiple miners at more than one pool dumb arse!' will still be around for the next manual pay out.

My thanks and keep up the good work!

I totally support that.
I'm not quite a veteran or a business-oriented miner, yet even as a small, hobby-oriented miner I care and find wiz's efforts and attitude to be superlative.
Keep up the good work!

[BCwinning]

Modify the subject to show what the actual hashrate is on your pool.
It hasn't been 14000TH in 3 plus months. more like 5.
Quite deceptive. But you'll delete this too because it doesn't have anything to do with your pool or thread.

[noobtrader]

i wish i can stay mining, but im afraid after halving i will have to retire and repurpose my btc miner...   btw Thanks to Whizkid and Luke jr  for this awesome mining pool.

[klondike_bar]

I've asked before, and i understand its not necessarily the perogative of whizkid, but I think this pool should have a voting mechanism like slush/mining.cz

Id like to be able to show support (even if its only ~20TH) for a larger blocksize, via btc-classic or a blocksize-supportive BIP, without the mess of an account such as on slush's pool

ps: is it possible to get hashrate charts that are more than just 7 days long? It would be really cool to see my hashrate for a few months (better to judge hydro bills and downtime), if not the entire duration of mining at eligius

[Luke-Jr]

Miners simply do NOT vote on hardforks, no matter how much some might pretend they do.

[klondike_bar]

Miners simply do NOT vote on hardforks, no matter how much some might pretend they do.

welp, this is the point where the thread veers off topic. 

lets start with what i said i wanted to do, which is to have the option of mining blocks with specific flags (lets call it a sub-pool) if the block is solved with my specific hash:   

Id like to be able to show support ... for a larger blocksize, via btc-classic or a blocksize-supportive BIP

I'm not sure how technically easy it is to do, or if it can be implemented without having to break eligius into two even-smaller pools - but if its possible id like to, because:

Transaction volume is rising, and blocks are full (even if that includes no-fee/tiny-fee "dust/spam/micropayments/junk/etc") and the recommended fees are slowly increasing. Thats natural and I beleive a fee market will exist whether implemented through a small "maxblocksize" or by some miners simply refusing to process anything below a fee threshold. Common sense says that over time a larger TPS is needed to provide fees to miners and handle an internet worth of daily transactions/settlements. The assumption (reality?) is that a blocksize increase *should* be implemented via hardfork, and tat is done by mining either through a different client (such as classic and its 2MB code) or by implementing the relevant BIP into the BTC/Core thats running.

Ergo, it appears that by solving blocks with the desired client/BIP, you increase the "percentage of global hashrate" that supports the rule by 0.1% (assuming its based on 1000 blocks). If enough blocks are solved this way (a supermajority, be it 750/1000 or 950/1000) a change is triggered. Thats the change I want to make happen if i solve any blocks with my hashrate

Assuming the above is all tecnically correct (please let me know if not), then "hashrate = a say in the matter". It might not technically be a "vote" because its an ongoing system with no specific start or end that could enable a final, specific tally or "vote", but it seems that solved blocks are what determines the future of the protocol.

Miners=hashrate=solved blocks=supermajority=hardfork


I also want to add that pools are not miners, as any control they have over the pooled hashrate is temporary based on which pool the equipment owner (miner) decides to connect to. As such, it is brash to assume that pool operators are miners/"votes" except through hardware they personally own.

I like eligius - its simple, requires no login, and has never given me problems. But I think what slush/mining.cz is doing with its OPTIONAL voting is smart and something eligius might benefit from

[wizkid057]

The point is that it doesn't matter what miners "vote" on for a hardfork. All miners could decide that we're going back to 50 BTC block rewards and mine away... Unfortunately no client will be on that chain.  Its the network as a whole that needs to accept a hardfork, not just miners.

In short, I have no intention of wasting resources implementing pointless miner voting on hardfork stuff. Its misinformation publicity nonsense to get attention which I want no part of.

[smaxz]

why not just use a pool running a classic client?

its like going to a ford dealership to buy a car but asking them to put fiat badges on it before driving off the lot.

[klondike_bar]

The point is that it doesn't matter what miners "vote" on for a hardfork. All miners could decide that we're going back to 50 BTC block rewards and mine away... Unfortunately no client will be on that chain.  Its the network as a whole that needs to accept a hardfork, not just miners.

In short, I have no intention of wasting resources implementing pointless miner voting on hardfork stuff. Its misinformation publicity nonsense to get attention which I want no part of.

Thats fair enough - though i dont necessarily agree. Unfortunately, the software puts miners in the drivers seat whether people like it or not now that it shows signs of centralization. but they are the only ones who can cause a hardfork, wallets dont get a [mathematically-demonstrated/enforced] vote

[wizkid057]

The point is that it doesn't matter what miners "vote" on for a hardfork. All miners could decide that we're going back to 50 BTC block rewards and mine away... Unfortunately no client will be on that chain.  Its the network as a whole that needs to accept a hardfork, not just miners.

In short, I have no intention of wasting resources implementing pointless miner voting on hardfork stuff. Its misinformation publicity nonsense to get attention which I want no part of.

Thats fair enough - though i dont necessarily agree. Unfortunately, the software puts miners in the drivers seat whether people like it or not now that it shows signs of centralization. but they are the only ones who can cause a hardfork, wallets dont get a [mathematically-demonstrated/enforced] vote

A the risk of derailing the thread, I really think you, and many many others, completely misunderstand how a hard fork actually works.

In the past there have been several "soft" forks in which miners could actually "vote" per se.  The reason this works is because pretty much all clients/merchants/services/etc could work with the new changes one way or another regardless of whether or not they upgraded.

A hard fork is something completely different.  *EVERYONE* participating in the functions of the network must change their client software for a hard fork to take effect.  Not just miners, not just merchants/users/services/etc.  *EVERYONE*.  I'll restate the same example again to clarify a bit.  Let's say miners all vote and 85% of miners decide we're not halving the block reward at block 420000 and we're staying at 25 BTC for another four years.  OK, fine.  85% of the miners setup their code to do this, and they mine the first block that doesn't match the current chain.  Well, the other 15% of miners now control the network if every merchant/user/service/exchange/etc did not agree with the hard fork the miners had, and the difficulty will adjust downward on that side of the fork to compensate for the real network mining losing a substantial amount of hash power.  The original 85% of miners that voted on and adopted this miner-voted hard fork would basically be mining nothing since merchants and users aren't accepting their chain.

Again, for a hard fork it really makes zero difference what the miners decide.  A hard fork needs virtually 100% community consensus or things will go very wrong.  The propaganda spread by the various Bitcoin-altcoins (like XT and Classic) about miners somehow having a real say in this is just pure BS, plain and simple.  For a hard fork miners must adopt what the entire community adopts, meaning miners must mine what the users are using.  If they're not, they're just spinning their wheels pointlessly mining a coin and chain that no one will use.

The fact that other pools are using this as a way to attract people who don't know any better just shows either their own ignorance about the matter or their willingness to prey on the ignorant.  Either way, I'd steer clear, and Eligius will not be participating in such nonsense.

[Luke-Jr]

Unfortunately, the software puts miners in the drivers seat whether people like it or not now that it shows signs of centralization. but they are the only ones who can cause a hardfork, wallets dont get a [mathematically-demonstrated/enforced] vote

No. The software doesn't put miners in control of this, and they cannot cause nor enforce a hardfork.
If miners try to do that, they're just mining invalid blocks.

wizkid057 gets it.

[TooDumbForBitcoin]

 Well, the other 15% of miners now control the network if every merchant/user/service/exchange/etc did not agree with the hard fork the miners had, and the difficulty will adjust downward on that side of the fork to compensate for the real network mining losing a substantial amount of hash power.  The original 85% of miners that voted on and adopted this miner-voted hard fork would basically be mining nothing since merchants and users aren't accepting their chain.

I did not know that one merchant or user or service or exchange could forestall a hard fork approved of by all remaining parties.  Quite the concentration of power.

Universal veto.

[klondike_bar]

 Well, the other 15% of miners now control the network if every merchant/user/service/exchange/etc did not agree with the hard fork the miners had, and the difficulty will adjust downward on that side of the fork to compensate for the real network mining losing a substantial amount of hash power.  The original 85% of miners that voted on and adopted this miner-voted hard fork would basically be mining nothing since merchants and users aren't accepting their chain.

I did not know that one merchant or user or service or exchange could forestall a hard fork approved of by all remaining parties.  Quite the concentration of power.

Universal veto.

miners provide security for economic incentive, and it is in their best interest to make a profit on "work" (hashrate). They have TOTAL control over hardforking the blockchain by the very definition that only a miner can create blocks. Merchants, users, exchanges, services that do not mine blocks ave zero ability to create blocks and must follow the rules set by miners in order to have a transaction confirmed or marked valid.

obviously, merchants/users may not agree with a fork implemented by miners and may stay on the unforked ruleset, with transations mined by those miners. If they decide to send the same coins on both sides of the fork, that would also be fairly easy to do. But if a majority of hasrate in on the new chain, the older chain becomes vulnerable to hashrate attacks and using it for transacting becomes unsafe or unpredictable.

In this situation, fees become important. If all the transactions (and thus fees) are on the minority blockchain, miners would have economic incentive to return to that ruleset.

[wizkid057]

Well, the other 15% of miners now control the network if every merchant/user/service/exchange/etc did not agree with the hard fork the miners had, and the difficulty will adjust downward on that side of the fork to compensate for the real network mining losing a substantial amount of hash power.  The original 85% of miners that voted on and adopted this miner-voted hard fork would basically be mining nothing since merchants and users aren't accepting their chain.

I did not know that one merchant or user or service or exchange could forestall a hard fork approved of by all remaining parties.  Quite the concentration of power.

Universal veto.

miners provide security for economic incentive, and it is in their best interest to make a profit on "work" (hashrate). They have TOTAL control over hardforking the blockchain by the very definition that only a miner can create blocks. Merchants, users, exchanges, services that do not mine blocks ave zero ability to create blocks and must follow the rules set by miners in order to have a transaction confirmed or marked valid.

obviously, merchants/users may not agree with a fork implemented by miners and may stay on the unforked ruleset, with transations mined by those miners. If they decide to send the same coins on both sides of the fork, that would also be fairly easy to do. But if a majority of hasrate in on the new chain, the older chain becomes vulnerable to hashrate attacks and using it for transacting becomes unsafe or unpredictable.

In this situation, fees become important. If all the transactions (and thus fees) are on the minority blockchain, miners would have economic incentive to return to that ruleset.

Again, it's just like if I decided to start mining blocks with a 1,000,000 BTC block reward.  Sure, I could mine as many as I want, even if I have 99% of the network hash rate.... but no one is going to accept them, so it's pointless to do so.   A hard fork doesn't need universal consensus, but it needs a super majority of miners, merchants, and users for sure... otherwise it doesn't make sense.

As a simple example (and I'm in no way affiliated with these entities, just well known examples):  Let's say miners decide to hard fork, but Bitstamp, Coinbase, and Bitpay decide not to follow along and continue using normal clients.  Well, no one mining coins generated by the hard forked chain could sell coins on those exchanges, but the miners who stayed on the normal chain could easily do so (and would be making a bunch more since their side difficulty would have dropped).  It doesn't matter transaction volume, fees, whatever... if the miners can't sell or use their coins... what good are they?

So again, miners have zero control over the implementation and adoption of a hard fork.  They sure have control over execution once the community agrees on one, but miners have no authority to make such changes on their own without the rest of the community (users/merchants/etc).

It may seem difficult to grasp and accept, but it's the way it is.  And, IMO, is quite an excellent design.  If it were any other way miners could decide to hard fork and do completely crazy things.  A hard fork could be virtually any change to the system, even ones that are completely irrational.  I mean, if it were that simple then miners could have decided a while back something crazy like, every transaction included in a block entitles the miner to 1 BTC in additional subsidy.  Or, any output not spent after X days is spendable by anyone.  Etc etc.  This is why a HARD fork is not possible with JUST miner involvement.  Essentially, any hard fork converts bitcoin into a new coin, requiring new clients and all for EVERYONE in order for it to be utilized... just like if you decided to mine some random altcoin, you can't treat your altcoins as bitcoin and vice versa.

---

On pool news, I've been making steady progress on the new changes that are coming soon to the pool.  I'm running over my initial time estimates a bit due to other unrelated work running a bit into overtime, but I'm doing my best to catch up and get things finished here.

I'll try to do a better update soon, once I have some more to share.

[OgNasty]

Does Eligius have a public NMC address or is there any way to see any info on the NMC being mined?

[Flippout]

Wizkid057,
First I’d like to say that I very much appreciate the work you have done and the dedication to the pool.
I understand that a voting system was been brought up a number of times on this forum. How do you feel about a voting system where we vote in BTC. Basically paying for new features? I know you do this on your own time and would like to see you compensated in some form, since it seems donations aren’t cutting it.

[cloh76]

Is the site working properly?  Reason I ask is the Round Time stays the same and backtracks everytime i refresh the page.  Also my earnings have been stuck at 3 days and 15 hours to enter the payout queue for the earning threshhold i set.  My earnings have not changed much if at all over the past week.

[twebit]

Been switching around a lot lately watching my small monarchs dwindle into btc dust because of rising difficulty.

$0 electricity is the only thing that keeps them going.

And the fact that eligius is one of the only pools I can mine at because recently I reported on ckpool that my miners would receive an error mining at their pool and the same happened on slush. The only place I can mine is on DGB sha256 and eligius because one miner received a bad command and goes sick.

Eligius keep support for old monarchs. They are bullet proof when working at full 854-920 GHS! (the firmware on the 854 one is probably the cause because it's an older one)

I mine DGB on the weekend and BTC at eligius during the week.

Thanks for a great pool in my hobbyist mining endeavour

[luffy]

something is wrong with payouts!
i see this in 'Estimated Position in Payout Queue' area:
"Less than 25 BTC ahead in queue, putting this user's payout in our next block"
but after 4 blocks the message is the same and i haven't seen any payment yet!

[wizkid057]

something is wrong with payouts!
i see this in 'Estimated Position in Payout Queue' area:
"Less than 25 BTC ahead in queue, putting this user's payout in our next block"
but after 4 blocks the message is the same and i haven't seen any payment yet!

Payouts are fine. Open a ticket if you think otherwise for some reason.