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

[spooderman]

Finally got a NMC payout. Thnx. Also, my variance is insane now as I'm a tiny fish in this pool now.

[DeeBo]

Yes, you have the right idea.  See the link in my sig for a bit more detail.

Great post, thanks.

Due to the limitations of the speed of light, all pools regardless of reward system have some overhead.
I think it tends toward 2% in the long run, recently.
With CPPSRB, this manifests in shelved shares unpaid forever; but the same losses occur no matter what reward system is in use.

I'm curious what those losses would be under PPLNS.  If I understand correctly the advantage of CPPSRB is less variance but under PPLNS if the pool were to hit a lucky streak, the miners get a proportional rise in payouts (putting you above what you would get even in a straight PPS system.)  In CPPSRB if the pool hits a lucky streak the best the miners will get is 100% of their shares paid.

[Luke-Jr]

Due to the limitations of the speed of light, all pools regardless of reward system have some overhead.
I think it tends toward 2% in the long run, recently.
With CPPSRB, this manifests in shelved shares unpaid forever; but the same losses occur no matter what reward system is in use.

I'm curious what those losses would be under PPLNS.  If I understand correctly the advantage of CPPSRB is less variance but under PPLNS if the pool were to hit a lucky streak, the miners get a proportional rise in payouts (putting you above what you would get even in a straight PPS system.)  In CPPSRB if the pool hits a lucky streak the best the miners will get is 100% of their shares paid.

Under PPLNS, once your shares fall out of the LastN window, you will never be paid for them regardless.
CPPSRB merely has a dropping probability, instead of a flat cutoff.

[DeeBo]

Due to the limitations of the speed of light, all pools regardless of reward system have some overhead.
I think it tends toward 2% in the long run, recently.
With CPPSRB, this manifests in shelved shares unpaid forever; but the same losses occur no matter what reward system is in use.

I'm curious what those losses would be under PPLNS.  If I understand correctly the advantage of CPPSRB is less variance but under PPLNS if the pool were to hit a lucky streak, the miners get a proportional rise in payouts (putting you above what you would get even in a straight PPS system.)  In CPPSRB if the pool hits a lucky streak the best the miners will get is 100% of their shares paid.

Under PPLNS, once your shares fall out of the LastN window, you will never be paid for them regardless.
CPPSRB merely has a dropping probability, instead of a flat cutoff.

Yea but PPLNS also pays your shares out twice if the pool solves a block quickly.  It seems PPLNS is just more "luck" based whereas CPPSRB gives you more steady payouts and less variance.  If ~2% of my shares don't get paid, that's not a bad trade off.

[baddw]

I'm curious what those losses would be under PPLNS.  If I understand correctly the advantage of CPPSRB is less variance but under PPLNS if the pool were to hit a lucky streak, the miners get a proportional rise in payouts (putting you above what you would get even in a straight PPS system.)  In CPPSRB if the pool hits a lucky streak the best the miners will get is 100% of their shares paid.

In PPLNS, if the pool hits an unlucky streak, you could have many shares that are never paid.*

PPLNS is better when lucky but worse when unlucky (because you will never be paid back for the shares submitted during unlucky times).

Over a long enough time span, all payment systems should average the same payout for the same work input (less pool fees).  Differing payment schemes create variance in payouts for work input, but over time they should converge.  Straight PPS would have the lowest variance, but straight PPS requires high fees so that the pool never goes bankrupt.  CPPSRB is an adaptation of PPS to make sure that the pool never goes bankrupt, and has more variance than straight PPS but less variance than PPLNS.  PPLNS has more variance, which can be good (in lucky times) or bad (in unlucky times).  

If you are pool-hopping or coin-hopping, then a lucky streak on a PPLNS pool might pick up your earnings considerably, while a bad streak would drag them down considerably.  If you are mining a single coin consistently, and sticking with a single pool (rather than trying to chase luck), the payout scheme really doesn't matter that much if you are in it for the long term.

[Luke-Jr]

Due to the limitations of the speed of light, all pools regardless of reward system have some overhead.
I think it tends toward 2% in the long run, recently.
With CPPSRB, this manifests in shelved shares unpaid forever; but the same losses occur no matter what reward system is in use.

I'm curious what those losses would be under PPLNS.  If I understand correctly the advantage of CPPSRB is less variance but under PPLNS if the pool were to hit a lucky streak, the miners get a proportional rise in payouts (putting you above what you would get even in a straight PPS system.)  In CPPSRB if the pool hits a lucky streak the best the miners will get is 100% of their shares paid.

Under PPLNS, once your shares fall out of the LastN window, you will never be paid for them regardless.
CPPSRB merely has a dropping probability, instead of a flat cutoff.

Yea but PPLNS also pays your shares out twice if the pool solves a block quickly.  It seems PPLNS is just more "luck" based whereas CPPSRB gives you more steady payouts and less variance.  If ~2% of my shares don't get paid, that's not a bad trade off.

My point was that your long-term earnings are the same.

[baddw]

Yea but PPLNS also pays your shares out twice if the pool solves a block quickly.  It seems PPLNS is just more "luck" based whereas CPPSRB gives you more steady payouts and less variance.  If ~2% of my shares don't get paid, that's not a bad trade off.

At least 2% of your shares don't get paid under either PPLNS or CPPSRB, because all pools will have orphan blocks at a predictable rate.  Technically PPLNS might have 10% of shares never paid, but it is compensated by the 8% of shares that are paid twice.  Or something like that.  I'm not aware of any PPLNS pools that show you this level of detail.  But the ~2% long-term unpaid rate in Eligius is probably the same throughout all pools, although I don't know if this has ever been demonstrated conclusively.

[DeeBo]

I'm curious what those losses would be under PPLNS.  If I understand correctly the advantage of CPPSRB is less variance but under PPLNS if the pool were to hit a lucky streak, the miners get a proportional rise in payouts (putting you above what you would get even in a straight PPS system.)  In CPPSRB if the pool hits a lucky streak the best the miners will get is 100% of their shares paid.

In PPLNS, if the pool hits an unlucky streak, you could have many shares that are never paid.*

PPLNS is better when lucky but worse when unlucky (because you will never be paid back for the shares submitted during unlucky times).

Over a long enough time span, all payment systems should average the same payout for the same work input (less pool fees).  Differing payment schemes create variance in payouts for work input, but over time they should converge.  Straight PPS would have the lowest variance, but straight PPS requires high fees so that the pool never goes bankrupt.  CPPSRB is an adaptation of PPS to make sure that the pool never goes bankrupt, and has more variance than straight PPS but less variance than PPLNS.  PPLNS has more variance, which can be good (in lucky times) or bad (in unlucky times).  

If you are pool-hopping or coin-hopping, then a lucky streak on a PPLNS pool might pick up your earnings considerably, while a bad streak would drag them down considerably.  If you are mining a single coin consistently, and sticking with a single pool (rather than trying to chase luck), the payout scheme really doesn't matter that much if you are in it for the long term.

Thanks for the explanation.  That make sense to me.  I haven't pool-hopped since ~2011-2012 when I was GPU mining and proportional pools still existed.  Seems pretty pointless to pool-hop now that most everyone's wised up and are using better reward systems.  I'll probably just be sticking to Eligius for the foreseeable future since I like the lower variance and don't want to contribute to a possible 51% attack with GHash.

[eleuthria]

I'm curious what those losses would be under PPLNS.  If I understand correctly the advantage of CPPSRB is less variance but under PPLNS if the pool were to hit a lucky streak, the miners get a proportional rise in payouts (putting you above what you would get even in a straight PPS system.)  In CPPSRB if the pool hits a lucky streak the best the miners will get is 100% of their shares paid.

In PPLNS, if the pool hits an unlucky streak, you could have many shares that are never paid.*

You put an asterisk with no explanation of it, so I'll add my own:  This only happens if the PPLNS system uses an 'N' value that is low.  At no time in the history of BTC Guild PPLNS has a share gone unpaid, because we have always kept the N value high enough to outpace even the unluckiest of blocks.  However, the point is valid for most (every?) other PPLNS pool, especially GHash which uses a VERY low N-value compared to their pool size.

[knvsh]

Hello, WizKid, et al.,

I'm new to mining, and the pool, and am enjoying both.  At least one question has arise in the few days I've been at it that I'd like to understand better:

While my miner is constantly reports running near or over 1 Th/s, the MyEligius stats sometimes report almost 200 Kh/s less work.  I understand that some blocks are harder, and the hash slower as a result, but I don't understand why I get different numbers from the miner and from the MyEligius stats.  Seems logically they should rise and fall together. 

Thanks,
knvsh

[mdude77]

Hello, WizKid, et al.,

I'm new to mining, and the pool, and am enjoying both.  At least one question has arise in the few days I've been at it that I'd like to understand better:

While my miner is constantly reports running near or over 1 Th/s, the MyEligius stats sometimes report almost 200 Kh/s less work.  I understand that some blocks are harder, and the hash slower as a result, but I don't understand why I get different numbers from the miner and from the MyEligius stats.  Seems logically they should rise and fall together. 

Which stat are you looking at?  the 128 second one will vary quite a bit.  That's the nature of pools.  The 22.5 min and longer ones seem to be the most accurate because it averages out the variances.

Regardless, what the miner reports will always be the most accurate.  As long as the miner stat is pretty close to the 22.5 min (and longer) stats, then you should be in good shape.

M

[baddw]

Hello, WizKid, et al.,

I'm new to mining, and the pool, and am enjoying both.  At least one question has arise in the few days I've been at it that I'd like to understand better:

While my miner is constantly reports running near or over 1 Th/s, the MyEligius stats sometimes report almost 200 Kh/s less work.  I understand that some blocks are harder, and the hash slower as a result, but I don't understand why I get different numbers from the miner and from the MyEligius stats.  Seems logically they should rise and fall together. 

Thanks,
knvsh

The blocks are all the same difficulty.

Your miner is producing hashes at a fairly consistent rate.  This is what shows up on your screen. 

Most of these results are "easy", i.e. they have a very low difficulty of 0, 1, 2, etc.  The network as a whole is looking for extremely difficult hashes: the difficulty required to produce a valid block today is 11,756,551,916. 

All of the hashes computed by your miners are valid results that *could* be shared with the pool, but sharing all of your hashes with the pool would eat up your Internet connection and the pool's CPU.  So the pool tells your mining software only to share hashes that meet a minimum difficulty level of, say, 16, instead of 0.  So you are only sending the pool a small portion of your hashes, rather than every hash.  wizkid adjusted Eligius' minimum difficulty for accepted hashes to 128 a couple of days ago.  Your miners are far less likely to find hashes of difficulty 128 than they are difficulty 0, 1, or 16.  So there is more variability there, and there will be some rounds where your miner doesn't find any hashes of difficulty 128, while there might be other rounds where your miner finds more hashes of difficulty 128 than expected.  They will average out in the end.

This is sort of the individual miner's version of "luck" but again, over time your earnings will average out. 

It is just necessary to lighten the load on the pool.  The pool will automatically adjust your pool difficulty depending on how fast your results are being submitted.

[DeeBo]

Looks like someone just added ~2,400 Th/s to the pool since the last block.  Up to 9,500 Th/s total now.

[mdude77]

Looks like someone just added ~2,400 Th/s to the pool since the last block.  Up to 9,500 Th/s total now.

sweet!

M

[crashoveride54902]

Looks like someone just added ~2,400 Th/s to the pool since the last block.  Up to 9,500 Th/s total now.

probably that guy that just hops around from pool to pool...wonder why they just don't stick to one pool?

[abbeytim]

site is down but mining works

[AbiTxGroup]

site is down but mining works

Same here, stats page is down, but hashing is still working.

[mdude77]

site is down but mining works

Same here, stats page is down, but hashing is still working.

Ditto.

M

[fryarminer]

Hello, WizKid, et al.,

I'm new to mining, and the pool, and am enjoying both.  At least one question has arise in the few days I've been at it that I'd like to understand better:

While my miner is constantly reports running near or over 1 Th/s, the MyEligius stats sometimes report almost 200 Kh/s less work.  I understand that some blocks are harder, and the hash slower as a result, but I don't understand why I get different numbers from the miner and from the MyEligius stats.  Seems logically they should rise and fall together. 

Thanks,
knvsh

The blocks are all the same difficulty.

Your miner is producing hashes at a fairly consistent rate.  This is what shows up on your screen. 

Most of these results are "easy", i.e. they have a very low difficulty of 0, 1, 2, etc.  The network as a whole is looking for extremely difficult hashes: the difficulty required to produce a valid block today is 11,756,551,916. 

All of the hashes computed by your miners are valid results that *could* be shared with the pool, but sharing all of your hashes with the pool would eat up your Internet connection and the pool's CPU.  So the pool tells your mining software only to share hashes that meet a minimum difficulty level of, say, 16, instead of 0.  So you are only sending the pool a small portion of your hashes, rather than every hash.  wizkid adjusted Eligius' minimum difficulty for accepted hashes to 128 a couple of days ago.  Your miners are far less likely to find hashes of difficulty 128 than they are difficulty 0, 1, or 16.  So there is more variability there, and there will be some rounds where your miner doesn't find any hashes of difficulty 128, while there might be other rounds where your miner finds more hashes of difficulty 128 than expected.  They will average out in the end.

This is sort of the individual miner's version of "luck" but again, over time your earnings will average out. 

It is just necessary to lighten the load on the pool.  The pool will automatically adjust your pool difficulty depending on how fast your results are being submitted.

Wow I've been mining for years and never knew this! Thanks for the explanation!
(I guess I need to learn more - so much to learn in bitcoin!)

[DeeBo]

Looks like the site's down again but my miners are still going.  Hope I'm still getting credit for these shares.