[CLOSED] BTC Guild - Pays TxFees+NMC, Stratum, VarDiff, Private Servers

[demonmaestro]

No date was ever given for DVC/IXC, only that they would come *after* the new backend and after Scrypt Guild.  Unfortunately, the new backend took much longer than expected (illness + bugs), and was eventually scrapped entirely.  As a result, Scrypt Guild is also pushed back further.

IXC and DVC are *completely* worthless.  If BTC Guild adds them, they'll just become twice as hard to mine from difficulty, and go even further down in value since you'll have a whole lot of new people selling them to the highest bid on the books.  Right now they add less than 0.2%.  If their difficulty was increased by BTC Guild's hash rate, it would be less than 0.1%, not counting the drop in value guaranteed to follow the rise in difficulty.


This isn't saying they won't be added, just that they have always been near the bottom of the list of things to add/consider adding.

Scrypt Guild ?

Ok, so I obviously missed something but do / did I smell a LTC pool on the horizon ?

was in the talks but from that post it soins like it just hit the back burner again...  Eleuthria is a die hard BTC fan so BTCGuild take over everything as far as that goes...

[1714311663]

1714311663

[1714311663]

1714311663

[1714311663]

1714311663

[1714311663]

1714311663

[1714311663]

1714311663

[eleuthria]

No date was ever given for DVC/IXC, only that they would come *after* the new backend and after Scrypt Guild.  Unfortunately, the new backend took much longer than expected (illness + bugs), and was eventually scrapped entirely.  As a result, Scrypt Guild is also pushed back further.

IXC and DVC are *completely* worthless.  If BTC Guild adds them, they'll just become twice as hard to mine from difficulty, and go even further down in value since you'll have a whole lot of new people selling them to the highest bid on the books.  Right now they add less than 0.2%.  If their difficulty was increased by BTC Guild's hash rate, it would be less than 0.1%, not counting the drop in value guaranteed to follow the rise in difficulty.


This isn't saying they won't be added, just that they have always been near the bottom of the list of things to add/consider adding.

Scrypt Guild ?

Ok, so I obviously missed something but do / did I smell a LTC pool on the horizon ?

Yes.  I've hit a few snags on it, but it is absolutely in development.  I've had to push the date back to February due to some setbacks in the adoption of the old backend to scrypt and it's different ways of handling difficulty compared to SHA256.  I also have some family coming to visit + bringing a load of furniture & computers from my old house this weekend, so the odds of it launching this weekend are basically 0.

The idea is a profit-switching scrypt pool.  The alpha will simply be single chains with different ports based on what coin.  Beta will be multiple chains in one URL with the ability to switch via the Web UI.  The "release" version will include the ability to have the site automatically move you between chains based on profitability.

[MoreBloodWine]

was in the talks but from that post it soins like it just hit the back burner again...  Eleuthria is a die hard BTC fan so BTCGuild take over everything as far as that goes...

Back burner or no is fine with me. Don't ge me wrong, I'd love to mine LTC but I'd have to inves sooo much more just to mak i worth while than I ever did with BTC.

That is unless BTC equipment could somehow later be used to mine it, even thn, all that would do is skyroket the piss out of LTC's diff.

Edit: Ps, Eleu... I sent you a PM about your site regarding blocks found.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Want a sig like mine for your BTC Guild stats, then check out this post !

[alfabitcoin]

My ant repored eu server as dead, anybody else?

[eleuthria]

My ant repored eu server as dead, anybody else?

No problems connecting to it from here in the US.

[iglasses]

Even with the short term luck tanking I am making more on guild than I would anywhere else.

Eleuthria I have no idea what is involved with running this beast but thanks again for allowing a little nobody like me to take part in this grand whatever the hell it is...lol

[xstr8guy]

When is additional merged mining coming? I remember end of January was said.

<snip>

IXC and DVC are *completely* worthless.  If BTC Guild adds them, they'll just become twice as hard to mine from difficulty, and go even further down in value since you'll have a whole lot of new people selling them to the highest bid on the books.

<snip>

I bow to your expertise, elethuria.  But i respectfully disagree.

The same has been said about NameCoin in the recent past (by you perhaps?).  And each NMC is now worth over $5... more than LTC was but a few short months ago.  Underestimating alternate crypto-currencies is a big mistake and whether they are a viable product or not is a moot point.  They are simply worth what someone is willing to pay for them.  And if NMC can be valued at $5-8, these other junk cryptos can have significant value someday too.

And to be honest with you, IXCoin and DevCoin are the primary reason I'm splitting my hash 50/50 with BTCG and GHash.IO.  Otherwise BTCG would probably get it all.  Silly?  Perhaps.  But it's interesting to me to dabble in something different.

[alfabitcoin]

okay, something is wrong. I have mined just fine till now. I can mine on ghash but on guild (eu server) it show diff as 2, when I always had 128.
It just wont mine on it anymore. On ghash its on diff 128 and works fine.
On worker settings I have setup 128 diff, so I do not know what happened.

[eleuthria]

okay, something is wrong. I have mined just fine till now. I can mine on ghash but on guild (eu server) it show diff as 2, when I always had 128.
It just wont mine on it anymore. On ghash its on diff 128 and works fine.
On worker settings I have setup 128 diff, so I do not know what happened.

The EU validation server uses diff2 for some users (it doesn't always update when you change worker settings).  You get forwarded to the real servers after a single valid share submission.

[ericisback]

This chart:

http://i650.photobucket.com/albums/uu229/ericisback1/2014-01-31_050906.jpg

indicates that BTC Guild's percent of orphaned blocks was 1.3%.  Since BTCG pays for orphaned blocks, am I correct in thinking that this effectively reduces the 3% transaction fee to 1.7% (not considering other factors that reduce the fee further)?

[eleuthria]

This chart:



indicates that BTC Guild's percent of orphaned blocks was 1.3%.  Since BTCG pays for orphaned blocks, am I correct in thinking that this effectively reduces the 3% transaction fee to 1.7% (not considering other factors that reduce the fee further)?

1.3% is slightly above normal for BTC Guild.  I always use 1% as the rule of thumb for orphans.  So compared to other pools which do not pay orphans, it is effectively a 2% fee for BTC Guild.  Less if the other pool fails to pay transaction fees or namecoins.

[MoreBloodWine]

Each hour, any accounts with a balance equal to or greater than their payout threshold will be paid an amount equal to their threshold.

So am I understanding this right ?

So lets say I have auo payout at 0.01, and lets say my balance is 0.04, this means there's going to be 4 payments at 0.01 instead of a single at 0.04 just because the thresholds at 0.01.

Sorry but that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Want a sig like mine for your BTC Guild stats, then check out this post !

[BRADLEYPLOOF]

Each hour, any accounts with a balance equal to or greater than their payout threshold will be paid an amount equal to their threshold.

So am I understanding this right ?

So lets say I have auo payout at 0.01, and lets say my balance is 0.04, this means there's going to be 4 payments at 0.01 instead of a single at 0.04 just because the thresholds at 0.01.

Sorry but that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

If you have a threshold of .01, then you'll never have more than .01 in your account.  What happens is if you have .00999999 and get a payout on a shift for .001, you'd have .010999999.  The payment would be .01, and your remaining balance would be left.

[MoreBloodWine]

Each hour, any accounts with a balance equal to or greater than their payout threshold will be paid an amount equal to their threshold.

So am I understanding this right ?

So lets say I have auo payout at 0.01, and lets say my balance is 0.04, this means there's going to be 4 payments at 0.01 instead of a single at 0.04 just because the thresholds at 0.01.

Sorry but that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

If you have a threshold of .01, then you'll never have more than .01 in your account.  What happens is if you have .00999999 and get a payout on a shift for .001, you'd have .010999999.  The payment would be .01, and your remaining balance would be left.

Ex. Someone for one reason or another has a 0.1 threshold and a balnce of 0.09, well lets sy that person one day decids o change it to 0.01. Voila you now have a threshold of 0.01 ad will now get 9 payments of 0.01 if I read that right.

Edit: Yes you an argue why not set a thresh of 0.09, I'm just sayingg it doesnt make sense to me to pay out the exact amout of the threshold if account balance is higher, not inluding dust off course.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Want a sig like mine for your BTC Guild stats, then check out this post !

[iglasses]

Each hour, any accounts with a balance equal to or greater than their payout threshold will be paid an amount equal to their threshold.

So am I understanding this right ?

So lets say I have auo payout at 0.01, and lets say my balance is 0.04, this means there's going to be 4 payments at 0.01 instead of a single at 0.04 just because the thresholds at 0.01.

Sorry but that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Want a sig like mine for your BTC Guild stats, then check out this post !

I can confirm that this is the way it works.  I don't really see why it's an issue though because once it catches up then your payouts will level out.  If you have a high balance to begin with couldn't you pick a number to force a single payout to clear your account and then crank it down from there?
Am I missing something?

[MoreBloodWine]

Each hour, any accounts with a balance equal to or greater than their payout threshold will be paid an amount equal to their threshold.

So am I understanding this right ?

So lets say I have auo payout at 0.01, and lets say my balance is 0.04, this means there's going to be 4 payments at 0.01 instead of a single at 0.04 just because the thresholds at 0.01.

Sorry but that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Want a sig like mine for your BTC Guild stats, then check out this post !

I can confirm that this is the way it works.  I don't really see why it's an issue though because once it catches up then your payouts will level out.  If you have a high balance to begin with couldn't you pick a number to force a single payout to clear your account and then crank it down from there?
Am I missing something?

Never said it was an issue just didnt understand it but at the same time I did forget about manuals lol.

[AussieHash]

This chart:



indicates that BTC Guild's percent of orphaned blocks was 1.3%.  Since BTCG pays for orphaned blocks, am I correct in thinking that this effectively reduces the 3% transaction fee to 1.7% (not considering other factors that reduce the fee further)?

1.3% is slightly above normal for BTC Guild.  I always use 1% as the rule of thumb for orphans.  So compared to other pools which do not pay orphans, it is effectively a 2% fee for BTC Guild.  Less if the other pool fails to pay transaction fees or namecoins.

email conversation with Organofcorti

>I think including orphans in the calculations would be a mistake. For example in Giga's last week of operation it had 2 orphans. If they were included the calculations would have been horribly skewed. Better to include stale/orphans in a separate column.

I understand where you're coming from, but there are a couple of things that need to be taken into account.
1.The "luck" calculation is based on the number of shares per solved block - not shares per block accepted by the network.
2. Orphaned blocks should be assessed separately, but I haven't found a reliable way to do that yet. I can simply report the number of orphans, but that doesn't tell anyone whether that is too many or too few or expected due to variance.
3. I would like to report average earnings (which would take orphaned blocks into account) but the various reward methods make this problematic.

So when looking at the luck of a pool that does not pay for orphans, stale/orphaned/rejected blocks will negatively impact earnings but these rejects are still counted in the luck calculation making it artificially high

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1vu7z0/ghash_8_rejected_blocks/

As of right now, ghash has 5% block reject rate

[organofcorti]

email conversation with Organofcorti

>I think including orphans in the calculations would be a mistake. For example in Giga's last week of operation it had 2 orphans. If they were included the calculations would have been horribly skewed. Better to include stale/orphans in a separate column.

I understand where you're coming from, but there are a couple of things that need to be taken into account.
1.The "luck" calculation is based on the number of shares per solved block - not shares per block accepted by the network.
2. Orphaned blocks should be assessed separately, but I haven't found a reliable way to do that yet. I can simply report the number of orphans, but that doesn't tell anyone whether that is too many or too few or expected due to variance.
3. I would like to report average earnings (which would take orphaned blocks into account) but the various reward methods make this problematic.

So when looking at the luck of a pool that does not pay for orphans, stale/orphaned/rejected blocks will negatively impact earnings but these rejects are still counted in the luck calculation making it artificially high

"Luck" in bitcoin mining is an Erlang distributed variable. For one block, the canonical "luck" calculation is defined as submitted shares / expected shares. The calculation cares not one whit whether or not the solved block is valid or not. If orphaned blocks were not included, the luck calculation would be artificially low. Orphaned blocks have no affect on how luck is calculated. If orphaned blocks were not included, expected shares / accepted shares would no longer be Erlang distributed, and "luck" calculations averaging more than one block could not be made.

So instead, I'm using the "bitcoin per gigashare" metric as a measure of income that includes the effect of both luck and orphaned blocks. Reward method effects and fees are not included.

Summary: If you want to look at the canonical luck (the Erlang distributed average of submitted shares / expected shares) look at the "luck" column. If you want to see the effect of both "luck" and orphaned blocks, look at the "bitcoin per gigashare" column.

BTW, the comments in the private email above were about the old table. The quoted table is one of the new tables which I developed after taking on board your input.

[Bismarckbkk]

When is additional merged mining coming? I remember end of January was said.

No date was ever given for DVC/IXC, only that they would come *after* the new backend and after Scrypt Guild.  Unfortunately, the new backend took much longer than expected (illness + bugs), and was eventually scrapped entirely.  As a result, Scrypt Guild is also pushed back further.

IXC and DVC are *completely* worthless.  If BTC Guild adds them, they'll just become twice as hard to mine from difficulty, and go even further down in value since you'll have a whole lot of new people selling them to the highest bid on the books.  Right now they add less than 0.2%.  If their difficulty was increased by BTC Guild's hash rate, it would be less than 0.1%, not counting the drop in value guaranteed to follow the rise in difficulty.


This isn't saying they won't be added, just that they have always been near the bottom of the list of things to add/consider adding.

Actually im about 90% sure you said January but I dont have time to look for the post(s) now. Not a big deal anyway as you pointed out.

[MrTeal]

"Luck" in bitcoin mining is an Erlang distributed variable. For one block, the canonical "luck" calculation is defined as submitted shares / expected shares. The calculation cares not one whit whether or not the solved block is valid or not. If orphaned blocks were not included, the luck calculation would be artificially low. Orphaned blocks have no affect on how luck is calculated. If orphaned blocks were not included, expected shares / accepted shares would no longer be Erlang distributed, and "luck" calculations averaging more than one block could not be made.

So instead, I'm using the "bitcoin per gigashare" metric as a measure of income that includes the effect of both luck and orphaned blocks. Reward method effects and fees are not included.

Summary: If you want to look at the canonical luck (the Erlang distributed average of submitted shares / expected shares) look at the "luck" column. If you want to see the effect of both "luck" and orphaned blocks, look at the "bitcoin per gigashare" column.

BTW, the comments in the private email above were about the old table. The quoted table is one of the new tables which I developed after taking on board your input.

This is only somewhat related, but have you thought of doing any kind of statistical analysis on the block timing distribution in relation to orphans? Specifically I'm thinking of GHash.io, and their relatively common (though it seems less frequent now) runs of 2 or 3 blocks in the span of a minute. They seem to be involved with orphaned blocks more often than most (or at least the grumblings about them are).
You'd expect more short rounds and clusters of them just because of the shape of the CDF, and observations just glancing at blockchain.info every once in awhile are obviously subject to huge reporting bias, but a lot of people seem to complain about GHash doing a withholding attack.
I think it'd be interesting to get a comparison of block finding time for the different major pools, though I have no idea what type of distribution you'd expect around their average generation time.