Neighbourhood Pool Watch

[Smoovious]

something else to keep in mind is that work lasts longer than 1 round, sometimes work lasts 2-5 blocks later. so the work is distributed, pps comparisons are somewhat skewed because of this. the pps is going to be lower, but has momentum. so if you quit, you still get paid for a while even though your hashrate is zero.

Can you explain this in more detail? What work do you mean is lasting more than one round?

our shares are persistent over a period of time... I believe it is for 24 hours, or the expected amount of work it would take to find 3 blocks, whichever is lower. (better explained by others)

So, if I stop mining, while my payout is 0.0377... the shares I have persist until they fall off the end of the chain in a FIFO method. If the pool finds 2 blocks, within the next 12 hours, I would get a payout for those 2 blocks, based on my shares that haven't fallen off of the share chain yet.

Perhaps this is what the poster meant by work lasting longer than a round?

-- Smoov

[1713299844]

1713299844

[1713299844]

1713299844

[1713299844]

1713299844

[1713299844]

1713299844

[1713299844]

1713299844

[check_status]

P2pool's actual payout per gigahash per day for the period 8/24/11-9/23/11 or 31 days

Average daily hashrate: 9 GH/s
# Blocks found: 6

6 * 50 / 9 = 33.33333 / 31 = ⊅1.075269 per gigahash per day

Now all that is needed is the difficulty factor for the same period to calculate expected value, then compare.

[organofcorti]

Get the difficulty from theymos' baby:

http://blockexplorer.com/q/nethash

Post an update when you're done?

[check_status]

Get the difficulty from theymos' baby:

http://blockexplorer.com/q/nethash

Post an update when you're done?

Unfortunately, it isn't in n00bese, so I would need another source for the difficulty factor.

[rjk]

Get the difficulty from theymos' baby:

http://blockexplorer.com/q/nethash

Post an update when you're done?

Unfortunately, it isn't in n00bese, so I would need another source for the difficulty factor.

Difficulty is the fourth column from the right.

[organofcorti]

Get the difficulty from theymos' baby:

http://blockexplorer.com/q/nethash

Post an update when you're done?

Unfortunately, it isn't in n00bese, so I would need another source for the difficulty factor.

Just copy paste the page into notepad, save as "nethash.csv" and then open with Excel. It will open to a standard csv spread sheet.

Otherwise just use my data here:

http://pastebin.com/g2ESh1Uf

which is also a .csv

Check a few datapoints against the the data at p2Pool.info/blocks to satisfy yourself it's the same dataset as on p2Pool.info. Eaxch block is tagged with difficulty.

[check_status]

It's not out of line at all. There is a preponderance of evidence of organofcorti's p2pool posts where he flat out says or implies p2pool is the least profitable pool.

Please provide a link to a post where I flat out say that p2Pool is the least profitable pool.

Below are 2 examples out of many that show organofcorti talking about p2pool earnings in relation to other pools:

you're earning less than at a PPS pool.

and

you should continue mining at p2Pool, despite the lower earnings.

I have provided 2 samples, 7 day recent and a 31 day historical that show his assertions are nonsense. organofcorti's assessment of p2pool profitability is erroneous, designed to confound and dishearten the uninformed.

[kano]

It's not out of line at all. There is a preponderance of evidence of organofcorti's p2pool posts where he flat out says or implies p2pool is the least profitable pool.

Please provide a link to a post where I flat out say that p2Pool is the least profitable pool.

Below are 2 examples out of many that show organofcorti talking about p2pool earnings in relation to other pools:

you're earning less than at a PPS pool.

and

you should continue mining at p2Pool, despite the lower earnings.

I have provided 2 samples, 7 day recent and a 31 day historical that show his assertions are nonsense. organofcorti's assessment of p2pool profitability is erroneous, designed to confound and dishearten the uninformed.

Since you feel the need to argue in a thread dealing with statistics ... but you are ignoring that fact ...
Look up and learn all about these 2 words in detail and how they relate to statistics:
Sample, Population.
If you still disagree with the discussion about p2pool after that, then it just means you didn't understand what you read, so read it again.

[organofcorti]

Below are 2 examples out of many that show organofcorti talking about p2pool earnings in relation to other pools:

you're earning less than at a PPS pool.

and

you should continue mining at p2Pool, despite the lower earnings.

I have provided 2 samples, 7 day recent and a 31 day historical that show his assertions are nonsense. organofcorti's assessment of p2pool profitability is erroneous, designed to confound and dishearten the uninformed.

check_status, I'm happy for criticism and if I'm wrong I'll admit it and change my results. That's what thinking people do: read, learn, and change their minds when the facts show them to be wrong. Unfortunately you are not answering an important question which is: Where am I wrong?

As far as your quotes go: since you didn't provide links I'm providing the full statements for context. I assume these are the quotes you are referring to, since I couldn't find those exact statements.

The pool has been exceedingly lucky since the 14th June, with a mean round length of 0.6975. This means you'll get paid much more than PPS.

However, this is a reflection of the variance inherent in bitcoin mining. If you recorded your fortnightly average, you'd find it much less than PPS, since the average p2Pool roundlength for the last two weeks was 1.204.

The average round length since the start of p2Pool is about 1.11. So, since the start of p2Pool, average miner earnings are less than PPS.

P2pool have few BIG advantages over other pools, thats why I support it, not only for income.

And that's the reason you should continue mining at p2Pool, despite the lower earnings. I have no doubt that the current round length problem will be fixed eventually, but at the moment you are paying a price for the p2Pool advantages.

I haven't written anything there that I have not proven. If you have a problem with the math, point it out to me. I provided you links with p2Pools round history and also to the data I used in handy .csv format. Even using Excel I can't see a quick mean of round length / D taking more than 10 minutes. Did you complete your own analysis? What was the result?

Kano brings up a good point. I'm talking about average earnings since the start of the pool. In fact I already explained this, as you already know from the first quote above.

[organofcorti]

I've made some changes to the post, along the lines of Meni's comments. Apart from a few small changes in the main text, I changed the first points of the conclusion to:

• Although p2Pool's round lengths appear normally distributed, they have a mean value of 1.104D, and are greater than the expected value of D with 95% confidence. This is could be very "bad luck" but we cannot discount the possibility of the greater round lengths being inherent in the pool.  However, as Meni Rosenfeld points out there is no known mechanism by which this could occur.
• A possibility is that the mechanism by which the equivalent number of D 1 shares are estimated could be faulty. This could mean the actual round lengths could be closer to the expected round lengths, and miner payouts woud not have been much less (or any less) than expected.
• Orphan production rate does not appear to correlate with changes in P2pool hashrate....
• ........

I think what I'm getting down to, is... perhaps instead of looking to the average pool results to find normal, the pool results, should be considered above-normal instead of the baseline, which would be pure solo mining on a more distributed network?

-- Smoov

Good idea. As soon as I have enough data, in the Weekly pool statistics thread I'm adding charts showing

Code:

[ % orphans / % network orphans ]

for each for which pool I can get orphan data. I started to include % orphans for each pool in the weekly stats table in the last post.


Finally, Miner Earnings Insurance for DeepBit is here! If you don't mine on DeepBit give it a read anyway. I will offer the same service to other smaller pools if there are miners who want it.

[flower1024]

maybe many p2pool miners have the problem with "LOST CONTACT WITH BITCOIND FOR 1.3min"
^^ i think this could explain longer round lengths

is there any solution for this problem? will bitcoin0.7 help? does bitcoin0.7 even work with p2pool?

[organofcorti]

maybe many p2pool miners have the problem with "LOST CONTACT WITH BITCOIND FOR 1.3min"
^^ i think this could explain longer round lengths

is there any solution for this problem? will bitcoin0.7 help? does bitcoin0.7 even work with p2pool?

I'm not sure how this would lead to longer round lengths - as far as I know, the equivalent D 1 shares are calculated using the pool hashrate, which is in turn calculated using the submitted variable difficulty shares.

I'm probably wrong though - can you explain the above in a bit more detail?

As far as solutions to the "LOST CONTACT WITH BITCOIND" problem goes, I'll leave that to the p2Pool community - I really don't know, sorry.

[flower1024]

maybe many p2pool miners have the problem with "LOST CONTACT WITH BITCOIND FOR 1.3min"
^^ i think this could explain longer round lengths

is there any solution for this problem? will bitcoin0.7 help? does bitcoin0.7 even work with p2pool?

I'm not sure how this would lead to longer round lengths - as far as I know, the equivalent D 1 shares are calculated using the pool hashrate, which is in turn calculated using the submitted variable difficulty shares.

I'm probably wrong though - can you explain the above in a bit more detail?

As far as solutions to the "LOST CONTACT WITH BITCOIND" problem goes, I'll leave that to the p2Pool community - I really don't know, sorry.

i thought you meant "time" by "round length".
but if this refers to submitted shares i just dont know.

[organofcorti]

i thought you meant "time" by "round length".
but if this refers to submitted shares i just dont know.

We really have to standardise notation, eh? Yes, I was referring to total round shares.

For anyone who doesn't follow, if round duration was increased this would lead to a lower pool hashrate overall, and reduced earnings for miners - but not increased numbers of shares per round.

[rav3n_pl]

maybe many p2pool miners have the problem with "LOST CONTACT WITH BITCOIND FOR 1.3min"
^^ i think this could explain longer round lengths

is there any solution for this problem? will bitcoin0.7 help? does bitcoin0.7 even work with p2pool?

It is 0.6.2 issue, load 0.6.99 and it is gone.

[rjk]

maybe many p2pool miners have the problem with "LOST CONTACT WITH BITCOIND FOR 1.3min"
^^ i think this could explain longer round lengths

is there any solution for this problem? will bitcoin0.7 help? does bitcoin0.7 even work with p2pool?

It is 0.6.2 issue, load 0.6.99 and it is gone.

0.6.3 has been released, I assume it also contains the fix.

[check_status]

]Since you feel the need to argue in a thread dealing with statistics ... but you are ignoring that fact ...
Look up and learn all about these 2 words in detail and how they relate to statistics:
Sample, Population.

I know that statistics can be skewed to promote a particular view. As a matter of fact, statistics classes teach about representing perspectives with results, in the way election campaigns do or marketers.
What value is there for statistics when 5th or 6th grade math is sufficient to prove organofcorti's statements are erroneous.
Using statistics to determine profitability for p2pool would be like trying to open a jar of jelly with a sledge hammer. Sure you can do it, but it is way more than is required to accomplish the task.

[Smoovious]

]Since you feel the need to argue in a thread dealing with statistics ... but you are ignoring that fact ...
Look up and learn all about these 2 words in detail and how they relate to statistics:
Sample, Population.

I know that statistics can be skewed to promote a particular view. As a matter of fact, statistics classes teach about representing perspectives with results, in the way election campaigns do or marketers.
What value is there for statistics when 5th or 6th grade math is sufficient to prove organofcorti's statements are erroneous.
Using statistics to determine profitability for p2pool would be like trying to open a jar of jelly with a sledge hammer. Sure you can do it, but it is way more than is required to accomplish the task.

Then actually prove them wrong...

Nothing wrong with disagreeing with his analysis, but you have to counter it with analysis of your own, that you two can pick apart and justify. This is how a scientific method works. He has his theory, and now it is up to his dissenters, to try and tear it apart to prove it in error.

So far, I haven't seen any comparable analysis from your side yet. So... put up or shut up?

-- Smoov

[rav3n_pl]

Smoov, you have exact same thing in your stats:
week:
Local rate reflected in shares: 152
Local rate: 132 (+15%)
Month: 144/130 (+10%)

Looks to me, that "smaller" miners (under 500MH/s, maybe higher too) are "overscored".
Because there is alot of small miners in pool it can affect global pool stats alot.
Pool rate and "expected time" is calculated from share rate.
If share rate vs "real" hash rate vs predicted time vs real time is overcalculated (probably counted from block to block) all stats presented on site are inaccurate.

Maybe only flaw in P2pool luck is some odd underestimation?

[Smoovious]

There are times where I get no payouts on a block, because I haven't been able to get a share for more than 24 hours, too.

Pointing at my own tiny contribution is useless for statistical comparison. The sample is way too small, and margin for error too great, to make any reasonable analysis based on a random sample (which pointing to one peer, as representative of the whole, isn't random). Additionally, my own stats aren't stable. I do not operate a dedicated mining rig, so my mining is competing with all of the other programs I'm using too. Some have a high diskio, some use the GPU more than others, and I occasionally turn off my BTC mining entirely for periods of time. My stats would not be a good choice for analysis, by themselves. No reliable 'control'.

The original analysis took the entire run of p2pool into account, no sample. Can't get more accurate than a 100% sample, so now, it is about the interpretation and methodology of how the analysis was done.

The dissenting opinion of the analysis already presented, hasn't offered their own analysis to have a debate with. Until that happens, there isn't any point in arguing for or against the original analysis.

Give me facts... leave the spin to the politicians.

-- Smoov