Eligius Miners: [POLL] Proposed changes to Eligius Reward System

[wizkid057]

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.

This is certainly true.  I believe the pool operator has the implied right to do what they feel is needed to effectively run the pool, with or without any type of poll or voting.  However, being more open about it (ie, here on a well known public forum related to the topic) is a much better idea IMO.
In the end, the final decision will certainly rest with Luke-Jr, however, on how to proceed.  That said, I'd be willing to bet that the outcome of the poll would have significant weight in that decision.

---

In response to this line of posts:

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.

I had considered doing a voting system like this.  However, after considering the pros and cons of such a system, in the end it really just wouldn't be much better than a vote here.  A vote here is open, public, permanent, and simple for users.  A vote as described using signing techniques is complicated to implement, doesn't guarantee the accuracy of the vote in any case, would be run on the site owned by the pool (someone could just say it was faked with no real way to defend that), and a slew of other reasons why it just isn't necessary.

Anyway, I hope everyone is actually reading this thread and considering all of the points of all of the options before voting.  I've made it clear that I fully support CPPSBAM.  I believe that if you support the pool, you should get awarded accordingly, and if you don't, then you don't.  Seems like a pretty straightforward and very fair process to me.

-wk

As of now: "2012-08-03 15:11:42 - EC Limit/CPPS Votes: Y/Y [CPPSBAM]: 18 (46.15%) | Y/N [SMPPS w/EC Limit]: 7 (17.95%) | N/Y [CPPSEB]: 6 (15.38%) | N/N [No Changes]: 8 (20.51%) ||| Total of 39 votes ||| Overall in favor of CPPS: 24 (61.54%) | ... of EC rewarding limited to active miners: 25 (64.10%) ||| Cast your vote @ http://goo.gl/O6A9q"

[1715311829]

1715311829

[1715311829]

1715311829

[1715311829]

1715311829

[Exposed]

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.

Why would he have to code it himself? There are ton of open source scripts or some that cost $5-10 on codecanyon.net that he could easily modify slightly and implant. It's seriously not hard as a web developer myself, the internet has a lot of scripts out their to use as a base.

5s google: http://pollcode.com

Or even better, setup a eligius forum for users to use and where latest announcements and polls can be added using MyBB / PHPBB / SMF (Free Forum Scripts)

[wizkid057]

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.

Why would he have to code it himself? There are ton of open source scripts or some that cost $5-10 on codecanyon.net that he could easily modify slightly and implant. It's seriously not hard as a web developer myself, the internet has a lot of scripts out their to use as a base.

5s google: http://pollcode.com

Would have to implement bitcoin signing and verification into any new or existing poll system, which would have to be coded.

Edit: The specific site mentioned, pollcode, would be completely useless since its run a 3rd party server... ie, no way to verify bitcoin address signatures.

[Exposed]

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.

Why would he have to code it himself? There are ton of open source scripts or some that cost $5-10 on codecanyon.net that he could easily modify slightly and implant. It's seriously not hard as a web developer myself, the internet has a lot of scripts out their to use as a base.

5s google: http://pollcode.com

Would have to implement bitcoin signing and verification into any new or existing poll system, which would have to be coded.

Edit: The specific site mentioned, pollcode, would be completely useless since its run a 3rd party server... ie, no way to verify bitcoin address signatures.

Sorry but why do you need to check bitcoin signing / verification? You just need a page coded in pure html/js where users can vote and comment on any new suggestions. It needs nothing to do with "Bitcoins" or servers

[wizkid057]

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.

Why would he have to code it himself? There are ton of open source scripts or some that cost $5-10 on codecanyon.net that he could easily modify slightly and implant. It's seriously not hard as a web developer myself, the internet has a lot of scripts out their to use as a base.

5s google: http://pollcode.com

Would have to implement bitcoin signing and verification into any new or existing poll system, which would have to be coded.

Edit: The specific site mentioned, pollcode, would be completely useless since its run a 3rd party server... ie, no way to verify bitcoin address signatures.

Sorry but why do you need to check bitcoin signing / verification? You just need a page coded in pure html/js where users can vote and comment on any new suggestions. It needs nothing to do with "Bitcoins" or servers

If thats all that was wanted, then we're fine with the poll here on this forum.

If we were to setup a poll on the Eligius.st site, it would be for miners only.  And since Eligius has no official miner accounts of any kind, to verify that they are in fact a miner they would need to sign a message with their private key for their bitcoin payment address.  This has been discussed above...

-wk

[imsaguy]

It doesn't need a full poll system.  Its two questions.  It could be a code copy from namecoin signing with just a tweak.  You sign one of two statements for each question. 

[wizkid057]

It doesn't need a full poll system.  Its two questions.  It could be a code copy from namecoin signing with just a tweak.  You sign one of two statements for each question. 

I suppose.  I could also sign a message and make a post here with my vote.  Guess that goes against the whole anonymity thing, but, I'd love to hear comments on why someone voted a certain way.

Here's mine:
bitcoind verifymessage 1EXfBqvLTyFbL6Dr5CG1fjxNKEPSezg7yF G68d1ygLbfwAnQj7nswnWtl1jb94IQvj/DwpU8T6qh5V0txNayzdXJ8b3qkedpxOat64haj7mC6oPodBphzMER4= CPPSBAM

I will point out that Eligius has been my backup pool (I solo mine for fun), but, I support CPPSBAM.

-wk

[julz]

So under CPPSBAM, every time I point my miners to a new eligius address... my old address will effectively be an 'inactive miner' and although the EC credit is there - it's effectively lost to me unless I point some hashing power there again??

Is everyone else just using a single payout address?

Hope I've misunderstood... not liking the way the vote is going.

[wizkid057]

So under CPPSBAM, every time I point my miners to a new eligius address... my old address will effectively be an 'inactive miner' and although the EC credit is there - it's effectively lost to me unless I point some hashing power there again??

That would be correct.

Is everyone else just using a single payout address?

It would be in your best interest to use the same address (and most do) to ensure steady payouts, even under the existing system.

-wk

[Luke-Jr]

So under CPPSBAM, every time I point my miners to a new eligius address... my old address will effectively be an 'inactive miner' and although the EC credit is there - it's effectively lost to me unless I point some hashing power there again??

That would be correct.

As long as that is the case, perhaps we should take another look at MPPS? The only reason we went with SMPPS AFAIK was because it allows mobility between addresses.

It would be in your best interest to use the same address (and most do) to ensure steady payouts, even under the existing system.

Why? It should make no difference under SMPPS.

[julz]

One of Eligius's advantages is that you can create separate little stashes of 'virgin' coins. I would have thought this an appealing point of differentiation for Eligius against other pools.
If you have to mine to a single address and then transfer coins on the blockchain - you tie these stashes together in the public record.

It wouldn't bother me if payout to inactive addresses was low precedence and slow.. but it should be automatic and complete.

[wizkid057]

One of Eligius's advantages is that you can create separate little stashes of 'virgin' coins. I would have thought this an appealing point of differentiation for Eligius against other pools.
If you have to mine to a single address and then transfer coins on the blockchain - you tie these stashes together in the public record.

It wouldn't bother me if payout to inactive addresses was low precedence and slow.. but it should be automatic and complete.

Its not that you have to mine a single address.  The CPPSBAM method only effects inactive miners in times when there is no buffer available.  So, during average or lucky times for the pool, you could still switch addresses without any negative effects.

[imsaguy]

One of Eligius's advantages is that you can create separate little stashes of 'virgin' coins. I would have thought this an appealing point of differentiation for Eligius against other pools.
If you have to mine to a single address and then transfer coins on the blockchain - you tie these stashes together in the public record.

It wouldn't bother me if payout to inactive addresses was low precedence and slow.. but it should be automatic and complete.

I agree with this and I think a happy compromise could be:

EC is paid out to current miners first and if there's still remaining credit, then EC is paid off. 

There are times where a miner might have to stop mining for legitimate reasons (say winding down from mining for good) and if this happens to happen during a time of poor pool luck, they get screwed.  There needs to be a mechanism that those people get caught up, even if its the lowest priority.

[SleeperUnit]

...
Is everyone else just using a single payout address?
...

I do, but I'm certain some people use multiple addresses for various reasons. But the only real one I can think of is as a way for slower miners to force more frequent payouts (even at just 1 Hash per minute, you can get payed every week if you switch addresses weekly). But even then, you only need to cycle between a few addresses for this to work.

If you use different addresses from the same wallet, when you make a transfer, the client will use funds associated with multiple addresses to make up the total amount of the transfer, effectively binding those addresses in the public record.

If you use addresses from different wallets, then you increase the risk of loosing coins due to a mistake as you switch between wallets and an astute observer might still be able to link those addresses if you ever transfer their contents to a single account in order to make a larger payment.

...
There are times where a miner might have to stop mining for legitimate reasons (say winding down from mining for good) and if this happens to happen during a time of poor pool luck, they get screwed.  There needs to be a mechanism that those people get caught up, even if its the lowest priority.

While the greed in me would like to encourage as many miners as possible to quit in order for the difficulty to go back down. Therefore anything that discourages potential quitters is a bad thing.  The jerk in me finds it hard to sympathize with people who don't want anything to do with mining but still insist on maximum payment for past mining. I guess I would be fully satisfied if we could limit it to only miners in other pools quitting (at least until solo mining with a single GPU becomes a viable option again) 

[Comepradz]

Let's say we finally use CPPSBAM, inactive miners are pushed to be active again to receive their EC. Well, how we classify miners as active/inactive? If we consider only through a submitted share to classify inactive miner to be active miner, then folks we have problem when miners use this way to extend their activity period ( like a week in address' graph).

[imsaguy]

Let's say we finally use CPPSBAM, inactive miners are pushed to be active again to receive their EC. Well, how we classify miners as active/inactive? If we consider only through a submitted share to classify inactive miner to be active miner, then folks we have problem when miners use this way to extend their activity period ( like a week in address' graph).

Well, the other piece to it is that you can only earn EC up to the amount of non-EC you earn each block.  So if you're only submitting 1 share once a way, you'd only get paid 1 share of EC a week.

[wizkid057]

Let's say we finally use CPPSBAM, inactive miners are pushed to be active again to receive their EC. Well, how we classify miners as active/inactive? If we consider only through a submitted share to classify inactive miner to be active miner, then folks we have problem when miners use this way to extend their activity period ( like a week in address' graph).

Well, the other piece to it is that you can only earn EC up to the amount of non-EC you earn each block.  So if you're only submitting 1 share once a way, you'd only get paid 1 share of EC a week.

Yes, exactly. I don't think the entire CPPSBAM description was read or was somehow misunderstood...

[Luke-Jr]

Let's say we finally use CPPSBAM, inactive miners are pushed to be active again to receive their EC. Well, how we classify miners as active/inactive? If we consider only through a submitted share to classify inactive miner to be active miner, then folks we have problem when miners use this way to extend their activity period ( like a week in address' graph).

Actually, this makes me realize a benefit of the "activity limit": it fixes the problem of inactive miners not getting payouts after a week.

[muyuu]

One of Eligius's advantages is that you can create separate little stashes of 'virgin' coins. I would have thought this an appealing point of differentiation for Eligius against other pools.
If you have to mine to a single address and then transfer coins on the blockchain - you tie these stashes together in the public record.

It wouldn't bother me if payout to inactive addresses was low precedence and slow.. but it should be automatic and complete.

From a purely moral standpoint, I think refusing to pay inactive addresses is wrong. It's due payment for past work, it shouldn't be pushed back indefinitely. It also punishes the creation of new addresses, which beats one of the selling points of mining here ("virgin coins"). There is already a "new address tax", there shouldn't be any more.

[P4man]

May I suggest switching to proportional ?