binaryFate
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1012
Still wild and free
|
|
August 27, 2013, 02:26:32 PM |
|
POOL MINE AGAIN
when Asicminer was 25-30% of the network, it made sense to hop off and solo mine, but now it doesn't
cheers
You're grossly wrong on this. You only get dividends once a week, and the variance on a week time-frame is very small (even with 5% of the total hash rate). - The variance of blocks found over a week is by far overcome by the variance of the AM hashrate itself (glitches etc.), and this would still be the same when using a pool.
- If you want dividends that are that much stable, AM is not for you anyway.
There is absolutely no reason to pool mine, appart from giving away some fees.
|
Monero's privacy and therefore fungibility are MUCH stronger than Bitcoin's. This makes Monero a better candidate to deserve the term "digital cash".
|
|
|
canth
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1442
Merit: 1001
|
|
August 27, 2013, 02:38:46 PM |
|
POOL MINE AGAIN
when Asicminer was 25-30% of the network, it made sense to hop off and solo mine, but now it doesn't
cheers
You're grossly wrong on this. You only get dividends once a week, and the variance on a week time-frame is very small (even with 5% of the total hash rate). - The variance of blocks found over a week is by far overcome by the variance of the AM hashrate itself (glitches etc.), and this would still be the same when using a pool.
- If you want dividends that are that much stable, AM is not for you anyway.
There is absolutely no reason to pool mine, appart from giving away some fees.Not necessarily true. If for example, AM has a better network connection to a pool than to various nodes available in China, then the pool fees might be worth the savings in lost blocks blocks or in mining tx fees. We know that this has been a problem for AM and many firms doing business in China.
|
|
|
|
ThickAsThieves
|
|
August 27, 2013, 02:41:22 PM |
|
POOL MINE AGAIN
when Asicminer was 25-30% of the network, it made sense to hop off and solo mine, but now it doesn't
cheers
You're grossly wrong on this. You only get dividends once a week, and the variance on a week time-frame is very small (even with 5% of the total hash rate). - The variance of blocks found over a week is by far overcome by the variance of the AM hashrate itself (glitches etc.), and this would still be the same when using a pool.
- If you want dividends that are that much stable, AM is not for you anyway.
There is absolutely no reason to pool mine, appart from giving away some fees.Not necessarily true. If for example, AM has a better network connection to a pool than to various nodes available in China, then the pool fees might be worth the savings in lost blocks blocks or in mining tx fees. We know that this has been a problem for AM and many firms doing business in China. Admitting some ignorance here, but how could the net connection between AM and a pool be any better than the one they use to solo mine?
|
|
|
|
hcburger
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 13
Merit: 0
|
|
August 27, 2013, 02:48:50 PM |
|
Regarding variance in general:
Since blocks are randomly discovered, the number of blocks discovered over a given period of time is Poisson distributed. The expected number of blocks discovered by ASICMINER in a week is: 6*24*7*network_fraction. Since in a Poisson distribution, the mean is equal to the variance, and the standard deviation is equal to the square root of the variance, we have a standard deviation of sqrt(6*24*7*0.1), or approximately 10 blocks, assuming ASICMINER controls 10% of the network, or sqrt(6*24*7*0.05), or approximately 7 blocks, assuming ASICMINER controls 5% of the network.
This means that the standard deviation is approximately 10% the expected number of discovered blocks if ASICMINER controls 10% of the nework, or 14% if ASICMINER controls 5% of the network. If this is a lot or not is up for debate, but it is not insignificant.
Using the same math, we get a standard deviation of 53% (assuming 10% of network) for a six hour window and 37% for a 12 hour windows. That's quite a lot.
|
|
|
|
binaryFate
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1012
Still wild and free
|
|
August 27, 2013, 02:59:13 PM |
|
POOL MINE AGAIN
when Asicminer was 25-30% of the network, it made sense to hop off and solo mine, but now it doesn't
cheers
You're grossly wrong on this. You only get dividends once a week, and the variance on a week time-frame is very small (even with 5% of the total hash rate). - The variance of blocks found over a week is by far overcome by the variance of the AM hashrate itself (glitches etc.), and this would still be the same when using a pool.
- If you want dividends that are that much stable, AM is not for you anyway.
There is absolutely no reason to pool mine, appart from giving away some fees.Not necessarily true. If for example, AM has a better network connection to a pool than to various nodes available in China, then the pool fees might be worth the savings in lost blocks blocks or in mining tx fees. We know that this has been a problem for AM and many firms doing business in China. If it had such a good connection with a pool, it could just broadcast its solo-mined blocks to this pool node.
|
Monero's privacy and therefore fungibility are MUCH stronger than Bitcoin's. This makes Monero a better candidate to deserve the term "digital cash".
|
|
|
binaryFate
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1012
Still wild and free
|
|
August 27, 2013, 03:04:25 PM |
|
Regarding variance in general:
Since blocks are randomly discovered, the number of blocks discovered over a given period of time is Poisson distributed. The expected number of blocks discovered by ASICMINER in a week is: 6*24*7*network_fraction. Since in a Poisson distribution, the mean is equal to the variance, and the standard deviation is equal to the square root of the variance, we have a standard deviation of sqrt(6*24*7*0.1), or approximately 10 blocks, assuming ASICMINER controls 10% of the network, or sqrt(6*24*7*0.05), or approximately 7 blocks, assuming ASICMINER controls 5% of the network.
This means that the standard deviation is approximately 10% the expected number of discovered blocks if ASICMINER controls 10% of the nework, or 14% if ASICMINER controls 5% of the network. If this is a lot or not is up for debate, but it is not insignificant.
Using the same math, we get a standard deviation of 53% (assuming 10% of network) for a six hour window and 37% for a 12 hour windows. That's quite a lot.
Thanks for the maths Not insignificant, but as I wrote, most of the weeks it would be hidden by the variation of the actual hash rate (glitches, problems, tests, etc). Add on this that hardware sells also adds up to dividends in a variable way... it would be ridiculous to complain about a potential 14% variance, when the actual variance of dividends is much higher for different reasons.
|
Monero's privacy and therefore fungibility are MUCH stronger than Bitcoin's. This makes Monero a better candidate to deserve the term "digital cash".
|
|
|
hcburger
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 13
Merit: 0
|
|
August 27, 2013, 03:15:52 PM |
|
Not insignificant, but as I wrote, most of the weeks it would be hidden by the variation of the actual hash rate (glitches, problems, tests, etc).
Add on this that hardware sells also adds up to dividends in a variable way... it would be ridiculous to complain about a potential 14% variance, when the actual variance of dividends is much higher for different reasons.
Yes, over a week it is indeed not too important. However, it would seem that it makes little sense to display 6 hour and 12 hour hash rate estimates on, e.g. http://www.asicminercharts.com/live/ . Even 24 hour estimates are quite unreliable: stddev of 26% assuming 10% network control, 37% assuming 5% control. Or maybe the charts could be modified to include this standard deviation, so that the level of uncertainty can also be visualized?
|
|
|
|
keystroke
|
|
August 27, 2013, 03:48:06 PM |
|
Didn't you see friedcat's post about exponential new equipment being manufactured in September and October?
Yes. Which has nothing to do with why the existing 50 TH/s network hasn't been able to operate consistently at 50 TH/s. Yes, good point. It would be nice to get an explanation for this.
|
"The difference between a castle and a prison is only a question of who holds the keys."
|
|
|
Rival
|
|
August 27, 2013, 04:00:11 PM |
|
Not insignificant, but as I wrote, most of the weeks it would be hidden by the variation of the actual hash rate (glitches, problems, tests, etc).
Add on this that hardware sells also adds up to dividends in a variable way... it would be ridiculous to complain about a potential 14% variance, when the actual variance of dividends is much higher for different reasons.
Yes, over a week it is indeed not too important. However, it would seem that it makes little sense to display 6 hour and 12 hour hash rate estimates on, e.g. http://www.asicminercharts.com/live/ . Even 24 hour estimates are quite unreliable: stddev of 26% assuming 10% network control, 37% assuming 5% control. Or maybe the charts could be modified to include this standard deviation, so that the level of uncertainty can also be visualized? I would think it would be trivial to include a standard deviation to the charts. A bar graph of 30Ths might benefit from a "+/- 2.43 Thz" disclaimer. If poll takers can do that, why can't we?
|
|
|
|
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
|
|
August 27, 2013, 04:15:16 PM |
|
Not insignificant, but as I wrote, most of the weeks it would be hidden by the variation of the actual hash rate (glitches, problems, tests, etc).
Add on this that hardware sells also adds up to dividends in a variable way... it would be ridiculous to complain about a potential 14% variance, when the actual variance of dividends is much higher for different reasons.
Yes, over a week it is indeed not too important. However, it would seem that it makes little sense to display 6 hour and 12 hour hash rate estimates on, e.g. http://www.asicminercharts.com/live/ . Even 24 hour estimates are quite unreliable: stddev of 26% assuming 10% network control, 37% assuming 5% control. Or maybe the charts could be modified to include this standard deviation, so that the level of uncertainty can also be visualized? I would think it would be trivial to include a standard deviation to the charts. A bar graph of 30Ths might benefit from a "+/- 2.43 Thz" disclaimer. If poll takers can do that, why can't we? It would be trivial but then again you don't see a poll which says "52% +/- 45% approve (with 95% confidence interval)". That is essentially the equivalent of the 6 hour stat.
|
|
|
|
Jayjay04
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1364
Merit: 1000
|
|
August 27, 2013, 04:17:19 PM |
|
Why the officcial site '' www.asicminer.co '' isn't just up to date. Just put the live hashrate, stats on block found and revenues there dammit ! More transparency is getting essential please !!
|
|
|
|
eastpk
Member
Offline
Activity: 120
Merit: 10
WINSTARS - We are changing the face of gambling
|
|
August 27, 2013, 04:23:16 PM |
|
Why the officcial site '' www.asicminer.co '' isn't just up to date. Just put the live hashrate, stats on block found and revenues there dammit ! More transparency is getting essential please !! lol that isnt the official site....
|
|
|
|
hcburger
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 13
Merit: 0
|
|
August 27, 2013, 04:25:30 PM |
|
It would be trivial but then again you don't see a poll which says "52% +/- 45% approve (with 95% confidence interval)". That is essentially the equivalent of the 6 hour stat.
Agreed: The 6 and 12 hour estimates are essentially useless. But maybe we could have the estimated stddevs for the longer-term (maybe 24 hour and above) hash-rate estimates?
|
|
|
|
Jayjay04
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1364
Merit: 1000
|
|
August 27, 2013, 04:33:02 PM |
|
Why the officcial site '' www.asicminer.co '' isn't just up to date. Just put the live hashrate, stats on block found and revenues there dammit ! More transparency is getting essential please !! lol that isnt the official site.... Well is there one ?!?!
|
|
|
|
eastpk
Member
Offline
Activity: 120
Merit: 10
WINSTARS - We are changing the face of gambling
|
|
August 27, 2013, 04:34:16 PM |
|
Why the officcial site '' www.asicminer.co '' isn't just up to date. Just put the live hashrate, stats on block found and revenues there dammit ! More transparency is getting essential please !! lol that isnt the official site.... Well is there one ?!?! Yup, this is the official website..... https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=49840;sa=showPosts
|
|
|
|
ianp
|
|
August 27, 2013, 06:29:41 PM |
|
Not insignificant, but as I wrote, most of the weeks it would be hidden by the variation of the actual hash rate (glitches, problems, tests, etc).
Add on this that hardware sells also adds up to dividends in a variable way... it would be ridiculous to complain about a potential 14% variance, when the actual variance of dividends is much higher for different reasons.
Yes, over a week it is indeed not too important. However, it would seem that it makes little sense to display 6 hour and 12 hour hash rate estimates on, e.g. http://www.asicminercharts.com/live/ . Even 24 hour estimates are quite unreliable: stddev of 26% assuming 10% network control, 37% assuming 5% control. Or maybe the charts could be modified to include this standard deviation, so that the level of uncertainty can also be visualized? I would think it would be trivial to include a standard deviation to the charts. A bar graph of 30Ths might benefit from a "+/- 2.43 Thz" disclaimer. If poll takers can do that, why can't we? It would be trivial but then again you don't see a poll which says "52% +/- 45% approve (with 95% confidence interval)". That is essentially the equivalent of the 6 hour stat. I just want to add that I believe an accurate prediction of our current hashrate is about 63.5 th/s. I do not have any reason to believe that they have sold off any hashing power, nor do I have any reason to believe they have increased power over the last four weeks. http://www.dpcapital.net/blockchain/?hours=672
|
|
|
|
runeks
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 980
Merit: 1008
|
|
August 27, 2013, 06:37:45 PM |
|
Not insignificant, but as I wrote, most of the weeks it would be hidden by the variation of the actual hash rate (glitches, problems, tests, etc).
Add on this that hardware sells also adds up to dividends in a variable way... it would be ridiculous to complain about a potential 14% variance, when the actual variance of dividends is much higher for different reasons.
Yes, over a week it is indeed not too important. However, it would seem that it makes little sense to display 6 hour and 12 hour hash rate estimates on, e.g. http://www.asicminercharts.com/live/ . Even 24 hour estimates are quite unreliable: stddev of 26% assuming 10% network control, 37% assuming 5% control. Or maybe the charts could be modified to include this standard deviation, so that the level of uncertainty can also be visualized? I would think it would be trivial to include a standard deviation to the charts. A bar graph of 30Ths might benefit from a "+/- 2.43 Thz" disclaimer. If poll takers can do that, why can't we? It would be trivial but then again you don't see a poll which says "52% +/- 45% approve (with 95% confidence interval)". That is essentially the equivalent of the 6 hour stat. I just want to add that I believe an accurate prediction of our current hashrate is about 63.5 th/s. I do not have any reason to believe that they have sold off any hashing power, nor do I have any reason to believe they have increased power over the last four weeks. http://www.dpcapital.net/blockchain/?hours=672How do you calculate that? I don't think that's accurate. My calculations don't indicate 63.5 TH, not even on the highest spikes of the 24-hour average (which is almost certainly an inaccurate estimate).
|
|
|
|
ianp
|
|
August 27, 2013, 07:01:26 PM |
|
Not insignificant, but as I wrote, most of the weeks it would be hidden by the variation of the actual hash rate (glitches, problems, tests, etc).
Add on this that hardware sells also adds up to dividends in a variable way... it would be ridiculous to complain about a potential 14% variance, when the actual variance of dividends is much higher for different reasons.
Yes, over a week it is indeed not too important. However, it would seem that it makes little sense to display 6 hour and 12 hour hash rate estimates on, e.g. http://www.asicminercharts.com/live/ . Even 24 hour estimates are quite unreliable: stddev of 26% assuming 10% network control, 37% assuming 5% control. Or maybe the charts could be modified to include this standard deviation, so that the level of uncertainty can also be visualized? I would think it would be trivial to include a standard deviation to the charts. A bar graph of 30Ths might benefit from a "+/- 2.43 Thz" disclaimer. If poll takers can do that, why can't we? It would be trivial but then again you don't see a poll which says "52% +/- 45% approve (with 95% confidence interval)". That is essentially the equivalent of the 6 hour stat. I just want to add that I believe an accurate prediction of our current hashrate is about 63.5 th/s. I do not have any reason to believe that they have sold off any hashing power, nor do I have any reason to believe they have increased power over the last four weeks. http://www.dpcapital.net/blockchain/?hours=672How do you calculate that? I don't think that's accurate. My calculations don't indicate 63.5 TH, not even on the highest spikes of the 24-hour average (which is almost certainly an inaccurate estimate). Well -- it is a bit skewed. It only calculates based on the current difficulty, not the past difficulty. That is to say -- that if difficulty were to rise ten fold right now, the historical hashrate would rise as well because it's basing everything off of current difficulty. The link I posted produces the average hashrate of the previous 28 days.
|
|
|
|
runeks
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 980
Merit: 1008
|
|
August 27, 2013, 07:06:26 PM |
|
Not insignificant, but as I wrote, most of the weeks it would be hidden by the variation of the actual hash rate (glitches, problems, tests, etc).
Add on this that hardware sells also adds up to dividends in a variable way... it would be ridiculous to complain about a potential 14% variance, when the actual variance of dividends is much higher for different reasons.
Yes, over a week it is indeed not too important. However, it would seem that it makes little sense to display 6 hour and 12 hour hash rate estimates on, e.g. http://www.asicminercharts.com/live/ . Even 24 hour estimates are quite unreliable: stddev of 26% assuming 10% network control, 37% assuming 5% control. Or maybe the charts could be modified to include this standard deviation, so that the level of uncertainty can also be visualized? I would think it would be trivial to include a standard deviation to the charts. A bar graph of 30Ths might benefit from a "+/- 2.43 Thz" disclaimer. If poll takers can do that, why can't we? It would be trivial but then again you don't see a poll which says "52% +/- 45% approve (with 95% confidence interval)". That is essentially the equivalent of the 6 hour stat. I just want to add that I believe an accurate prediction of our current hashrate is about 63.5 th/s. I do not have any reason to believe that they have sold off any hashing power, nor do I have any reason to believe they have increased power over the last four weeks. http://www.dpcapital.net/blockchain/?hours=672How do you calculate that? I don't think that's accurate. My calculations don't indicate 63.5 TH, not even on the highest spikes of the 24-hour average (which is almost certainly an inaccurate estimate). Well -- it is a bit skewed. It only calculates based on the current difficulty, not the past difficulty.That is to say -- that if difficulty were to rise ten fold right now, the historical hashrate would rise as well because it's basing everything off of current difficulty. The link I posted produces the average hashrate of the previous 28 days. Well that's the problem then. It's not just a bit skewed, it's very skewed. The difficulty 28 days ago was 31M - less than half of what is now. So you're over-estimating the hashrate for the first ~4 days by over 110%, and the following 10 days by over 75%.
|
|
|
|
ianp
|
|
August 27, 2013, 07:23:00 PM |
|
Not insignificant, but as I wrote, most of the weeks it would be hidden by the variation of the actual hash rate (glitches, problems, tests, etc).
Add on this that hardware sells also adds up to dividends in a variable way... it would be ridiculous to complain about a potential 14% variance, when the actual variance of dividends is much higher for different reasons.
Yes, over a week it is indeed not too important. However, it would seem that it makes little sense to display 6 hour and 12 hour hash rate estimates on, e.g. http://www.asicminercharts.com/live/ . Even 24 hour estimates are quite unreliable: stddev of 26% assuming 10% network control, 37% assuming 5% control. Or maybe the charts could be modified to include this standard deviation, so that the level of uncertainty can also be visualized? I would think it would be trivial to include a standard deviation to the charts. A bar graph of 30Ths might benefit from a "+/- 2.43 Thz" disclaimer. If poll takers can do that, why can't we? It would be trivial but then again you don't see a poll which says "52% +/- 45% approve (with 95% confidence interval)". That is essentially the equivalent of the 6 hour stat. I just want to add that I believe an accurate prediction of our current hashrate is about 63.5 th/s. I do not have any reason to believe that they have sold off any hashing power, nor do I have any reason to believe they have increased power over the last four weeks. http://www.dpcapital.net/blockchain/?hours=672How do you calculate that? I don't think that's accurate. My calculations don't indicate 63.5 TH, not even on the highest spikes of the 24-hour average (which is almost certainly an inaccurate estimate). Well -- it is a bit skewed. It only calculates based on the current difficulty, not the past difficulty.That is to say -- that if difficulty were to rise ten fold right now, the historical hashrate would rise as well because it's basing everything off of current difficulty. The link I posted produces the average hashrate of the previous 28 days. Well that's the problem then. It's not just a bit skewed, it's very skewed. The difficulty 28 days ago was 31M - less than half of what is now. So you're over-estimating the hashrate for the first ~4 days by over 110%, and the following 10 days by over 75%. I store the difficulty at the time the block was mined -- I don't calculate it though. One of these days I'll get around to that -- I've just been too busy lately Edit -- whoops, I do not store difficulty. One of these days I'll add difficulty and go update everything
|
|
|
|
|