Talk:Why pooled mining: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
some words on request for deletion |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
... given a 500Mh/s machine. I studied maths but sorry in this case I don't even bother to look into the formulas presented as the "experiment bitcoin" proofs it very far wrong. | ... given a 500Mh/s machine. I studied maths but sorry in this case I don't even bother to look into the formulas presented as the "experiment bitcoin" proofs it very far wrong. | ||
--[[User:Giszmo|Giszmo]] 21:37, 21 June 2011 (GMT) | --[[User:Giszmo|Giszmo]] 21:37, 21 June 2011 (GMT) | ||
* I am reverting the delete request because your arguments are complete nonsense. The math is probably correct, and the page was contributed by a well-known and trusted member of the community. If there are some errors in the math, perhaps correction is needed, but certainly not deletion. Consider especially that the conclusions it supports are also correct: solo mining ''is'' always inferior to pooled mining. --[[User:Luke-jr|Luke-jr]] 14:28, 22 June 2011 (GMT) | |||
Revision as of 14:28, 22 June 2011
Request for deletion
This whole page is about spreading FUD about solo mining and comes to conclusions like:
- And conversely, your probability of /never generating a block even after millions of years/ is about 96+ percent.
... given a 500Mh/s machine. I studied maths but sorry in this case I don't even bother to look into the formulas presented as the "experiment bitcoin" proofs it very far wrong. --Giszmo 21:37, 21 June 2011 (GMT)
- I am reverting the delete request because your arguments are complete nonsense. The math is probably correct, and the page was contributed by a well-known and trusted member of the community. If there are some errors in the math, perhaps correction is needed, but certainly not deletion. Consider especially that the conclusions it supports are also correct: solo mining is always inferior to pooled mining. --Luke-jr 14:28, 22 June 2011 (GMT)