GPUMAX | The Bitcoin Mining Marketplace

[Fred26]

Sorry for being a newb at this, but from what it sounds like, I'm selling my hashing power through GPUMAX to some random, that random is then using my hashing power to produce shares for the pool which is paying out highest?

And this payout probability and junk can be determined by shit I don't know yet?

is that about the long and short of it?

Pretty much.

Thank you Rjk!

Okay, so here's another question, isn't that sort of ripping everyone off? i.e. random mentioned above is getting paid disproportionately more per share, when those more valuable shares should be getting spread around the people who are on that pool?
so the people simply mining for a pool are now getting their well paying shares sniped by us?

Don't get me wrong, if no one else sees a problem with this, and this being a capitalist planet, I'm happy getting  ~0.000046 BTC per share for the time being.

Thank you!

[rjk]

Okay, so here's another question, isn't that sort of ripping everyone off? i.e. random mentioned above is getting paid disproportionately more per share, when those more valuable shares should be getting spread around the people who are on that pool?
so the people simply mining for a pool are now getting their well paying shares sniped by us?

Don't get me wrong, if no one else sees a problem with this, and this being a capitalist planet, I'm happy getting  ~0.000046 BTC per share for the time being.

Thank you!

If you don't like the idea of enriching someone else, you are free to mine a a real pool that pays out with a fair algorithm, such as DGM. But you won't be paid as much.

[siggy]

pps price keeps dropping, it has lost almost 6% since the change. As others have stated the average problem seems to be a negative feedback cycle, priced out miners lower their pps rate to get public work, which impacts the average causing other miners to be priced out, so they lower their pps rate, which further lowers the average, etc etc.

As it should be... free market should set the price.

Pirate,  is there any way we could convince you to disclose the pricing algorithm?  As stated above, my concern is that we are getting caught in a negative feedback loop.  If the algorithm never allows for 100% of sellers to be getting public work, the price is going to just keep dropping as those who are on the top end keep chasing public work by lowering their prices.  This will cause new sellers to be priced out, causing them to lower their price, causing new sellers to be priced out, etc, etc, ad infinitum.   

If this is the case, this isn't a free market situation.  There will be sellers willing to sell shares at a price buyers want to puchase shares, but they will never be allowed to meet due to systemic limitations.

Sigg

[RoloTonyBrownTown]

Simply lowering your asking price doesn't seem to work on it's own, so I assume there's more to it than that.  I've set mine pretty low, just to test things, and I'm not getting any bites...

[pirateat40]

pps price keeps dropping, it has lost almost 6% since the change. As others have stated the average problem seems to be a negative feedback cycle, priced out miners lower their pps rate to get public work, which impacts the average causing other miners to be priced out, so they lower their pps rate, which further lowers the average, etc etc.

As it should be... free market should set the price.

Pirate,  is there any way we could convince you to disclose the pricing algorithm?  As stated above, my concern is that we are getting caught in a negative feedback loop.  If the algorithm never allows for 100% of sellers to be getting public work, the price is going to just keep dropping as those who are on the top end keep chasing public work by lowering their prices.  This will cause new sellers to be priced out, causing them to lower their price, causing new sellers to be priced out, etc, etc, ad infinitum.   

If this is the case, this isn't a free market situation.  There will be sellers willing to sell shares at a price buyers want to puchase shares, but they will never be allowed to meet due to systemic limitations.

Sigg

No, we don't disclose any more information than we've already outlined.   This is just the normal rebalancing that happens after a couple major players make changes and it takes time to settle like it did before.  If everyone would set the lowest they're willing to pay for shares this wouldn't be an issue but everyone wants to make the most they can and causes things like this.

Sorry I couldn't be more help.

[pirateat40]

Simply lowering your asking price doesn't seem to work on it's own, so I assume there's more to it than that.  I've set mine pretty low, just to test things, and I'm not getting any bites...

You're not getting leased shares or changing the purchase price?

[RoloTonyBrownTown]

Simply lowering your asking price doesn't seem to work on it's own, so I assume there's more to it than that.  I've set mine pretty low, just to test things, and I'm not getting any bites...

You're not getting leased shares or changing the purchase price?

Not getting any leased shares

[pirateat40]

Simply lowering your asking price doesn't seem to work on it's own, so I assume there's more to it than that.  I've set mine pretty low, just to test things, and I'm not getting any bites...

You're not getting leased shares or changing the purchase price?

Not getting any leased shares

Then either you are missing a 0 in your PPS price or just asking way to much. 

[RoloTonyBrownTown]

Simply lowering your asking price doesn't seem to work on it's own, so I assume there's more to it than that.  I've set mine pretty low, just to test things, and I'm not getting any bites...

You're not getting leased shares or changing the purchase price?

Not getting any leased shares

Then either you are missing a 0 in your PPS price or just asking way to much. 

Lol, it was the former    

[siggy]

No, we don't disclose any more information than we've already outlined.   This is just the normal rebalancing that happens after a couple major players make changes and it takes time to settle like it did before.  If everyone would set the lowest they're willing to pay for shares this wouldn't be an issue but everyone wants to make the most they can and causes things like this.

Sorry I couldn't be more help.

I'd be happy to set my lowest sell price and not muck with it if the price I got was the actual purchase price minus GPUMAX's (assumed) ~10% fee.   As it is, it appears that what we actually get when we sell is always the exact price we set as our "lowest" price.  So instead of "lowest" it is really "only".

I think it would be better to base the purchase price on buyer demand than have it calculated on seller's price.  Only the buyer's know where it is profitable to purchase, while for sellers, everyone knows we will most likely sell at anything above 101% PPS.  Yet it is up to us sellers to guess 1) what the buyers are willing to pay, and 2) are we not on public because there are no buyers? or are we not on public because GPUMAX isn't processing leases at the moment? 

Sellers are wanting to maximize their profits, under the current environment the only way for us to do that is to keep mucking with our sell prices to adjust to purchase price.  Unless you address my first point above, you will never see a situation where sellers will just set their lowest acceptable price and let it ride.

At the _VERY_ least.. a real time indicator of "now processing public shares" on the website would take some of the guesswork out of things for us. 

Now, having said all the above, I still think GPUMAX is the best thing since sliced bread..  I'm just trying to get some yummy jelly added to the mix

Sigg

[QuantumFoam]

As it should be... free market should set the price.

I said nothing about preventing a free market. My concern is the continued price drop being the result of a negative feedback loop, as siggy explained in more detail. The other concern is the need to continually monitor the site to ensure you are getting the best rate without being priced out. The ideal solution would be to automate this process without contributing to a downward chain reaction in the pps rate.

[drakahn]

0.000047 seems to work

[Fred26]

Okay, so here's another question, isn't that sort of ripping everyone off? i.e. random mentioned above is getting paid disproportionately more per share, when those more valuable shares should be getting spread around the people who are on that pool?
so the people simply mining for a pool are now getting their well paying shares sniped by us?

Don't get me wrong, if no one else sees a problem with this, and this being a capitalist planet, I'm happy getting  ~0.000046 BTC per share for the time being.

Thank you!

If you don't like the idea of enriching someone else, you are free to mine a a real pool that pays out with a fair algorithm, such as DGM. But you won't be paid as much.

Like I said, I'm happy to come along for the ride, if you guys are getting 0.00005 btc per share or 30 billion, I'm better off getting my 0.000046 than 0.000030 =/

And I know that there is risk involved, and that you win some and loose some, and allowing others to make profit is actually one of the things I try to do as often as possible, I'm just asking questions about what we are actually doing here. I'm not trying to have a dig at anyone, and I know I can take my massive 600Mh/s E-penis and point it at another pool, I'm not trying to be rude, I just suck at anything that isn't sarcasm =(

I'm just trying to get a better comprehension of which cog I am in which machine, and if I'm prepared to be that cog. Or if I can see something that can change or help the direction of the whole machine =D

I was simply trying to clarify what other people are doing with my hash power, and how it affects the bigger picture.

Thank you very much for your information Rjk, I have read many of your posts to date, and I honestly do hope that, if you purchased shares through gpumax, you bought some of mine and made profit on them. Your information and input into this forum is worth more than BTC =D

[Fred26]

0.000047 seems to work

I second that! has been for a bit now.

Still getting connection problems
they're still stopping my backup pools from working
still getting paid
still don't really care =D

Cheers for the site Pirate!

[JL421]

Ya, I just can't connect at all over the last few days. Phoenix 2 gives a cannot connect to backend switching to backup. It used to work, just suddenly it stopped...

[Fred26]

Ya, I just can't connect at all over the last few days. Phoenix 2 gives a cannot connect to backend switching to backup. It used to work, just suddenly it stopped...

I keep getting long poll IO errors!
Pretty sure it's Gpumax doing silly things, has been real bad for the last few days =/

[RoloTonyBrownTown]

Yeah, there are certainly connection issues (right now actually).

[drakahn]

0.000047 seems to work

I second that! has been for a bit now.

Still getting connection problems
they're still stopping my backup pools from working
still getting paid
still don't really care =D

Cheers for the site Pirate!

Stopped now, is anyone getting any at a lower price?

[TheSeven]

Is this even worth subscribing for a beta invitation? Or is there a backlog of several years anyway?
Would be nice to show that on the registration form.

Years, NO... Maybe just 13 months.  Nah, we stopped invited due to maxing out our system.  We should be able to get everyone on within a week.

Hm, apparently not, from what it looks like?

[Fred26]

Trying at 40, but nothing.
yeah this is a bit bullshit.
Might just leave it at 47 for the time being and leave it at that =/