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

[Cheeseater]

The large miners reduce their own variance by mining with the pool.  There is no real benefit to them to setup their own unless they just want to gamble.  Right now, with the ever increasing difficulty, the lower the variance the better.

If you charged a minimal service fee, like 0.1% it might help a little. Importantly though I think it would help people realise that you shouldn't expect the benefit of a pool without paying at least some token amount.

Using a pool is like paying insurance, yet no one is suggesting that insurance should be a free service.

+1000

All the benefits none of the costs and headaches. They are not stupid.

[1715215349]

1715215349

[1715215349]

1715215349

[1715215349]

1715215349

[1715215349]

1715215349

[1715215349]

1715215349

[Biomech]

The large miners reduce their own variance by mining with the pool.  There is no real benefit to them to setup their own unless they just want to gamble.  Right now, with the ever increasing difficulty, the lower the variance the better.

If you charged a minimal service fee, like 0.1% it might help a little. Importantly though I think it would help people realise that you shouldn't expect the benefit of a pool without paying at least some token amount.

Using a pool is like paying insurance, yet no one<except politicians> isare suggesting that insurance should be a free service.

FTFY

[smooth]

The large miners reduce their own variance by mining with the pool.  There is no real benefit to them to setup their own unless they just want to gamble.  Right now, with the ever increasing difficulty, the lower the variance the better.

If you charged a minimal service fee, like 0.1% it might help a little. Importantly though I think it would help people realise that you shouldn't expect the benefit of a pool without paying at least some token amount.

Using a pool is like paying insurance, yet no one is suggesting that insurance should be a free service.

+1000

All the benefits none of the costs and headaches. They are not stupid.

FWIW, if I were running a pool I'd charge a fee but offer some kind of rebate program based on hash rate (probably over a period of time) with the largest miners having no fee or a negative fee, and no I'm not a particularly large miner myself.

[wizkid057]

I feel the need to point out that the largest miners actually put the least load on the pool per Gh/sec.  It takes more effort on my part to support the other 6000+ users than it does the top 100 miners.

[Biomech]

I feel the need to point out that the largest miners actually put the least load on the pool per Gh/sec.  It takes more effort on my part to support the other 6000+ users than it does the top 100 miners.

makes sense.

I actually have a couple of questions regarding the ownership of the pool. Is it just you, or is it you and Luke-jr, or some combination of others I'm unaware of?

I don't actually care much, just curious. The only way it might matter directly to me is in whether or not you have the ability to make unilateral decisions regarding the operation of the pool. I know that it's basal software was Luke-jr's project, but I don't know the extent of his involvement. (No, I don't have a problem with him. I wasn't here for the rivalries that seemed to have colored the interaction of him and CKolivas and a few others. Probably wouldn't have been involved any way).

[organofcorti]

I feel the need to point out that the largest miners actually put the least load on the pool per Gh/sec.  It takes more effort on my part to support the other 6000+ users than it does the top 100 miners.

HHTT charged a fee based on the average difficulty of submitted shares, or something similar. The higher the difficulty, the lower the fee.

You could do the same, stabilising fees by using average submitted difficulty /  mining difficulty as an index. The lower submitted difficulty /  mining difficulty is, the greater the fee and visa versa.

I wouldn't make the fee much, but users need to know how much you work for them.

[artbatista]

The block list appears to be caught up now, at block 286282.

According to blockchain, there are no more blocks found by Eligius after that one.

Cheers

Art

[not.you]

Looks like maybe we got caught up on stats but the one thing that did not update is the payouts made during the lag time never showed up in the latest payouts list.

[azdarknet]

Patience get some.

[Biomech]

Patience get some.

What I always tell my son: "Patience! If I can fake it, you can too!"

[artbatista]

This 19% increase in diff is brutal....


Art

[Biomech]

This 19% increase in diff is brutal....


Art

Yep. And a few hours ahead of the estimates too. Dammit.

[wizkid057]

I feel the need to point out that the largest miners actually put the least load on the pool per Gh/sec.  It takes more effort on my part to support the other 6000+ users than it does the top 100 miners.

makes sense.

I actually have a couple of questions regarding the ownership of the pool. Is it just you, or is it you and Luke-jr, or some combination of others I'm unaware of?

I don't actually care much, just curious. The only way it might matter directly to me is in whether or not you have the ability to make unilateral decisions regarding the operation of the pool. I know that it's basal software was Luke-jr's project, but I don't know the extent of his involvement. (No, I don't have a problem with him. I wasn't here for the rivalries that seemed to have colored the interaction of him and CKolivas and a few others. Probably wouldn't have been involved any way).

I don't want to seem like I'm side stepping your question, but, I also don't want to post a detailed reply saying one thing or another without running it by a few people first.  Suffice it to say it is a topic that has been getting a lot of discussion internally in the past month or so.

But the core of your question, can I personally make decisions regarding pool operation?  I would say the short answer is yes.  But also, I think it is worth pointing out that it is unlikely that I would make a pool operations decision that anyone involved would strongly disagree with.  There are core values that Eligius has been built on from the start, and I personally have no intention of deviating from any of them.

I think the veiled question here is a moot one: Can wizkid057 add a fee?  Since I have no intentions of doing so, I don't think it really matters.  Could I add one?  Sure, it'd be an hour of work to do so.  Will I? No.  I feel that this is one of the values of Eligius in that it is community supported, regardless of what percentage of the community actually contributes to that support directly.

I feel the need to point out that the largest miners actually put the least load on the pool per Gh/sec.  It takes more effort on my part to support the other 6000+ users than it does the top 100 miners.

HHTT charged a fee based on the average difficulty of submitted shares, or something similar. The higher the difficulty, the lower the fee.

You could do the same, stabilising fees by using average submitted difficulty /  mining difficulty as an index. The lower submitted difficulty /  mining difficulty is, the greater the fee and visa versa.

I wouldn't make the fee much, but users need to know how much you work for them.

This was an interesting concept they had going.  I think in the future instead of actually placing a fee on lower hash rate mining in terms of a pool-cut, I may simply impose a pool-wide minimum work difficulty that just ends up causing lower hash rate miners more variance.  Not a fee, since technically they don't lose any earnings, they just pay in the form of slightly higher variance.  On that note, I have recently bumped the pool-wide minimum difficulty to diff 16.  This only really had any effect at all on the lowest 15% of miners, but helped with pool side load a bit.

The block list appears to be caught up now, at block 286282.

According to blockchain, there are no more blocks found by Eligius after that one.

Yep, looks like while I was writing this the stats finished catching up completely!  I will work on getting the balance of the manual payout to catch up the payout queue out soon (weren't enough confirmed generation coins last time), as well as NMC payouts.

Looks like maybe we got caught up on stats but the one thing that did not update is the payouts made during the lag time never showed up in the latest payouts list.

I'm running a full rebuild on that data now, actually.  Should show soon.

-wk

[artbatista]

The payout I got a couple of days ago just showed up in the payout list.

Looks like we are very close to normal operations now.


Art

[Biomech]

Thanks, wizkid, your indirect answer answered my question. There are more than just you directly involved.

I'm cool with that. Didn't need any more detail, as I'm simply curious. The "veiled question" was subliminal, I guess. I didn't actually mean it that way. I find the concept and implementation of pools to be really interesting. I'm considering setting up an alt pool on my own string. But your answer is cool as well.

I favor a fee because I think you guys earn it. But it's your game, and your call.

[TRN1062]

I feel the need to point out that the largest miners actually put the least load on the pool per Gh/sec.  It takes more effort on my part to support the other 6000+ users than it does the top 100 miners.

makes sense.

I actually have a couple of questions regarding the ownership of the pool. Is it just you, or is it you and Luke-jr, or some combination of others I'm unaware of?

I don't actually care much, just curious. The only way it might matter directly to me is in whether or not you have the ability to make unilateral decisions regarding the operation of the pool. I know that it's basal software was Luke-jr's project, but I don't know the extent of his involvement. (No, I don't have a problem with him. I wasn't here for the rivalries that seemed to have colored the interaction of him and CKolivas and a few others. Probably wouldn't have been involved any way).

I don't want to seem like I'm side stepping your question, but, I also don't want to post a detailed reply saying one thing or another without running it by a few people first.  Suffice it to say it is a topic that has been getting a lot of discussion internally in the past month or so.

But the core of your question, can I personally make decisions regarding pool operation?  I would say the short answer is yes.  But also, I think it is worth pointing out that it is unlikely that I would make a pool operations decision that anyone involved would strongly disagree with.  There are core values that Eligius has been built on from the start, and I personally have no intention of deviating from any of them.

I think the veiled question here is a moot one: Can wizkid057 add a fee?  Since I have no intentions of doing so, I don't think it really matters.  Could I add one?  Sure, it'd be an hour of work to do so.  Will I? No.  I feel that this is one of the values of Eligius in that it is community supported, regardless of what percentage of the community actually contributes to that support directly.

I feel the need to point out that the largest miners actually put the least load on the pool per Gh/sec.  It takes more effort on my part to support the other 6000+ users than it does the top 100 miners.

HHTT charged a fee based on the average difficulty of submitted shares, or something similar. The higher the difficulty, the lower the fee.

You could do the same, stabilising fees by using average submitted difficulty /  mining difficulty as an index. The lower submitted difficulty /  mining difficulty is, the greater the fee and visa versa.

I wouldn't make the fee much, but users need to know how much you work for them.

This was an interesting concept they had going.  I think in the future instead of actually placing a fee on lower hash rate mining in terms of a pool-cut, I may simply impose a pool-wide minimum work difficulty that just ends up causing lower hash rate miners more variance.  Not a fee, since technically they don't lose any earnings, they just pay in the form of slightly higher variance.  On that note, I have recently bumped the pool-wide minimum difficulty to diff 16.  This only really had any effect at all on the lowest 15% of miners, but helped with pool side load a bit.


-wk

I would guess I am part of the 15% and yeah I have noticed the change. I am struggling to keep my production up and make anything with my paltry little setup since the increase in min diff to 16 but I'm still here and still hoping to find a way to get some more serious hashing power soon.... if I can ever get some coins to pay for it that is. I still say Eligius is the most fair and equitable pool I've found and unless I were to manage to put together a rig that could mine solo profitably I have NO intentions of mining for any pool other than Eligius. I don't even have a failover set... Eligius is my one and ONLY !!!

[wizkid057]

OK! So, as of now, Bitcoin payouts are all caught up and Namecoin payouts are all caught up.  Stats are caught up, CPPSRB is caught up.

All is well in the world of Eligius.

Resume normal operations!

-wk

[Chemistry1988]

OK! So, as of now, Bitcoin payouts are all caught up and Namecoin payouts are all caught up.  Stats are caught up, CPPSRB is caught up.

All is well in the world of Eligius.

Resume normal operations!

-wk

Thanks wizkid

[freebit13]

Thanks for the update WK! Things are running smoothly as expected 

One thing: why is it that people don't understand that adding a default fee results in Eligius no longer being a 0% fee pool... is it short-sightedness or just plain ignorance?

Really guys, pointing fingers at everyone else's address with no idea whose behind it and whether they may have contributed in other ways is really childish and fills the pool thread with rubbish. How's about giving that "better than you" attitude a bit of a rest?

[Biomech]

Thanks for the update WK! Things are running smoothly as expected 

One thing: why is it that people don't understand that adding a default fee results in Eligius no longer being a 0% fee pool... is it short-sightedness or just plain ignorance?

Really guys, pointing fingers at everyone else's address with no idea whose behind it and whether they may have contributed in other ways is really childish and fills the pool thread with rubbish. How's about giving that "better than you" attitude a bit of a rest?

Well, speaking solely for myself here, I never intended to point fingers.

I am selfish and consider it a virtue. It is to my advantage for the operator of the pool to be financially invested in it's success. Which I think he is anyway, but primarily as a miner rather than an operator. He seems to feel otherwise, and I'm ok with that, but it's my personal opinion that I would be served best if it was his job, rather than his side job. So, it is to my selfish advantage for the pool to make a profit, and therefore I think that while it was a good introductory phase to be feeless, it's now more advantageous for all of us if it were operated for profit.

The above kind of reads like an indictment of Wizkid's performance to date, so to clarify, I think he's doing a great job with the time and resources he has. Imagine what he could do with more time and more resources?

I do think some people got a bit self righteous here, and they were probably more who you aimed that towards. But I figured I might as well put out my rationale.

Luke-jr has in fact already stated that prior to the voluntary fee system, some of the large miners were already directly supporting eligius to some extent. I thought I was almost from the beginning (I'm very much on the other end of the spectrum with my 80 GH/s rig), but WK had not yet implemented the feature. Either way, I think value for value is just and moral, so I contribute. If you, or others, feel differently, that's all well and good. I try to practice what I preach, or not preach it

Hope that makes sense.