Bitcoin Forum
December 11, 2016, 08:23:03 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: [18 GH][0% Fee] A1BITCOINPOOL.COM 20 BTC BONUS PROPORTIONAL POOL  (Read 8041 times)
A1BITCOINPOOL
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile WWW
January 27, 2012, 11:59:27 PM
 #41

Assume I have 1000GH. If I were to point it to your pool, and have an average block lenght, I would earn 20BTC bounty + my share of the block reward which would be (1.3/ 1.3+ 3.1) = 14.7 BTC. Total reward, 34.7 BTC.

Do you think Id go for it, or mine solo?



I understand what you are saying but the way I'm looking at it is if someone starts mining and gets the block pretty quick then it is a pretty decent bonus.  But once again it all falls to luck.  I'm working on a possible change,  I want to get this first block completed and go from there.  Inaba was totally right about proportional, everyone jumps in and then jumps out. 
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
P4man
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504



View Profile
January 28, 2012, 12:10:21 AM
 #42

Actually, I told you . Although its entirely possible Inaba said the same thing elsewhere, its not exactly new or rocketscience.

And unfortunately your reasoning is still flawed. Its not luck, its math. Someone finding a quick block would be far better off finding it solo. And someone with a low hashrate, who is unlikely to find a block solo, would have to feel incredibly lucky because he will be very likely to get far less than he'd get anywhere else. He too would be better off solo.

Anyway; there isnt much you can do. Only upping the bounty to 35 BTC would make it compelling again. Shows you how much there is to win from pool hopping.

sadpandatech
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504



View Profile
January 28, 2012, 12:13:48 AM
 #43

I got a quick fix for you. Anyone that drops off more than 10% of their starting mining power for more than x time. drop their shares. period. the only people that will put off is the hoppers.

If you're not excited by the idea of being an early adopter 'now', then you should come back in three or four years and either tell us "Told you it'd never work!" or join what should, by then, be a much more stable and easier-to-use system. - GA
It is being worked on by smart people. -DamienBlack
A1BITCOINPOOL
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile WWW
January 28, 2012, 12:14:53 AM
 #44

What type of pool do you like to mine at?
sadpandatech
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504



View Profile
January 28, 2012, 12:16:00 AM
 #45

What type of pool do you like to mine at?

Me?  Because of my fairly low hash rate(1.3GHs atleast for a little while longer) I prefer PPS.

If you're not excited by the idea of being an early adopter 'now', then you should come back in three or four years and either tell us "Told you it'd never work!" or join what should, by then, be a much more stable and easier-to-use system. - GA
It is being worked on by smart people. -DamienBlack
Inaba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile WWW
January 28, 2012, 12:17:55 AM
 #46

I'm sure he's referring to this thread.  The mods apparently did something with his other threads for some reason.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=58879.0

I understand the psychological need to finish the block, but you need to weigh that against the hard numbers.  You're better off cutting your losses now and not falling into the Gamblers Fallacy.  It's a hard road to hoe, as far as overcoming it psychologically, but let the math be your guide.

If you're searching these lines for a point, you've probably missed it.  There was never anything there in the first place.
sadpandatech
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504



View Profile
January 28, 2012, 12:19:44 AM
 #47

Actually, I would prefer Prop. If it were not for the hopping thing, you have that little gambling itch covered where finding blocks quick, pays better.... I would probably only do that if I had 5GH+ at present dif though.

If you're not excited by the idea of being an early adopter 'now', then you should come back in three or four years and either tell us "Told you it'd never work!" or join what should, by then, be a much more stable and easier-to-use system. - GA
It is being worked on by smart people. -DamienBlack
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1960


Poor impulse control.


View Profile WWW
January 28, 2012, 01:51:59 AM
 #48

There was a Russian pool that did a gambling thing that was fair. Nothing wrong a with a gambling payout system as long as it's transparent and can't be gamed.

There's an idea for you A1BITCOINPOOL - use a payout system that gives a slightly random payout. Eg, start with PPLNS but base the payout on 40btc instead of 50. Then split the remaining 10 btc among ten random miners. You have fair payouts with some luck involved. I'm not sure if this would work with DGM.



Bitcoin network and pool analysis 12QxPHEuxDrs7mCyGSx1iVSozTwtquDB3r
follow @oocBlog for new post notifications
Inaba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile WWW
January 28, 2012, 02:17:11 AM
 #49

It could, just set the block reward to 40 instead of 50 and DGM should be fine.

If you're searching these lines for a point, you've probably missed it.  There was never anything there in the first place.
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1960


Poor impulse control.


View Profile WWW
January 28, 2012, 02:43:30 AM
 #50

So you just don't include the other 10btc distributed randomly then? Won't that have an effect on the overall score?

Bitcoin network and pool analysis 12QxPHEuxDrs7mCyGSx1iVSozTwtquDB3r
follow @oocBlog for new post notifications
Inaba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile WWW
January 28, 2012, 02:46:32 AM
 #51

Not if it's in perpetuity.  Are you talking about a one time thing?

If you're searching these lines for a point, you've probably missed it.  There was never anything there in the first place.
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1960


Poor impulse control.


View Profile WWW
January 28, 2012, 03:15:58 AM
 #52

No, I imagine it would have to be ongoing. You just wouldn't be able to change the proportion of btc for the gamble, but that's no deal breaker.

Bitcoin network and pool analysis 12QxPHEuxDrs7mCyGSx1iVSozTwtquDB3r
follow @oocBlog for new post notifications
Inaba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile WWW
January 28, 2012, 03:28:27 AM
 #53

Right, so it would be fine for DGM to use a $block_reward = 40 instead of 50...

But now that I think about it, even if you changed the block reward it wouldn't matter. The score is independent of the block reward, it just divides up whatever you feed it as the reward appropriately, according to contribution.


Heh... you could even random(1, 50) the block reward, then award whatever isn't doled out to a lucky participant(s).


If you're searching these lines for a point, you've probably missed it.  There was never anything there in the first place.
A1BITCOINPOOL
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile WWW
January 28, 2012, 03:35:38 AM
 #54

I'm probably going to switch to pplns.  I was thinking about making n= 1/2 of the difficulty, or is that the high for n.

DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
January 28, 2012, 03:57:48 AM
 #55

I got a quick fix for you. Anyone that drops off more than 10% of their starting mining power for more than x time. drop their shares. period. the only people that will put off is the hoppers.

And anyone who loses connectivity, power outage, mining crash while they are at work.

There are proven hop proof solutions.  Instead of methods which punish non-hoppers why not just use a solution which is ... and call me crazy ... actually hop proof like PPS, PPLNS, SMPSS (and varaints) and DGM?
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1960


Poor impulse control.


View Profile WWW
January 28, 2012, 03:59:20 AM
 #56

I like n=1. Good balance of time to payout and variance. But DGM is much more configurable, and with a few pools ops now with lots of experience, and with the inventor (Meni Rosenfeld) being an active forum member, you should be able to get a bunch of advice and maybe even help.

My advice:  whichever system you choose, don't change payout methods mid round Wink





Bitcoin network and pool analysis 12QxPHEuxDrs7mCyGSx1iVSozTwtquDB3r
follow @oocBlog for new post notifications
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
January 28, 2012, 04:00:06 AM
 #57

I'm probably going to switch to pplns.  I was thinking about making n= 1/2 of the difficulty, or is that the high for n.

I believe that is a rather low n.  Most use n=difficulty.  Larger n smooths out the variance but it also can seem "unfair" to a new user.  It isn't but I believe that is why an n=1 is commonly used.  Still n= 0.5 is still hop proof just be aware that a significant number of rounds will go unpaid.  Nobody loses anything but the variance can be "rocky".

Also I agree with the post above.  Meni likely knows more about mining math, reward systems, and mining exploits than any 20 people I know.  He has an ebook which covers every reward methods with pros, cons, simulations, analysis, and lots of math.  It should be required reading for any pool op.
A1BITCOINPOOL
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile WWW
January 28, 2012, 04:07:40 AM
 #58

Thanks for the information, I will give at least a one round notice.
Inaba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile WWW
January 28, 2012, 04:12:35 AM
 #59

Err... n=1=solo mining.  n=0.5 would be... umm, kind of impossible I think?  A share is atomic.


If you're searching these lines for a point, you've probably missed it.  There was never anything there in the first place.
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
January 28, 2012, 04:14:01 AM
 #60

Err... n=1=solo mining.  n=0.5 would be... umm, kind of impossible I think?  A share is atomic.



Sorry n=1*difficulty,  n=0.5*difficulty.
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!