[300 PH][BTC PPS 100%][EN/CN/RU] Sigmapool.com

[-SigmaPool-]

Greetings, dear miners!

We gathered all the best mining solutions in one ecosystem and are proud to present you the SigmaPool! It is not just another mining pool, but an independent ecosystem for cryptocurrencies mining with top-level income that forms a highly profitable offer for you. In august 2018 we started mining bitcoin and since then, less than in half a year, we reached a stable 300 PH/S capacity. At the moment we are in top 20 pools and have everything required to get into the top 5.
You can see our stats at btc.com explorer

What does the SigmaPool have today?

• BTC pool PPS rewards
• Regular payouts
• Welcome bonuses
• Supports AsicBoost

Bitcoin

• Minimum withdrawal 0.001 BTC
• 100% PPS

Our PPS reward system is based on distributing 12.5 BTC per block between all miners
Last 24h profitability 0.00004141 BTC / TH/s
You will always find the up-to-date data on BTC per TH/S on the main page

For miners we offer:

• Unique firmware
• Transparent income system
• Convenient monitoring and ASIC control
• AsicBoost support
• Application store
• No empty blocks
• Regular payouts
• Support 24/7
• Active community

Coming up soon:

• Moblie app
• Multi-currency wallet
• Cloud mining
• Hosting

We have an application store for you where developers have an opportunity to post their applications and services for miners.
For all the newcomers, we have a special welcome-bonus.

Use this code SIGMA19 at registration and get your 0,5% bonus for 30 days!

Get started:

Code:

EU Server #1  stratum+tcp://eu1.btc.sigmapool.com:3333
EU Server #2  stratum+tcp://eu2.btc.sigmapool.com:3333
EU Server #3  stratum+tcp://eu3.btc.sigmapool.com:3333
EU Server #4  stratum+tcp://eu4.btc.sigmapool.com:3333
US Server #1  stratum+tcp://us1.btc.sigmapool.com:3333
US Server #2  stratum+tcp://us2.btc.sigmapool.com:3333
CN Server #1  stratum+tcp://cn1.btc.sigmapool.com:3333


Pool1 URL	stratum+tcp://eu.btc.sigmapool.com:3333
Pool1 worker	username.workername
Pool1 password	x


Pool2 URL	stratum+tcp://eu1.btc.sigmapool.com:3333
Pool2 worker	username.workername
Pool2 password	x

F.A.Q.
SigmaStore

Our contacts:
Official SigmaPool website
Official Sigmapool telegram chat @Sigmapool_en
Official Sigmapool telegram news channel @EN_Sigmapool
Telegram support bot @SigmaPoolSupport_bot
Facebook
Twitter
Collaborations: contact@sigmapool.com

Join the most profitable and technological pool!

[1715238714]

1715238714

[1715238714]

1715238714

[1715238714]

1715238714

[1715238714]

1715238714

[-SigmaPool-]

Soon enough, the Sigmapool is going to prove its own reserved funds for the payouts.

[kano]

Soon enough, the Sigmapool is going to prove its own reserved funds for the payouts.

Firstly, this is the BTC section of the forum, so my discussion is only about BTC
(the rest of the scam coins count for nothing anyway)

Going by Meni's statistical analysis of PPS - as I've referenced and described here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=104664.msg48795003#msg48795003

Since you say 100% PPS - that means you keep the transaction fees.
Since July last year, that has been around a 1% fee - yes you are lying saying there is no fee at 100% PPS

What does the SigmaPool have today?

• BTC\LTC pool
• Mining without fees

So using 1% as your fee, the calculation for your necessary reserve is simply:
12.5 x 6.9078 / (2 x 0.01) = 4317.375 BTC
and using a US$ conversion rate (today) of 1BTC = $3,500 that's about $15.1 million

[-SigmaPool-]

Since you say 100% PPS - that means you keep the transaction fees.
Since July last year, that has been around a 1% fee - yes you are lying saying there is no fee at 100% PPS

So using 1% as your fee, the calculation for your necessary reserve is simply:
12.5 x 6.9078 / (2 x 0.01) = 4317.375 BTC
and using a US$ conversion rate (today) of 1BTC = $3,500 that's about $15.1 million

Dear Kano,

We’ve been waiting for your reply and are glad to greet you at our topic.
Firstly, would like to mention that we do have our application store that brings us profit (there is more than 1% we do gain by simply providing the services). At a certain point we will add the PPLNS model to lower all the possible risks.
Furthermore, we are going to use a different from other pools monetization model at the SigmaPool. Creating a pool was just the first step - more to come.
Despite the fact that we already have faced the bad luck times, we are proud to declare that we managed to keep the payouts regular and stable (thanks to our reserves), and we have the best community (where we will be glad to see you and every new miner) that can prove our stability and the level of our services.
Lastly, understanding that we haven’t given a complete answer to your question, we would like to note the fact that pretty soon we will be able to prove that we do have the funds required to sustain the stable PPS payouts (and yes, we do have more than 2000 BTC behind us).

P.S. The 1% fee you are talking about is not a fee - it is the only way to make a PPS method not going broke without touching miner’s earnings. We do believe that giving miners 12.5 BTC per block is more fair than giving them 1% and taking 3% away.

[kano]

...
P.S. The 1% fee you are talking about is not a fee - it is the only way to make a PPS method not going broke without touching miner’s earnings. We do believe that giving miners 12.5 BTC per block is more fair than giving them 1% and taking 3% away.

Yes it is a fee.

If you don't understand that paying 100% PPS is a fee, then you got a lot more problems than just the fact that you need 4317.375 BTC to reduce the risk of the pool going broke with a 1% fee.

Miner earnings are Block Reward + Transaction fees
No you can't take the Transaction fees and pretend you aren't charging a fee.

PPS MUST charge a fee or the pool is 100% expected to go broke.
If the fee was actually 0% then you are guaranteed to go broke.

The 1% means you have a low chance (0.1%) of going broke if you already have a 4317.375 BTC balance and continue to top it up whenever it gets below that.

And it doesn't matter if you have one PPS miner or two PPS miners, it's still the same amount.
PPS pool size is not part of the calculation.

[HagssFIN]

Sigma, you are incredibly stubborn person who still doesnt want to understand facts and reasoning.. Sigh..

[philipma1957]

@ op  you are paying 100%  of block award and keeping  all transactions fees.

so  if you change your title to this  Re: [240 PH][BTC PPS 100%][0% FEE on block Award][EN/CN/RU] Sigmapool.com

you would be fully honest.

As to whether you tap out and go broke as kano says you will.

My guess is you that with 230 ph you may go broke.

you would earn 296 btc a month  with that much hash

that is 24 blocks a month.

 so 3 x  85% months

is  3x24 = 72 x .85 = 61.2 blocks  meaning  10 or 11 blocks short   which is 137.5 btc

a lot depends on  two things  will you get attacked by a bad player?
if you do get attacked you will be tapped out.

[kano]

...

a lot depends on  two things  will you get attacked by a bad player?
if you do get attacked you will be tapped out.

Nope, it's simple statistics what to expect, nothing to do with gut feelings or guesses.

Read Meni's report.
https://bitcoil.co.il/pool_analysis.pdf

If you can't understand it, there's no point giving an opinion on the subject.

All withholding does is make PPS worse.
Avoiding withholding does not make the statistics magically invalid.

[philipma1957]

Nope, it's simple statistics what to expect, nothing to do with gut feelings or guesses.

Read Meni's report.
https://bitcoil.co.il/pool_analysis.pdf

If you can't understand it, there's no point giving an opinion on the subject.

All withholding does is make PPS worse.
Avoiding withholding does not make the statistics magically invalid.

So B = 12.5

this is a quote of you from an early post

So using 1% as your fee, the calculation for your necessary reserve is simply:
12.5 x 6.9078 / (2 x 0.01) = 4317.375 BTC
and using a US$ conversion rate (today) of 1BTC = $3,500 that's about $15.1 million

this is Meni's paper

https://bitcoil.co.il/pool_analysis.pdf

so it looks to me  that you used this. formula below which I got from appendix c of meni's paper

so you used 12.5 for block size you used 6.9078   and you used 2 x 0.01 which equals 4317.375 btc

but   what  did you use to get that 6.9078  

you could have used  1 in 1000 or 1 in 100 or 1 in 10

the example below uses 1 in 1000  is that what you used?

[judypug1956]

MY alternate account as I want to space this. Not double post.

[philipma1957]

So you said simply put  and showed that number  I ask again did you use a 1 in 1000 factor?

Did you use a 1 in 100 factor?

as I see it

 1 n 1000
 1 n 100
 1 n 50

all give big difference in the reserve needed.

So what was the 1 n factor.

1000 , 100 , 50

if I mine at viabtc.com   and get 97% pps with a very small chance of bankruptcy
it could be worth losing 3%

if I mine at op's pool and get 100% pps  with a larger chance of bankruptcy  it may be worth it to me.

so if you are using 1 in 1000 to get your reserve number

you have attempted to deceive all the mathematically challenged miners reading this.

so what is the answer how did you get that 6.9078 number?

I can tell you if you used 1000 and I don't mind 100 then he needs 1/10 the reserve

BTW   I am pretty sure you used 1 in 1000

now  using 1 in 100  he needs a reserve of much less  then what you put in correct?

and if he stays at 240ph which is what he was at  he would make a block  about every 1.2 days which means he should make 100 blocks in 4 months  now if he has a reserve of 50 blocks or 600 coins. he would not go bankrupt in the first 4 months.

Honestly speaking I think he is crazy trying to do a 100% pps and I won't mine with him.

but if you toss up a number that says he needs a reserve of 4317 BTC  you should say  that is for a 999/1000 chance of not going bankrupt
you did not.  you mislead people .  I normally do not go off on people but to top it off you tell me if I don't understand don't voice an opinion.

Dude I do understand.  so my opinion is  you left out that 1/1000 or 999/1000  number out to mislead people that struggle with the math.
I can't code but I know math.

 So to the op
if you want a 99.9% chance of not going bankrupt you need  4317 coins

If you want a 99.0% chance of not going bankrupt you need less then 4317 coins.

Maybe as a peace leaf kano could calculate that for you.

Haw about that k man

do 99.9%  you did  4317 coins
do 99.8%
do 99.7%
do 99.6%
do 99.5%
do 99.4%
do 99.3%
do 99.2%
do 99.1%
do 99.0%

or leave the guy alone as you were pretty much out of line here.

At the op  my guess is you don't even have a 50 coin reserve and will go broke but that is a completely different story.

[HagssFIN]

Phil, 1 in a 100 or 1 in a 50 factor would mean that you agree him having a higher chance to go into the bankrupcy.

I think Kano's numbers are good,
because a pool with those numbers is not a risk for the miners.

[kano]

Phil, 1 in a 100 or 1 in a 50 factor would mean that you agree him having a higher chance to go into the bankrupcy.

I think Kano's numbers are good,
because a pool with those numbers is not a risk for the miners.

I used Meni's choice 0.1% - phil can go argue with Meni if he doesn't think that's realistic - though phil seems to know nothing about statistics ...

I explained the equation quite clearly on the other thread - so anyone can simply just plug numbers into it.

But assuming it's ok for a pool to have a 1% (or even 10%) chance of going broke is ludicrous.

[philipma1957]

@ hagssfin. I understand it.

Problem is math Kano gave was deceptive. And he implied I did not understand it.

At 240 ph  he needs a practical reserve of more then 140 coins as I explained.

If he is with held attacked he will need more.

And even a reserve of 4300 coins he will bust out if he suffers from a large withholding attack.

So in a magical world of zero withholding attacks 4300 coins. Would give hive a 999 out of 1000 chance

edit Of not going  bust.

I don’t really care about the op having a reserve that big. As a 999/1000 safety factor is more then enough.

I would argue I would mine with this pool if he had enough coins to make the safety factor 199/200

As he pays 100% of 12.5
And via btc pays 97% of 12.5

I resent Kano tossing out the number he did and then acting that he is smart and I don’t understand the math. And that I am not entitled to have an opinion on the thread.

Here is my opinion.

I think a reserve of enough coins to make the risk  of going broke 1/200 would make the pool worth playing.

I think the op does not have that many coins.

I think that if the pool catches on it will be with holding attacked.

I won’t mine at the pool since I think the pool will fail.

To further explain that if I had hundreds of coins for reserve I would not open the pool and do just tx fees.

I would do 98% which is still better then  anybody else.
My guess is op is hoping the pool has a hot streak early.
My guess is if pool has a cold streak early op,will fold it.
My guess is op has very little coins in reserve and is following the plan I just outlined.

I also think I would like to see Kano calculate

For 1/1000
For 1/500
For 1/200
For 1/100.

And say phil you are right I used the 1/1000 figure and did not explain it.

But Kano has never admitted being wrong for anything I ever called him on.

Also I should  shut the fuck up as this post will piss more people off.

Kano crossed posted and stayed true to form.

did a bit of edits

[kano]

...

a lot depends on  two things  will you get attacked by a bad player?
if you do get attacked you will be tapped out.

Nope, it's simple statistics what to expect, nothing to do with gut feelings or guesses.

Read Meni's report.
https://bitcoil.co.il/pool_analysis.pdf

If you can't understand it, there's no point giving an opinion on the subject.

All withholding does is make PPS worse.
Avoiding withholding does not make the statistics magically invalid.

@ hagssfin. I understand it.

Problem is math Kano gave was deceptive. And he implied I did not understand it.

At 240 ph  he needs a practical reserve of more then 140 coins as I explained.

Where does this bullshit 140 come from?
Seriously can't you just put the simple numbers into the equation on the other page?

...
So in a magical world of zero withholding attacks 4300 coins. Would give hive a 999 out of 1000 chance

Of going bust.

I don’t really care about the op having a reserve that big. As a 999/1000 safety factor is more then enough.

I would argue I would mine with this pool if he had enough coins to make the safety factor 199/200

As he pays 100% of 12.5
And via btc pays 97% of 12.5

I resent Kano tossing out the number he did and then acting that he is smart and I don’t understand the math. And that I am not entitled to have an opinion on the thread.

SO ... did you try the: VERY SIMPLE to calculate, and very bad suggestion of, a 1% chance of failure?

OBVIOUSLY not.

I also think I would like to see Kano calculate

For 1/1000
For 1/500
For 1/200
For 1/100.

See, I do realise why this doesn't matter, but to make you look even more stupid I'll do the calculations

We already know 1/1000 that I used the same number that Meni used - that produces that number in the middle ln(1/δ) = ln (1/0.001) = "6.9078"
Then the equation is (as already stated) 12.5 x 6.9078 / (2 x 0.01) = 4317.375 BTC

But what the heck, lets jump to the bottom of your list and go for a ridiculously risky pool with a 1% chance of going bankrupt.
ln(1/δ) = ln(1/0.01) = 4.6052 HOLD YOUR HORSES! that's not much less than "6.9078" (yes I did realise this)
So what do we get for the BTC required?
12.5 x 4.6052 / (2 x 0.01) = 2878 BTC

No doubt the pool doesn't have 2878 BTC in it's wallet either.

But what the hey, I'll do a quick table of all 4 numbers:
1/1000 4317.375 BTC
1/500 3884 BTC
1/200 3311 BTC
1/100 2878 BTC

Yeah I don't see anything as tiny as 140 BTC ANYWHERE in that
I do see a bit more than 20 times that if the pool is going down the path of a high 1% chance of going bankrupt ...

Don't you hate non-linear maths?

[philipma1957]

it is late I am tired.

I can show that miners only need for him to have  a reserve to pay 34 days in a row.

via btc pays me 97  op pays me 100 each day in mining

34 days in a row = 3298 from via btc

34 days in a row = 3400 from op

op folds   runs skips  etc  I loose on 35th day

so  via btc would have paid me 3395
op would have paid me            3400     so if he had enough coin to pay for 34 days  I am better off with op.

since pool should make   24 blocks in a month   it would need to do 11 blcoks  and the reserve of 140 would  be enough

making 11 blocks vs expected 24 is more then 100 to one.

my point was he may need a much smaller reserve if he is legit for a miner to profit. and that asking for him to have a 4300 coin is too much

But honestly  everyone that runs a high paying pps  seems to go broke

why is that?

they are simply hoping to have an early hot streak  and if they don't they bail.

I doubt he has 2 blocks in reserve no less 13  or 350

thanks for the break down on bankruptcy for op.

I would guess it is more like a 95% chance for him to go broke.

[kano]

...
it is late I am tired.

 I can show that miners only need for him to have  a reserve to pay 34 days in a row.

via btc pays me 97  op pays me 100 each day in mining

34 days in a row = 3298 from via btc

34 days in a row = 3400 from op


op folds   runs skips  etc  I loose on 35th day



so  via btc would have paid me 3395
op would have paid me            3400     so if he had enough coin to pay for 34 days  I am better off with op.

since pool should make   24 blocks in a month   it would need to do 11 blcoks  and the reserve of 140 would  be enough

making 11 blocks vs expected 24 is more then 100 to one.

my point was he may need a much smaller reserve if he is legit for a miner to profit. and that asking for him to have a 4300 coin is too much

But honestly  everyone that runs a high paying pps  seems to go broke

why is that?

they are simply hoping to have an early hot streak  and if they don't they bail.


I doubt he has 2 blocks in reserve no less 13  or 350

So you've given up and are ignoring the statistics now ... (since it doesn't match what you want)

Pulling the number '34 days' out of your ass is pointless.

I'll link it yet again https://bitcoil.co.il/pool_analysis.pdf

... and it has nothing to do with pool size.

[philipma1957]

I never said the statistics you gave were wrong I said you used them deceptively.

try another way.

practical is what matters.

240 ph =  10 coins a day  or 3650 coins a year

so if the op's pool  hits zero blocks for a year vs the almost 300 it should hit  the op would  pay out 3650 coins of his 4300 coin reserve

fuck no he would shut the pool down thinking he is being robbed some how.

to be a little more realistic   lets say he hits  290 blocks  down 10 =  125 coins

if I mine there for 365 days  earning 100 a day vs 97 a day  I earn 36500 vs  35405

and his reserve of under 140 coins   worked for me for an entire year.

your use of meni's numbers does not apply  for the miner.

Now if you want to argue you don't care about the miner in your example and you are concerned for the pool op  then you are correct you are warning him he should go broke and truth is he should go broke without  a huge backup  of coins.  

why risk the coin if you have it?  I guess you and i look at this differently My angle is that of being a miner and your is that of being a pool operator.

So pool op charge 2% plus tx fees  not 0%  plus tx fees  you will still beat viabtc rates  and stand a better chance of not going broke.

3311/3 = 1104 coins (reserve) gives you a 199/200 rate of success.

good luck to the op  since I am betting he won't last past summer at just the tx fees

[philipma1957]

So you've given up and are ignoring the statistics now ... (since it doesn't match what you want)

Pulling the number '34 days' out of your ass is pointless.

I'll link it yet again https://bitcoil.co.il/pool_analysis.pdf

... and it has nothing to do with pool size.

pool size matters as a practical matter.

If 1 ph is mining at 100% pps  payout is 1.245 btc

a 4300 coin reserve  would last for 3453 months  if a block was never hit.  many ½ ings would happen so it would last much longer.

if 240 ph is mining at 100% pps payout is  300 btc a month  

a 4300 coin reserve would last for 14 months with no blocks hit.  about may next year.

block would change to 6.25  and even if tx fees stayed same size it would be 2x the %

so 4300 would drop to 1075.

B 1n 1000

2 x .02

or 6.25 x 6.9../  2 x .02 =  about 1078 coin reserve

tired but above is accurate.

below I am not as sure.

Since pool should do  at least 90% luck  practical number is not 4300 more like 300 -270 = 30 x 12.5 = 375 coins if he stays at

240ph    which gets him to ½ ing

so what is the odds if 14 months at 90%  ?

or 270 block when you should get 300

edit

1)The reserve formula  from meni  is accurate at day 1 or 2 of ½ ing start

the closer you get to the next ½ ing   it is less accurate  2x on last day Due to B changing

2) when fee is the tax fee  the  change is 2x the fee or ½ the  old reserve due to f changing in ratio to B

3) so   2 x 2 as applied to this pool  so reserve is 1075 vs 4300  next ½ ing

4) pool size is a factor as the smaller  the pool the more likely you can reach the next ½ ing  with a smaller reserve since you pay out much less

5) close to ½ ing time wise the pool is more likely to reach a new lower reserve/

@ op and kano   thanks for this it was fun

@ meni  if you still read this forum  tell me I am right or wrong. about your reserve  formula as I applied it.

nite all  zzzz

[buwaytress]

I think, statistics matters here and even at 1% OP may go a long way and get away with it, but he'll have been lucky. Probably even more so if pool doesn't get bigger quickly (again, statistics but wider chance for variance with more participants?).

Bitcoin aside, is it possible somehow merge mining could offset some of that risk? I never really wondered until now if a new pool might actually gear to optimise that.

[kano]

I never said the statistics you gave were wrong I said you used them deceptively.

Which I didn't and I clearly proved that by doing a very simple bit of math that you wouldn't do, and as usual in this discussion, you're just ignoring it.
0.1% or even 1% chance of failure - both require a large amount of BTC

Your argument is saying I'm deceiving people by using 0.1%, but who cares, if we switch it to a be a "Phil" pool where 1% chance of failure is OK, it still requires 2878 BTC instead of 4317.375 BTC

Yeah you're pretending that's not the case ... dood you're wrong, OK, just live with it, and stop giving people REALLY bad advice.

try another way.

practical is what matters.

No it doesn't, as I keep telling you, but you keep making up specific 'examples' trying to argue you are right and the statistics are wrong.
Again stop giving people REALLY bad advice.

your use of meni's numbers does not apply  for the miner.

False. It does apply for the miner - very simple and obvious:
If the pool doesn't have the necessary backing/balance, you can work out what the expectation is of the pool going broke and the miners not being paid - very simple and even given in the examples I gave in the Pool thread.
More information ignored by you again.

Yes you keep pretending that doesn't matter, every time you ignore the amount required.
Lets say he only has 1200 BTC (which he doesn't even have that) and again 1% fee:
δ ~= exp((-2 x f x R) / B)
~= exp((-2 x 0.01 x 1200) / 12.5) = 0.1466 or a 15% chance of going broke.

Now lets use Phil's magic 140 BTC number
δ ~= exp((-2 x 0.01 x 140) / 12.5) = 0.7993 or an 80% chance of going broke.
That means there's an 80% chance of miners not being paid at some point, if they use Phil's magic 140 BTC number
Again stop giving people REALLY bad advice.

You're hooked on the altcoin scams, as your sig clearly says, where people get in, make a profit then do a runner and the ones left at the end lose money.
Pyramid schemes, Pump and Dump, pick a scam you think is OK and go for it.
Your "they can mine until it runs out" is the same.

Me, I don't like any of that shit, I don't want to be involved in any of that shit, I simply give stats and advice that says stay away from that shit.

Phil, your wrong.
Live with it, and stop giving people REALLY BAD advice.

...
At 240 ph  he needs a practical reserve of more then 140 coins as I explained.
...

... and I've no idea why an idiot mod would give merit to that post that gives people REALLY BAD advice ...

[kano]

I think, statistics matters here and even at 1% OP may go a long way and get away with it, but he'll have been lucky. Probably even more so if pool doesn't get bigger quickly (again, statistics but wider chance for variance with more participants?).

Bitcoin aside, is it possible somehow merge mining could offset some of that risk? I never really wondered until now if a new pool might actually gear to optimise that.

Ignoring the fact that it is off topic, altcoins in general are worthless (otherwise why would you get them for free ... )

If the pool is merge mining some tiny altcoin and keeping it, they need to be making a % of the pool's expected income to thus increase the % fee for the calculation.
i.e. if the fee is 1% and they make another 0.01% by keeping merged mined coins and not giving them to the miners, then they could say the pool fee is 1.01% in all the calculations (which is basically a waste of time)

[kano]

So you've given up and are ignoring the statistics now ... (since it doesn't match what you want)

Pulling the number '34 days' out of your ass is pointless.

I'll link it yet again https://bitcoil.co.il/pool_analysis.pdf

... and it has nothing to do with pool size.

pool size matters as a practical matter.

...

Well yeah size matters if you are talking about pissy little PPLNS pools that take 2 months to find a block.
But in that case you are already losing BTC BADLY due to diff changes making your shares worth less across the time frame of the N in PPLNS.

If you want to talk about such pools (PPLNS or PPS), then go find a sandpit to sit in, and get the other kids around, to sit and listen.

But what is going on here, so far, is a pool saying how great they are, and no fees, paying PPS, and Phil backing them up saying (incorrectly) how little BTC they need so everyone will be happy and make PPS similar to a 1% fee PPLNS pool but with no PPLNS variance at all.

Wow sounds great, lets get lotsa people here mining and making great rewards ... ... ... hmm so that means it does matter if they grow to even a 1EH pool ...

So either people will see that they don't have the BTC if the pool grows and wont be able to pay a down turn in luck, or people will see Phil posting about how this is all OK, they don't need a lot of BTC to be able to afford to run the pool so everyone should join in ... ... ...

This thread is about this pool and I'm trying to say that there's a problem with the PPS payout, and I see you saying: no my statistics are wrong or deceiving people ... ... meaning yeah it's OK go for it

[philipma1957]

I never said to mine here I simply said you using a reserve  number of 4300 is wrong
you then went all out to win your arguement

So you've given up and are ignoring the statistics now ... (since it doesn't match what you want)

Pulling the number '34 days' out of your ass is pointless.

I'll link it yet again https://bitcoil.co.il/pool_analysis.pdf

... and it has nothing to do with pool size.

I completely proof this part is wrong by showing  multiple linear mathematical example of why it was wrong

linear math proves you to be wrong in the application of the formula

It also proves  that the formula has better accuracy on day one of a ½ ing vs day 600 or 700 and you think I am out to defend pool op.

I am not all I did was want to show that he did not need a reserve that high.

Just because you lost the argument does not mean any one should mine here.

Peace out I am done here.

To all that think I want you to ignore kano and mine here:

I don't and  I don't mine here.

My reasons for not mining here  are practical and don't involve difficult to understand math.

1) bitmain has admitted to mining with 10 percent of the world's hash

so we are at about 43,390 PH/s worldwide
bitmain by there own admission is 4,339 ph

this pool is at about 240 PH

So if bitmain points 60 ph  to do a with holding attack  it could cost the pool  around 75 btc a month

https://bitcoinwisdom.com/bitcoin/difficulty  just put in 60000 th and up pops 74.67 coins a month

now if bitmain can write  3 speed s9 software (they can)
they can write 4 speed s9 software   with
low
medium
high
with hold
they can rotate  the 60ph around their 4,339 ph  with proxy and vpn
this pool would not be sure  if they were being with held or not.

what is the cost to this pool  about 74.67 coins a month

lets see what does bitmain lose the tx fees  which are around 1 %  or .75btc

if they pointed it to solo antpool and used it to pay off  cloud contracts  they could suffer variance
if they pointed it to antpool and used it to pay of cloud contracts they could suffer variance.

their profit margin on a cloud contract  is well over 4 %

so they pay .75 btc in tx fees collect well over 3 btc  in cloud mining fees

and cost this pool  75 btc.   this reason may never be done ,but it can be done

and while as Kano says I don't know stats I do know that the above is an issue that stops me from mining here.

This issue  causes me to feel the pool op will fold up shop.
This issue  is far more real world then kano's use of meni's formula for reserve needed.

I don't think it can be stopped if bitmain did this to a pool. Other then banning all bitmain gear from mining on the pool

[kano]

I never said to mine here I simply said you using a reserve  number of 4300 is wrong
you then went all out to win your arguement

It's not an argument ... ... ...

The problem is the garbage you keep spouting ...

Firstly, the parts out of the first mod merited 2 point post of yours:

My guess is you that with 230 ph you may go broke.

you would earn 296 btc a month  with that much hash

that is 24 blocks a month.

 so 3 x  85% months

is  3x24 = 72 x .85 = 61.2 blocks  meaning  10 or 11 blocks short   which is 137.5 btc

a lot depends on  two things  will you get attacked by a bad player?
if you do get attacked you will be tapped out.

This is garbage.
It's where I guess you get your first 140 BTC number from ... ... ...
and then throw in the comment about withholding being the point ... ... ...

So you said simply put  and showed that number  I ask again did you use a 1 in 1000 factor?

Did you use a 1 in 100 factor?

as I see it

 1 n 1000
 1 n 100
 1 n 50

all give big difference in the reserve needed.

More completely incorrect garbage - they don't give a big difference.

if I mine at op's pool and get 100% pps  with a larger chance of bankruptcy  it may be worth it to me.

so if you are using 1 in 1000 to get your reserve number

you have attempted to deceive all the mathematically challenged miners reading this.

so what is the answer how did you get that 6.9078 number?

I can tell you if you used 1000 and I don't mind 100 then he needs 1/10 the reserve

False. More completely incorrect garbage. It's not magically suddenly 1/10 ... as I said you don't understand.

now  using 1 in 100  he needs a reserve of much less  then what you put in correct?

False. Read my reply quoted below.

But what the hey, I'll do a quick table of all 4 numbers:
1/1000 4317.375 BTC
1/500 3884 BTC
1/200 3311 BTC
1/100 2878 BTC

Yeah I don't see anything as tiny as 140 BTC ANYWHERE in that
I do see a bit more than 20 times that if the pool is going down the path of a high 1% chance of going bankrupt ...

Don't you hate non-linear maths?

Lets continue with (all) the parts out of the next mod merited 2 point post of yours:

...

Problem is math Kano gave was deceptive. And he implied I did not understand it.

At 240 ph  he needs a practical reserve of more then 140 coins as I explained.

...


I would argue I would mine with this pool if he had enough coins to make the safety factor 199/200


...


I resent Kano tossing out the number he did and then acting that he is smart and I don’t understand the math. And that I am not entitled to have an opinion on the thread.

Here is my opinion.

I think a reserve of enough coins to make the risk  of going broke 1/200 would make the pool worth playing.

...


I also think I would like to see Kano calculate

For 1/1000
For 1/500
For 1/200
For 1/100.

And say phil you are right I used the 1/1000 figure and did not explain it.

But Kano has never admitted being wrong for anything I ever called him on.

Also I should  shut the fuck up as this post will piss more people off.

Kano crossed posted and stayed true to form.


...

And here you are proving what I said ... you don't understand that 199/200 you said would be OK is 1/200 chance of failing is ... from further up
1/200 3311 BTC

1/200, 1/1000 both give very large BTC numbers.

You said that they only needed 140 BTC

I never said to mine here I simply said you using a reserve  number of 4300 is wrong
you then went all out to win your arguement

No, it's not an argument, it's me explaining with various data, that you keep posting rubbish based on what is probably misunderstanding.

...
it is late I am tired.

 I can show that miners only need for him to have  a reserve to pay 34 days in a row.

via btc pays me 97  op pays me 100 each day in mining

34 days in a row = 3298 from via btc

34 days in a row = 3400 from op


op folds   runs skips  etc  I loose on 35th day



so  via btc would have paid me 3395
op would have paid me            3400     so if he had enough coin to pay for 34 days  I am better off with op.

since pool should make   24 blocks in a month   it would need to do 11 blcoks  and the reserve of 140 would  be enough

making 11 blocks vs expected 24 is more then 100 to one.

my point was he may need a much smaller reserve if he is legit for a miner to profit. and that asking for him to have a 4300 coin is too much

But honestly  everyone that runs a high paying pps  seems to go broke

why is that?

they are simply hoping to have an early hot streak  and if they don't they bail.


I doubt he has 2 blocks in reserve no less 13  or 350

So you've given up and are ignoring the statistics now ... (since it doesn't match what you want)

Pulling the number '34 days' out of your ass is pointless.

I'll link it yet again https://bitcoil.co.il/pool_analysis.pdf

... and it has nothing to do with pool size.

I completely proof this part is wrong by showing  multiple linear mathematical example of why it was wrong

linear math proves you to be wrong in the application of the formula

No, it proves how to run a scam so that 240 PH of NEW people wont notice it for a month ...
The pool itself is probably already 240PH of their own hardware.

It also proves  that the formula has better accuracy on day one of a ½ ing vs day 600 or 700 and you think I am out to defend pool op.

No, the formula has nothing to do with halvings.
When the next halving occurs, then indeed the 12.5 BTC becomes 6.25 BTC
But lets give a simple (mathematical) example of that effect ...

1% fee pool
Phil's dodgy 0.5% chance of failure pool (that's the number he said was ok 199/200 ...)
12.5 BTC reward
Reserve = B x (ln (1/δ)) / (2 x f) = 12.5 x ln(1/0.005) / (2 x 0.01) = 12.5 x 5.2983 / (2 x 0.01) = 3311 BTC

So if we hit the halving, the B value halves, so you simply halve the answer = 1656 BTC

So does it really make thatr much difference?
Well it's half the BTC, but still a lot of BTC ... ... ... ...

I am not all I did was want to show that he did not need a reserve that high.

Just because you lost the argument does not mean any one should mine here.

The only loser in this is someone who spouts so much incorrect information and then says they won an argument.
Again, it's not an argument, I'm pointing out where you've gone wrong in MANY places throughout this discussion.

My reasons for not mining here  are practical and don't involve difficult to understand math.

1) bitmain has admitted to mining with 10 percent of the world's hash

so we are at about 43,390 PH/s worldwide
bitmain by there own admission is 4,339 ph

this pool is at about 240 PH

So if bitmain points 60 ph  to do a with holding attack  it could cost the pool  around 75 btc a month

https://bitcoinwisdom.com/bitcoin/difficulty  just put in 60000 th and up pops 74.67 coins a month

now if bitmain can write  3 speed s9 software (they can)
they can write 4 speed s9 software   with
low
medium
high
with hold
they can rotate  the 60ph around their 4,339 ph  with proxy and vpn
this pool would not be sure  if they were being with held or not.

what is the cost to this pool  about 74.67 coins a month

lets see what does bitmain lose the tx fees  which are around 1 %  or .75btc

if they pointed it to solo antpool and used it to pay off  cloud contracts  they could suffer variance
if they pointed it to antpool and used it to pay of cloud contracts they could suffer variance.

their profit margin on a cloud contract  is well over 4 %

so they pay .75 btc in tx fees collect well over 3 btc  in cloud mining fees

and cost this pool  75 btc.   this reason may never be done ,but it can be done

and while as Kano says I don't know stats I do know that the above is an issue that stops me from mining here.

This issue  causes me to feel the pool op will fold up shop.
This issue  is far more real world then kano's use of meni's formula for reserve needed.

I don't think it can be stopped if bitmain did this to a pool. Other then banning all bitmain gear from mining on the pool

Seriously?

You're gonna go down a conspiracy theory path for a reason to not mine at a pool who looks like they own 240 PH ?

What about a 10PH pool you like to send mining to ... that's OK?
They don't even check any of the statistics to determine what's going on, so that would be a simple case of just point withholding miners there ... ... ... ...
But that's OK? Or are they just too small it really doesn't matter at all?

...

That is the point of the math I've been providing from the start before you began spouting rubbish.
To give actual grounds to not risk mining here.

Not some random 'gut feeling' or random 'conspiracy theory' you seem to enjoy using.

...

If you want to turn this into an argument, then first correct ALL that garbage you've posted so far.

Edit: Phil, you haven't been around bitcoin for very long, go find and read the threads for the 2 best known pools that have paid PPS and gone broke and the end game for the two of them. Not very nice (BitAffNet and MtRed)

[philipma1957]

I have some more garbage to post here.

This pool makes about 5 blocks in six days  25 blocks in 30 days.  Lets say a 50 to one shot occurs  and the pdf for the next 25 blocks is about 0.98

the luck would be about 66%

the shares would be about 150%

I took all this info from here: https://www.kano.is/index.php?k=pblocks

Last 25 Blocks   14.9wks   150.17%   101.19%   0.9876   66.59%   66.78%

funny how karma is that the above pool has a nice example of why a 140 coin reserve for sigma pool.com would work.

so if  karma pool suffers the same bad luck as kano.is did for 25 blocks  will 140 coin reserver work as I said.

well  150% shares bumps the time out to 45 days not 34 days.

So I was wrong as it is better then 34 days.

the pool needs to pay out about 450 coins for the 45 days  

I will leave the fees out since we work against the 25 blocks earned

I will then add tx fees back

so 12.5 x 25 = 312.5 coins + 140 reserve = 452.5  so owner of pool would have 2.5 coins as a reserve and if you add in tx fees he has  3.125  add and get net 5.625  so pool owner would be able to pay for at least 45 days.

now the miner that kano said is at risk due to a lack of 4300+ reserve  lets see were he stands

45 x 97 (viaBTC pps)    4365
45 x 100 (sigmapool pps) 4500

you are now ahead 135 in earnings

after 45 days if the owner had a reserve of 140 coins

since you the miner risk 1 day of mining earnings  the next day you could lose 97

so  135/97   is your payout   on a 1/50 chance of going broke.

assuming the owner has the 140 coin reserve.

so if the owner sent a real escrow 140 coins  mining here is smart not stupid

the problem is the owner almost certainly does not have a 140 coin reserve
he certainly won't put it in escrow and risk it.
and if he did most likely the pool grows to 500 ph  which makes these calculations no good.

Once again I have shown that 140 coin reserve works for a miner.
with 240 ph and the certainty the owner pays it.

you risk a 97 dollar loss if you earn 97 daily at viabtc if you switch here.

once again  that while a reserve of 4317 coins would be the answer to the formula as applied by kano it is simply not applicable.  to my facts above

I simply ask you in a true game  were you put up 97 dollars for a 135 profit   and I have to hit a 50 to 1 shot for you to lose  you should do it.

The problem does not lie in the reserve need for the owner to stay afloat.
The problem lies in the willingness for the op to really lose 140 coins in 45 days.  Ie a true 140 coin reserve.

Back to the formula.

B=12.5
1n .1000 =6.9079
2  = a constant
0.01 = true fees  based on about .126 in tx fee

so 12.5 x 6.9079/ (2x0.01) = 86.348/0.02 comes to 4317.4  kanos number  a true number  not false just applied wrongly in this case.

kano said I did not understand the math and was not entitled to an opinion in this thread.

well I had forgotten how to get 1n.1000  to become 6.9079   and asked him to figure it out in the other examples.

he insulted me but he did do it thinking it proved me wrong about him misapplying the reserve.

well I had an error right here

I decided to show you were wrong to apply the formula

and here is why you ignored that B is linear
you ignore or don't understand that if tx fees are .125  now and stay at .125

the op fee  2x  as .125/12.5 = .01
and .125/6.125 = .02

so the 4300/4 = 1075 at the ½ ing

and 4300 was only true on day one of the ½

put another way so that you will give  up and simply agree that the number 4317 is wrong

if the ½ were in 2 days  the 1075 number would be correct.
and today the formula shows  4300

so zero blocks means  op pays 20 coins at 10 coins a block  and we are at 1075    so reserve is 1095 if ½ is in 2 days.

I normally don't push here but you said pool size does not matter.

I have shown  1ph  a small reserve lasts for more then 100 years even if he never hits a block

I have shown that at 240 ph   he only need sto have a 140 coins  for me to have a solid shot at a profit.

bet 97  to gain 135 and a 50 to 1 shot is needed to beat you.   that is a good move.

but we both know he  simply is not going to stay here and drop 140 coins he will bail.

which is why I won't mine at him.

I also have shown that meni's formula needs to be applied on day 1 of a ½ ing to be most accurate you applied it on day  600  948  it is due in 466 days

so at best

july 9 2016 to feb 13 2016 is 948  

feb 13 to say may 25 2020 is 467 days

this means B is not really 12.5 for practical purposes

I agree with you he will go broke

you erroneously used 4317 as the proper reserve

Peace kano
 
if the ½ ing was in 2 days   we would go

[kano]

I have some more garbage to post here.

Yep it sure is again.

This pool makes about 5 blocks in six days  25 blocks in 30 days.  Lets say a 50 to one shot occurs  and the pdf for the next 25 blocks is about 0.98

the luck would be about 66%

the shares would be about 150%

I took all this info from here :https://www.kano.is/index.php?k=pblocks


Last 25 Blocks   14.9wks   150.17%   101.19%   0.9876   66.59%   66.78%

funny how karma is that the above pool has a nice example of why a 140 coin reserve for sigma pool.com would work.

so if  karma pool suffers the same bad luck as kano.is did for 25 blocks  will 140 coin reserver work as I said.

well  150% shares bumps the time out to 45 days not 34 days.

So I was wrong as it is better then 34 days.

the pool needs to pay out about 450 coins for the 45 days 

You are using specific examples that the pool must be limited to and adhere to, before your example can work.
That's the point I've already made that you are assuming certain things, that you can in no way assume to be correct.
... and everything after the above quote, is doing exactly that, assuming that the pool size must be exactly what you want it to be.

Oddly enough the pool size is probably 0PH and the rest of the pool (240PH) is their own hardware, so that even says they can have no BTC in their wallet and be fine since they are currently effectively solo mining.

You don't know what their public hash rate will be (nor do I) so there's no point using specific examples to say, yeah it's OK.
You also keep choosing small pool sizes to say that you can ignore the calculation.
As I already stated, that's pointless, since it doesn't cover what's necessary, any pool size.
If the pool advertises hard about zero fee PPS they may well be able to get a lot of idiots to join who don't understand the statistics ... just like you ... and then the public pool size will no longer be some tiny value that works for your specific example.

I've already suggested you read Meni's analysis and posted the link to it - but you (obviously) haven't and wont.
Thus you keep trying to make the argument that your specific case of a specific sized pool, with a specific level of luck wont fail.
Which is, to be blunt, pointless.
I'll not bother including any more of the above post cos it's a waste of time.

... and here I am repeating myself, pointing out why your calculations don't matter, coz you, for some unknown reason, seem to want to keep repeating them over and over.

Oh and most countries consider 4 years to be ... 1461 days.

[philipma1957]

too bad you don't understand me

you could read this parable

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant

and we can leave it at that.

At least we agree he will go broke  so we are better off then the blind men

@ Meni Rosenfeld

https://bitcoil.co.il/pool_analysis.pdf

I would love to discuss

Appendix C
Safety nets for PPS pools

Since I fail to agree with using  B  in the formula  and disregarding ½  ing effect

To leave out  the 50% drop in B  means  formula is most accurate day 1 of ½ ing

least accurate day before new ½ ing why did you leave it out  or not mention it .

As If I do the calculation  and ignore it I over estimate reserve the closer I get to  the  next ½ ing

[kano]

@ Meni Rosenfeld

https://bitcoil.co.il/pool_analysis.pdf


I would love to discuss

Appendix C
Safety nets for PPS pools


Since I fail to agree with using  B  in the formula  and disregarding ½  ing effect

To leave out  the 50% drop in B  means  formula is most accurate day 1 of ½ ing

least accurate day before new ½ ing

Yet the halving will simply halve the calculated value as is obvious for anyone with basic math skills
... and I have already said that.

why did you leave it out  or not mention it .

As If I do the calculation  and ignore it I over estimate reserve the closer I get to  the  next ½ ing

I didn't leave it out, I mentioned it.
So cleary you haven't read what I've written so you are wasting my time also
OK - I give up.
I'm arguing with an idiot and thus lowering myself to your level.
I'll stop here.

...

It also proves  that the formula has better accuracy on day one of a ½ ing vs day 600 or 700 and you think I am out to defend pool op.

No, the formula has nothing to do with halvings.
When the next halving occurs, then indeed the 12.5 BTC becomes 6.25 BTC
But lets give a simple (mathematical) example of that effect ...

1% fee pool
Phil's dodgy 0.5% chance of failure pool (that's the number he said was ok 199/200 ...)
12.5 BTC reward
Reserve = B x (ln (1/δ)) / (2 x f) = 12.5 x ln(1/0.005) / (2 x 0.01) = 12.5 x 5.2983 / (2 x 0.01) = 3311 BTC

So if we hit the halving, the B value halves, so you simply halve the answer = 1656 BTC

So does it really make thatr much difference?
Well it's half the BTC, but still a lot of BTC ... ... ... ...

...

Edit: Phil, you haven't been around bitcoin for very long, go find and read the threads for the 2 best known pools that have paid PPS and gone broke and the end game for the two of them. Not very nice (BitAffNet and MtRed)

[BSGMiner]

Dear Kano,

We’ve been waiting for your reply...

Ha! That's gotta be the most amusing opening salvo to Kano that I've seen.

Looks like they tried to have their talking points in order first.

Everybody's got a plan until they get punched in the mouth.

[kano]

Oh, wait, I missed out something else here at the start

Phil's early on claim was I was being deceptive.
I've just included a little of that post so it's easy to see:

So you said simply put  and showed that number  I ask again did you use a 1 in 1000 factor?

...

so if you are using 1 in 1000 to get your reserve number

you have attempted to deceive all the mathematically challenged miners reading this.

so what is the answer how did you get that 6.9078 number?

Well, Phil's claim of me being deceptive is also false.
Why? Coz, before he falsely accused me, I said:

...
The 1% means you have a low chance (0.1%) of going broke if you already have a 4317.375 BTC balance and continue to top it up whenever it gets below that.
...

(I added highlight to point it out)

[philipma1957]

I am opening a different thread.  Since Kano says I am an idiot and don't have the right to post in this thread.

using meni's formula correctly  and solving meni's formula correctly are not the same thing.

Kano's solving  of the formula and getting 4317.375 is a correct number

Kano saying this pool needs that reserve  to have a low chance 0.1%  of going bankrupt is deceptive.

In fact  he has even deceived his own self and simply refuses to see or agree to what I am saying.

So

1) I don't mine here and won't mine here.
2) I don't believe Kano intentionally acted to deceive anyone.
3) I think he is simply applying the formula blindly.
4) I think he believed I accused him of intentional deception
5) I do not think kano  post the solution to the formula to deceive people on purpose

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5109937.msg49738589#msg49738589

I have new thread

My intentions is to show that the formula called be solved correctly

and used incorrectly.

Not to show kano was trying to fool people into not mining with this pool.

[notabeliever]

I tried this pool for 12 hours and if it is going to attract miners needs to increase their PPS more in line with their competition.  With 20th I did not make what I can in 12 hours  with other pools.
edit.........give me a couple days to make a comparison

[Artemis3]

I tried this pool for 12 hours and if it is going to attract miners needs to increase their PPS more in line with their competition.  With 20th I did not make what I can in 12 hours  with other pools.

Yes, but it would be more interesting and for the benefit of others, if you would tell us the actual numbers. And which pools do you refer to as well.

[Steamtyme]

With 20th I did not make what I can in 12 hours  with other pools.

I would say 12 hours is to small a sample though, depending on the miner it could have been 1/2 hour of startup connections and miner configuration. Also hard numbers as mentioned do help.

For curiosity sake I paroused their site, I  couldn't find an expected earnings calculator anywhere. It's been a long time since I mined PPS, but that was always available when I did.

I didn't sign up for an account to look deeper; was there any explanation of how much approximately per TH/24 hours?

[Gervunt93]

... I didn't sign up for an account to look deeper; was there any explanation of how much approximately per TH/24 hours?

It's on the main page, 0.00004148 BTC / TH/s currently. The calculator is at the dashboard section, you will probably have to create an account.

Just to add - I've been mining at the op since September 2018, and despite having a bad luck spree with blocks, they managed to make the payouts every day. So I do believe they have a reserve (no idea how big it is).
Furthermore, they proved to be the most profitable.
A friend of mine, Homeminer @youtube (not a product placement) has ASICs set up at different pools and he has a spreadsheet updated with every difficulty change (though it is in russian - there won't be difficulties with understanding it).

https://drive.google.com/file/d/12lZZfG_raBWe2NssfZDSo-sBBc8-3Qfr/view

[Artemis3]

It's on the main page, 0.00004148 BTC / TH/s currently. The calculator is at the dashboard section, you will probably have to create an account.

Just to add - I've been mining at the op since September 2018, and despite having a bad luck spree with blocks, they managed to make the payouts every day. So I do believe they have a reserve (no idea how big it is).
Furthermore, they proved to be the most profitable.
A friend of mine, Homeminer @youtube (not a product placement) has ASICs set up at different pools and he has a spreadsheet updated with every difficulty change (though it is in russian - there won't be difficulties with understanding it).

https://drive.google.com/file/d/12lZZfG_raBWe2NssfZDSo-sBBc8-3Qfr/view

Here is my "Google translation" in bbcode (because google docs are overrated):

Pool name

Pool power

Btc payout thresholds

Support rus

application

AsicBoost

payment systems

Special features

1 TH * 24 hours in BTC

Fee

Fact of accrual

network commission

1

EXpool

3 PH

not

not

not

Yes

PPS

Manual registration. Manual payout. Own firmware.

0,00004179

0%

0,00004179

pays for pool

2

Sigmapool

207 PH

0,001

rus

development

Yes

PPS

pool commission 0%. Detailed statistics that some even scares. There is a FREE firmware for overclocking antminer s9. PROMO CODES (bonus to income + 0.5%)

0,00004148

0,5%

0,00004168

there is

3

Dpool

1,65 EH

0,001

English

*Yes

Yes

FPPS PPLNS

* The application is not available in the Russian Appstore. * Asic added to Pool in a few seconds / Hashrate 1 in 1 matches what the asic shows

0,00004084

1,5%

0,00004084

pays for pool

4

Antpool

3,63 EH

0,001

rus \ engl

Yes

Yes

PPS+ PPLNS SOLO

charges you 2% plus about, but first takes 4%. The usual Chinese pool. Sometimes it cuts the hashrate. And oochen for a long time connects the asic to the personal account. 4% plus, and 2 take away)))

0,00004231

4%

0,00004045

pays for pool

5

BTC.com

6,6 EH

0,001

English

Yes

Yes

FPPS

Plain Chinese with NMC Commission and Coin

0,00004148

2%

0,00004029

pays for pool

6

F2pool

4731 PH

0,005

English

Yes

Yes

PPS+

Pay the network commission. Sometimes the cereit is cut .. Poole Chinese.

0,00004129

2,5%

0,00004025

pays for pool

TOP 6 Pools

for mining Bitcoin "2019"
FEBRUARY

WITH REGISTRATION ON SIGMAPOOL

PROMOCODE: HOMEMINER gives + 0.5% to income

[MoparMiningLLC]

I tossed 5 S9's on here for nothing else than the 5% bonus.

below is my first week - not counting the first day as it was a partial though.

Date   Avg. hashrate 24h   Earnings   Profitability   
20-02-2019   68.57 TH/s   0.00284472 BTC   0.00004148 BTC/TH/s   + 0.00001422 BTC/TH/s bonus
19-02-2019   69.44 TH/s   0.00288081 BTC   0.00004148 BTC/TH/s   + 0.00001440 BTC/TH/s bonus
18-02-2019   70.17 TH/s   0.00291108 BTC   0.00004148 BTC/TH/s   + 0.00001456 BTC/TH/s bonus
17-02-2019   69.23 TH/s   0.00287175 BTC   0.00004148 BTC/TH/s   + 0.00001436 BTC/TH/s bonus
16-02-2019   69.50 TH/s   0.00288297 BTC   0.00004148 BTC/TH/s   + 0.00001441 BTC/TH/s bonus
15-02-2019   69.31 TH/s   0.00287513 BTC   0.00004148 BTC/TH/s   + 0.00001438 BTC/TH/s bonus
14-02-2019   69.67 TH/s   0.00289013 BTC   0.00004148 BTC/TH/s   + 0.00001445 BTC/TH/s bonus
13-02-2019   16.59 TH/s   0.00068804 BTC   0.00004148 BTC/TH/s   + 0.00000344 BTC/TH/s bonus

first payment was 0.01104313 - and now sitting with 0.01151077 and accruing waiting for it to hit the time they do payout - which should be in the next hour or so.

I can say this - the amount they send and what I receive are not the same

First payment sent was: 0.011043134438 - I received .011026, a difference of .00001713 BTC (.109%)
Second payment sent was: 0.012101170225 - I received .012088 a difference of .00001317 BTC (.155%)
(I am not carrying it out to 12 decimal places as sigma appears to do)

It appears to be some sort of fee on the payment - no other pool I use is being charged this fee - what the other pools send is what I get.

For reference, my last payment from kano.is:
Payment sent was 0.01050444 - I received 0.01050444

I can see that the amount on the blockchain transaction matches what I got from Sigma but does not match what they record as sent.

for the first payment:

on Sigma dashboard - 107d4e58acbacb4faccac3218bd5916608273110e01a09a41cfe007f7b0f6502 0.011043134438

on block chain - 1LD6V8VNXfCTNzRyV6bj2vBhNg6VLTA2Ps 0.01102686 BTC

for the second payment:

on Sigma dashboard - 19ced6b02b7418241bcb6bf20e8a0a70dd7a72a2243f26962b48830d868f1bfa  0.012101170225

on block chain - 1LD6V8VNXfCTNzRyV6bj2vBhNg6VLTA2Ps 0.01208892 BTC

payments do not match between sigma dashboard and actual payment on blockchain

and with the kano.is transaction:

on kano website -
Block   Block UTC   Miner Reward   N Diff   N Range   Pool N Avg   Your %   Your N Diff   Your N Avg   Your BTC
561503   2019-Feb-04 12:50   12.41932163   29.086T   429hr 52m 30s   80.72PHs   0.08%   24.601G   68.28THs   0.01050444

on block chain - 1LD6V8VNXfCTNzRyV6bj2vBhNg6VLTA2Ps 0.01050444 BTC

payment matches between kano.is and blockchain

[rifleman74]

Slowly but surely, they're bleeding you dry.

Just say no to this scam pool.

[MoparMiningLLC]

Slowly but surely, they're bleeding you dry.

Just say no to this scam pool.

Maybe so but a few cents are missing but overall it is doing better than any other pool I am currently in and I now have it set to pay daily.

• No fees mining

maybe you could see my posts above and elaborate on how there are no fees? The amount reported in my payments screen are not equal to what was actually received by me nor equal to what was actually sent on the block chain - which, by the way, your transaction links are broken - they point to "blockchair" not "blockchain."

[philipma1957]

ok.... sigma took the time to merge two of my posts but not to answer the question?

A mod did that. As this is not a self modded thread.

Frodocooper may have cleaned up the posts you made.

I said I would not post here as fighting with kano over me being wrong and an idiot is not worth it.

So this is directly to you

[TheYankeesWin!]

Dave F. thinks the pool was created to simply kill off small pools. He had a good point and I know Phil liked his point.

[philipma1957]

Dave F. had a great point.  I did some more math and I came up with this model:

at 300ph for the next 2 weeks this pool needs to pay 175 coins

https://bitcoinwisdom.com/bitcoin/difficulty

I plugged in 300 ph.  so 175/12.5 =  14 blocks.

if  you are expected to do 14.17 blocks and do 12  it is .75 cdf

if you are expected to do  11.34 blocks and do 5 it is .988 cdf   this is a decent long shot

https://www.kano.is/index.php?k=pblocks

all info is from here.

So this pool at 300 ph with really bad luck  would only hit  say 6 blocks during the next jump  and lose 8 blocks.

What does a loss of 100 coins do for them?  Logically it hurts small pools  such as

pool.ckpool
solo.ckpool
mmpool
kano

So like Dave said  this pool paying  just over 99% of the 12.5 coins would only be doing so to hurt smaller pools.

I continue to support smaller pools as much as I can with my own personal hash.

http://mmpool.org/statistics
17   29501a4c   0.02694736   0.00000000   7,985,682,288   7,058,812

http://ckpool.org/miners
29   16yLHLoeyuCLPMXkVpC3gyrRYvwRGwjKJr   19.9TH/s   13.8TH/s   13.6TH/s   2   15,890,008,940   74545449022

[MoparMiningLLC]

A mod did that.  As this is not a self modded thread.

Frodocooper may have cleaned up the posts you made...

ahh i just saw on my phone the notification that my posts got deleted - they tend to always get deleted if I ask questions about how things are working - in this case, the two were just merged.

as for the other stuff about this pool - my question is simply why does the pool show one payment when the block chain shows a lower payment - I mine on several pools - a couple large ones and several smaller ones - this is the only pool where my payments do not match.

I was also told that I was making substantial accusations against Sigma and that I should not be expected that my word to be easily taken. It was also suggested that I might just be trying to stir up trouble. All of that confuses me - there is no "my word" my question comes directly from what Sigma shows on site and what those very same transactions show on the block chain. I am by no means an expert on mining - hence why I asked the question on the mismatched values seeing as other pools match.

In the attached image (I am assuming the copy paste of the transactions is what led to the "my word" statement) I show the payment page from Sigma and the transactions from the pool for 3 payments I got from Sigma - in all 3 cases the amount reported on the payment page is higher than what was submitted - verified by pulling the pulling the transaction on the block chain.

For comparison, I also show the last payment I received from kano.is via the rewards page (have to use the second one as the first one shown there has not yet reached enough confirmations to be sent out) and it matches the block chain amount exactly.

So - am I being charged a fee after the payment is issued? or is sigma sending less than they state?

[rifleman74]

Your questions will go unanswered I'm guessing.

[MoparMiningLLC]

Your questions will go unanswered I'm guessing.

am I wrong to assume that the payments that are reflected in miner dashboard should be equal to what is shown on the block chain? Is the mining pool charging me a fee to send me my payment? which I don't mind except they say zero fees - but I know they keep the transaction fees so they are only dispersing the 12.5 btc block reward but it seems as if they are also then charging a small - very small - fee to send miners their payments.

My miners will be removed from the pool (of course) until this is answered by sigmapool

[Gervunt93]

The pool doesn't pay the bitcoin network commission for the transaction. I believe these satoshis you lack is the bitcoin network commission.

[kano]

The pool doesn't pay the bitcoin network commission for the transaction. I believe these satoshis you lack is the bitcoin network commission.

Yeah that's a payout fee ... and they also keep the mining transaction fees ...

... even though they still lie about it:

...
What does the SigmaPool have today?
...

• Mining without fees

...

[Steamtyme]

Or is it to accurate.

You are mining "without" receiving transaction fees  Con
You are mining "without" paying fees for it out of pocket or from your implied reward   Pro
You are mining "without" knowledge of transaction fees being your responsibility.  Con

Either way I'd move on, my payouts/fees have all been crystal clear this weekend.

[MoparMiningLLC]

The pool doesn't pay the bitcoin network commission for the transaction. I believe these satoshis you lack is the bitcoin network commission.

possibly - but then they should state that instead of saying "no fees" although they do not charge it, they do not pay it.

Yeah that's a payout fee ... and they also keep the mining transaction fees ...

... even though they still lie about it...

Kano - I dont see payout fees from your pool - do you account for this and report our reward post fee? or do you pay the fee?

Or is it to accurate.

You are mining "without" receiving transaction fees  Con
You are mining "without" paying fees for it out of pocket or from your implied reward   Pro
You are mining "without" knowledge of transaction fees being your responsibility.  Con

Either way I'd move on, my payouts/fees have all been crystal clear this weekend.

I have. and my payouts on the 4 other pools I am on are also crystal clear.

[rifleman74]

The reward you see on kano's pool (and slush as long as you're above .01, and ck's pool) are what you receive.

This pool is showing you how it makes its money, by ripping you off in at least three ways.

[MoparMiningLLC]

The reward you see on kano's pool (and slush as long as you're above .01, and ck's pool) are what you receive.

This pool is showing you how it makes its money, by ripping you off in at least three ways.

lol even antpool and slushpool i get what they say they send.

[clgrissom3]

KanoPool's fee is 0.9% after transaction fees are included as stated near the top of the Help/Payouts page.  Slush's fees are 1.1% after transactions fees are added in.  This pool does not give you the transaction fees which is pretty close to 2.0% this month but they don't call that a fee.  So it appears they have payout fees also that they don't talk about.

EDIT: Oh yea, the KanoPool is up to 0.00005216 BTC/day per TH for February in case you were wondering

[MoparMiningLLC]

KanoPool's fee is 0.9% after transaction fees are included as stated near the top of the Help/Payouts page.  Slush's fees are 1.1% after transactions fees are added in.  This pool does not give you the transaction fees which is pretty close to 2.0% this month but they don't call that a fee.  So it appears they have payout fees also that they don't talk about.

EDIT: Oh yea, the KanoPool is up to 0.00005216 BTC/day per TH for February in case you were wondering

and more if we can find a few more blocks before end of the month

[rifleman74]

Notice the OP has gone radio silent once the truth has come out.

MINE ON, SOMEWHERE ELSE!

[MoparMiningLLC]

Notice the OP has gone radio silent once the truth has come out.

MINE ON, SOMEWHERE ELSE!

has been silent i think since the first day? lol

[-SigmaPool-]

Hey, dear miners!

We are really pleased to see smart users writing in our topic, asking correct and essential questions.
Since the launch of the BTC pool in august 2018, we have faced a lot of different reactions on us at forums. But as far as you can see – we haven’t gone anywhere and the hash rate has been steadily growing. And so, we would love to answer the questions above:

Reserve:
You are absolutely right with the calculations for the reserve and so far we have been systematically increasing it with growth of our pool. As far as we have ways to use the funds to gain profits with minimal risks – we have no need to «freeze» them all at once, but in any case, with the growth of hashrate, the reserve is replenished to ensure stable payouts.

Fees:
We don’t play games with miners like “Share the TxFee and then take 3% away and pay the withdrawal fee” and other schemes, where the result leads to receiving less than 100% PPS from block. We have an absolutely transparent payment system. The pool pays all the 12.5 BTC from block to miners using the PPS system. The only thing you have to pay for is the Bitcoin network transaction commission itself.

Profitability:
You will always find the up-to-date data on BTC per TH/S on the main page. Many bloggers already have conducted tests using several ASICs, comparing profitability at our pool with others. These numbers are easy to verify and we suggest that you try and see for yourself. If you have any questions regarding earnings – contact our support, add screenshots and we will figure everything out. You can contact us using the contact form at our website or via telegram-bot.

Latest news:
Our pool is actively developing and today we have crossed the 300 PH line which is more than 0.5% of Bitcoin network. We are working hard on the pool’s scaling, therefore some deviations in displaying statistics on the web-site are possible. This does not affect mining and the payout system. Lastly, take a look at our store – there is something interesting for you.

Find the latest news in our telegram channel. Feel free to discuss the SigmaPool or ask any questions in our telegram chat, all the links are in the first post.

We wish you stable mining, cheap electricity and lots of lambos!

[MoparMiningLLC]

Fees:
We don’t play games with miners like “Share the TxFee and then take 3% away and pay the withdrawal fee” and other schemes, where the result leads to receiving less than 100% PPS from block. We have an absolutely transparent payment system. The pool pays all the 12.5 BTC from block to miners using the PPS system. The only thing you have to pay for is the Bitcoin network transaction commission itself.

by doing this you are actually paying less than the pools that pay out transaction fees and keep 3%  and your system does not show that the miners pay the transaction fee either - nor - until now - have you stated that there was a fee. I guess you meant "no fee" to sigma. Not paying the transaction fees to the miner is also a "fee" that is being charged to the miners essentially as they are not receiving those funds.

[kano]

The miner having to pay "Bitcoin network transaction commission" to get their BTC from the pool, is also a fee.
That's called the "Transaction Fee" in Bitcoin.
Certain companies like to rename it to things like -SigmaPool- have called it to hide that fact.
There is no such fee on my pool - the pool pays the payout Transaction Fee
There are also simple ways to set it to zero if the pool is big enough.

[rifleman74]

Fees:
We don’t play games with miners like “Share the TxFee and then take 3% away and pay the withdrawal fee” and other schemes, where the result leads to receiving less than 100% PPS from block. We have an absolutely transparent payment system. The pool pays all the 12.5 BTC from block to miners using the PPS system. The only thing you have to pay for is the Bitcoin network transaction commission itself.

There it is, confirmed that they don't pay out any transaction fees that one makes on just about any other pool in the world.

Run, run far away from this pool, which really looks to just be a small server farm.

[MoparMiningLLC]

There it is, confirmed that they don't pay out any transaction fees that one makes on just about any other pool in the world.

Run, run far away from this pool, which really looks to just be a small server farm.

which is why I find it amazing that so many forum users are running sig banners for this pool - even forum people that represent other pools.

[OgNasty]

While I think complaining about users paying the Bitcoin network fee and trying to claim that is somehow the pool lying about charging fees is a bit of a stretch, keeping transaction fees should be noted somewhere if that is what is occurring.  I have sent Sigma a message asking him to make this point clear on his site, at the very least with an asterisk next to his 0 fees claim explaining his logic.  Hopefully we see some more transparency here in the coming days/weeks, or I may shut down the signature campaign. 

[rifleman74]

While I think complaining about users paying the Bitcoin network fee and trying to claim that is somehow the pool lying about charging fees is a bit of a stretch...

How is that a bit of a stretch?  You're being charged money to withdraw from the pool, do you call that a gift to the Bitcoin network or something else?

[MoparMiningLLC]

it would also go a bit better if the fee was listed and if it was detailed that they keep the transaction fees. To advertise as a "no-fee" pool is more of a stretch then us complaining about their fees and lack of being straight forward about their fees. Either way, I wont use the pool as even with the 5% bonus they provided due to no transaction fees and paying network fees the payments are smaller than any other pool.

[kano]

While I think complaining about users paying the Bitcoin network fee and trying to claim that is somehow the pool lying about charging fees is a bit of a stretch, keeping transaction fees should be noted somewhere if that is what is occurring.  I have sent Sigma a message asking him to make this point clear on his site, at the very least with an asterisk next to his 0 fees claim explaining his logic.  Hopefully we see some more transparency here in the coming days/weeks, or I may shut down the signature campaign.  

There's still the issue of running a PPS pool and the REQUIRED balance and fees to reduce the risk of it going broke and the losses for those mining if that happens.
Try to remember back 6 & 5 years ago how that went with MtRed and BitAffNet ... ... ... ... ...

However, "no fees" is a plain and simple lie and you know it.
A 100% PPS pool payout is keeping transaction fees.
Charging a payout fee for all payouts is also a fee.

There is no stretch, you clearly are only interested in being paid for a campaign.
So clearly you can be easily bought ...

[OgNasty]

There is no stretch, you clearly are only interested in being paid for a campaign.
So clearly you can be easily bought ...

I’ve watched you whine about every other pool here for years in your own self interest. Forgive me if I take your opinion with a grain of salt.

I’ve requested the issue be addressed, and I will wait and see how it is. That is the rational adult thing to do.

[pussyhunter6969]

regardless of hate some senior members having towards you, i really like the project.

can you please add anonymous mining mode just like ckpool ?

[rifleman74]

I’ve watched you whine about every other pool here for years in your own self interest. Forgive me if I take your opinion with a grain of salt.

I’ve requested the issue be addressed, and I will wait and see how it is. That is the rational adult thing to do.

Nah, the rational adult thing to do is to be "paid" first for a sig banner and then ask questions later.  

[HagssFIN]

Og, I think it would be a wise choice to quit the signature campaign.

[kano]

I’ve watched you whine about every other pool here for years in your own self interest. Forgive me if I take your opinion with a grain of salt.

I’ve requested the issue be addressed, and I will wait and see how it is. That is the rational adult thing to do.

LOL
Trying to justify why you readily accepted payment to have a sig that lies and didn't check it beforehand

You now know it's a lie ... or you're an idiot who doesn't know anything about bitcoin pools ... you tell me which one it is

Edit: P.S. Provide one, not every pool like you have said, just one link here on the forum that is me "whine about every other pool here for years in your own self interest"
You ran a (dubious) pool so you 'supposedly' know how pools work ... so you know your sig is a lie.

[MoparMiningLLC]

I’ve watched you whine about every other pool here for years in your own self interest. Forgive me if I take your opinion with a grain of salt.

I’ve requested the issue be addressed, and I will wait and see how it is. That is the rational adult thing to do.

we have all asked for them to address it, they skirt it and avoid it.

[OgNasty]

Og, I think it would be a wise choice to quit the signature campaign.

The goal shouldn't be shutting down a signature campaign, the goal should be transparency.  If they are making claims that are suspect, we should see that they are addressed, either with a change to their advertisement claims, or by changing their service to meet their claims.  That is positive change I would like to be a part of.  I've sent them a message requesting more information that has not yet been responded to.  If they have not responded to my message with some sort of an action plan in the next 24 hours, I will determine my action going forward.  One thing I will not do is make a knee jerk reaction.

As to kano, I am not an idiot, nor is my motivation financial.  Don't make the mistake of thinking we are similar.  

[kano]

The goal shouldn't be shutting down a signature campaign, the goal should be transparency.  If they are making claims that are suspect, we should see that they are addressed, either with a change to their advertisement claims, or by changing their service to meet their claims.  That is positive change I would like to be a part of.  I've sent them a message requesting more information that has not yet been responded to.  If they have not responded to my message with some sort of an action plan in the next 24 hours, I will determine my action going forward.  One thing I will not do is make a knee jerk reaction.

As to kano, I am not an idiot, nor is my motivation financial.  Don't make the mistake of thinking we are similar. 

Indeed we are not similar.
You can be bought (and very easily)

Few people consider using a small part of their brain, to do VERY simple math, a knee jerk reaction.

Yeah it might be a tough one for you, or a knee jerk reaction to notice it, but indeed (100 - payout fees) is less than the current ~101.7

Though knowing that current ~101.7 number would require a (very) little amount of knowledge of how bitcoin mining works.

[rifleman74]

The goal shouldn't be shutting down a signature campaign, the goal should be transparency.  If they are making claims that are suspect, we should see that they are addressed, either with a change to their advertisement claims, or by changing their service to meet their claims.  That is positive change I would like to be a part of.  I've sent them a message requesting more information that has not yet been responded to.  If they have not responded to my message with some sort of an action plan in the next 24 hours, I will determine my action going forward.  One thing I will not do is make a knee jerk reaction.

As to kano, I am not an idiot, nor is my motivation financial.  Don't make the mistake of thinking we are similar.  

Time's up.  Pop Quiz hot shot...what do you do?

[OgNasty]

The goal shouldn't be shutting down a signature campaign, the goal should be transparency.  If they are making claims that are suspect, we should see that they are addressed, either with a change to their advertisement claims, or by changing their service to meet their claims.  That is positive change I would like to be a part of.  I've sent them a message requesting more information that has not yet been responded to.  If they have not responded to my message with some sort of an action plan in the next 24 hours, I will determine my action going forward.  One thing I will not do is make a knee jerk reaction.

As to kano, I am not an idiot, nor is my motivation financial.  Don't make the mistake of thinking we are similar.  

Indeed we are not similar.
You can be bought (and very easily)

Few people consider using a small part of their brain, to do VERY simple math, a knee jerk reaction.

Yeah it might be a tough one for you, or a knee jerk reaction to notice it, but indeed (100 - payout fees) is less than the current ~101.7

Though knowing that current ~101.7 number would require a (very) little amount of knowledge of how bitcoin mining works.

Look, I get that your goal is to remove all competition so you can keep eating off miners.  You are clearly financially motivated.  I am not, as I couldn't care less about the few bitcents I'm paid for running this campaign.  Seeing you insult me and act like those funds are somehow important to me shows that 1) you don't know what the fuck you're talking about & 2) you are so scared and hell bent on trying to remove any perceived competition from your pool whatsoever, you will insult innocent members who are trying to help people grow here.  How truly pathetic.  I had no idea you were so fearful of competition.  I guess this bear market has been harder on pool operators than I noticed.  Probably explains why the brains of your operation went a different route with his pool.

I'll say it again, if there are claims that you or anyone is threatened by, you can make a clear case on what you would be satisfied with, and I will work with the pool to get any questionable claims removed, or further explained for transparency.  If anyone would like to make suggestions on steps the pool should take to correct questionable advertising claims, I would love to hear them so that I can work to have the changes implemented.  If you want to cry about competition and insult people out of fear that your free lunch is threatened, you're only damaging the attempts to bring transparency to this pool and delaying any action, which is not appreciated by anyone.

I have received communication regarding this issue and am suggesting that any questionable claims be clearly explained on the site.  Notably, it should say that users pay the network fees for their payouts and that the pool keeps the network transaction fees from solved blocks.  Is there anything else I missed?

I am opening a different thread.  Since Kano says I am an idiot and don't have the right to post in this thread.

Pretty typical.  If you have any recommendations for how to properly resolve this issue, feel free to PM me.  I'm not getting any constructive responses from kano, so clearly he isn't interested in bringing anything positive to this thread and just wants a platform to whine and call names.

Kano saying this pool needs that reserve  to have a low chance 0.1%  of going bankrupt is deceptive.

In fact  he has even deceived his own self and simply refuses to see or agree to what I am saying.

So

1) I don't mine here and won't mine here.
2) I don't believe Kano intentionally acted to deceive anyone.
3) I think he is simply applying the formula blindly.
4) I think he believed I accused him of intentional deception
5) I do not think kano  post the solution to the formula to deceive people on purpose

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5109937.msg49738589#msg49738589

I have new thread

My intentions is to show that the formula called be solved correctly

and used incorrectly.

Not to show kano was trying to fool people into not mining with this pool.

Perhaps he wasn't trying to deceive people into not mining with this pool and he's just not very smart.  That seems to contradict his own statements, but maybe I'm just too dumb to post here too.  I'll post on your thread asking for suggestions on changes to their advertising and see if maybe a kano-less conversation (if he isn't already crying there as well) could perhaps lead to some positive changes.

EDIT - oops it's locked.

EDIT #2 - I have removed the "no fee" claim from the signature advertising campaign and messaged all participants that they should immediately remove this claim as well while we await updates to be made to the website.

[MoparMiningLLC]

I have received communication regarding this issue and am suggesting that any questionable claims be clearly explained on the site.  Notably, it should say that users pay the network fees for their payouts and that the pool keeps the network transaction fees from solved blocks.  Is there anything else I missed?

these are the two points which they do not make very clear. To call it "fee-less" simply because they withhold the transaction fees and the "network" charges a fee is misleading and something they should clarify.

but either way - with them not paying the transaction fees and then having to pay the network fee - even with their 5% bonus for first 30 days,  they end up being one of the lowest paying pools for pps.

and now after looking further - there are other issues which makes their site unclear and not straight forward - for the 5% bonus, they show it as an amount of BTC per TH/s

however, if you look at the payments - it is not a BTC per TH/s bonus but instead the total bonus for that day and is in fact 5% of the daily earnings - so really, they just need to clarify that the bonus they display is not the BTC per TH/s  but total BTC bonus.

That being said, they net out to be of the lowest paying pps pools that I have used, so not worth it in my opinion to mine here.

[kano]

...
Probably explains why the brains of your operation went a different route with his pool.

Unlike you, my sig always tell the truth ... no one pays me to put it there

...
Is there anything else I missed?

The obvious point that you had no issue with being part of a signature campaign that you could EASILY check, but the campaign was lying and you went ahead anyway.
But the even more obvious point for those unable to overcome the challenge of working out how a pool works, multiple people (including Sigmapool) have posted that information here in the past already, so you didn't even bother to check the Sigmapool thread on the forum where the signature campaign was ...

EDIT #2 - I have removed the "no fee" claim from the signature advertising campaign and messaged all participants that they should immediately remove this claim as well while we await updates to be made to the website.

No updates to the web site will make the claim true.
The only way to make the claim true is to charge no fees ... which Sigmapool have stated, from the start, here in this thread, that they do charge fees
... which is what lead to the whole discussion here about the requirements of running a PPS pool.
Feel free to go tell Meni Rosenfeld that he doesn't know what he's talking about also

[Artemis3]

I have removed the "no fee" claim from the signature advertising campaign and messaged all participants that they should immediately remove this claim as well while we await updates to be made to the website.

This is the right thing to do, be clear on the terms so people can trust you. This might be something about the Russian culture to "stretch" words in the name of advertising... Many posts back I suggested this thread should change its title, namely remove the 0% FEE. and perhaps modify the PPS 100% to show the actual number.

Incidentally, this pool has yet to appear in the pinned BTC Mining Pools List thread, i was expecting to see it listed there with the real numbers, but nothing so far.

So can anyone clarify what the real numbers for this pool are?

[mikeywith]

... which is what lead to the whole discussion here about the requirements of running a PPS pool.
Feel free to go tell Meni Rosenfeld that he doesn't know what he's talking about also

The pool going broke or not is not something i would discuss, from miner's point of view specially those looking for PPS the pool is considered to have the lowest fees at the moment, and given the fact it's PPS the moment something goes wrong one can easily switch to another pool.

having said that, i do think it's 100% unethical and deceiving to claim something that's not true, the pool does NOT have 0% fees and that has to be clearly stated, and since block fees are not constant, mentioning that they are keeping the block fees is good enough.

I will give the OP 2 days to fix that or else i will have to tag them for "scamming users by keeping block fees without mentioning it".

tho i do hope they would fix it, as it's only good for everyone's own benefit to have pools competition.

[MoparMiningLLC]

... So can anyone clarify what the real numbers for this pool are?

I have posted the real numbers in several posts - having left 5 miners on their pool for enough time to get 5 payouts.

[OgNasty]

Unlike you, my sig always tell the truth ...

Does it?  That's debatable.

"Majority developer of the ckpool code"

Seems to me like even your signature is a slap in the face to the man who carried you where you are today.

EDIT #2 - I have removed the "no fee" claim from the signature advertising campaign and messaged all participants that they should immediately remove this claim as well while we await updates to be made to the website.

No updates to the web site will make the claim true.

That's why I'm pushing to have the claim removed and have already done so from the campaign.  Will you still be angry if/when the claim is removed from the website and thread?  Is there some ulterior motive?  I see you insulting me, who is trying to help you bring positive change to this pool and their advertising (which I've already done my part and am pressuring the pool to do theirs both directly and through intermediaries).  I get that you're an asshole with your own predetermined and paranoid judgements, but do you want my help to resolve this or not? 

Maybe if I put it in big bold red letters you'll understand...

WHAT WOULD MAKE YOU HAPPY?  WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO ACHIEVE?
(Bonus points if you can articulate it without insulting someone or claiming you have superior intellect.)

[kano]

Unlike you, my sig always tell the truth ...

Does it?  That's debatable.

"Majority developer of the ckpool code"

...

Not debatable, check the git, rather than having a biased and false opinion.

...
WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO ACHIEVE?

I simply trashed you at the start for being involved in a campaign that was a lie and easy to check.

... and even the subject of your posts states the lie that was here from early February before the campaign existed Edit: this is incorrect

Re: [300 PH][BTC PPS 100%][0% FEE][EN/CN/RU] Sigmapool.com

While I think complaining about users paying the Bitcoin network fee and trying to claim that is somehow the pool lying about charging fees is a bit of a stretch, keeping transaction fees should be noted somewhere if that is what is occurring.  I have sent Sigma a message asking him to make this point clear on his site, at the very least with an asterisk next to his 0 fees claim explaining his logic.  Hopefully we see some more transparency here in the coming days/weeks, or I may shut down the signature campaign.  

The campaign shouldn't have started saying it was a no fee pool, but you were happy to receive payment and go ahead with it.
The rest of your posts were making up excuses for that, and trying (and failing) to trash me, including false accusations about me
Which, in each case, I've replied.

There is nothing false I've stated in my posts.
You, on the other hand, have a number of false statements and accusations.

[rifleman74]

Now that we've got that straight. When will the OP correct the subject heading?

TICK
TOCK

TICK
TOCK

[kano]

Yet again, making various false accusations about me, and ignoring facts

Try reading the VERY FIRST reply anyone made to SigmaPool ...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5108666.msg49697798#msg49697798

... and their reply claiming a fee isn't a fee

...
P.S. The 1% fee you are talking about is not a fee - it is the only way to make a PPS method not going broke without touching miner’s earnings. We do believe that giving miners 12.5 BTC per block is more fair than giving them 1% and taking 3% away.

Edit: P.S. the pool web page (that you are advertising in your sig) still says "No fees" (as at the time of this edit)

[rifleman74]

From my understanding, people want to see the removal of the "no fees" claim from the website and this thread as well as some sort of statement that they keep transaction fees from blocks and make users pay the network fees for withdrawals.  Is that correct?  If they do those three things, is this issue resolved?  Will we all be happy?  

Yes, that satisfies it from my point of view.

[rifleman74]

Thank you.  If I got a simple answer like that from kano in the beginning, this would likely be sorted by now.

Doubtful, quite a few of us made the "stink" before kano got involved.

[Artemis3]

0% FEE was removed from the title thread. Is it still acceptable to advertise 100% PPS? Given the numbers provided by Stryfe, what would be the actual estimated fee % for this pool?

[OgNasty]

Now that we've got that straight.   When will the OP correct the subject heading?

 From my understanding, people want to see the removal of the "no fees" claim from the website and this thread as well as some sort of statement that they keep transaction fees from blocks and make users pay the network fees for withdrawals.  Is that correct?  If they do those three things, is this issue resolved?  Will we all be happy?  

Yes, that satisfies it from my point of view.  

Thank you.  If I got a simple answer like that from kano in the beginning, this would likely be sorted by now.

Doubtful, quite a few of us made the "stink" before kano got involved.  

Nobody mentioned anything in my signature campaign thread.  This thread didn't exist when I started the signature campaign and I don't come into the pools section very often so I was under the impression they did not have a thread here on bitcointalk as my search showed when I started the campaign.  If someone hadn't pointed this thread out to me, I wouldn't have even known there was an issue.  When I discovered this thread I immediately started working with the pool to resolve any issues, and we are making some progress.  The signature campaign stating no fees issue I'm now considering resolved, as is this thread listing no fees in the subject line.  I am now working to see they address the information on their website. 

If anyone believes this issue would be resolved faster without my help, or that removing the signature campaign would make the issues magically disappear, I'm open to refunding their BTC and walking away.  Just convince me that is the right thing to do for the community's best interests.

[kano]

My post above is actually quite a clear summary of what has gone on.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5108666.msg50050434#msg50050434

I wonder why you have the following delusion:

...
OK, my teeth pulling is starting to lead to some actual answers in a roundabout way from you.  You were complaining about their 0 fee claim in this thread's subject in your link, which was removed from the subject line.  You are saying that it is still showing on their website, so let me try asking you a more specific question.  Maybe I'll get lucky and get a yes or a no out of you.

IF THEY REMOVE THE "No fees" FROM THEIR WEBSITE PAGE, WILL THAT MAKE YOU HAPPY?

If you've got other issues, make them known.  They aren't going to hire a team of employees to address kano's ongoing complaints and I won't be here to help form a semblance of thought from your ramblings forever.  Now is the time for me to help you become happy.  

Heh more attempts at trashing me
I'm not looking to you to do anything - as I said previously you seem to want to make various false accusations about me, make up trash about me, and ignore facts
So I keep replying to that trash and false accusations you make about me.

You are no 'gallant knight in shining armour here trying to help solve a problem'
You are an easy to buy "Legendary" account who'll get involved in a sig campaign and not do the easy check it's not lying.

Thank you.  If I got a simple answer like that from kano in the beginning, this would likely be sorted by now.

You had the information at the beginning - it's there since 11-Feb
You even went and read the thread to find posts by Phil to again try and trash me
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5108666.msg50034445#msg50034445

I've no idea why you think I expect anything of you at all.
I've also no idea why anyone else would - I made that clear at the start:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5108666.msg49993324#msg49993324

P.S. the later modify time on that post is a mod (as it clearly says)

Your sig campaign (first post on 31-Jan) points to their web site that (still now) says "No Fees"
So there's no hiding and pretending you didn't know it said that.

[mikeywith]

Guys you turning the direction of discussion to personal b.s , a concern has been raised, and it's being handled. almost half of these comments are off-topic and should be deleted IMO.

[kano]

Guys you turning the direction of discussion to personal b.s , a concern has been raised, and it's being handled. almost half of these comments are off-topics and should be deleted IMO.

Well considering how many of his posts include exactly that, trashing me, and thus me making justified replies to them, you'd probably have to delete most of the thread starting with and including his first reply to me, since my reply to his first post is on topic.

As for Og, I trashed his first post since at the time he made the post it was STILL blatantly obvious it was a lie, and even clear in his post subject.
His campaign thread starts with a copy of the SigmaPool info so might even have said the same thing or similar (before being edited recently) as this thread said at the start.

I stated at the start of the thread that SigmaPool was falsely advertising 'No Fees' and they said

...
P.S. The 1% fee you are talking about is not a fee
...

So I replied to that again, which SigmaPool has ignored - their site still says "No Fee"

Any posts after that should know the pool fee statement is false if they don't understand how pool payouts work.
(and anyone who does understand how pool payouts work will know it's false)

[mikeywith]

unless one of you deleted their comments then this is all i found

While I think complaining about users paying the Bitcoin network fee and trying to claim that is somehow the pool lying about charging fees is a bit of a stretch, keeping transaction fees should be noted somewhere if that is what is occurring.  I have sent Sigma a message asking him to make this point clear on his site, at the very least with an asterisk next to his 0 fees claim explaining his logic.  Hopefully we see some more transparency here in the coming days/weeks, or I may shut down the signature campaign.  

There's still the issue of running a PPS pool and the REQUIRED balance and fees to reduce the risk of it going broke and the losses for those mining if that happens.
Try to remember back 6 & 5 years ago how that went with MtRed and BitAffNet ... ... ... ... ...

However, "no fees" is a plain and simple lie and you know it.
A 100% PPS pool payout is keeping transaction fees.
Charging a payout fee for all payouts is also a fee.

There is no stretch, you clearly are only interested in being paid for a campaign.
So clearly you can be easily bought ...

a concern has been raised, he as a campaign manager replied and said he did contact sigma and asked them to solve that issue, what you did later was personally attacking him for "being easily bought".

it was you who shifted the whole direction of this discussion to pure bullshit that benefits nobody, sorry !  i have nothing against you kano, but it's clear as day that it was you who started this drama.

now i hope we all can move on from here and stay on topic.

[kano]

...
it was you who shifted the whole direction of this discussion to pure bullshit that benefits nobody, sorry !  i have nothing against you kano, but it's clear as day that it was you who started this drama.
...

Not sure if you are implying you don't understand that saying 100% PPS does NOT mean No Fee?
He ran a pool. Need I say more?

[mikeywith]

Not sure if you are implying you don't understand that saying 100% PPS does NOT mean No Fee?

please quote a single word of me saying anything about whatever you mentioned in the above comment !

i stated that you started the personal drama, you know you did, i don't understand why are you going about me understanding 100% pps or not.  

Need I say more?

you made your points a few times in the same thread. so the answer is probably NO , you don't.

[kano]

Not sure if you are implying you don't understand that saying 100% PPS does NOT mean No Fee?

please quote a single word of me saying anything about whatever you mentioned in the above comment !

i stated that you started the personal drama, you know you did, i don't understand why are you going about me understanding 100% pps or not.  

...

The thread already clearly stated from the first day that the "No Fee" was false.

Someone turns up who has accepted payment to repeat that false statement also implying that they didn't know this.
Yet their first post even clearly states the lie in the Subject.

"Re: [300 PH][BTC PPS 100%][0% FEE][EN/CN/RU] Sigmapool.com"

While I think complaining about users paying the Bitcoin network fee and trying to claim that is somehow the pool lying about charging fees is a bit of a stretch, keeping transaction fees should be noted somewhere if that is what is occurring.
...

There was nothing new about the fact that "No Fee" was false.
So yes indeed I did make (and have already stated that) there is clear issue, at the least, with him making that red bold statement above.
If you consider calling someone out (with an explanation) on accepting payment to lie about something specifically on the topic of a thread, as "personal drama", then I guess any time anyone on the forum points out on topic blatant deception and scams, their posts should be deleted since that's "personal drama"?

The "personal drama" that followed and was off topic was his constant failed attempts to trash me about various other false and unrelated things.
Thus I replied to each, though even then the majority of my replies are clearly on topic.

[mikeywith]

... then I guess any time anyone on the forum points out on topic blatant deception and scams, their posts should be deleted since that's "personal drama"?

i have clearly stated that i will tag the pool account if they do not remove the no fees lie as long as they don't reward the block fees, a few other members called out the same thing you did, the only difference between you and everyone else is that you took this matter personally and started to accuse campaign manager for being " easily bought" and then the whole personal drama started.

notice that this is the pool's thread not the signature campaign's thread, anything you have to say to the campaign manager shouldn't be here, you guys turned this topic to a complete mess.

i am not siding any of you, i am asking you to be reasonable, this is not the right place to point fingers to one another.

[MoparMiningLLC]

You do realize there is still not a single list of corrections that people want to see this pool make?  Any attempt I make to put one together is met with animosity and some jackass trying to inflate his ego.  From my understanding, people want to see the removal of the "no fees" claim from the website and this thread as well as some sort of statement that they keep transaction fees from blocks and make users pay the network fees for withdrawals.  Is that correct?  If they do those three things, is this issue resolved?  Will we all be happy?  

what you claim to be "my understanding" is exactly what has been stated as necessary action on behalf of sigma so that they are not "lying" or "misleading" about their fees. It has been stated numerous times before you asked and several times after you asked what was needed.

[OgNasty]

i have clearly stated that i will tag the pool account if they do not remove the no fees lie as long as they don't reward the block fees, a few other members called out the same thing you did, the only difference between you and everyone else is that you took this matter personally and started to accuse campaign manager for being " easily bought" and then the whole personal drama started.

I believe if they are keeping transaction fees, it should be mentioned somewhere. Regardless of where people stand on the semantics of their advertising. If that does not become transparent, I will end my involvement with the campaign. I think that is reasonable. The personal attacks seem to stem from the belief that I should not give them an opportunity to address the community’s concerns before ending my involvement with their signature campaign.

[MoparMiningLLC]

The personal attacks seem to stem from the belief that I should not give them an opportunity to address the community’s concerns before ending my involvement with their signature campaign.

I think they stem from you advertising for them before verifying the accuracy of their claims concerning their pool.

that being said, there should be no need for it get the way it did.

plain and simple Sigmapool is lying or not being clear or they are being deceitful - whichever way it wants to be said/spun.

[rifleman74]

I think they stem from you advertising for them before verifying the accuracy of their claims concerning their pool.

that being said, there should be no need for it get the way it did.

plain and simple Sigmapool is lying or not being clear or they are being deceitful - whichever way it wants to be said/spun.

DING!

[kano]

...
The personal attacks seem to stem from the belief that I should not give them an opportunity to address the community’s concerns before ending my involvement with their signature campaign.

"Personal attacks" ?

I have made an on topic claim about you regarding this pool, that you accepted payment about a lie for this pool.
It is even possible that you knew about it at the start - though your sig thread has been edited since then.
You did know about it when you posted here (since your first post subject states the lie)

You on the other hand have come up with many and various false "personal attacks" about me that also have nothing to do with this pool

[OgNasty]

"Personal attacks" ?

I have made an on topic claim about you regarding this pool, that you accepted payment about a lie for this pool.
It is even possible that you knew about it at the start - though your sig thread has been edited since then.
You did know about it when you posted here (since your first post subject states the lie)

You on the other hand have come up with many and various false "personal attacks" about me that also have nothing to do with this pool

If you had an issue with the campaign, you could’ve sent me a PM alerting me. Saying I can be bought because I am willing to help users here by offering various services is ignorant and foolish. It was an unnecessary shot at me as I became aware of this issue. At least put up the 10 BTC to become a Donator here if you want to look down and speak negatively about my, “easy to buy "Legendary" account.”

I’ve been told the no fees claim would be removed from the website and am awaiting the update.

[OgNasty]

The mention of no fees has been removed from the website. I apologize to those who felt I should have done more and thank those who were instrumental in having this change made. Perhaps down the line we will get a more detailed description of how the pool rewards are distributed.

[MoparMiningLLC]

The mention of no fees has been removed from the website. I apologize to those who felt I should have done more and thank those who were instrumental in having this change made. Perhaps down the line we will get a more detailed description of how the pool rewards are distributed.

they should have the detailed description up front, not down the road though. but yes, I do see that the zero fees has been removed.

[Artemis3]

The mention of no fees has been removed from the website. I apologize to those who felt I should have done more and thank those who were instrumental in having this change made. Perhaps down the line we will get a more detailed description of how the pool rewards are distributed.

This is good news. But why did he not bother answering in this thread using his own account? He needs to clear legitimate doubts if he wants to gain the trust of the community. Not with slogans, but with transparency.

OgNasty is only a signature manager, the Sigmapool operator -SigmaPool- should have been the one addressed here.

[mikeywith]

A year and a half later, the pool has not gone bankrupt and they now have close to 700PH, I wonder what went wrong with Kano's math. 

[philipma1957]

A year and a half later, the pool has not gone bankrupt and they now have close to 700PH, I wonder what went wrong with Kano's math. 

You are wrong he did the math perfectly.

But he misapplied the formula which I clearly explained to him which is the cause of him hating and attacking me.

The white paper of Meni Rosenfeld  the creator of the formula that kano correctly applied states the bigger the pool is the greater the risk is.

Since the pool is only 700ph which is around .4% of the network they simply can't fall behind 4000 coins.

.4% =   .576 blocks a day. back then it would be 7.2 coins a day. now it would be 3.6 coins a day

so in order to fall 4000 coins behind they would need to miss blocks 600 days in a row to get to lose 4000 coins back then

or 3.6 x 600 to lose 2000 coins now.

   This is the start of my war with kano.  Sad so sad.

[mikeywith]

It's worth saying that the pool now charges 2.5% fees, and they moved from PPS to FPPS, but they didn't bother updating this in the forum, apparently just like most other pools they use the forum to get a kick-start and once they start making money they stop caring about the forum.

Which means they now operate in a less-risk environment and even by strictly following Meni's numbers they now require a lot less coins.

(6.25 *ln 1000) / (2*0.025) = 863 BTC to have a 0.1% chance going bankrupt, Meni's study is pretty accurate but very conservative, so as far as your debate with Kano I can't take sides because your approach is more of a real-life scnerio where it's very unlikely for a pool to not hit a block for 600 days while Kano's approach strictly counts on the reserve formula, now if I was to ever run a PPS pool I would certainly go by the book and apply Meni's math (which means I will never be able to run such a pool), but seeing pools like Sigma which most likely didn't have over 4000 coins when they started, it's a proof that the standards can be lowered, but as a miner I rather mine to a PPS pool which I know have a ton of reserves to reduce my risk.

[Philipma1957cellphone]

I simply read Meni's white paper which says the larger percent of the network the greater the risk.   My real world numbers show that more then ten percent of the network would chew up the reserve far more quickly then under 1 % of the network would chew up the reserve number kano used.  It quickly degenerated into a name calling and now it most likely will never be repaired.

Btw the pool decided to switch and survived so maybe kano was right about them not being able to sustain the payout long term.

Does not matter much as the damage is done.