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)