(sorry to everyone: I had previously used some shorthand & quoted bot commands without much explanation of what the numbers all meant
Since my last post, I have rechecked all the math more than once, made a few drafts for explaining all the logic involved, and proofread the whole mess of it for clarity.
Math recheck 1)
[23:57:05] <+kuzetsa> .e 7488
[23:57:06] <@ozbot> At 7488 MH/s, you should earn 1.11739416 BTC/day on average (0.04655809 BTC/hr)
Math recheck 2)Bitcoin Mining Calculator:
Coins ||| Dollars
per Day ||| ฿1.12 ||| $15.07
per Week ||| ฿7.82 ||| $105.50
per Month ||| ฿33.97 ||| $458.15
(Exchange rates vary on a minute-by-minute basis, so the dollars value gets stale rather quickly...
bitcoin network difficulty changes every 14 days, and is currently 3370181.79928 as of moments ago
There is a real difference in how much we're mining, versus how much nonnakip states there will be distributed to fans on a per-seat basis.
Fact 1) The original post claims 7488 MH/s
Fact 2) ... and nonnakip states "donations" would go to 5568 seats.
1 week worth of mining at that speed divided down into 5568 seats would be: ***
0.00140476 if you drop the 99568 at the end which is indivisibly small for bitcoin purposes
(rounding down to satoshi resolution. It would be meaningless to the bitcoin network
Initially, I was half-asleep, kinda scratching my head, wondering what was up with these "missing bitcoins" and trying to figure it all out.
(nonnakip didn't specify anything in the post about fees... the post in question was titled "first donation distribution"
Later though, I thought to myself: "could this just be a matter of unconditionally taking out 0.0005 BTC from EVERY seat's distributed donations?
I checked some math to determine how much "fees" were contributing to the "missing bitcoins" ... and found a correlation by using this example:
Let's say someone has 100 seats:
Sent as 100x separate micro transactions (which would recklessly, and unnecessarily spam the network with 100x as much transaction data
) wastefully burning 1x fee for EACH micro transaction at a rate of 0.0005 BTC each, for a total of 0.045 BTC worth of fee overpayment, yet only giving that fan a mere 0.090476 BTC as a result.
However, aggregating the donations to those 100x seats, if done as a single transaction, now that fan can get their 100x seats worth of donations in a single transaction
(neither harming the network, nor overpaying fees
This would be a total of 0.140476 BTC (best case is no fee
Alternatively, minus a single 0.0005 fee, a payment of 0.139976 BTC (worst case scenario is a single fee
Already, that's most of the "missing bitcoins" accounted for: 0.00140476 minus an unconditional per-seat penalty of 0.0005 (transaction fee
) would be 0.00090476
... Now, assuming that fee is applies unconditionally to the full 5568 seats (last reported count
) and then compared to full amount mined by nastymining
5568 * 0.00090476 = 5.03770368 BTC sent to fans (out of the original 7.82 mined per week***
0.00090476 / 0.00140476 = 35.6% "missing bitcoins"
0.00077423 / 0.00140476 = 44.9% "missing bitcoins"
That's "close enough" for me I guess.
I was mining bitcoin (like all the way back in june
) before I even found out about nasty
... As such, I know that a value like 9.3% isn't an unexpected variance: poor luck on the mining pool(s), fluctuations in mining rate, or just some harmless granularity error due to being between pool payout thresholds (payout granularity would be best case scenario, and nothing more than jitter --- none of the "missing bitcoins" would actually be lost for this particular type of variance, as it is just rolled over by the pool into the next payout
That said, a 44% discrepancy from the predicted mining rate is something like 5x as much variance as I would expect, hence my "missing bitcoins" panic.
Think I got it right this time / sorry about my earlier post when I was half-asleep (oops
(now assuming a poorly thought out fee structure accounts for the bulk of the discrepancy I spotted earlier
Note: synthetic values, but still statistically expected if the measured or stated hash rate is accurate.
Then where is the other
40% 45% of the theoretical mined bitcoin going?
I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, but I do enjoy reading your conspiracy theories.
Please don't label people's poorly explained math (in this case, my own
) with pejorative, stigmatized terms such as "conspiracy theories" either because it was poorly written and confusing, or inconveniently threatens your agenda / ego / name / honor / etc. etc. etc. somehow or other. (see also: argumentum ad hominem and/or derailing
Blindly trusting the operators of nastymining, and the fan-site is NOT MY IDEA OF FUN
... To express a legitimate concern, only to have it dismissed with "no, don't worry about it. There's no problem. Now please go away
" without any attempt to work out or explain the details... Well that's just nasty (oh wait, I get it now. LOL