Non Merged Mining Pools ?

[Inaba]

Where are you guys seeing network stats for NMC?

[1713585316]

1713585316

[1713585316]

1713585316

[1713585316]

1713585316

[1713585316]

1713585316

[DeathAndTaxes]

Where are you guys seeing network stats for NMC?

http://dot-bit.org/tools/nextDifficulty.php

[c_k]

Please someone with a clue correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't your miner drop work and not submit it when it receives a long poll when it's already doing some work?

And extra long polls from merged mining then cause you to submit less work?

[DeathAndTaxes]

Please someone with a clue correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't your miner drop work and not submit it when it receives a long poll when it's already doing some work?

And extra long polls from merged mining then cause you to submit less work?

Potentially.  If you want to ensure you submit all work (even possibly stale ones) cgminer has an option "--submit-stale".  Work that is truly stale will report as stale on the server so reported stale count increasing (but that is simply moving work from dropped locally to rejected as stale).

If any of that work is valid then you will gain those shares.  Still the effect is very small depending on intensity we are talking about dropping "maybe" 1/64th of a share every extra LP.  On cgminer w/ intensity = 9 and vectors=4 the GPU processes 1/64th of the nonce range with each iteration.  At most you lose one iteration of work per "extra" LP.   With NMC difficulty so high there is only roughly 1 extra LP per BTC block.  So 1/64*6*24 = 2 shares per GPU per day.  At lower intensity of vectors it would be less.  We are talking about maybe a penny per week.

The only way to do it better would be a more comprehensive miner protocol.  If the protocol was expanded to have "LP submit work" vs "LP drop work" then miners could do "the right thing".  The server always has more info than the miner.   The alternative would be "smart miners" (which also solves the issue of large pools).  The miner constructs its own block headers indepdently thus it would always know if work is still "partially good" and submit accordingly.

TL/DR version.
The effect is small but if you are worried use cgminer w/ "--submit-stale" option.  It increases potential stales on the server (resulting in maybe 1% higher server load) but will ensure you get credit for all shares.

[martychubbs]

It is just not submitted to the Namecoind in the first place, so there's no test as to whether or not it's a valid share.  It's kind of a pointless feature IMHO, but I had a couple people ask for it.  Maybe some people just hate Namecoin?

At Eclipse, you have the option of turning off your Merged Mining if you want.  https://eclipsemc.com

I think that, if somebody turn off merged mining, the pool can turn it on for itself.
So, for every user with NMC off, the pool will in fact, not disable the merged mining and stay with that namecoins.

I guess you didnt read down a little before you posted? or are you making very strong unsubstantiated accusations?

and at the end of the day if it is making NO difference to BTC earnings and the MINER choses not to want nmc on a MM pool what is so bad about them remaining in the pool wallet. seems too many miners expect pools to be charities....

http://eligius.st/wiki/index.php/FAQ has an interestring slant on it - register for nmc or the pool keeps them

of course the simple way to avoid these issues is mine on a non-MM pool (oh hang on i remember they secretly mine NMC but keep them all)- well according to some that post in these forums...

so much crap in these forums, i would have expected better from someone tagged as "staff"

I don't think ThiagoCMC was making any accusations, rather an optimization suggestion. He said that Eclipse can, instead of not doing MM for opt-outers as is the current policy, do MM and keep the NMC either for the operator or for the other miners.

Personally I think it is reasonable to expect that if you disable MM then your shares will not be used for MM at all.

Workers are not to control production in a capitalist system like a pool in business.  The market, or worker, will choose a pool that offers the best value.  The minute you introduce communism into your business, you will become inefficient and thus provide less value to the workers.  Wasting productive power due to an irrational argument from a profit side is inefficient.  No profit, no pool.

The intelligentsia often forget we are dealing with naturally instinctive people and not numbers...

So, I disagree with your opinion from a socio-economical perspective.  Inaba's example is a good case in point.

[Meni Rosenfeld]

Workers are not to control production in a capitalist system like a pool in business.  The market, or worker, will choose a pool that offers the best value.  The minute you introduce communism into your business, you will become inefficient and thus provide less value to the workers.  Wasting productive power due to an irrational argument from a profit side is inefficient.  No profit, no pool.

The intelligentsia often forget we are dealing with naturally instinctive people and not numbers...

So, I disagree with your opinion from a socio-economical perspective.  Inaba's example is a good case in point.

Miners are the customers of a pool. Running an honest business means maximizing your profits under the constraint that you do not deliberately mislead your customers - which is exactly what you're doing when you do merged mining when turned off by the miner, unless you've gone to some efforts to clarify this is what you do.

If someone thinks he can increase his profits by running a dishonest business, I can only argue with him on ethical grounds, not socio-economical.

[martychubbs]

Workers are not to control production in a capitalist system like a pool in business.  The market, or worker, will choose a pool that offers the best value.  The minute you introduce communism into your business, you will become inefficient and thus provide less value to the workers.  Wasting productive power due to an irrational argument from a profit side is inefficient.  No profit, no pool.

The intelligentsia often forget we are dealing with naturally instinctive people and not numbers...

So, I disagree with your opinion from a socio-economical perspective.  Inaba's example is a good case in point.

Miners are the customers of a pool. Running an honest business means maximizing your profits under the constraint that you do not deliberately mislead your customers - which is exactly what you're doing when you do merged mining when turned off by the miner, unless you've gone to some efforts to clarify this is what you do.

If someone thinks he can increase his profits by running a dishonest business, I can only argue with him on ethical grounds, not socio-economical.

Sure, that cool.  I just finished the documentary on the Russian revolution with Netflix, so it was fresh on my mind.  Bastards...