[18 GH][0% Fee] A1BITCOINPOOL.COM 20 BTC BONUS PROPORTIONAL POOL

[organofcorti]

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

I think mostly people use the N in PPLNS as shorthand for N*D shares, not N shares.

[1714156248]

1714156248

[1714156248]

1714156248

[1714156248]

1714156248

[1714156248]

1714156248

[1714156248]

1714156248

[sadpandatech]

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.

yea, yea. I knew that someone wold come and say that. Guess that's what I get for not spelling it out..

How often does someone who has enough hash rate to hop profitably really have any significant downtime? A safe measure is adjusting the % of hash rate tolerance and the time tolerance. We also have the benefit of having a human checking such things. I'd like to think the pool op would not punish his highest hashers if they had a situation that would trigger a drop of their shares. It would be pretty obvious if the same person just happened to have 'problems' several times in a row after acquiring the optimal shares.

yes, other options require less human interaction. But prop pays for luck, and if it can be made to work then it is worth it imho.

[organofcorti]

How often does someone who has enough hash rate to hop profitably really have any significant downtime?n it is worth it imho.

Hop profitably or mine on a pool profitably. If you really meant 'hop', I don't understand what you're saying. Which probably says more about me than you, but still - erklären Sie mir bitte?

[DeathAndTaxes]

How often does someone who has enough hash rate to hop profitably really have any significant downtime? A safe measure is adjusting the % of hash rate tolerance and the time tolerance. We also have the benefit of having a human checking such things. I'd like to think the pool op would not punish his highest hashers if they had a situation that would trigger a drop of their shares. It would be pretty obvious if the same person just happened to have 'problems' several times in a row after acquiring the optimal shares.

So totally subjective human checking.  Yeah that would be a pool I would never use.

PPS, PPLNS, SMPPS = guaranteed hop proof AND doesn't punish miners who disconnect.
scheme full of human subjective fail = not guaranteed hop proof AND punishes miners AND subject to misuse and abuse.

Also luck = variance.  PPLNS has just as much variance as prop thus in the short run luck plays just as much of a factor in payouts.  So it "rewards" luck just as much as prop does.  Of course thinking a pool is superior based on luck is dubious.  This isn't a single hand of blackjack this is billions of shares per year.  It all evens out anyways. 

There is absolutely no purpose for prop to exist under any circumstances except to give the uninformed, clueless, and stupid the "option" of getting rapped by hoppers who annihilate their earnings.

[organofcorti]

..... of getting rapped by hoppers.....

Or hopped by rappers! Ahha ha haa! Ahem. :sigh:

Sorry about that.

[sadpandatech]

How often does someone who has enough hash rate to hop profitably really have any significant downtime?n it is worth it imho.

Hop profitably or mine on a pool profitably. If you really meant 'hop', I don't understand what you're saying. Which probably says more about me than you, but still - erklären Sie mir bitte?

die Welt kann nie wissen! well, atleast what the heck I'm babbling about, anyhows. ;p

Hop profitability; for instance someone with 200MH is not going to get enough shares before x%(40%?) of current difficulty shares to make it worth moving to another pool on prop. Someone much more proficient at the math would have to explain it better. But the jist is that on proportional unless you are one of the highest hash rates at the pool you lose your butt big time after the top hashers move on.
I'm not sure if that's what you were asking or if that is the only part I had not described very well though.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Hop profitability; for instance someone with 200MH is not going to get enough shares before x%(40%?) of current difficulty shares to make it worth moving to another pool on prop.

That is wrong.

[P4man]

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. 

And just screw everyone that produced those 3+M shares?  Im sure that will ensure a loyal following.

[organofcorti]

Hop profitability; for instance someone with 200MH is not going to get enough shares before x%(40%?) of current difficulty shares to make it worth moving to another pool on prop.

That is wrong.

Yep. You get whatever your proportion of the overall hashrate is times the hopper efficiency increase. Eg a 200Mhps hopper on a 20Ghps pool will get a reward of 0.2/20*1.6*50btc instead of 0.2/20*50btc (1.6 is a typical real world hopper efficiency increase for a round).

The expected efficiency increase due to hopping is does not change when average hashrate changes.

[sadpandatech]

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. 

And just screw everyone that produced those 3+M shares?  Im sure that will ensure a loyal following.

where did he suggest that?

[A1BITCOINPOOL]

Inaba suggested that,   I'm going to wait till after the round.  It wouldn't be fair to do it midround.

[Inaba]

I was not implying that at all.  I am saying do whatever is required to cut your losses on this round and switch.  If that means paying out the current shares as PPS and ending the round, then do it. 

Just because you are at 3M+ shares now doesn't mean a block is hitting soon... it could go another 2 shares or another 9 million shares.

[DeathAndTaxes]

I was not implying that at all.  I am saying do whatever is required to cut your losses on this round and switch.  If that means paying out the current shares as PPS and ending the round, then do it. 

Just because you are at 3M+ shares now doesn't mean a block is hitting soon... it could go another 2 shares or another 9 million shares.

PPS would be expensive and not necessary.
He could just pay 50 Btc split prop w/ no bonus and award the bonus on first real block

[dirtycat]

Inaba suggested that,   I'm going to wait till after the round.  It wouldn't be fair to do it midround.

if this round ever ends

[A1BITCOINPOOL]

Tell me about it. It just keeps going and going and going and going and going and going.

[P4man]

Which of course has nothing to do with the length of the block (expressed in shares).
That said, it seems the pool operator, who has the largest hashrate, is only mining part time on his own pool. Not that I blame him, it just shows that he himself realizes proportional is madness for unlucky blocks.

[A1BITCOINPOOL]

Im staying mostly off because I wanna let someone else get the 20 btc bonus other then me.  Also at the end of the round I'm going to PPLNS to make it more fair.  Luck just is sucking real bad right now.

[Meni Rosenfeld]

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 didn't post anything in this thread so far, because I thought the OP here was pretty forthcoming and I didn't want to give you a hard time. But... Seriously? You start one pool with proportional. Everyone tells you that's wrong. You switch to PPLNS. You start another pool with proportional. Everyone tells you that's wrong. You say you've learned from your mistakes from the first pool and stand behind your decision for proportional. And now you switch to PPLNS again? WTF?

PPS, PPLNS, SMPPS = guaranteed hop proof AND doesn't punish miners who disconnect.

SMPPS is not hopping-proof, and it has very serious problems regardless of whether one calls it hopping-proof or not.

I'm obviously of the DGM persuasion and I know very little beyond the basics of PPLNS.  I know Meni has done the math behind it and supports it as a valid, non-hoppable variety of payout schemes.  As such, I trust his judgement in those matters far beyond my own.

PPLNS is probably a lot easier to implement than DGM I would imagine.

I should point out that that PPLNS has several variants, the naive variant which is what people usually refer to is approximately hopping-proof, but not completely. The hopping-proof variant I stand behind is what I call unit-PPLNS, which I think might be nontrivial to implement. Another good variant is shift-PPLNS, which can be made hopping-proof without too much trouble, and is suitable for a parallel architecture. But even the naive variant is much, much better than proportional.

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.

I don't know how it's currently implemented in EMC but the accurate implementation is to use the block reward when calculating the score to award a worker for a submitted share.

You can set block reward to 40 and hand out the rest in some other way. It's possible to change the jackpot value but you need to sum it up correctly.

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.

Hopping-proof methods like DGM and PPLNS depend on the pool's luck, so you can have your gambling cravings satisfied. And, the choice between PPLNS and PPS has nothing at all to do with your own hashrate - variance in PPLNS depends on the pool's hashrate, not your own.

Attempts to patch proportional by penalizing disconnections do not work. They do very little against hoppers, and can punish honest miners.

[sadpandatech]

And, the choice between PPLNS and PPS has nothing at all to do with your own hashrate

I agree with everything but this. Ony in that you misquoted me. It was not pplns verse pps. It was Prop verse pps. And the reason for only really wanting to do it with atleast x amount of hash rate is just that for me the 'difficulty/luck gambling' is not worth it if I only have .1%(as example) of total hash power. Because on lucky rounds, which is what I'd be gambling for, my take would not be enough to make it worth the risk on long rounds.  I know the math formula does not change for having more hash rate but on extremely short rounds, the variance time in individual shares combined with a low hash rate adds up. I've tested it before hopping was cool.

Derek

[Inaba]

I should have been more specific in that statement.  When I said it was independent of the block reward, I meant that the block reward can be anything, it doesn't depend on it being 50 BTC.