File:Logo-white-sq.png

2017-02-17T03:40:52Z

Bit kevin: Bit kevin uploaded a new version of File:Logo-white-sq.png

== Summary ==
BTC.com Logo
== Licensing ==
{{Attribution}}

Comparison of mining pools

2017-02-17T03:37:34Z

Bit kevin:

Reward types & explanation:
* '''CPPSRB''' - Capped Pay Per Share with Recent Backpay. [http://eligius.st/wiki/index.php/Capped_PPS_with_Recent_Backpay]
* '''DGM''' - Double Geometric Method. A hybrid between PPLNS and Geometric reward types that enables to operator to absorb some of the variance risk. Operator receives portion of payout on short rounds and returns it on longer rounds to normalize payments. [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=39497.0]
* '''ESMPPS''' - Equalized Shared Maximum Pay Per Share. Like SMPPS, but equalizes payments fairly among all those who are owed. [http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=12181.msg378851#msg378851]
* '''POT''' - Pay On Target. A high variance PPS variant that pays on the difficulty of work returned to pool rather than the difficulty of work served by pool [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=131376.0]
* '''PPLNS''' - Pay Per Last N Shares. Similar to proportional, but instead of looking at the number of shares in the round, instead looks at the last N shares, regardless of round boundaries.
* '''PPLNSG''' - Pay Per Last N Groups (or shifts). Similar to PPLNS, but shares are grouped into "shifts" which are paid as a whole.
* '''PPS''' - Pay Per Share. Each submitted share is worth certain amoutripnt of BC. Since finding a block requires <current difficulty> shares ''on average'', a PPS method with 0% fee would be 12.5 BTC divided by <current difficulty>. It is risky for pool operators, hence the fee is highest.
* '''Prop.''' - Proportional. When block is found, the reward is distributed among all workers proportionally to how much shares each of them has found.
* '''RSMPPS''' - Recent Shared Maximum Pay Per Share. Like SMPPS, but system aims to prioritize the most recent miners first. [http://eligius.st/wiki/index.php/Shared_Maximum_PPS]
* '''Score''' - Score based system: a proportional reward, but weighed by time submitted. Each submitted share is worth more in the function of time ''t'' since start of current round. For each share score is updated by: score += exp(t/C). This makes later shares worth much more than earlier shares, thus the miner's score quickly diminishes when they stop mining on the pool. Rewards are calculated proportionally to scores (and not to shares). (at slush's pool C=300 seconds, and every hour scores are normalized)
* '''SMPPS''' - Shared Maximum Pay Per Share. Like Pay Per Share, but never pays more than the pool earns. [http://eligius.st/wiki/index.php/Shared_Maximum_PPS]
* '''FPPS''' - Full Pay Per Share. Similar to PPS，but not only divide regular block reward (12.5 BTC for now) but also the transaction fee. Calculate a standard transaction fee within a certain period and distribute it to miners according to their hash power contributions in the pool. It will increase the miners' earnings by 7%-9%.

A statistically valid analysis of some pools and their payout methods: [http://organofcorti.blogspot.com/ Bitcoin network and pool analysis]

{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"
|-
! Name !! Location !! Size<ref name="hashrate2"/>
! Merged Mining<ref name="merged"/>
! Reward Type !! Transaction fees!!PPS Fee!!Other Fee!! [[File:Stm.png|link=Stratum_mining_protocol]] !! [[getblocktemplate|GBT]]
! Launched !! Variance !! Forum !! Website
|-
| [[AntPool]] || China || Large || No || PPLNS & PPS || {{PoolFees}} || 2.5% || 0% || {{Yes}} || {{No}}
| ? || ? || [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=855548 link] || [https://www.antpool.com/ link]
|-
| [[BTC.com]] || {{flag|cn}}{{flag|us|}}{{flag|eu}} || Medium || [[NMC]] || FPPS || {{SharedFees}} || 0% || 4% || {{Yes}} || {{No}}
| 2016-09-13 || ? || ? || [https://pool.btc.com/ link]
|-
| [[BCMonster.com]] ||{{flag|us|}}{{flag|eu}}{{flag|cn|}} || Small || No || PPLNS || {{SharedFees}} || || 0.5% || {{Yes}} || {{No}}
| 2016-01-13 || Dynamic || [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1327077.0 link] || [http://www.bcmonster.com link]
|-
| [[BitcoinAffiliateNetwork]] || {{flag|us|}}{{flag|eu}}{{flag|cn|}}{{flag|nl|}}{{flag|au|}} || ? || [[NMC]], [[DOGE]] || ? || {{PoolFees}} || ? || ? || {{Yes}} ||
| 2014-07-15 || User/Dynamic || [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=722202.0 link] || [http://mining.bitcoinaffiliatenetwork.com/ link]
|-
| [[Bitcoin Pooled Mining|Slush's pool (mining.bitcoin.cz)]]
| Global || Medium || No || Score || {{SharedFees}} || || 2% || {{Yes}} || {{No}}
| 2010-11-27 || User<ref name="changeable"/> || [http://bitcointalk.org/?topic=1976 link] || [http://mining.bitcoin.cz/ link]
|-
| [[BitMinter]] || {{flag|us}}{{flag|de}} || Small || [[NMC]] || PPLNSG || {{SharedFees}} || || 1% || {{Yes}} || {{No}}
| 2011-06-26 || User<ref name="changeable"/>/Dynamic || [https://bitcointalk.org/?topic=788753 link] || [https://bitminter.com link]
|-
| [[BTCC Pool]] || China, Japan || Large || [[NMC]] || PPS || {{PoolFees}} || 2.0% || 0% || {{Yes}} || {{Yes}}
| 2014-10-21 || Dynamic || ? || [https://pool.btcc.com link]
|-
| [[BTC Public Mining Pool]] || {{flag|eu}}{{flag|us}} || Small || No || PPLNSG || {{SharedFees}} || || 0.9% || {{Yes}} || {{No}}
| 2015-12-31 || User<ref name="changeable"/>/Dynamic 18SPM || [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1667999.0 link] || [https://btc.mining-pool.io/ link]
|-
| [[BTCDig]] || {{flag|us|label=1}}|| Small || No || DGM || {{PoolFees}} || || 0% || {{Yes}} ||
| 2013-07-04 || User<ref name="changeable"/>/Dynamic 20SPM || [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=249627 link] || [http://btcdig.com/ link]
|-
| [[btcmp.com]] || {{flag|de|label=1}}|| Small || No || PPS || {{PoolFees}} || 4% || || {{Yes}} ||
| 2011-06-28 || Diff 1 || || [http://www.btcmp.com/ link]
|-
| [[BW Mining]] || China || Medium || ? || PPLNS & PPS || ? || ? || ? || {{Yes}} ||
| ? || ? || ? || [https://www.bw.com/pool link]
|-
| [[CKPool]] || {{flag|us}}{{flag|sg}}{{flag|de}}{{flag|jp}}{{flag|fr}}{{flag|nl}} || Medium || No || PPLNSG || {{SharedFees}} || || 0.9% || {{Yes}} || {{No}}
| 2014-09-20 || User<ref name="changeable"/>/Dynamic 18SPM || [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=789369.0 link] || [http://www.kano.is link]
|-
| [[Eclipse Mining Consortium]]
| Global || Small || No || DGM & PPS || {{PoolFees}} || 5% || 0% || {{Yes}} || {{Yes}}
| 2011-06-14 || User<ref name="changeable"/>/Dynamic
| [http://bitcointalk.org/?topic=16385 link] || [https://eclipsemc.com link]
|-
| [[Eligius]] || {{flag|us|label=1}}|| Small || [[NMC]] || CPPSRB || {{SharedFees}} || || 0% || {{Yes}} || {{Yes}}
| 2011-04-27 || Dynamic: 32 shares/m || [https://bitcointalk.org/?topic=441465 link] || [http://eligius.st link]
|-
| [[F2Pool]] || {{flag|cn|}}{{flag|us|}} || Large || NMC, DOGE, HUC || PPS || {{PoolFees}} || 3% || || {{Yes}} || {{No}}
| 2013-05-05 || Dynamic || [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=700411.0 link] || [https://www.f2pool.com link]
|-
| [[GHash.IO]] || {{flag|nl|label=1}}|| Small || [[NMC]], IXC, [[Devcoin]] || PPLNS || {{SharedFees}} || || 0% || {{Yes}} || {{No}}
| 2013-07-01 || User<ref name="changeable"/> || [https://support.cex.io link] || [https://ghash.io/ link]
|-
| [[Give Me COINS]] || {{flag|us}}{{flag|eu}} || Small || [[NMC]] || PPLNS || {{SharedFees}} || || 0%|| {{Yes}} || {{Yes}}
| 2013-08-12 || Dynamic || [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=272017.0 link] || [http://give-me-coins.com link]
|-
| [[Merge Mining Pool]] || {{flag|us|label=1}}|| Small || [[NMC]], IXC, [[Devcoin]]
| DGM || {{SharedFees}} || || 1.5% || {{Yes}} || {{No}}
| 2012-01-08 || User<ref name="changeable"/> || [http://bitcointalk.org/?topic=57148 link] || [http://mmpool.org link]
|-
| [[Multipool]] || {{flag|us}}{{flag|eu}} || Small || [[NMC]] || Score || {{SharedFees}} || || 1.5% || {{Yes}} || {{No}}
| 2012-03-15 || User || [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=311067.0 link] || [https://www.multipool.us/ link]
|-
| [[P2Pool]] || Global (p2p) || Small || Solo<ref name="solomm"/> || PPLNS || {{SharedFees}} || || 0% || {{Yes}} || {{No}}
| 2011-06-17 || User<ref name="changeable"/> || [http://bitcointalk.org/?topic=18313 link] ||
|-
| [[PolMine]] || {{flag|pl|label=1}}|| Small || [[NMC]] || SMPPS || {{SharedFees}} || || 0% || {{Yes}} || {{Yes}}
| 2011-06-13 || Dynamic/User || [http://forum.polmine.pl/ link] || [https://polmine.pl/?setlang=en link]
|-
| [[MergeMining]] || Global || Small || CRW, DVC, HUC, I0C, XMY/MYR, NMC, SYS, UNO, TRC, ARG || PPLNS || {{SharedFees}} || || 1% || {{Yes}} || {{No}}
| 2016-12-01|| User<ref name="changeable"/> || || [https://mergemining.com]
|-
|}

== SPV Mining / Old Bitcoin Core ==

The following pools are known or strongly suspected to be mining on top of blocks before fully validating them with Bitcoin Core 0.9.5 or later. Miners doing this have already lost over $50,000 USD during the 4 July 2015 fork and have created a situation where small numbers of confirmations are much less useful than they normally are.

* BTC Nuggets
* [https://www.f2pool.com/ F2Pool]<ref name="spv_despite_incident">[https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=700411.msg11790734#msg11790734 Intention to continue SPV mining], Wang Chun, 4 July 2015</ref>
* AntPool<ref name="spv_despite_incident" />

The following pools are believed to be currently fully validating blocks with Bitcoin Core 0.9.5 or later (0.10.2 or later recommended due to DoS vulnerabilities):

* [[BitMinter]]
* BTC China (described as SPV mining<ref name="spv_despite_incident" />, but they're performing effective valiation)
* [[BTC Public Mining Pool]]
* [[CKPool]]
* [[Eligius]]
* [[P2Pool]]
* [[Bitcoin Pooled Mining|Slush Pool]]
* [[BCMonster.com]]

== References ==

<references>

<ref name="hashrate2">Note that pool hashrate is largely irrelevant but can be seen as a popularity measurement. It is a theoretical security issue if one pool gains above 50% of the total computational power of the network, thus consider joining a pool based on other metrics. The pool's total hash rate is very dynamic on most pools. Over time, as the network grows, so does most pool's hash rates. The displayed values are the pool's relative sizes based on the network: Small: less than 2%, Medium: 2%-10% Large: greater than 10% of the network.</ref>

<ref name="merged">Merged mining allows miners to mine on multiple [[block chains]] at the same time with the same hashing.</ref>

<ref name="changeable">The difficulty of the shares can be changed by the user.</ref>
<ref name="solomm">Merged mining can be done on a "solo mining" basis (payouts in the merged chain are not pooled).</ref>
</references>

== See also ==
* [[Pooled mining]]
* [https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pools Pool Distribution Summary]
* [https://www.bitcoinmining.com/ Bitcoin Mining]
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmOzih6I1zs Video: What is Bitcoin Mining]
* [https://www.bitcoinmining.com/bitcoin-mining-pools/ Bitcoin Mining Pools]
* [https://bitcoinchain.com/pools Bitcoin Mining Pools Comparison]
[[Category:Mining]]
{{Pools}}

Pooled mining

2017-02-17T03:37:09Z

Bit kevin: /* The Full Pay-per-Share approach */

'''Pooled mining''' is a [[Mining|mining]] approach where multiple generating clients contribute to the generation of a block, and then split the block reward according the contributed processing power. Pooled mining effectively reduces the granularity of the block generation reward, spreading it out more smoothly over time.

==Introduction==

With increasing generation difficulty, mining with lower-performance devices can take a very long time before block generation, on average. For example, with a mining speed of 1000 Khps, at a difficulty of 14484 (which was in effect at the end of December, 2010), the average time to generate a block is almost 2 years.

To provide a more smooth incentive to lower-performance miners, several pooled miners, using different approaches, have been created. With a mining pool, a lot of different people contribute to generating a block, and the reward is then split among them according to their processing contribution. This way, instead of waiting for years to generate 50btc{{Citation needed}} in a block, a smaller miner may get a fraction of a Bitcoin on a more regular basis.

A '''share''' is awarded by the mining pool to the clients who present a valid [[proof of work]] of the same type as the proof of work that is used for creating [[block|blocks]], but of lesser difficulty, so that it requires less time on average to generate.

==Pooled mining approaches==

The problem with pooled mining is that steps must be taken to prevent cheating by the clients and the server. Currently there are several different approaches used.

===The slush approach===

[[Bitcoin Pooled Mining]] (BPM), sometimes referred to as "slush's pool", follows a score-based method. Older shares (from beginning of the round) have lower weight than more recent shares, which reduces the motivation to cheat by switching between pools within a round.

===The Pay-per-Share approach===

The Pay-per-Share (PPS) approach, first described by [[BitPenny]], is to offer an instant flat payout for each share that is solved. The payout is offered from the pool's existing balance and can therefore be withdrawn immediately, without waiting for a block to be solved or confirmed. The possibility of cheating the miners by the pool operator and by timing attacks is thus completely eliminated.

This method results in the least possible variance for miners while transferring all risk to the pool operator. The resulting possibility of loss for the server is offset by setting a payout lower than the full expected value.

===The Full Pay-per-Share approach===

The Full Pay-per-Share (FPPS) approach, created by [[BTC.com]] team, aims to benefit miners from the high transaction fee. It will calculate a standard transaction fee within a certain period，add it into the block reward (12.5 BTC for now) and then distribute the whole to miners according to PPS mode.

This method keeps advantages of PPS and pay more to miners by sharing the transaction fee. It will increase the miners' earnings by 7%-9%.

===Luke-Jr's approach ("[[Eligius]]")===
[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke]] came up with a third approach borrowing strengths from the earlier two.
Like slush's approach, miners submit proofs-of-work to earn shares.
Like puddinpop's approach, the pool pays out immediately via block generation.
When distributing block rewards, it is divided equally among all shares since the last valid block.
Unlike any preexisting pool approach, this means that the shares contributed toward stale blocks are recycled into the next block's shares.
In order to spare participating miners from transaction fees, rewards are only paid out if a miner has earned at least 0.67108864 BTC (400 [[Tonal Bitcoin|TBC]]). If the amount owed is less, it will be added to the earnings of a later block (which may then total over the threshold amount).
If a miner does not submit a share for over a week, the pool sends any balance remaining, regardless of its size.

===P2Pool approach===

[[P2Pool]] mining nodes work on a chain of shares similar to Bitcoin’s blockchain. When a block is found, the reward is divided among the most recent shares in this share-blockchain. Like the puddinpop and Luke-Jr approaches, p2pool pays via generation.

===Comparison===

The cooperative mining approach (slush and Luke-Jr) uses a lot less resources on the pool server, since rather than continuously checking metahashes, all that has to be checked is the validity of submitted shares. The number of shares sent can be adjusted by adjusting the artificial difficulty level.

Further, the cooperative mining approach allows the clients to use existing miners without any modification, while the puddinpop approach requires the custom pool miner, which are as of now not as efficient on GPU mining as the existing GPU miners.
[[File:Smallgeneration.png|thumb|Puddinpop miners receive coins directly.]]

Additionally, the puddinpop and Luke-Jr approaches of distributing the earnings by way of including precise sub-cent amounts in the generation transaction for the participants, results in the presence of sub-cent bitcoin amounts in your wallet, which are liable to disappear (as unnecessary fees) later due to a bug in old (before 0.3.21) bitcoin nodes. (E.g., if you have a transaction with 0.052 in your wallet, and you later send .05 to someone, your .002 will disappear.).

Puddinpop and Luke-Jr miners receive coins directly, which eliminates the delay in receiving earnings that is required on slush-based mining servers. However, using some [[eWallet]] services for generated coin will cause those coins to be lost.

==See Also==

* [[:Category:Miners|Miners]]
* [[Poolservers]]
* [[Comparison of mining pools]]
* [[:Category:Pool Operators|Pool Operators]]
* [[Why a GPU mines faster than a CPU]]
* [[Why pooled mining]]
* [[Mining pool reward FAQ]]

==External links==

* [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1458.0 puddinpop's mining pool thread]
* [http://blockexplorer.com/block/00000000000233334b157d901714baf59e5b9236227b2878844e52244da4195e example puddinpop block]

==References==
<references />

* [https://www.zpool.ca/ Bitcoin Multipool]
* [https://www.bitcoinmining.com/ Bitcoin Mining]
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmOzih6I1zs Video: What is Bitcoin Mining]
* [http://bitcoinminer.com Bitcoin Miner]

[[ru:майнинг в пулах]]
[[Category:Mining]]
{{Pools}}

BTC.com

2017-02-17T02:13:21Z

Bit kevin:

{{infobox company|image=[[File:Logo-white-sq.png|200px|thumb|left]]|name=BTC.com
|founder= [[Bitmain]]
|foundation= 2015
|industry=[[Wallet]] [[Api]] [[Block Explorer]]
|website=https://www.btc.com
}}[https://www.btc.com BTC.com] provides an easy to use and highly secure mobile and web wallet [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.blocktrail.mywallet&hl=en '''Android Wallet'''] [https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/blocktrail-bitcoin-wallet/id1019614423/ '''iOS Wallet'''], Bitcoin API, an industry popular [http://www.btc.com block explorer], and [[mining pool]]. 

On July 19, 2016 [[Blocktrail]] was acquired by [[Bitmain]] and subsequently re-branded to BTC.com.<ref>http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-miner-bitmain-acquires-blockchain-data-startup/</ref>

The FPPS is launched now. BTC.com team has created a new settlement mode named FPPS (Full Pay Per Share)，which aims to benefit miners from the high transaction fee. It will calculate a standard transaction fee within a certain period，add it into regular block reward (12.5 BTC for now) and then distribute the whole to miners according to PPS mode.
This method keeps advantages of PPS and pay more to miners by sharing the transaction fee. It will increase the miners' earnings by 7%-9%.

==Wallet==

BTC.com's Bitcoin wallet features unparalleled security through Multi-Signature technology, keeping you in full control of your coins at all time. Transactions are signed on your device so we never see your private keys.

With our HD wallets you can create an unlimited number of addresses to help protect your privacy without the need for multiple private key backups. Our system will also generate new addresses for change and fund requests automatically.

Access your wallet anywhere, anytime; use the mobile app when you're on the go, or log in to the web-interface when at home or in the office.

* 2-of-3 Multisig technology so you always remain in control of your coins
* HD wallet technology allowing you to create an unlimited number of addresses
* Send and Receive bitcoin easily with contacts on your phone
* Live update for new transactions and your balance
* View your full transaction history with the price at the time of the transaction
* Personalise your account so your friends can quickly identify you
* QR code scanning with bitcoin URI support
* Send requests via email and SMS
* PIN protection
* Anonymous accounts, for your privacy
* Transactions signed locally on your device
* Backup document in case the worst happens
* Local currency display using live price updates

'''Open Source and available for review on Github:''' http://github.com/blocktrail/blocktrail-wallet

[https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.blocktrail.mywallet/ '''Android Wallet''']
[https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/blocktrail-bitcoin-wallet/id1019614423/ '''iOS Wallet''']

== Block Explorer ==
View realtime & historical data on bitcoin addresses, transactions and economy.

* '''Mentions''' - See all the mentions of particular bitcoin addresses.
* '''Stats''' - See all stats for particular addresses.
* '''Search via QR''' - Search any QR code in one click, directly from our homepage

[https://www.btc.com '''BTC.com Block Explorer''']

== Bitcoin API ==
Your applications can access the data of the Bitcoin network via the API provided by BTC.COM.

[https://www.BTC.com/api-doc '''BTC.com Bitcoin API''']

== Mining Pool ==
BTC.com has launched a mining pool on September 13, 2016.<ref>http://www.coindesk.com/bitmain-bitcoin-mining-launch-second-mining-pool/</ref> The mining pool provides FPPS mining approach.<ref>https://blog.btc.com/btc-com-launches-new-open-source-mining-pool-with-zero-mining-fee-2f6e0a53ce2c#.33zivpv2w</ref>

[https://pool.btc.com/ '''BTC.com Mining Pool''']

== Statistics ==
View statistics for pool distribution, difficulty, block size, transaction fee's, block version, address rich list & more.

[https://btc.com/stats '''BTC.com Statistics''']

==See Also==

* [[Block chain browser]]
* [[Api]]
* [[Wallet]]
* [[Mining Pool]]

==External Links==
* [https://www.btc.com Home page]
* [https://www.twitter.com/btccom_official Follow BTC.com on Twitter]
* [https://www.facebook.com/btccom/ Follow us on Facebook]
* [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1572823.0 Bitcointalk thread]

==References==
<references />

[[Category:Services]]
[[Category:Wallets]]
[[Category:Mobile]]
[[Category:Block chain browsers]]
[[Category:Frontends]]
[[Category:Bitcoin]]
[[Category:Clients]]
[[Category:Pool Operators]]

2016-09-13T01:46:56Z

Bit kevin:

Reward types & explanation:
* '''CPPSRB''' - Capped Pay Per Share with Recent Backpay. [http://eligius.st/wiki/index.php/Capped_PPS_with_Recent_Backpay]
* '''DGM''' - Double Geometric Method. A hybrid between PPLNS and Geometric reward types that enables to operator to absorb some of the variance risk. Operator receives portion of payout on short rounds and returns it on longer rounds to normalize payments. [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=39497.0]
* '''ESMPPS''' - Equalized Shared Maximum Pay Per Share. Like SMPPS, but equalizes payments fairly among all those who are owed. [http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=12181.msg378851#msg378851]
* '''POT''' - Pay On Target. A high variance PPS variant that pays on the difficulty of work returned to pool rather than the difficulty of work served by pool [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=131376.0]
* '''PPLNS''' - Pay Per Last N Shares. Similar to proportional, but instead of looking at the number of shares in the round, instead looks at the last N shares, regardless of round boundaries.
* '''PPLNSG''' - Pay Per Last N Groups (or shifts). Similar to PPLNS, but shares are grouped into "shifts" which are paid as a whole.
* '''PPS''' - Pay Per Share. Each submitted share is worth certain amoutripnt of BC. Since finding a block requires <current difficulty> shares ''on average'', a PPS method with 0% fee would be 25 BTC divided by <current difficulty>. It is risky for pool operators, hence the fee is highest.
* '''Prop.''' - Proportional. When block is found, the reward is distributed among all workers proportionally to how much shares each of them has found.
* '''RSMPPS''' - Recent Shared Maximum Pay Per Share. Like SMPPS, but system aims to prioritize the most recent miners first. [http://eligius.st/wiki/index.php/Shared_Maximum_PPS]
* '''Score''' - Score based system: a proportional reward, but weighed by time submitted. Each submitted share is worth more in the function of time ''t'' since start of current round. For each share score is updated by: score += exp(t/C). This makes later shares worth much more than earlier shares, thus the miner's score quickly diminishes when they stop mining on the pool. Rewards are calculated proportionally to scores (and not to shares). (at slush's pool C=300 seconds, and every hour scores are normalized)
* '''SMPPS''' - Shared Maximum Pay Per Share. Like Pay Per Share, but never pays more than the pool earns. [http://eligius.st/wiki/index.php/Shared_Maximum_PPS]

A statistically valid analysis of some pools and their payout methods: [http://organofcorti.blogspot.com/ Bitcoin network and pool analysis]

{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"
|-
! Name !! Location !! Size<ref name="hashrate2"/>
! Merged Mining<ref name="merged"/>
! Reward Type !! Transaction fees!!PPS Fee!!Other Fee!! [[File:Stm.png|link=Stratum_mining_protocol]] !! [[getblocktemplate|GBT]]
! Launched !! Variance !! Forum !! Website
|-
| [[AntPool]] || China || Large || No || PPLNS & PPS || {{PoolFees}} || 2.5% || 0% || {{Yes}} || {{No}}
| ? || ? || [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=855548 link] || [https://www.antpool.com/ link]
|-
| [[BTC Pool]] || China || Medium || Yes || PPS || {{PoolFees}} || 1.5% || 0% || {{Yes}} || {{No}}
| 2016-09-13 || ? || ? || [https://pool.btc.com/ link]
|-
| [[BCMonster.com]] ||{{flag|us|}}{{flag|eu}}{{flag|cn|}} || Small || No || PPLNS || {{SharedFees}} || || 0.5% || {{Yes}} || {{No}}
| 2016-01-13 || Dynamic || [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1327077.0 link] || [http://www.bcmonster.com link]
|-
| [[BitcoinAffiliateNetwork]] || {{flag|us|}}{{flag|eu}}{{flag|cn|}}{{flag|nl|}}{{flag|au|}} || ? || [[NMC]], [[DOGE]] || ? || {{PoolFees}} || ? || ? || {{Yes}} ||
| 2014-07-15 || User/Dynamic || [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=722202.0 link] || [http://mining.bitcoinaffiliatenetwork.com/ link]
|-
| [[Bitcoin Pooled Mining|Slush's pool (mining.bitcoin.cz)]]
| Global || Medium || No || Score || {{SharedFees}} || || 2% || {{Yes}} || {{No}}
| 2010-11-27 || User<ref name="changeable"/> || [http://bitcointalk.org/?topic=1976 link] || [http://mining.bitcoin.cz/ link]
|-
| [[BitMinter]] || {{flag|us}}{{flag|de}} || Small || [[NMC]] || PPLNSG || {{SharedFees}} || || 1% || {{Yes}} || {{No}}
| 2011-06-26 || User<ref name="changeable"/>/Dynamic || [https://bitcointalk.org/?topic=788753 link] || [https://bitminter.com link]
|-
| [[BTCC Pool]] || China, Japan || Large || [[NMC]] || PPS || {{PoolFees}} || 2.0% || 0% || {{Yes}} || {{Yes}}
| 2014-10-21 || Dynamic || ? || [https://pool.btcc.com link]
|-
| [[BTCDig]] || {{flag|us|label=1}}|| Small || No || DGM || {{PoolFees}} || || 0% || {{Yes}} ||
| 2013-07-04 || User<ref name="changeable"/>/Dynamic 20SPM || [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=249627 link] || [http://btcdig.com/ link]
|-
| [[btcmp.com]] || {{flag|de|label=1}}|| Small || No || PPS || {{PoolFees}} || 4% || || {{Yes}} ||
| 2011-06-28 || Diff 1 || || [http://www.btcmp.com/ link]
|-
| [[BW Mining]] || China || Medium || ? || PPLNS & PPS || ? || ? || ? || {{Yes}} ||
| ? || ? || ? || [https://www.bw.com/pool link]
|-
| [[CKPool]] || {{flag|us}}{{flag|sg}}{{flag|de}}{{flag|jp}}{{flag|fr}}{{flag|nl}} || Medium || No || PPLNSG || {{SharedFees}} || || 0.9% || {{Yes}} || {{No}}
| 2014-09-20 || User<ref name="changeable"/>/Dynamic 18SPM || [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=789369.0 link] || [http://www.kano.is link]
|-
| [[Eclipse Mining Consortium]]
| Global || Small || No || DGM & PPS || {{PoolFees}} || 5% || 0% || {{Yes}} || {{Yes}}
| 2011-06-14 || User<ref name="changeable"/>/Dynamic
| [http://bitcointalk.org/?topic=16385 link] || [https://eclipsemc.com link]
|-
| [[Eligius]] || {{flag|us|label=1}}|| Small || [[NMC]] || CPPSRB || {{SharedFees}} || || 0% || {{Yes}} || {{Yes}}
| 2011-04-27 || Dynamic: 32 shares/m || [https://bitcointalk.org/?topic=441465 link] || [http://eligius.st link]
|-
| [[F2Pool]] || {{flag|cn|}}{{flag|us|}} || Large || NMC, DOGE, HUC || PPS || {{PoolFees}} || 3% || || {{Yes}} || {{No}}
| 2013-05-05 || Dynamic || [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=700411.0 link] || [https://www.f2pool.com link]
|-
| [[GHash.IO]] || {{flag|nl|label=1}}|| Small || [[NMC]], IXC, [[Devcoin]] || PPLNS || {{SharedFees}} || || 0% || {{Yes}} || {{No}}
| 2013-07-01 || User<ref name="changeable"/> || [https://support.cex.io link] || [https://ghash.io/ link]
|-
| [[Give Me COINS]] || {{flag|us}}{{flag|eu}} || Small || [[NMC]] || PPLNS || {{SharedFees}} || || 0%|| {{Yes}} || {{Yes}}
| 2013-08-12 || Dynamic || [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=272017.0 link] || [http://give-me-coins.com link]
|-
| [[Merge Mining Pool]] || {{flag|us|label=1}}|| Small || [[NMC]], IXC, [[Devcoin]]
| DGM || {{SharedFees}} || || 1.5% || {{Yes}} || {{No}}
| 2012-01-08 || User<ref name="changeable"/> || [http://bitcointalk.org/?topic=57148 link] || [http://mmpool.org link]
|-
| [[Multipool]] || {{flag|us}}{{flag|eu}} || Small || [[NMC]] || Score || {{SharedFees}} || || 1.5% || {{Yes}} || {{No}}
| 2012-03-15 || User || [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=311067.0 link] || [https://www.multipool.us/ link]
|-
| [[P2Pool]] || Global (p2p) || Small || Solo<ref name="solomm"/> || PPLNS || {{SharedFees}} || || 0% || {{Yes}} || {{No}}
| 2011-06-17 || User<ref name="changeable"/> || [http://bitcointalk.org/?topic=18313 link] ||
|-
| [[PolMine]] || {{flag|pl|label=1}}|| Small || [[NMC]] || SMPPS || {{SharedFees}} || || 0% || {{Yes}} || {{Yes}}
| 2011-06-13 || Dynamic/User || [http://forum.polmine.pl/ link] || [https://polmine.pl/?setlang=en link]
|-
|}

== SPV Mining / Old Bitcoin Core ==

The following pools are known or strongly suspected to be mining on top of blocks before fully validating them with Bitcoin Core 0.9.5 or later. Miners doing this have already lost over $50,000 USD during the 4 July 2015 fork and have created a situation where small numbers of confirmations are much less useful than they normally are.

* BTC Nuggets
* [https://www.f2pool.com/ F2Pool]<ref name="spv_despite_incident">[https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=700411.msg11790734#msg11790734 Intention to continue SPV mining], Wang Chun, 4 July 2015</ref>
* AntPool<ref name="spv_despite_incident" />

The following pools are believed to be currently fully validating blocks with Bitcoin Core 0.9.5 or later (0.10.2 or later recommended due to DoS vulnerabilities):

* [[BitMinter]]
* BTC China (described as SPV mining<ref name="spv_despite_incident" />, but they're performing effective valiation)
* [[CKPool]]
* [[Eligius]]
* [[P2Pool]]
* [[Bitcoin Pooled Mining|Slush Pool]]
* [[BCMonster.com]]

== References ==

<references>

<ref name="hashrate2">Note that pool hashrate is largely irrelevant but can be seen as a popularity measurement. It is a theoretical security issue if one pool gains above 50% of the total computational power of the network, thus consider joining a pool based on other metrics. The pool's total hash rate is very dynamic on most pools. Over time, as the network grows, so does most pool's hash rates. The displayed values are the pool's relative sizes based on the network: Small: less than 2%, Medium: 2%-10% Large: greater than 10% of the network.</ref>

<ref name="merged">Merged mining allows miners to mine on multiple [[block chains]] at the same time with the same hashing.</ref>

<ref name="changeable">The difficulty of the shares can be changed by the user.</ref>
<ref name="solomm">Merged mining can be done on a "solo mining" basis (payouts in the merged chain are not pooled).</ref>
</references>

== See also ==
* [[Pooled mining]]
* [https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pools Pool Distribution Summary]
* [https://www.bitcoinmining.com/ Bitcoin Mining]
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmOzih6I1zs Video: What is Bitcoin Mining]
* [https://www.bitcoinmining.com/bitcoin-mining-pools/ Bitcoin Mining Pools]
* [https://bitcoinchain.com/pools Bitcoin Mining Pools Comparison]
[[Category:Mining]]
{{Pools}}

Category:Block chain browsers

2015-09-29T03:24:46Z

Bit kevin: add testnet3 chain browsers

A [[block chain browser]] is an application, typically web-based, that allow users to search and navigate a [[block chain]].

== List of online block chain browsers ==
* [https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/explorer/ BitInfoCharts]
* [https://blockexplorer.com/ Bitcoin Block Explorer]
* [https://bitcoinchain.com/block_explorer/ BitcoinChain]
* [https://www.biteasy.com/blockchain/blocks bitEasy]
* [https://blockchain.info/ Blockchain.info]
* [https://live.blockcypher.com/ BlockCypher]
* [https://btc.blockr.io/ blockr]
* [https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC BlockTrail]
* [https://chain.btc.com/ BTC Chain]
* [http://chainflyer.bitflyer.jp/ chainFlyer]
* [http://coinbelly.io/ Coinbelly]
* [https://explorer.coinpayments.net/ CoinPayments]
* [https://www.coinprism.info/ Coinprism]
* [https://chain.localbitcoins.com/ LocalBitcoins]
* [https://chain.so/btc SoChain]
* [https://tradeblock.com/blockchain/ TradeBlock]
* [https://www.walletexplorer.com/ WalletExplorer]
* [http://webbtc.com/ webBTC]

== List of online block chain browsers (testnet3) ==
* [https://tbtc.blockr.io/ blockr]
* [https://tchain.btc.com/ BTC Chain]

BIP 0016

2013-07-08T11:05:47Z

Bit kevin:

{{bip}}

<pre>
BIP: 16
Title: Pay to Script Hash
Author: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
Status: Final
Type: Standards Track
Created: 03-01-2012
</pre>

==Abstract==

This BIP describes a new "standard" transaction type for the Bitcoin scripting system, and defines additional validation rules that apply only to the new transactions.

==Motivation==

The purpose of pay-to-script-hash is to move the responsibility for supplying the conditions to redeem a transaction from the sender of the funds to the redeemer.

The benefit is allowing a sender to fund any arbitrary transaction, no matter how complicated, using a fixed-length 20-byte hash that is short enough to scan from a QR code or easily copied and pasted.

==Specification==

A new standard transaction type that is relayed and included in mined blocks is defined:

OP_HASH160 [20-byte-hash-value] OP_EQUAL

[20-byte-hash-value] shall be the push-20-bytes-onto-the-stack opcode (0x14) followed by exactly 20 bytes.

This new transaction type is redeemed by a standard scriptSig:

...signatures... {serialized script}

Transactions that redeem these pay-to-script outpoints are only considered standard if the ''serialized script'' is, itself, one of the other standard transaction types.

The rules for validating these outpoints when relaying transactions or considering them for inclusion in a new block are as follows:

# Validation fails if there are any operations other than "push data" operations in the scriptSig.
# Normal validation is done: an initial stack is created from the signatures and {serialized script}, and the hash of the script is computed and validation fails immediately if it does not match the hash in the outpoint.
# {serialized script} is popped off the initial stack, and the transaction is validated again using the popped stack and the deserialized script as the scriptPubKey.

These new rules should only be applied when validating transactions in blocks with timestamps >= 1333238400 (Apr 1 2012) <ref>[https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/8f188ece3c82c4cf5d52a3363e7643c23169c0ff Remove -bip16 and -paytoscripthashtime command-line arguments]</ref>. There are transaction earlier than 13333238400 in the block chain that fail these new validation rules. <ref>[http://blockexplorer.com/tx/6a26d2ecb67f27d1fa5524763b49029d7106e91e3cc05743073461a719776192 Transaction 6a26d2ecb67f27d1fa5524763b49029d7106e91e3cc05743073461a719776192]</ref>. Older transactions must be validated under the old rules. (see the Backwards Compatibility section for details).

For example, the scriptPubKey and corresponding scriptSig for a one-signature-required transaction is:

scriptSig: [signature] {[pubkey] OP_CHECKSIG}
scriptPubKey: OP_HASH160 [20-byte-hash of {[pubkey] OP_CHECKSIG} ] OP_EQUAL

Signature operations in the {serialized script} shall contribute to the maximum number allowed per block (20,000) as follows:

# OP_CHECKSIG and OP_CHECKSIGVERIFY count as 1 signature operation, whether or not they are evaluated.
# OP_CHECKMULTISIG and OP_CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY immediately preceded by OP_1 through OP_16 are counted as 1 to 16 signature operation, whether or not they are evaluated.
# All other OP_CHECKMULTISIG and OP_CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY are counted as 20 signature operations.

Examples:

+3 signature operations:
{2 [pubkey1] [pubkey2] [pubkey3] 3 OP_CHECKMULTISIG}

+22 signature operations
{OP_CHECKSIG OP_IF OP_CHECKSIGVERIFY OP_ELSE OP_CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY OP_ENDIF}

==Rationale==

This BIP replaces BIP 12, which proposed a new Script opcode ("OP_EVAL") to accomplish everything in this BIP and more.

The Motivation for this BIP (and BIP 13, the pay-to-script-hash address type) is somewhat controversial; several people feel that it is unnecessary, and complex/multisignature transaction types should be supported by simply giving the sender the complete {serialized script}. The author believes that this BIP will minimize the changes needed to all of the supporting infrastructure that has already been created to send funds to a base58-encoded-20-byte bitcoin addresses, allowing merchants and exchanges and other software to start supporting multisignature transactions sooner.

Recognizing one 'special' form of scriptPubKey and performing extra validation when it is detected is ugly. However, the consensus is that the alternatives are either uglier, are more complex to implement, and/or expand the power of the expression language in dangerous ways.

The signature operation counting rules are intended to be easy and quick to implement by statically scanning the {serialized script}. Bitcoin imposes a maximum-number-of-signature-operations per block to prevent denial-of-service attacks on miners. If there was no limit, a rogue miner might broadcast a block that required hundreds of thousands of ECDSA signature operations to validate, and it might be able to get a head start computing the next block while the rest of the network worked to validate the current one.

There is a 1-confirmation attack on old implementations, but it is expensive and difficult in practice. The attack is:

# Attacker creates a pay-to-script-hash transaction that is valid as seen by old software, but invalid for new implementation, and sends themselves some coins using it.
# Attacker also creates a standard transaction that spends the pay-to-script transaction, and pays the victim who is running old software.
# Attacker mines a block that contains both transactions.

If the victim accepts the 1-confirmation payment, then the attacker wins because both transactions will be invalidated when the rest of the network overwrites the attacker's invalid block.

The attack is expensive because it requires the attacker create a block that they know will be invalidated by the rest of the network. It is difficult because creating blocks is difficult and users should not accept 1-confirmation transactions for higher-value transactions.

==Backwards Compatibility==

These transactions are non-standard to old implementations, which will (typically) not relay them or include them in blocks.

Old implementations will validate that the {serialize script}'s hash value matches when they validate blocks created by software that fully support this BIP, but will do no other validation.

Avoiding a block-chain split by malicious pay-to-script transactions requires careful handling of one case:

* A pay-to-script-hash transaction that is invalid for new clients/miners but valid for old clients/miners.

To gracefully upgrade and ensure no long-lasting block-chain split occurs, more than 50% of miners must support full validation of the new transaction type and must switch from the old validation rules to the new rules at the same time.

To judge whether or not more than 50% of hashing power supports this BIP, miners are asked to upgrade their software and put the string "/P2SH/" in the input of the coinbase transaction for blocks that they create.

On February 1, 2012, the block-chain will be examined to determine the number of blocks supporting pay-to-script-hash for the previous 7 days. If 550 or more contain "/P2SH/" in their coinbase, then all blocks with timestamps after 15 Feb 2012, 00:00:00 GMT shall have their pay-to-script-hash transactions fully validated. Approximately 1,000 blocks are created in a week; 550 should, therefore, be approximately 55% of the network supporting the new feature.

If a majority of hashing power does not support the new validation rules, then rollout will be postponed (or rejected if it becomes clear that a majority will never be achieved).

==Reference Implementation==

https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/3966071

==See Also==

* https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=46538
* The [[BIP 0013|Address format for Pay to Script Hash BIP]]
* M-of-N Multisignature Transactions [[BIP 0011|BIP 11]]
* [[BIP_0016_QA|Quality Assurance test checklist]]

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:BIP|D]]