Bitcoin Forum
January 24, 2017, 07:14:42 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.2  [Torrent]. (New!)
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
Author Topic: Bandwidth of a Pool  (Read 3836 times)
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246

View Profile
October 16, 2011, 10:20:22 PM

Exactly that is the point however when a block changes a miner will have "wasted" any hashes being worked.

Maybe my wording is unclear but since hashes are an artificial measurement there is some "loss" which means a lower throughput miner takes MORE shares on average to achieve the same number of shares as higher throughput average.

This is because the pool only sees work in "full share" steps.  If shares were smaller it would be less of an effect and if shares were larger it would be more of an effect.

Currently a 400MH GPU outperforms 2x 200MH GPU in terms of shares earned by ~3% and outperforms 4x 100MH GPU by about 5%.  I know because I experimented by downclocking GPU to simulate slower GPU and running them for nearly a week to compare shares vs hashrate.

With higher difficulty this effect will be increased.

When hashing (assuming a fixed hashing rate) the expected time to find a share can be approximately modelled by an exponential distribution.  This distribution has a "lack of memory" property.  This means that the expected time until the next share is found is independent of past events.  To say that one has lost progress towards a share is to suggest that it is possible to make progress towards a share; this is simply not compatible with the loss of memory property.  A miner can no more make progress towards finding a share than a pool can make progress towards finding a block.

One thing which can cause the illusion of partial shares at the end of a round is frequently seeing rejects at the very beginning or end of a round.  This is generally caused by setting high aggression.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Hero Member
Offline Offline

Activity: 737

View Profile
October 18, 2011, 01:40:04 PM

The only hashes that a miner "wastes time on" are those that stale because a new block has been found elsewhere on the network (and the miner does not know about it yet).  They are wasted because if they do find a block, the block will very likely become orphaned. 

As teukon said, all other hashing is not wasted because every single hash you calculate is effectively you "starting over" in your search for a valid block.  No matter how many hashes you have already checked, the very next hash you check might has the exact same probability to be valid or invalid. 

No matter how many times you have flipped a coin and had it come up "heads", the next time you flip it it still has exactly 50% chance to be "heads".

Was I helpful?  1TwmzX1wBxNF2qtAJRhdKmi2WyLZ5VHRs

Bitrated user: ewal.
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470

View Profile WWW
October 19, 2011, 08:02:21 AM
 #23 has 2x100mbit links, and still has been DDOS'd by a single botnet actor until they get IP banned. You would want enough bandwidth to stay up in the face of evildoers.

Pages: « 1 [2]  All
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!