Bitcoin Forum
December 12, 2017, 04:22:11 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Do you approve of the changes outlined in the OP?
Yes EC Limit/Yes CPPS (CPPSBAM) - 36 (46.2%)
Yes EC Limit/No CPPS (SMPPS w/EC limited to active miners) - 14 (17.9%)
No EC Limit/Yes CPPS (CPPSEB) - 8 (10.3%)
No EC Limit/No CPPS (SMPPS as it stands) - 20 (25.6%)
Total Voters: 78

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Eligius Miners: [POLL] Proposed changes to Eligius Reward System  (Read 11337 times)
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2282



View Profile
August 02, 2012, 04:24:56 PM
 #21


Honestly, I don't believe it would have been several months if we maintained the hash rate of the pool at the time the bad luck (orphans) started.  It was a run of orphans that was the cause of the bad luck, then half of the pool left which pretty much increases the time to pull out of the rut insanely.  CPPSBAM works against miners who leave the pool, plain and simple.  If you don't want to mine the pool and support it, then you don't get paid. Easy as that.  If you feel like supporting the pool later, then by all means "unlock" your EC.

-wk

Certainly you aren't saying that hash rate determines luck.  Otherwise, the little miners don't stand a chance.
It does play a part in how quickly the variance ("luck") swings from one extreme to the other.

1513095731
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513095731

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513095731
Reply with quote  #2

1513095731
Report to moderator
1513095731
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513095731

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513095731
Reply with quote  #2

1513095731
Report to moderator
1513095731
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513095731

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513095731
Reply with quote  #2

1513095731
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513095731
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513095731

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513095731
Reply with quote  #2

1513095731
Report to moderator
imsaguy
General failure and former
VIP
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 574

Don't send me a pm unless you gpg encrypt it.


View Profile WWW
August 02, 2012, 04:27:12 PM
 #22


Honestly, I don't believe it would have been several months if we maintained the hash rate of the pool at the time the bad luck (orphans) started.  It was a run of orphans that was the cause of the bad luck, then half of the pool left which pretty much increases the time to pull out of the rut insanely.  CPPSBAM works against miners who leave the pool, plain and simple.  If you don't want to mine the pool and support it, then you don't get paid. Easy as that.  If you feel like supporting the pool later, then by all means "unlock" your EC.

-wk

Certainly you aren't saying that hash rate determines luck.  Otherwise, the little miners don't stand a chance.
It does play a part in how quickly the variance ("luck") swings from one extreme to the other.

I agree with that statement.  Looking at http://eligius.st/~artefact2/, hashrate appears to have dropped by about 50GH on average over the last month.  Do you happen to have any longer term graphs tucked away anywhere?

Coming Soon!™ © imsaguy 2011-2013, All rights reserved.

EIEIO:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=60117.0

Shades Minoco Collection Thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=65989
Payment Address: http://btc.to/5r6
wizkid057
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1210


View Profile
August 02, 2012, 06:55:12 PM
 #23


Honestly, I don't believe it would have been several months if we maintained the hash rate of the pool at the time the bad luck (orphans) started.  It was a run of orphans that was the cause of the bad luck, then half of the pool left which pretty much increases the time to pull out of the rut insanely.  CPPSBAM works against miners who leave the pool, plain and simple.  If you don't want to mine the pool and support it, then you don't get paid. Easy as that.  If you feel like supporting the pool later, then by all means "unlock" your EC.

-wk

Certainly you aren't saying that hash rate determines luck.  Otherwise, the little miners don't stand a chance.

I didn't say it determined luck, I said hash rate determines how long it'll take to get out of the rut, on average.  If we maintained hashrate we could possibly have been past this stroke of bad luck by now.  Possibly not, but the odds would have been better.

-wk

Edit: Whoops, didn't see that Luke had already responded to this more concisely than I.

Tips: 1LDQrLr6dPVqNJmpZm82eZVKqDFRk7ERW8
Operator of the Eligius Mining Pool - 0% Fee, SAPPLNS, GBT, Stratum, IRC+Phone Support, Share Market (coming soon), Generation payouts, and more.
Don't feed the trolls. Science Confirms: Internet Trolls Really Are Narcissistic, Psychopathic, and Sadistic (1)
wizkid057
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1210


View Profile
August 02, 2012, 06:58:01 PM
 #24


Honestly, I don't believe it would have been several months if we maintained the hash rate of the pool at the time the bad luck (orphans) started.  It was a run of orphans that was the cause of the bad luck, then half of the pool left which pretty much increases the time to pull out of the rut insanely.  CPPSBAM works against miners who leave the pool, plain and simple.  If you don't want to mine the pool and support it, then you don't get paid. Easy as that.  If you feel like supporting the pool later, then by all means "unlock" your EC.

-wk

Certainly you aren't saying that hash rate determines luck.  Otherwise, the little miners don't stand a chance.
It does play a part in how quickly the variance ("luck") swings from one extreme to the other.

I agree with that statement.  Looking at http://eligius.st/~artefact2/, hashrate appears to have dropped by about 50GH on average over the last month.  Do you happen to have any longer term graphs tucked away anywhere?

I don't have a graph anywhere, but I suppose I could generate one, technically.

In any case, at the point the buffer flipped into extra credit we had over 550GH IIRC, meaning we easily lost over half of the hash power we originally had due to SMPPS extra credit mode.

-wk

-wk

Tips: 1LDQrLr6dPVqNJmpZm82eZVKqDFRk7ERW8
Operator of the Eligius Mining Pool - 0% Fee, SAPPLNS, GBT, Stratum, IRC+Phone Support, Share Market (coming soon), Generation payouts, and more.
Don't feed the trolls. Science Confirms: Internet Trolls Really Are Narcissistic, Psychopathic, and Sadistic (1)
imsaguy
General failure and former
VIP
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 574

Don't send me a pm unless you gpg encrypt it.


View Profile WWW
August 02, 2012, 07:43:05 PM
 #25

If we maintained hashrate we could possibly have been past this stroke of bad luck by now.  Possibly not, but the odds would have been better.

-wk

Actually, no.  If the pool had been lucky,  the EC could have been paid off sooner.  Maintaining the hashrate while the the pool was unlucky wouldn't get the pool out of the rut faster.

You could also say that since the pool continues to be unlucky, the loss of hash power has been a good thing because less EC has accrued as would have otherwise.

Coming Soon!™ © imsaguy 2011-2013, All rights reserved.

EIEIO:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=60117.0

Shades Minoco Collection Thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=65989
Payment Address: http://btc.to/5r6
wizkid057
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1210


View Profile
August 02, 2012, 08:29:29 PM
 #26

If we maintained hashrate we could possibly have been past this stroke of bad luck by now.  Possibly not, but the odds would have been better.

-wk

Actually, no.  If the pool had been lucky,  the EC could have been paid off sooner.  Maintaining the hashrate while the the pool was unlucky wouldn't get the pool out of the rut faster.

You could also say that since the pool continues to be unlucky, the loss of hash power has been a good thing because less EC has accrued as would have otherwise.

Well, between the time EC mode started and now, lets say there were X shares submitted.  If the hash rate were still doubled, there would be 2X shares submitted now instead of X shares.  That gives X extra shares which could have resulted in lucky rounds, but instead were never submitted.  So, since history shows that 1X shares did not get us out of the rut as of now, it is possible that 2X shares could have by now.

Make sense?  Luke's post summarizes this better I think anyway.

[Hash rate] does play a part in how quickly the variance ("luck") swings from one extreme to the other.

-wk

Tips: 1LDQrLr6dPVqNJmpZm82eZVKqDFRk7ERW8
Operator of the Eligius Mining Pool - 0% Fee, SAPPLNS, GBT, Stratum, IRC+Phone Support, Share Market (coming soon), Generation payouts, and more.
Don't feed the trolls. Science Confirms: Internet Trolls Really Are Narcissistic, Psychopathic, and Sadistic (1)
imsaguy
General failure and former
VIP
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 574

Don't send me a pm unless you gpg encrypt it.


View Profile WWW
August 03, 2012, 02:26:25 AM
 #27

Well, between the time EC mode started and now, lets say there were X shares submitted.  If the hash rate were still doubled, there would be 2X shares submitted now instead of X shares.  That gives X extra shares which could have resulted in lucky rounds, but instead were never submitted.  So, since history shows that 1X shares did not get us out of the rut as of now, it is possible that 2X shares could have by now.

Flawed logic.  Specifically "That gives X extra shares which could have resulted in lucky rounds, but instead were never submitted." Its just as probable they could have been unlucky.

Coming Soon!™ © imsaguy 2011-2013, All rights reserved.

EIEIO:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=60117.0

Shades Minoco Collection Thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=65989
Payment Address: http://btc.to/5r6
wizkid057
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1210


View Profile
August 03, 2012, 02:35:03 AM
 #28

Well, between the time EC mode started and now, lets say there were X shares submitted.  If the hash rate were still doubled, there would be 2X shares submitted now instead of X shares.  That gives X extra shares which could have resulted in lucky rounds, but instead were never submitted.  So, since history shows that 1X shares did not get us out of the rut as of now, it is possible that 2X shares could have by now.

Flawed logic.  Specifically "That gives X extra shares which could have resulted in lucky rounds, but instead were never submitted." Its just as probable they could have been unlucky.

Its not flawed. What I said is 100% accurate, although it is from the optimistic view.  The shares could have resulted in lucky rounds.  You can not deny this.  Just because they also could have been unlucky does not make my statement flawed.

Tips: 1LDQrLr6dPVqNJmpZm82eZVKqDFRk7ERW8
Operator of the Eligius Mining Pool - 0% Fee, SAPPLNS, GBT, Stratum, IRC+Phone Support, Share Market (coming soon), Generation payouts, and more.
Don't feed the trolls. Science Confirms: Internet Trolls Really Are Narcissistic, Psychopathic, and Sadistic (1)
imsaguy
General failure and former
VIP
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 574

Don't send me a pm unless you gpg encrypt it.


View Profile WWW
August 03, 2012, 02:39:12 AM
 #29

Well, between the time EC mode started and now, lets say there were X shares submitted.  If the hash rate were still doubled, there would be 2X shares submitted now instead of X shares.  That gives X extra shares which could have resulted in lucky rounds, but instead were never submitted.  So, since history shows that 1X shares did not get us out of the rut as of now, it is possible that 2X shares could have by now.

Flawed logic.  Specifically "That gives X extra shares which could have resulted in lucky rounds, but instead were never submitted." Its just as probable they could have been unlucky.

Its not flawed. What I said is 100% accurate, although it is from the optimistic view.  The shares could have resulted in lucky rounds.  You can not deny this.  Just because they also could have been unlucky does not make my statement flawed.

You're right, it could.  So why is a vague statement like this used as support for change?

Coming Soon!™ © imsaguy 2011-2013, All rights reserved.

EIEIO:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=60117.0

Shades Minoco Collection Thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=65989
Payment Address: http://btc.to/5r6
cablepair
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854


These days, i am Crazy.


View Profile WWW
August 03, 2012, 03:16:13 AM
 #30

I'm going to review this tomorrow and I'll vote and also make my opinion public

but I just want to note right now - that whatever the best payout route is for eligius - I do not believe that a bitcointalk forum poll is the best system for determining who should have a say and how much of a say in what happens here

and I say that as someone who has (through the good and the bad) mined nearly exclusively with this pool for the better part of a year and always being in the top 5 for hashrate


I am not saying my vote should mean more than any other miner who has contributed extensively to this pool but I am saying that it should mean more than some random person who reads this thread

-Tom
http://eligius.st/~artefact2/7/1Cp8HBr3vtEAvQ1RqQhjbhGciYDapf3ATN

wizkid057
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1210


View Profile
August 03, 2012, 03:33:55 AM
 #31

I am not saying my vote should mean more than any other miner who has contributed extensively to this pool but I am saying that it should mean more than some random person who reads this thread

While in general, you're probably right.  However, I think that due to the nature of Eligius's account-less service, tallying votes linked to individual miners (via message signing and such) would be troublesome for even some of the largest Eligius miners.  I had considered writing up a setup to do just this, then realized that it just was too bothersome.

I think overall that even if non-miners vote after actually reviewing the poll that the consensus will be valid.

I've argued the merits of CPPSBAM on IRC several times today and convinced several miners that its the obvious choice.  I believe that anyone with the pool's well being as a whole at heart when voting will see it the same way.  If not, please give me the opportunity to attempt to convince you before voting.

In my opinion, if someone decides that the EC payout limit to active miners is a bad thing, that just means they are either an inactive Eligius miner or someone with some other self-serving benefit to vote against it.
An honest miner who mines the pool faithfully will not notice any negative effects from CPPSBAM, and these are the miners that I would say the pool wishes to attract and retain.
A pool hopper or someone who just bails on the pool after a bit of bad luck obviously wouldn't desire the change because it effectively bars them from receiving their extra credit rewards unless they actually support the pool.  I honestly don't see how this is a bad thing.

Basically, if you're an honest, steady miner, CPPSBAM is the way to go.

-wk

Tips: 1LDQrLr6dPVqNJmpZm82eZVKqDFRk7ERW8
Operator of the Eligius Mining Pool - 0% Fee, SAPPLNS, GBT, Stratum, IRC+Phone Support, Share Market (coming soon), Generation payouts, and more.
Don't feed the trolls. Science Confirms: Internet Trolls Really Are Narcissistic, Psychopathic, and Sadistic (1)
eldentyrell
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


felonious vagrancy, personified


View Profile WWW
August 03, 2012, 04:23:29 AM
 #32

several months isn't 'a little bit of bad luck'.

It wasn't; the evidence points to Eligius having been the target of a block withholding attack.  Luke-Jr posted this to bitcoin-dev about a week after Eligius started falling behind very badly:

  http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.bitcoin.devel/1112

IMHO none of these payout tweaks does anything to fix the block withholding attack vulnerability; they just redistribute the pain.  You should consider giving a 1% bonus to the submitter of the share-that-finds-a-block (deducted from everybody else's reward, of course) like P2Pool does.  If you jack it up to 3% it means that a share-withholder only gets 97% of their submitted hashrate, which should at least make idiot jackasses think twice.  The only penalty is that small-time miners only get PPS-level variance on 97% of their payout; the other 3% will have solo-miner-level variance.

I do not believe that a bitcointalk forum poll is the best system for determining who should have a say and how much of a say in what happens here…  and I say that as someone who has (through the good and the bad) mined nearly exclusively with this pool for the better part of a year and always being in the top 5 for hashrate

Agreed, from someone who was always in the top 3 for six months (and the top continuous/non-bursty miner for several months) until switching Eligius to "backup" status in response to the payout trainwreck.  But I guess you guys see people like me as "part of the problem".

The printing press heralded the end of the Dark Ages and made the Enlightenment possible, but it took another three centuries before any country managed to put freedom of the press beyond the reach of legislators.  So it may take a while before cryptocurrencies are free of the AML-NSA-KYC surveillance plague.
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2282



View Profile
August 03, 2012, 05:17:54 AM
 #33

several months isn't 'a little bit of bad luck'.

It wasn't; the evidence points to Eligius having been the target of a block withholding attack.  Luke-Jr posted this to bitcoin-dev about a week after Eligius started falling behind very badly:

  http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.bitcoin.devel/1112
No, there is actually no evidence of that (as far as I know). My post was related to brainstorming the withholding attack which might (or might not) have come from a discussion on the possibility of it that wouldn't have occurred if we had a nice big buffer, but it was certainly not directly correlated with any kind of actual in-practice problem to my knowledge.

ehmdjii
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 351


View Profile
August 03, 2012, 08:54:24 AM
 #34

sorry for the noob question, but what does EC actually stand for?

BTC: 1LsD5HpnX1Kfyti7CnHiVB1rjUEXGqmR2H
LTC: LQbpdMZmYyJa9bJG6NweBNxkSTfgZorkrG
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2282



View Profile
August 03, 2012, 08:58:11 AM
 #35

sorry for the noob question, but what does EC actually stand for?
Extra Credit. http://eligius.st/wiki/index.php/Shared_Maximum_PPS

muyuu
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966



View Profile
August 03, 2012, 09:20:00 AM
 #36

I'm going to review this tomorrow and I'll vote and also make my opinion public

but I just want to note right now - that whatever the best payout route is for eligius - I do not believe that a bitcointalk forum poll is the best system for determining who should have a say and how much of a say in what happens here

and I say that as someone who has (through the good and the bad) mined nearly exclusively with this pool for the better part of a year and always being in the top 5 for hashrate


I am not saying my vote should mean more than any other miner who has contributed extensively to this pool but I am saying that it should mean more than some random person who reads this thread

-Tom
http://eligius.st/~artefact2/7/1Cp8HBr3vtEAvQ1RqQhjbhGciYDapf3ATN



Agreed. I haven't read enough about it to make an informed judgement, but in any case a poll here doesn't seem like the proper way to make a decision.

I also don't think that consensus matters much in a technical problem like this. The decision should be taken by those with a better understanding of the problem, and I guess Luke is the main man. Then probably we can discuss it here and agree something, but democracy is not the way to solve engineering problems.

GPG ID: 7294199D - OTC ID: muyuu (470F97EB7294199D)
forum tea fund BTC 1Epv7KHbNjYzqYVhTCgXWYhGSkv7BuKGEU DOGE DF1eTJ2vsxjHpmmbKu9jpqsrg5uyQLWksM CAP F1MzvmmHwP2UhFq82NQT7qDU9NQ8oQbtkQ
Exposed
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 13


View Profile
August 03, 2012, 05:21:38 PM
 #37

It would be better if you made an page dedicated to this new system suggestion and a public poll / comment system on Eligius site itself rather then here as active users are more likely to participate their then sign up on this forum just to voice 1 opinion
Raize
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1409


View Profile
August 03, 2012, 06:12:12 PM
 #38

It would be better if you made an page dedicated to this new system suggestion and a public poll / comment system on Eligius site itself rather then here as active users are more likely to participate their then sign up on this forum just to voice 1 opinion

Eligius payouts are psuedo-anonymous, so there isn't really a way to do this on their site. We don't have typical "miner accounts".

OrganofCorti's Neighbourhood Pool Watch - The most informative website on blockchain health
imsaguy
General failure and former
VIP
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 574

Don't send me a pm unless you gpg encrypt it.


View Profile WWW
August 03, 2012, 06:15:57 PM
 #39

It would be better if you made an page dedicated to this new system suggestion and a public poll / comment system on Eligius site itself rather then here as active users are more likely to participate their then sign up on this forum just to voice 1 opinion

Eligius payouts are psuedo-anonymous, so there isn't really a way to do this on their site. We don't have typical "miner accounts".

Not true. Address signing. Just like you do to get namecoins.

Coming Soon!™ © imsaguy 2011-2013, All rights reserved.

EIEIO:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=60117.0

Shades Minoco Collection Thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=65989
Payment Address: http://btc.to/5r6
Raize
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1409


View Profile
August 03, 2012, 06:38:24 PM
 #40

Not true. Address signing. Just like you do to get namecoins.

I was making the point that Luke would specifically have to code a voting system in. Seems like extra work for something the forums can do without trouble. Only real problem is that pool hoppers could game the vote, but I doubt any of them care enough to even read the topic.

OrganofCorti's Neighbourhood Pool Watch - The most informative website on blockchain health
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »  All
  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!