[350 GH/s] "Eligius" (experimental) pool: almost feeless PPS, hoppers welcome

[relmeas]

Maybe some countries are banned? Or too huge IP ranges...

[Artefact2]

So is this reflected in the artefact2 status pages/graphs?

The statistical data isn't updated yet, so Artefact2 will just show you what you'd actually get if we found a block at this instant. When the upgrade is complete, it will look nicer.

The current estimate grows over time (this is expected for PPS). It looks nice and I like it.

[GimEEE]

Again, the concept of the new payout system: Maximum PPS

Unfortunately, we found 2 very short blocks just now, so it's looking "ugly" to some folks who don't get the concept. Basically, while you were just paid 1/4 and 1/8 less than you would have gotten under the old system, when those "ugh, no block all day" blocks hit, you'll get reimbursed for these short ones. Doing it this way eliminates the benefits of pool hopping.

Also note that only USA is on the new system for now. If you want to use the old system for any reason, you can still mine on the Europe pool.

Getting less than 20% of my share for the last two block is real crap.
If block are found faster than average, the contributors should be rewarded accordingly.
I.E. Earnings should dominate.
If you want some cap, value shouldn't be set so restrictive to the average payout, as it is, but to maybe twice the average. This way the pool can still gouge the theoretical hoppers to some extent, but isn't punishing those who consistently stay in on all rounds.

To summarize - If (Shares x 50 / difficulty) is the average reward for average rounds, then the value cap should be set to more, maybe (shares x 100/difficulty) or even just 10% more. This will allow earnings to dominate over the long run for loyal users and not punish them if blocks are consistently found about 10% faster.

[Luke-Jr]

Maybe some countries are banned? Or too huge IP ranges...

Actually, maybe.... I did ban at least China a while back from my personal webserver (which happens to run USA for now).

[Artefact2]

Again, the concept of the new payout system: Maximum PPS

Unfortunately, we found 2 very short blocks just now, so it's looking "ugly" to some folks who don't get the concept. Basically, while you were just paid 1/4 and 1/8 less than you would have gotten under the old system, when those "ugh, no block all day" blocks hit, you'll get reimbursed for these short ones. Doing it this way eliminates the benefits of pool hopping.

Also note that only USA is on the new system for now. If you want to use the old system for any reason, you can still mine on the Europe pool.

Getting less than 20% of my share for the last two block is real crap.
If block are found faster than average, the contributors should be rewarded accordingly.
I.E. Earnings should dominate.
If you want some cap, value shouldn't be set so restrictive to the average payout, as it is, but to maybe twice the average. This way the pool can still gouge the theoretical hoppers to some extent, but isn't punishing those who consistently stay in on all rounds.

To summarize - If (Shares x 50 / difficulty) is the average reward for average rounds, then the value cap should be set to more, maybe (shares x 100/difficulty) or even just 10% more. This will allow earnings to dominate over the long run for loyal users and not punish them if blocks are consistently found about 10% faster.

Yes, it's crap right now because the US pool was very lucky. But it's not going to persist, and you'll be happy to know that you'll be paid more than you should be paid when the pool is unlucky

[JJG]

Perhaps I'm missing something here, because I'm not entirely thrilled with this system.

As I understand it, there is an upper limit on payouts to prevent miners from statistically profiting from pool hopping. However, the value you've earned beyond this upper limit is banked by the pool and used to pay out more on longer blocks.

Does this mean that the only way to fully drain 100% of your mining earnings from the pool is if the pool encounters a string of long blocks, forcing the pool to pay out your 'banked' earnings?

In other words, if the pool is lucky (lots of short blocks) then the pool limits payouts and holds the profits. If the pool is unlucky, then you can be paid out for your actual earnings. This limits the miners' upside and only gives you your total earnings if the pool is unlucky anyway.

I guess my concern stems from the fact that there is an upper limit to your payouts, but no lower limit. And the only way to completely drain your earnings from the pool is to wait for a string of long blocks to drain your 'banked' balance and then quit mining.

Are you going to pay out this 'banked' balance after a certain period of inactivity, or do you keep it for the pool/yourself?



Wouldn't it make more sense to only force this system on miners who aren't mining for 100% (or 95% to account for connection problems, etc.) of the duration of the last x number of blocks?

[supa]

Would it make more sense to give it some time before you try to redesign something?

The 95% rule would suck - I have a dedicated miner on St. Eligius, but it has a tendency to go down sometimes.... surely the uptime is more than 90% but probably not 95.  Not to mention recent storms and random acts of electricity have outed my internet service and/or power.

So ya - thumbs down.

And I'm kicking myself that I missed the payout poll - I would've voted +1 for keeping the 1.0 BTC payout.

[nyargh]

Does this mean that the only way to fully drain 100% of your mining earnings from the pool is if the pool encounters a string of long blocks, forcing the pool to pay out your 'banked' earnings?

No, the only way to get 100% of your earnings is to mine for infinity.  The only way for this system to be fair is to decay old shares in a single round like Slush's pool attempts to do, otherwise you will never get your fair payout as there will always be something held over.

[supa]

No, the only way to get 100% of your earnings is to mine for infinity.

I missed your point... what was the problem with this?

[nyargh]

No, the only way to get 100% of your earnings is to mine for infinity.

I missed your point... what was the problem with this?

If you miss a round or stop mining, you will never receive your past earnings.  Basically for this to be "fair" you have to mine non-stop forever.

[Luke-Jr]

No, the only way to get 100% of your earnings is to mine for infinity.

I missed your point... what was the problem with this?

If you miss a round or stop mining, you will never receive your past earnings.  Basically for this to be "fair" you have to mine non-stop forever.

Perhaps my mistake was using English words for technical details...

[supa]

No, the only way to get 100% of your earnings is to mine for infinity.

I missed your point... what was the problem with this?

If you miss a round or stop mining, you will never receive your past earnings.  Basically for this to be "fair" you have to mine non-stop forever.

Perhaps my mistake was using English words for technical details...

So it seems.

In other news - mine for infinity.  Check.

That was in my long term plans, anyway....

[nyargh]

No, the only way to get 100% of your earnings is to mine for infinity.

I missed your point... what was the problem with this?

If you miss a round or stop mining, you will never receive your past earnings.  Basically for this to be "fair" you have to mine non-stop forever.

Perhaps my mistake was using English words for technical details...

Keep it classy, Luke.  You have just developed a great way to rip off your contributors who are bad at math.  If your reward is always 'carried forward', you will never be paid in full.  How is this a hard concept to grasp?

[supa]

Wow, nyargh is stupid and snarky.  Hilarious combination.

Protip: The only way to get and keep 100% of your earnings is to solo mine.  People that mine in pools accept a certain tradeoff.  Luke-Jr's implementation is better than most, on average, if you actually did do the math.

I like people that pick only a few words of information and preach it ad nausea while declaring themselves the most clever.  They're fun.

[nyargh]

Wow, nyargh is stupid and snarky.  Hilarious combination.

Protip: The only way to get and keep 100% of your earnings is to solo mine.  People that mine in pools accept a certain tradeoff.  Luke-Jr's implementation is better than most, on average, if you actually did do the math.

I like people that pick only a few words of information and preach it ad nausea while declaring themselves the most clever.  They're fun.

I've read many of your posts and you are without a doubt a fucking retard.  Let me try this again, should be very simple even for someone like you:

The basic idea is to add a "value" balance counter that goes up by a fixed amount with each share your miner submits. This balance goes up by 50 / difficulty for each accepted share your miner submits to the server.
This "value" balance is then used as an upper limit for payments.

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?

[Luke-Jr]

No, the only way to get 100% of your earnings is to mine for infinity.

I missed your point... what was the problem with this?

If you miss a round or stop mining, you will never receive your past earnings.  Basically for this to be "fair" you have to mine non-stop forever.

Perhaps my mistake was using English words for technical details...

Keep it classy, Luke.  You have just developed a great way to rip off your contributors who are bad at math.  If your reward is always 'carried forward', you will never be paid in full.  How is this a hard concept to grasp?

The mistake is in assuming your reward is equal to the "value" or "earnings" numbers. "Value" is basically identical to flat PPS (without fees), and "earnings" is identical to "proportional". But under MaxPPS, your reward is considered to be the lower of the two. Contrasted with proportional, the "value" removes the advantage of pool hopping (which everyone seems to agree is a good thing to prevent). Contrasted with PPS, the "earnings" removes the vulnerability of the miner who always withholds the good shares. An honest miner, in theory, will maintain "value" and "earnings" that are approximately equal.

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

The basic idea is to add a "value" balance counter that goes up by a fixed amount with each share your miner submits. This balance goes up by 50 / difficulty for each accepted share your miner submits to the server.
This "value" balance is then used as an upper limit for payments.

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.

[JJG]

Perhaps my mistake was using English words for technical details...

I'd say the questions are valid.

Why not just post the technical details/formulas?

As it stands now, the pool just has some vague language about how only 40% of the features are implemented and a pledge to get the other 60% online later to square up with miners.

What's in the 40%?

Is there a way for miners to square up eventually without mining indefinitely or waiting for a long string of long rounds to drain their 'banked' balance?

[nyargh]

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.

[organofcorti]

I'm crap at words, way better at math.

Any chance artefact2 (all hail master stats person) could post a graph of what the average (say 700 Mhps) miner got over the last two weeks, and then apply that to what we could have expected if the *full* implementation had been used for that time period?  Including a couple of missed or late entering/early exiting rounds?

I think a simple graph showing long term outcome the same would may it a bit clearer. I'm happy to help if you want to send me data.

[supa]

I've read many of your posts and you are without a doubt a fucking retard.  Let me try this again, should be very simple even for someone like you:

Citation needed.

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?

Luke-Jr is already setting you straight, lord and master of intellect.  Guess your simple explanation for simpletons like me didn't quite pan out as accurate.  Have fun getting a lesson in basic comprehension of the written word.