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

[wizkid057]

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.

New address tax?

[1714004384]

1714004384

[1714004384]

1714004384

[1714004384]

1714004384

[Luke-Jr]

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.

No, this is dealing with Extra Credit (EC), not unpaid rewards.

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.

There is no "new address tax" right now... if there was, it wouldn't be a major downside to this proposal.

[muyuu]

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.

New address tax?

Yeah well, nothing significant, but whenever you create a new account you increase the cumulative rounding down. It's just a little, but it's something (you are on average (~0.67 BTC/2) * number_of_addresses overdue).

[muyuu]

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.

No, this is dealing with Extra Credit (EC), not unpaid rewards.

Ok.

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.

There is no "new address tax" right now... if there was, it wouldn't be a major downside to this proposal.

I posted just a few minutes ago about that.

[Luke-Jr]

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.

New address tax?

Yeah well, nothing significant, but whenever you create a new account you increase the cumulative rounding down. It's just a little, but it's something (you are on average (~0.67 BTC/2) * number_of_addresses overdue).

This doesn't make sense. What rounding down?

[muyuu]

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.

New address tax?

Yeah well, nothing significant, but whenever you create a new account you increase the cumulative rounding down. It's just a little, but it's something (you are on average (~0.67 BTC/2) * number_of_addresses overdue).

This doesn't make sense. What rounding down?

Correct me if I'm wrong.

You aren't paid until you reach the threshold, and then you're only paid for what you mined up to that point. So, at any instant other than when you've just been paid, you're overdue an amount X, that's between 0 and the threshold (can be a bit more but let's forget about that). Statistically, you're overdue half the amount of the threshold on average, multiplied by the number of addresses.

[Luke-Jr]

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.

New address tax?

Yeah well, nothing significant, but whenever you create a new account you increase the cumulative rounding down. It's just a little, but it's something (you are on average (~0.67 BTC/2) * number_of_addresses overdue).

This doesn't make sense. What rounding down?

Correct me if I'm wrong.

You aren't paid until you reach the threshold, and then you're only paid for what you mined up to that point. So, at any instant other than when you've just been paid, you're overdue an amount X, that's between 0 and the threshold (can be a bit more but let's forget about that). Statistically, you're overdue half the amount of the threshold on average, multiplied by the number of addresses.

Where does rounding come into it?

[SleeperUnit]

May I suggest switching to proportional ?
 

You may not.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

You aren't paid until you reach the threshold, and then you're only paid for what you mined up to that point. So, at any instant other than when you've just been paid, you're overdue an amount X, that's between 0 and the threshold (can be a bit more but let's forget about that). Statistically, you're overdue half the amount of the threshold on average, multiplied by the number of addresses.

While it is true that if you split your mining between multiple addresses you will have to mine longer to reach the payout threshold. But even if you never reach the threshold, auto-payouts kick-in after a week of inactivity so that only means you'll get payed later, not less.  

[muyuu]

Where does rounding come into it?

By rounding I meant that fact, that you get paid in "chunks" (couldn't be otherwise). So creating an address is effectively not totally free, you'd be about -0.34 BTC on average just by having an extra address.

Sorry if I wasn't clear.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

You aren't paid until you reach the threshold, and then you're only paid for what you mined up to that point. So, at any instant other than when you've just been paid, you're overdue an amount X, that's between 0 and the threshold (can be a bit more but let's forget about that). Statistically, you're overdue half the amount of the threshold on average, multiplied by the number of addresses.

While it is true that if you split your mining between multiple addresses you will have to mine longer to reach the payout threshold. But even if you never reach the threshold, auto-payouts kick-in after a week of inactivity so that only means you'll get payed later, not less.  

Ok. That will continue, right?

[Luke-Jr]

Correct me if I'm wrong.

You aren't paid until you reach the threshold, and then you're only paid for what you mined up to that point. So, at any instant other than when you've just been paid, you're overdue an amount X, that's between 0 and the threshold (can be a bit more but let's forget about that). Statistically, you're overdue half the amount of the threshold on average, multiplied by the number of addresses.

While it is true that if you split your mining between multiple addresses you will have to mine longer to reach the payout threshold. But even if you never reach the threshold, auto-payouts kick-in after a week of inactivity so that only means you'll get payed later, not less.  

Ok. That will continue, right?

I'm not aware of any proposals to change that.

[jkminkov]

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.

use ESMPPS

[eldentyrell]

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.

Yuck.

[eldentyrell]

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

I think the problem was putting two proposals in one discussion thread.

[julz]

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.

No, this is dealing with Extra Credit (EC), not unpaid rewards.

Wait.. do I detect a certain sense of magnanimity in your attitude to this 'Extra Credit'?
Let's not forget that this EC is required to bring the earnings of this pool up to rough equivalency with other pools.
It's surely part of the 'reward' - just shifted in time to even out the luck.

I hope that merely by time-shifting it and terming it as 'Extra Credit' that there is not somehow a perceived lesser moral duty to pay it out??

(when (if!?) the overall pool luck eventually provides the necessary funds that is)

[imsaguy]

I hope that merely by time-shifting it and terming it as 'Extra Credit' that there is not somehow a perceived lesser moral duty to pay it out??

+1

[organofcorti]

Regardless of which MPPS variant you decide on, a hybrid PPS-SMPPS with a 2% fee would reduce the average 100 round maturity time by 20% and the average 200 round maturity time by 28%. The longer it goes, the lower the average maturity time until it would be on average very close to 1 round. You'd still have long runs of bad luck that would increase the time to payment maturity, but there would be no risk to Luke-jr and significant benefits to miners.

Of course, Eligius has been a free pool for so long there would be significant resistance to a 2% fee. What miners should realise is that they would have more btc sooner, and there is a significant time value of money in the current high interest btc market.

[donking]

It could be possible to make some sort of Swap instrument,
that is valid for the next x blocks,
where you have a % fee that goes to the holders of this swap as payment for risk, and that any credit in unlucky times is financed from the pool of paid in coins by the buyers of the swap.
When there are lucky period money is added to the pool, when there are unlucky periods money is deduced from the pool.
at the end of the x blocks, buyers of the swap are paid back the remaining pool + the % fee.
Then a new offering is made for the next x blocks.
That way you finance a pool of money that can promptly pay out, and the risk of an unlucky period is taken by the buyers of this swap.
An there are probably investors ready since the pool has credibility compared to other investments opportunities in bitcoin.

[Raize]

When does the polling close and any changes that are going to take place take place? It's been running around 5 days now.

[martychubbs]

Regardless of which MPPS variant you decide on, a hybrid PPS-SMPPS with a 2% fee would reduce the average 100 round maturity time by 20% and the average 200 round maturity time by 28%. The longer it goes, the lower the average maturity time until it would be on average very close to 1 round. You'd still have long runs of bad luck that would increase the time to payment maturity, but there would be no risk to Luke-jr and significant benefits to miners.

Of course, Eligius has been a free pool for so long there would be significant resistance to a 2% fee. What miners should realise is that they would have more btc sooner, and there is a significant time value of money in the current high interest btc market.

Brilliant!

[martychubbs]

PPLNS has the same drawbacks as proportional except they're slightly offset for longer blocks.  Can still hop on short blocks.

This is false, PPLNS is hopping-proof. You probably misunderstood how PPLNS works (or misimplemented it), most likely thinking it only rewards shares from the current round.

Actually, turns out the document I had initially read on the topic was of an incorrect implementation.  My mistake.  However, it's still able to be hopped in any case, just not as easily or predictably.

Hopping means some times are better to mine than others and that this can be deduced from the pool's past. In PPLNS the payouts don't depend on the past, only on the future. If hoppers could see the future and tell when blocks will be found, they would be able to hop. But they can't, so they can't. There is no hopping strategy that would give better-than-random payouts. This has been mathematically proven.

I'm not sure what I've done to deserve your distrust, but I honestly spent some time thinking about these things.

Edit: Ok, I will stop derailing the thread. I'll be happy to continue discussing PPLNS in an on-topic thread such as PPLNS.

I like you sexy PPLNS talk...my thread or yours!  Great stuff Meni...