Bitcoin Forum
December 05, 2016, 08:59:08 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 [29] 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [350 GH/s] "Eligius" (experimental) pool: almost feeless PPS, hoppers welcome  (Read 109899 times)
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086



View Profile
June 14, 2011, 12:01:56 AM
 #561

Quote
What happens when you miss a round?  Can your "value" limit ever catch up to your actual share balance or did the pool just permanently screw you out of your prior contributions that were above your value limit?
This does explain your confusion a bit. At no time are either "value" or "earnings" reset. They both continue to accumulate. If you miss a round, you just pick up where you left off whenever you want.
But they don't accumulate at the same rate, it depends on the length of the round right?  Show up late to a long round or miss it entirely and it could take a long time to "even out" again.
You're describing pool hopping in a roundabout way. Preventing it from earning more is the whole point.

Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480971548
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480971548

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480971548
Reply with quote  #2

1480971548
Report to moderator
nyargh
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 25


View Profile
June 14, 2011, 12:10:27 AM
 #562

Quote
What happens when you miss a round?  Can your "value" limit ever catch up to your actual share balance or did the pool just permanently screw you out of your prior contributions that were above your value limit?
This does explain your confusion a bit. At no time are either "value" or "earnings" reset. They both continue to accumulate. If you miss a round, you just pick up where you left off whenever you want.
But they don't accumulate at the same rate, it depends on the length of the round right?  Show up late to a long round or miss it entirely and it could take a long time to "even out" again.
You're describing pool hopping in a roundabout way. Preventing it from earning more is the whole point.

Yes, but the penalty spans rounds, whereas you can assign a penalty for a single round by decaying early shares as the round progresses.  People have outages and various other legitimate reasons for downtime that could cause their prior honest work on short rounds to be unfairly discounted.

The end result is that the potential downside to honest miners is much greater with your system than with one like Slush's.  In his system the potential downside only extends until the end of the round.
supa
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42


View Profile
June 14, 2011, 12:17:58 AM
 #563

nyargh says, "If you miss a round your earnings are lost."

Luke-Jr says, "False."

Seems the opposite of confirming your theory...


nyargh says, "If you stop mining forever you lose your earnings."

Luke-Jr says, "You are free to continue with the accumulated earnings whenever you want."

Oh, again, in opposition.


nyargh says, "supa is a fucking retard."

supa says, "Potentially accurate."

This is the only confirmation you've received so far.  If this thread were a bitcoin.... you couldn't spend it.


I clearly see where I'm sincerely confused and humbly withdrawal myself from this thread.

JJG
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile
June 14, 2011, 01:28:29 AM
 #564

Since the terminology used seems to be confusing people, perhaps I should rename them to "x" and "y" or something?

Actually, could you just post the algorithm and formulas somewhere?
JJG
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile
June 14, 2011, 01:29:59 AM
 #565

...
I clearly see where I'm sincerely confused and humbly withdrawal myself from this thread.

'Humbly' is not among the top 10 words I would have used to describe your post.  Wink

Let's keep it civil, everyone. No need for arguments.
MoonBuggy
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 12


View Profile
June 14, 2011, 11:18:00 AM
 #566

Luke: I'm interested as to why you chose to do the 'half implementation' now? I'm only running a small-ish miner at the moment, and it looks like I've lost maybe 0.75BTC total compared to what I would've expected on the last few blocks - nothing that's going to break the bank, obviously, but a few beers' worth that I would've liked to see! I can quite see that someone with more power pointed at your pool would be less than pleased about having to wait for the retroactive credit at an uncertain time in the future.

I don't want to sound too critical - I'm well aware you're putting in a lot of effort that benefits us all - but I do think an all or nothing implementation would've been fairer.

1E2CuHoVHF3kbbXJmPwSVMrvFv8Vf7fko3
Reikoku
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140


firstbits: 1kwc1p


View Profile
June 14, 2011, 11:30:21 AM
 #567

You won't have lost anything, Luke already said that he's going to retro-actively apply the MaxPPS system once the full implementation comes in.

Rei | 1Kwc1pqv54jCg8jvnm3Gu1dqFQYhS34Bow
Trades So Far: 7
GimEEE
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112

Ride or Die


View Profile WWW
June 14, 2011, 11:57:19 AM
 #568

Luke: I'm interested as to why you chose to do the 'half implementation' now? I'm only running a small-ish miner at the moment, and it looks like I've lost maybe 0.75BTC total compared to what I would've expected on the last few blocks - nothing that's going to break the bank, obviously, but a few beers' worth that I would've liked to see! I can quite see that someone with more power pointed at your pool would be less than pleased about having to wait for the retroactive credit at an uncertain time in the future.

I don't want to sound too critical - I'm well aware you're putting in a lot of effort that benefits us all - but I do think an all or nothing implementation would've been fairer.

Yeah, exactly, the only way to regain those lost earnings is to continue slaving away indefinitely, you put it well.
Playing catch up.
Having no warning that earnings would get crippled yesterday was definitely a low blow.
Never being able to do better than average even if I stick it out makes this a humble pool to be in.
I want the possibility of doing better than average, of getting lucky and having miners deliver higher rewards.

The only way to make sure people you agree with can speak is to support the rights of people you don't agree with.
Artefact2
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 124


View Profile WWW
June 14, 2011, 01:04:51 PM
 #569

I want the possibility of doing better than average, of getting lucky and having miners deliver higher rewards.

So, you also want the possibility of allowing everyone to "cheat" by hopping between pools, reducing the reward of all the "legit" miners on the pool ? No, thanks.

A pool-biased blockchain representation, by me: pident (WTFPL)
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086



View Profile
June 14, 2011, 01:29:49 PM
 #570

Can you let us know about Max PPS system implementation at EU server beforehand?...
Europe will probably remain as-is until the big upgrade. At which time, I plan to have all the servers unified working together on a single logical pool.

I will switch to the another pool...
That's beneficial with proportional, but not so much with MaxPPS :p

Luke: I'm interested as to why you chose to do the 'half implementation' now? I'm only running a small-ish miner at the moment, and it looks like I've lost maybe 0.75BTC total compared to what I would've expected on the last few blocks - nothing that's going to break the bank, obviously, but a few beers' worth that I would've liked to see! I can quite see that someone with more power pointed at your pool would be less than pleased about having to wait for the retroactive credit at an uncertain time in the future.
Well, 1) there were a lot of people complaining about the pool hoppers, 2) I figured about a month was plenty of time for people to object to MaxPPS and/or suggest other alternatives, and 3) I realized that while I cannot retroactively change the short blocks, I can retroactively make up underpayments on long blocks.
In hindsight, I also observe another reason: 4) If it turns out to really be a problem, I can still undo the 40% implementation.

Yeah, exactly, the only way to regain those lost earnings is to continue slaving away indefinitely, you put it well.
Underpayments on the long blocks will be made up retroactively regardless of whether a miner has continued on the pool or not.

I want the possibility of doing better than average, of getting lucky and having miners deliver higher rewards.
That's the variation of mining; one purpose of pools is to eliminate variation. Maybe it's possible to make variation tolerance configurable. I have enough to implement without trying to consider the implications of changes right now. If you want a change made, document it on the wiki and get support for it.

Fakeman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154



View Profile
June 14, 2011, 01:32:56 PM
 #571

So, you also want the possibility of allowing everyone to "cheat" by hopping between pools, reducing the reward of all the "legit" miners on the pool ? No, thanks.
Right, but so far the current policy has reduced payouts on all but that one 9h33m block, and that 'long' block paid only the amount a normal block would under the old system. So until it's fixed, the 'legit' miners you speak of are actually making less than they would have otherwise. Why should anyone want to put up with that, just on the promise that things will be made right at some unspecified future date? No thanks yourself.

16wEsax3GGvJmjiXCMQUWeHdgyDG5DXa2W
Artefact2
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 124


View Profile WWW
June 14, 2011, 01:34:32 PM
 #572

Today I had a dream where all my doubts and misunderstandings were vanished. Somebody in my mind has described Max PPS to me Shocked

It's in its essence, very simple : you don't get paid as much as you should when you contribute on "lucky" blocks. You have to contribute to the "unlucky" blocks too to get all your rewards. Thus eliminating the motive for pool hoppers (that try only to contribute to "lucky" blocks).

It's also, in my opinion, better for the mood to see the reward going up more than expected on otherwise long blocks.

Now, of course, the math behind is not simple, but the principle is really clever and easily understandable.

A pool-biased blockchain representation, by me: pident (WTFPL)
Artefact2
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 124


View Profile WWW
June 14, 2011, 01:36:23 PM
 #573

So, you also want the possibility of allowing everyone to "cheat" by hopping between pools, reducing the reward of all the "legit" miners on the pool ? No, thanks.
Right, but so far the current policy has reduced payouts on all but that one 9h33m block, and that 'long' block paid only the amount a normal block would under the old system. So until it's fixed, the 'legit' miners you speak of are actually making less than they would have otherwise. Why should anyone want to put up with that, just on the promise that things will be made right at some unspecified future date? No thanks yourself.

If you don't trust the pool operator in the first place, why would you mine here ? The payouts have worked correctly for the last months, it's not like there were no plans at all to fix the current issues.

A pool-biased blockchain representation, by me: pident (WTFPL)
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086



View Profile
June 14, 2011, 01:42:43 PM
 #574

If you don't trust the pool operator in the first place, why would you mine here ? The payouts have worked correctly for the last months, it's not like there were no plans at all to fix the current issues.
To be fair, one of the ideals I've tried to make Eligius meet from the start has been not needing to trust me (immediate payout in the block, third party auditing, etc), but there's a compromise that needs to be made for certain functionality (minimum payouts, anti-pool hopping, etc). I'm not too happy with the current one-sided MaxPPS myself, and I can understand why someone wouldn't want to use it until it's finished if they don't especially trust me. Hence why Europe remains as-is.

JJG
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile
June 14, 2011, 01:46:56 PM
 #575

Today I had a dream where all my doubts and misunderstandings were vanished. Somebody in my mind has described Max PPS to me Shocked

It's in its essence, very simple : you don't get paid as much as you should when you contribute on "lucky" blocks. You have to contribute to the "unlucky" blocks too to get all your rewards. Thus eliminating the motive for pool hoppers (that try only to contribute to "lucky" blocks).

It's also, in my opinion, better for the mood to see the reward going up more than expected on otherwise long blocks.

Now, of course, the math behind is not simple, but the principle is really clever and easily understandable.

Artefact2, I think we all understand the problem of pool hopping. However, I don't think you understand the objections to this system.

The system requires the pool to withhold miners' earnings to buffer them out. However, this is done:
  • According to a secret formula, which I cannot find anywhere
  • Using a '40% complete' implementation, with a vague promise to implement the extra 60% that will make it completely fair at some unspecified later date
  • With no mechanism, as far as I can tell, for legitimate miners to ultimately cash out their 'buffered' earnings

Furthermore, this was done without warning and the explanations to date have been lacking or dismissive.
JJG
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile
June 14, 2011, 01:51:21 PM
 #576

If you don't trust the pool operator in the first place, why would you mine here ? The payouts have worked correctly for the last months, it's not like there were no plans at all to fix the current issues.
To be fair, one of the ideals I've tried to make Eligius meet from the start has been not needing to trust me (immediate payout in the block, third party auditing, etc), but there's a compromise that needs to be made for certain functionality (minimum payouts, anti-pool hopping, etc). I'm not too happy with the current one-sided MaxPPS myself, and I can understand why someone wouldn't want to use it until it's finished if they don't especially trust me. Hence why Europe remains as-is.

If you're not happy with the one-sided PPS and your miners aren't happy with the system either, then why do we have it in place?

Can you give an ETA for when the full system will be implemented? Perhaps a promise that the withheld earnings will be paid back if the system isn't implemented by that date?

As it stands, the MaxPPS system just puts an upper limit on miners' payouts. Sure, pool-hopping has been eliminated, but you've also reduced the award to legitimate miners. Kind of defeats the purpose.
Fakeman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154



View Profile
June 14, 2011, 01:51:38 PM
 #577

I had just started with Eligius and was happy with it so far, but for now I'm switching back to my second choice pool. Nothing personal, once you get the long blocks making up the difference I'll be happy to come back.

16wEsax3GGvJmjiXCMQUWeHdgyDG5DXa2W
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086



View Profile
June 14, 2011, 02:14:06 PM
 #578

If you're not happy with the one-sided PPS and your miners aren't happy with the system either, then why do we have it in place?
People weren't happy with proportional either. "One-sided PPS" is only a practical reality right now-- the actual policy is straight MaxPPS. The 40% implemented is the bare minimum needed to make the adjustment retroactive.

Can you give an ETA for when the full system will be implemented? Perhaps a promise that the withheld earnings will be paid back if the system isn't implemented by that date?
As the donations have been much less than even covering the costs of running the pool, let alone my expenses of time spent writing code, I cannot guarantee any ETA. I'm doing this basically free of charge, so for the most part it has to live in my "free time". If you want to change that, feel free to help the donation address grow to a reasonable size to cover my expenses, and then I can justify spending more "time I'm doing paid work" on it. My guess as to completion, is maybe 30 hours of work. If this is done in my spare time, it might be 1-2 weeks. In reality, USA will probably run out of disk space within a few days, so I need to hurry regardless.

As it stands, the MaxPPS system just puts an upper limit on miners' payouts. Sure, pool-hopping has been eliminated, but you've also reduced the award to legitimate miners. Kind of defeats the purpose.
With MaxPPS, the overall payout should be the same as proportional to legitimate miners.

I had just started with Eligius and was happy with it so far, but for now I'm switching back to my second choice pool. Nothing personal, once you get the long blocks making up the difference I'll be happy to come back.
You're welcome to use the Europe pool (which remains proportional) in the meantime.

Fakeman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154



View Profile
June 14, 2011, 02:39:28 PM
 #579

Had tried to use the eu server but I realized I had the address wrong, works fine now with eu.mining.eligius.st:8337.

16wEsax3GGvJmjiXCMQUWeHdgyDG5DXa2W
JJG
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile
June 14, 2011, 03:12:41 PM
 #580

If you're not happy with the one-sided PPS and your miners aren't happy with the system either, then why do we have it in place?
People weren't happy with proportional either. "One-sided PPS" is only a practical reality right now-- the actual policy is straight MaxPPS. The 40% implemented is the bare minimum needed to make the adjustment retroactive.

Only a 'practical' reality right now? What does that even mean? Bare minimum to make adjustment retroactive? Again, what does that mean?

Are you capping payments for the next 1-2 weeks (the 40%) so you've got enough of a bankroll buffer to over-pay on long blocks? If so, those who mine on your pool for the next few weeks are getting a raw deal, unless you plan to add a mechanism to pay them back for the time spent in this 40% period (which would then eliminate your buffer)

Can you give an ETA for when the full system will be implemented? Perhaps a promise that the withheld earnings will be paid back if the system isn't implemented by that date?
As the donations have been much less than even covering the costs of running the pool, let alone my expenses of time spent writing code, I cannot guarantee any ETA. I'm doing this basically free of charge, so for the most part it has to live in my "free time". If you want to change that, feel free to help the donation address grow to a reasonable size to cover my expenses, and then I can justify spending more "time I'm doing paid work" on it. My guess as to completion, is maybe 30 hours of work. If this is done in my spare time, it might be 1-2 weeks. In reality, USA will probably run out of disk space within a few days, so I need to hurry regardless.

Look, I know you're doing this entirely on a volunteer basis and we all greatly appreciate that, but if you're losing money and you don't like it, implement a fee. Deepbit charges 3% (!!) and gets away with it because it's more or less reliable, the payment system is transparent, and Tycho is responsive to and open with his miners.

Eligius is listed as an 'experimental pool', disappeared for a while when the hard drive filled up, and now has an upper limit on payments that hurts miners who use it. Now you're suggesting that the best way to get the MaxPPS system implemented in such a way that pays us fairly is to donate to you?

You might have a harder time getting donations when miners feel like they're already making a donation through these payment caps and black-box MaxPPS payout formulas.

As it stands, the MaxPPS system just puts an upper limit on miners' payouts. Sure, pool-hopping has been eliminated, but you've also reduced the award to legitimate miners. Kind of defeats the purpose.
With MaxPPS, the overall payout should be the same as proportional to legitimate miners.

In the future, right? What about this time period where miners are contributing but only being paid out under the capped system?

I had just started with Eligius and was happy with it so far, but for now I'm switching back to my second choice pool. Nothing personal, once you get the long blocks making up the difference I'll be happy to come back.
You're welcome to use the Europe pool (which remains proportional) in the meantime.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 [29] 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 »
  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!