Comparison of mining pools

From Bitcoin Wiki
Revision as of 14:42, 9 August 2013 by Igor (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Reward types & explanation:

  • 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. [1]
  • Prop. - Proportional. When block is found, the reward is distributed among all workers proportionally to how much shares each of them has found.
  • PPLNS - Pay Per Last N Shasres. 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.
  • PPS - Pay Per Share. Each submitted share is worth certain amount 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.
  • SMPPS - Shared Maximum Pay Per Share. Like Pay Per Share, but never pays more than the pool earns. [2]
  • ESMPPS - Equalized Shared Maximum Pay Per Share. Like SMPPS, but equalizes payments fairly among all those who are owed. [3]
  • RSMPPS - Recent Shared Maximum Pay Per Share. Like SMPPS, but system aims to prioritize the most recent miners first. [4]
  • CPPSRB - Capped Pay Per Share with Recent Backpay. [5]
  • POT - Pay On Target. A high variance PPS variant that pays on the difficulty of work retuened to pool rather than the difficulty of work served by pool [6]
  • 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)

Visual examples of the various payout methods

Name Location GH/s[1] Merged Mining[2] Reward Type Transaction fees PPS Fee Other Fee GWK STM GBT Launched Variance Forum Website
50BTC Germany/USA/Russia 60000 No PPS[3] kept by pool 3% Yes Yes 2011-11-11 User[4] link link
ABCPool.co USA 600 No PPS[3] kept by pool 5% Yes No No 2011-08-02 Diff 1 link link
alvarez.sfek.kz Kazakhstan 1 No PPLNS kept by pool 0% Yes 2012-04-19 Diff 1 link link
BitClockers USA/Europe 8 NMC PPS kept by pool 8% Yes 2011-05-27 Diff 1 link link
BitcoinPool.com USA 70 No Prop. kept by pool 0% Yes 2011-03-08 Diff 1 link link
Slush's pool (mining.bitcoin.cz) France 18800 NMC Score shared 2% Yes 2010-11-27 User[4] link link
Bitparking USA 1200 NMC, IXC, Devcoin DGM kept by pool 1.5% Yes Yes 2012-01-08 User[4] link link
BitMinter Germany 4500 NMC PPLNS shared 1% Yes Yes Yes 2011-06-26 Dynamic link link
BTCPoolman UK/Europe 3 No Prop. shared 2% Yes Yes No 2013-03-01 Diff 1 Twitter Register
BTC Guild USA/Canada/Europe 70000 NMC PPS/PPLNS shared on PPLNS 5% 3% Yes Yes No 2011-05-09 User[4]/Dynamic link link
BTC Oxygen Europe 70 No PPS kept by pool 2% Yes Yes 2012-11-01 Diff 1 link link
BTCMine USA 110 No Score kept by pool 0% Yes 2011-03-11 Diff 1 link link
BTCDig USA 32 No DGM kept by pool 2% Yes 2013-07-04 User[4]/Dynamic 20SPM link link
BTCmow Europe 2 No PPLNS kept by pool 2.5% Yes 2013-05-31 Diff 1 link link
btcmp.com Germany 175 No PPS kept by pool 4% Yes 2011-06-28 Diff 1 link
BTCWarp USA 1 No Score kept by pool 0% Yes 2011-07-29 Diff 1 link link
CoinLab Protected Pool USA No PPS kept by pool 2-5% Yes 2012-08-09 Diff 1 link
Coinotron Poland 90 No DGM kept by pool 0% Yes 2011-07-06 Diff 1 link link
DeepBit Germany 2700 No PPS/Prop. kept by pool 10% 3% Yes 2011-02-26 Diff 1 link link
Eclipse Mining Consortium USA/Europe/Australia/Asia 2100 No DGM/PPS kept by pool 5% 0% Yes Yes Yes 2011-06-14 User[4]/Dynamic link link
Eligius USA 19000 No CPPSRB kept by pool 0% Yes Yes Yes 2011-04-27 Dynamic: 32 shares/m link link
Galaxy Mining Pool USA 50 No PPLNS shared 1% Yes 2013-07-01 Dynamic link link
Horrible Horrendous TT USA 400 No PPS[3] kept by pool 1% Yes 2012-08-29 User[4] link link
MaxBTC USA 150 NMC DGM kept by pool 0% Yes 2012-03-15 Diff 1 link link
Ozcoin USA/Europe/Australia 3500 No DGM/PoT shared on DGM 1%/2% No Yes No 2011-06-07 User[4]/Dynamic link link
P2Pool Earth (P2P) 750 Solo[5] PPLNS shared 0% No[6] No[6] No 2011-06-17 User[4] link
PolMine Poland 950 NMC SMPPS shared 1% Yes Yes Yes 2011-06-13 Dynamic link link
pool.itzod.ru Russia 1700 No RSMPPS shared 0% Yes Yes Yes 2011-08-01 User[4] RU EN link
Triplemining Europe 680 No PPLNS[7] kept by pool 0% Yes Yes Yes 2011-06-28 Diff 1 for getwork/GBT, dynamic for stratum link link
  1. ↑ Note that pool hashrate is largely irrelevant but can be seen as a popularity measurement. Note however that 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.
  2. ↑ Merged mining allows miners to mine on multiple block chains at the same time with the same hashing.
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 Pool also rewards stale shares
  4. ↑ 4.00 4.01 4.02 4.03 4.04 4.05 4.06 4.07 4.08 4.09 The difficulty of the shares can be changed by the user.
  5. ↑ Merged mining can be done on a "solo mining" basis (payouts in the merged chain are not pooled).
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Miner-operated proxy available.
  7. ↑ Triplemining keeps 1% to redistribute using a weekly jackpot and affiliations

See also

Retrieved from "https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_mining_pools&oldid=40088"