I don't see why that would be a problem, but that may be a better question to ask Bitmain directly.Slightly related: I am considering purchasing some S9's I have a number of 1000W PSUs which are not powerful enough, but can I use two 1000W PSUs to power one AntMiner? I get it that I would need to use one PSU for one miner board - but can I use different PSUs for the different boards?
I don't see why that would be a problem, but that may be a better question to ask Bitmain directly.Slightly related: I am considering purchasing some S9's I have a number of 1000W PSUs which are not powerful enough, but can I use two 1000W PSUs to power one AntMiner? I get it that I would need to use one PSU for one miner board - but can I use different PSUs for the different boards?
Or perhaps some other miner here will know as well.
I believe we are planning to have one of the pool servers in Amsterdam. I suspect that should provide good connectivity to Iceland as well.
The most important aspect is ROI and making sure people are paid, 2 things I know you will have no problem delivering.The Bitcoin.com pool is approaching completion, but I would love some feedback from existing miners.
We currently have the payouts designed so that it is proportional to how much hashing power each miner contributed since the last block.
For example, if your mining equipment contributed 2.5% of the total hashes since the previous block was found, you will receive 2.5% of the block reward, and 2.5% of the mining fees.
100% of the coin base, and the mining fees are paid out to the miners, so our pool will operate with a 0% fee until if/when we start to get close to having 51% of the network mining with us.
Do you think this payout structure will be attractive to miners?
Is there anything that we should do differently regarding this?
I don't want to be a negative nelly, but I believe you're describing the PROP payout method, which can be abused by a mining strategy called pool hopping. Meni Rosenfeld on Stackexchange put together a good writeup of how the attack works and why PROP is broken:For example, if your mining equipment contributed 2.5% of the total hashes since the previous block was found, you will receive 2.5% of the block reward, and 2.5% of the mining fees.
Original post: http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questi ... ol-hoppingThe most well-known form of pool-hopping is with pools using the proportional method, which is among the oldest, simplest, most widely used and most prone to hopping. By all accounts hopping in this context was first discussed in a paper from January 2011 by Nakamoto Ryo; a more accurate analysis was given shortly after in Optimal pool abuse strategy by Raulo; these results were extended in Analysis of Bitcoin Pooled Mining Reward Systems by myself.
In the proportional method, a block's reward is distributed between miners in proportion to the number of shares each of them submitted since the previous block; the reward per share is the block reward divided by the number of shares in the round. Because of this, the reward of a share submitted at any given time is affected by the number of shares already submitted since the last block; a share submitted early in the round will have a higher reward on average than a share submitted later.
It can be shown that until the number of shares in the round is 43.5% of the difficulty, a submitted share will have higher than normal reward on average; the optimal way to exploit a single proportional pool is to mine in it until this point is reached, hop to a different pool, and return when a block is found. The gain that can be achieved by following this strategy is up to 28.1%, depending on the ratio between the hashrates of hoppers and continuous miners in this pool (the more hoppers, the less they will gain). The gain can be higher if more than one proportional pool is taken advantage of (for example, 51.6% can be achieved with 2 pools).
The extra profits of hoppers come at the expense of the continuous miners. The exact loss depends on the ratio between hoppers and continuous miners; when they are equal the loss is about 17.1%, and the theoretical limit when there are only hoppers is 43.5%.
Looking good Roger. It's time to close out some of those tabs you have open though!It's almost ready!
This looks majestic, well done!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!It's almost ready!
Holy tabs, you beat me to itLooking good Roger. It's time to close out some of those tabs you have open though!It's almost ready!
SOunds awesome. I will add my Neptune to the network when it runsWe are actually already mining the majority of the coins on test net.
We have 32K Testnet coins already.
I'm looking forward to doing the same thing on the main network soon.
Looking good
Thanks so much!I am looking to get started with an S9 or two soon to get the ball rolling. It's not much, but I would love to contribute our hashing power to your pool. I was hoping to find a mining pool that was trustworthy and philosophically sound... I suspect you take the cake on that point.
Cheers!
Can't argue with that logic! Thanks for the well-wishes... I am excited to give it a whirl.In addition to being philosophically sound, I also intend to make the Bitcoin.com mining pool the best deal financially for every miner in the space.
I wish you good luck with the solar power mining farm, as that sounds very fun too!
Point all of your hashing power here, it is the future of Bitcoin.The Bitcoin.com alpha pool is now ready for people to test with.
It is currently mining on TEST NET, so any hashing power you point here will only be mining test net coins.
Please understand that we are aware that lots more work needs to be done,
but we would love some feedback from people on what actual bugs need to be fixed.
If you have an old miner sitting around, now is your excuse to play with it again.
Please do your best to break things, and then let us know what went wrong in this thread.
Get started: https://poolbeta.bitcoin.com/login
This is a little bit incorrect.I am familiar with the block size debate only at the surface level, and if I understand correctly Classic wants to double the block size and Unlimited wants to remove restrictions.
Is this correct? Are there any other material differences?
Also, which mining pool would you recommend while Bitcoin.com is still working out the kinks?
Very cool, glad to see people such as yourself involved in Bitcoin - true innovators and entrepreneurs!Its not much to look at for the moment, but here's the first S9 hashing away. The garage has basically been converted into a power hub with solar panels on the roof feeding into several inverters and a battery bank. It's scalable in that additional panels and additional batteries can be added over time to support new mining rigs. The next step is to shelf the S9's and partition off that section of the garage for efficient climate control.
Here's the battery bank:
I will do my best - I certainly plan to contribute to Bitcoin.com's pool when it is ready to roll. Free markets, free minds, and sound money strike me as noble causes worth pursuing. And good whiskey, can't forget that one.
Very cool, glad to see people such as yourself involved in Bitcoin - true innovators and entrepreneurs!
Hopefully you will be pointing your hashpower towards a free Bitcoin
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests