Talk:Mining pool reward FAQ: Difference between revisions
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
** It is just as much "at the expense of others" as is BFI_INT, GPUs, or any other improvement in efficiency. Pool-hopping cannot cause a system to fail, and is not being advertised as good. The language is intentionally neutral, while giving all the facts. --[[User:Luke-jr|Luke-jr]] 23:21, 26 May 2011 (GMT) | ** It is just as much "at the expense of others" as is BFI_INT, GPUs, or any other improvement in efficiency. Pool-hopping cannot cause a system to fail, and is not being advertised as good. The language is intentionally neutral, while giving all the facts. --[[User:Luke-jr|Luke-jr]] 23:21, 26 May 2011 (GMT) | ||
:: It directly states that pools can be brought to a standstill using this. Anything that results in pools blacklisting them is not something to be advertised. I feel that it would be like going onto a gaming Wiki and linking to all the hacks and exploits in the game --[[User:Firestorm|<span style="text-shadow:orange 0px 0px 3px;"><font color="#FF6600"><tt><big><u>'''Firestorm'''</u></big></tt></font>]]</span> 23:30, 26 May 2011 (GMT) | :: It directly states that pools can be brought to a standstill using this. Anything that results in pools blacklisting them is not something to be advertised. I feel that it would be like going onto a gaming Wiki and linking to all the hacks and exploits in the game --[[User:Firestorm|<span style="text-shadow:orange 0px 0px 3px;"><font color="#FF6600"><tt><big><u>'''Firestorm'''</u></big></tt></font>]]</span> 23:30, 26 May 2011 (GMT) | ||
:First I'd like to clarify that Luke's points about "score-based could lead to reverse pool-hopping" and "score-based penalized intermittance" are both wrong (as I've also tries to explain [http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=10038.msg145296#msg145296 here]). As for the first, my method was specifically calibrated to be immune to any round-age hopping, whether forward and reverse (and slush's method is somewhat subject to forward hopping, but not reverse). And disconnecting from a score-based pool has no effect on already submitted shares. | |||
:Luke does bring up an interesting point. If there were only proportional pools, and solo would be impractical, and everybody would pool-hop, then it will reach the point that everyone mines for the youngest-round pool at each point, so it would even out while giving more power to the smaller pools. However: | |||
:*Solo mining will exist, and will give a nice payout bonus over the hashrate ratio for those who can mine solo; | |||
:*Score-based pools will exist, so proportional pools will eventually freeze and never receive a share again. | |||
:So I don't think this is really a sustainable solution. |
Revision as of 04:10, 27 May 2011
Content dispute
I think this revision by holy-fire is the best. https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=Mining_pool_reward_FAQ&oldid=8977
all it needs is a citation to the whitepaper describing the pool hopping attack and also a citation to the closing of bitpenny, which is strongly suspected, on statistical grounds, by that pool's operator, of being due to griefing (real-block withholding).
Subject to further user comments, i plan to revert the page to this revision. --Nanotube 20:25, 26 May 2011 (GMT)
- That revision contains FUD about pool-hopping on share-based pools (it is not an attack, and is not cheating). The only time pool-hopping creates unfair rewards is when score-based pools are involved. It also discounts as a myth, the fact that share-based pools are disadvantageous to intermittent miners. --Luke-jr 20:32, 26 May 2011 (GMT)
Pool-hopping
I strongly object to having Pool-Hopping included in this article. It's a way of cheating the system. It's a system that increases how much you make at the expense of others who are earning it in a more fair way. If pool-hopping can directly cause a system to FAIL, it should NOT be advertised as a good way to earn more bitcoins --Firestorm 23:10, 26 May 2011 (GMT)
- It is just as much "at the expense of others" as is BFI_INT, GPUs, or any other improvement in efficiency. Pool-hopping cannot cause a system to fail, and is not being advertised as good. The language is intentionally neutral, while giving all the facts. --Luke-jr 23:21, 26 May 2011 (GMT)
- It directly states that pools can be brought to a standstill using this. Anything that results in pools blacklisting them is not something to be advertised. I feel that it would be like going onto a gaming Wiki and linking to all the hacks and exploits in the game --Firestorm 23:30, 26 May 2011 (GMT)
- First I'd like to clarify that Luke's points about "score-based could lead to reverse pool-hopping" and "score-based penalized intermittance" are both wrong (as I've also tries to explain here). As for the first, my method was specifically calibrated to be immune to any round-age hopping, whether forward and reverse (and slush's method is somewhat subject to forward hopping, but not reverse). And disconnecting from a score-based pool has no effect on already submitted shares.
- Luke does bring up an interesting point. If there were only proportional pools, and solo would be impractical, and everybody would pool-hop, then it will reach the point that everyone mines for the youngest-round pool at each point, so it would even out while giving more power to the smaller pools. However:
- Solo mining will exist, and will give a nice payout bonus over the hashrate ratio for those who can mine solo;
- Score-based pools will exist, so proportional pools will eventually freeze and never receive a share again.
- So I don't think this is really a sustainable solution.