Too pool or not to pool? That is the question..+ a poll & poolings effect on BTC

[frankiebits]

Thanks to everyone for answering questions!

So is there a pool that requires each member to have a minimum hash/s to join?

I would assume the pool that has the highest hashrate/member ratio will be the ones making the most BTC.
I would be interested in joining or maybe creating such a pool.

[1713560853]

1713560853

[1713560853]

1713560853

[1713560853]

1713560853

[snedie]

Thanks to everyone for answering questions!

So is there a pool that requires each member to have a minimum hash/s to join?

I would assume the pool that has the highest hashrate/member ratio will be the ones making the most BTC.
I would be interested in joining or maybe creating such a pool.

The smaller the pool the higher your payout. Currently I am in this pool http://btcmine.com but it isn't generating payouts for days at a time so I will be leaving. The bitpenny pool seems to be much more advantageous to me however as it pays out even if a block isn't solved: This puts the "Gamble" onto the owner of the pool instead, and for this reason he takes 10% commission.

[frankiebits]

Thanks to everyone for answering questions!

So is there a pool that requires each member to have a minimum hash/s to join?

I would assume the pool that has the highest hashrate/member ratio will be the ones making the most BTC.
I would be interested in joining or maybe creating such a pool.

The smaller the pool the higher your payout. Currently I am in this pool http://btcmine.com but it isn't generating payouts for days at a time so I will be leaving. The bitpenny pool seems to be much more advantageous to me however as it pays out even if a block isn't solved: This puts the "Gamble" onto the owner of the pool instead, and for this reason he takes 10% commission.

Thanks, so I guess the idea of having a pool where members must meet a certain hash rate sayyy 100mhash/s for example does not exist yet?

[[Tycho]]

Thanks, so I guess the idea of having a pool where members must meet a certain hash rate sayyy 100mhash/s for example does not exist yet?

Why would someone do that ?
This restriction will only be necessary for some small-scale pool which is incapable to serve many slow miners.
Pool without restrictions gets more users and makes more BTC.

The smaller the pool the higher your payout. Currently I am in this pool http://btcmine.com but it isn't generating payouts for days at a time so I will be leaving. The bitpenny pool seems to be much more advantageous to me however as it pays out even if a block isn't solved: This puts the "Gamble" onto the owner of the pool instead, and for this reason he takes 10% commission.

The smaller the pool the higher your payout per block. But bigger pools have more blocks, so overall payment is the same.
Bitpenny is not the only one with pay-per-share payout. My pool provides it too.

[slush]

If Joe pool operator makes a code change that breaks things, the pool goes down. He isn't likely to have a development environment, test deployments etc. So wwe have 2-3% comissions then there is the downtime which reduces efficiency even further.

Teoretically - yes. Practically - I'm doing tests for more than 50% of time spent on the development. I'm sure that pool operator(s) of other big pool(s) does the similar. In fact, my pool started up 16.12.2010 and except two server restarts in January and slightly lower hashrate (drop around 30%) during 2hours of DoS attack in February, it is up all the time.

And yes, I have development environment and even stage environment on other machines in the same data center.

[snedie]

Thanks, so I guess the idea of having a pool where members must meet a certain hash rate sayyy 100mhash/s for example does not exist yet?

Why would someone do that ?
This restriction will only be necessary for some small-scale pool which is incapable to serve many slow miners.
Pool without restrictions gets more users and makes more BTC.

The smaller the pool the higher your payout. Currently I am in this pool http://btcmine.com but it isn't generating payouts for days at a time so I will be leaving. The bitpenny pool seems to be much more advantageous to me however as it pays out even if a block isn't solved: This puts the "Gamble" onto the owner of the pool instead, and for this reason he takes 10% commission.

The smaller the pool the higher your payout per block. But bigger pools have more blocks, so overall payment is the same.
Bitpenny is not the only one with pay-per-share payout. My pool provides it too.

3% fee, you got me within the next 12 hours in your pool 

You got any estimates for pay-per-share at 1.1Ghash/s (And at 1.3Ghash/s if you can too please).

[[Tycho]]

You got any estimates for pay-per-share at 1.1Ghash/s (And at 1.3Ghash/s if you can too please).

1.1 GH/s will give you 13 BTC per day at pay-per-share or 14 BTC per day with proportional payout

[Thndr]

You got any estimates for pay-per-share at 1.1Ghash/s (And at 1.3Ghash/s if you can too please).

1.1 GH/s will give you 13 BTC per day at pay-per-share or 14 BTC per day with proportional payout

So that's almost 1BTC/day at 70MH/s, right?

----

As long as we're discussing different kind of pools:


What if someone created a pool with a limited max hashrate dedicated to just CPU miners?

What if someone created a pool that combined a lottery system along with participation? (24 random users get a guaranteed 1BTC per block, and the remaining 25BTC is divided among the entire pool)

What if someone created a small pool that had a limited amount of users and every hour, runs a non-paid 400GH/s client for 1 minute (unless it finds a block in less than a minute)? The users could be limited to a rotating list of 25 users per day. *2BTC per hour, about 45BTC per day*

[frankiebits]

Thanks, so I guess the idea of having a pool where members must meet a certain hash rate sayyy 100mhash/s for example does not exist yet?

Why would someone do that ?
This restriction will only be necessary for some small-scale pool which is incapable to serve many slow miners.
Pool without restrictions gets more users and makes more BTC.

Say you have a pool with 100 members with the exact same hash rate as a pool with 1000 members, wouldn't the smaller pool generate the same amount of bitcoin and each member would get 10x more than in the larger pool?

[[Tycho]]

Thanks, so I guess the idea of having a pool where members must meet a certain hash rate sayyy 100mhash/s for example does not exist yet?

Why would someone do that ?
This restriction will only be necessary for some small-scale pool which is incapable to serve many slow miners.
Pool without restrictions gets more users and makes more BTC.

Say you have a pool with 100 members with the exact same hash rate as a pool with 1000 members, wouldn't the smaller pool generate the same amount of bitcoin and each member would get 10x more than in the larger pool?

Yes, but each user will receive same reward in both pools. If a user with high hashing rate will go from one pool to another, his payout will be exactly the same. Same goes for "slow" user.

[[Tycho]]

As long as we're discussing different kind of pools:

What if someone created a pool with a limited max hashrate dedicated to just CPU miners?

It will only be interesting for users that don't understand how mining works.

Let's say that 1000 CPU users make a pool, then their hash rate will be only 1-10 MH/s total and it will create blocks much slower than other pools.
There are no any advantages for CPU users in such pool.

[os008]

PLEASE VOTE!
...
PLEASE VOTE!

LOL; it's voting day today here in Egypt on the constitution changes. Everyone is saying "please vote", even on TV. It's funny seeing it here too .

[frankiebits]

Thanks, so I guess the idea of having a pool where members must meet a certain hash rate sayyy 100mhash/s for example does not exist yet?

Why would someone do that ?
This restriction will only be necessary for some small-scale pool which is incapable to serve many slow miners.
Pool without restrictions gets more users and makes more BTC.

Say you have a pool with 100 members with the exact same hash rate as a pool with 1000 members, wouldn't the smaller pool generate the same amount of bitcoin and each member would get 10x more than in the larger pool?

Yes, but each user will receive same reward in both pools. If a user with high hashing rate will go from one pool to another, his payout will be exactly the same. Same goes for "slow" user.

If the pool was "pay per share" I agree with you. If it was not in theory a pool with 100 members with a 50 ghash/s rate compared to a pool with 1000 members with the same rate the first pool should pay out more because they are solving the same amount of blocks and have to pay it out to lesser amount of people therefore each person would get more BTC. Just like if I two people were mining solo and one has 10x the hash rate he should in theory get 10x as much because 1 pool = 1 miner.


Oh and if anyone if interested I decided to test out pooling on BITPENNY for around 12hours @ 80 mhash/s and got 0.5 btc  for around 850 shares. So you can do some math and figure out what you would get back with your hash rate on that pool. Hope it helps , if it does DONATE ME SOME BTC     

[frankiebits]

PLEASE VOTE!
...
PLEASE VOTE!

LOL; it's voting day today here in Egypt on the constitution changes. Everyone is saying "please vote", even on TV. It's funny seeing it here too .

Well I hope you voted, not just for my poll for that other thing too...

[[Tycho]]

Yes, but each user will receive same reward in both pools. If a user with high hashing rate will go from one pool to another, his payout will be exactly the same. Same goes for "slow" user.

If the pool was "pay per share" I agree with you. If it was not in theory a pool with 100 members with a 50 ghash/s rate compared to a pool with 1000 members with the same rate the first pool should pay out more because they are solving the same amount of blocks and have to pay it out to lesser amount of people therefore each person would get more BTC. Just like if I two people were mining solo and one has 10x the hash rate he should in theory get 10x as much because 1 pool = 1 miner.

Sorry, but it looks like you don't understand correctly how mining works. Or i don't understand your question :)
If you have 1 GH/s hashing rate, you will receive EQUAL payout per day/week/month in any pool if those pools are working normally.

If there is a pool with 50 users of 1 GH/s each and other pool with 500 users of 0.1 GH/s, their total speed will be the same. And the miners in first pool will get 10x more bitcoins because they are mining 10x faster.
And if there are a pool with 25 users of 1 GH/s and 250 users of 0.1 GH/s, first ones will get 10x more than slow ones, same as if they were in different pools.

[frankiebits]

Yes, but each user will receive same reward in both pools. If a user with high hashing rate will go from one pool to another, his payout will be exactly the same. Same goes for "slow" user.

If the pool was "pay per share" I agree with you. If it was not in theory a pool with 100 members with a 50 ghash/s rate compared to a pool with 1000 members with the same rate the first pool should pay out more because they are solving the same amount of blocks and have to pay it out to lesser amount of people therefore each person would get more BTC. Just like if I two people were mining solo and one has 10x the hash rate he should in theory get 10x as much because 1 pool = 1 miner.

Sorry, but it looks like you don't understand correctly how mining works. Or i don't understand your question
If you have 1 GH/s hashing rate, you will receive EQUAL payout per day/week/month in any pool if those pools are working normally.

If there is a pool with 50 users of 1 GH/s each and other pool with 500 users of 0.1 GH/s, their total speed will be the same. And the miners in first pool will get 10x more bitcoins because they are mining 10x faster.
And if there are a pool with 25 users of 1 GH/s and 250 users of 0.1 GH/s, first ones will get 10x more than slow ones, same as if they were in different pools.

I understand what you said , and agree , now I'll break it down for you....

TWO POOLS
BOTH POOLS ONLY PAY OUT WHEN A BLOCK IS SOLVED (no matter what your individual hash rate is you get the same payout as the next guy)
Both Pools have the SAME EXACT overall combined hash rate of their members .
pool #1 has 100 memebers
pool #2 has 100,000 members
both pools solve a block...
Pool #1 distributes the block between its 100 members so each member gets 0.5 BTC
Pool #2 distributes the block between its 100,000 members so each member gets 0.0005 BTC

Since their hash rate is the same they should solve blocks at the same rate. (I know their is the whole "lottery aspect to it" this is just theory)




THIS is why I say a pool with equal payout to all members with a minimum hash rate to join but NO maximum member rate would in theory be the most efficient and optimum way to run a pool...
It is very simple... am I missing something , because this is elementary math here....

[[Tycho]]

Pool #1 distributes the block between its 100 members so each member gets 0.5 BTC
Pool #2 distributes the block between its 100,000 members so each member gets 0.0005 BTC

Each member gets 0.5 BTC only of they all have exactly same hashing speed. If some member has faster rig, it will get bigger reward than others with slower machines.

If a member from pool #1 switches to pool #2, he will get same amount of BTC per day, as in #1 pool.

[frankiebits]

Pool #1 distributes the block between its 100 members so each member gets 0.5 BTC
Pool #2 distributes the block between its 100,000 members so each member gets 0.0005 BTC

Each member gets 0.5 BTC only of they all have exactly same hashing speed. If some member has faster rig, it will get bigger reward than others with slower machines.

I just made some edits , everyone no matter their individual hash rate gets the same payout. This is why minimum hash rate to join is very important.

[frankiebits]

I think if such a pool was created (every second I am thinking of more details to have it make more sense) it would kick ass.

The rules would be very simple though.

You must meet a minimum hash rate to join, not something low either I am talking over 200mhash/s .
You get equal amount as everyone else.
As long as each account meets the minimum hash rate you can have as many as you like. (Not sure about this yet)
Payouts only occur when blocks are solved.

Why wouldn't this work?

[LMGTFY]

I just made some edits , everyone no matter their individual hash rate gets the same payout. This is why minimum hash rate to join is very important.

A pool which guaranteed the exact same payout to all members, regardless of hash rate, will attract members with the lowest possible hash rate and deter potential members with higher hash rates. Say you're the operator of this hypothetical pool, and you set a minimum hash rate of 300 MHash/s - that keeps out miners with anything slower than one 5870, but equally someone with one or more 5970s will prefer to use a different pool - what's the point in using your pool if they're guaranteed to get paid the same as a miner using only a 5870? Might as well use a different pool and get paid more.

Your proposal would work, but it would have the side-effect of limiting pool membership to owners of one particular GPU. Personally, I'd prefer to belong to a big pool (i.e. one that doesn't limit membership) as the payouts will be more frequent.