Okay, I think I see what you are saying but if you average a share every minute and you are on a 15s average block coin, and they mine this coin for 5 minutes then the difficulty doesn't matter.

5 minute duration
512 difficulty - 1 minute/avg - 5 shares
256 difficulty - 30 second/avg - 10 shares (worth half of the 512 difficulty shares in terms of payout value)

Whether your average share time is greater than the average block time doesn't matter.  They both start at zero and have a chance to hit with every second that ticks.  Just because the clock ticked 59 times and you didn't get a share, it does not mean that the 60th time has any higher chance to hit than the 1st.

Edit:  This sounds a lot like the Gambler's Fallacy. 

It's going to be difficult to get many, if any shares at all, when the block times get too fast regardless of your difficulty settings.

I have seen blocks as fast as 3 seconds.

This is only part of the problem.

This screen was posted by Ixion in the DGC thread here. https://bt.irlbtc.com/view/209508.3680



This is what can and does happen when fast low diff coins get over worked with way too much hashing power.

I think most would agree that in these cases less is more.

H20 has mentioned there would be increased profits IF he can find a way to more efficiently distribute the pool hash in these situations.

Splitting the pool 50/50 could be a solution but even that would probably be difficult to implement effectively as some times both pools could/should be on the same coin (LTC/FTC/NVC) but other times would need to be on separate coins.

Then you have the possible issue of combining the profits from the 2 pools into 1 distributed payout as if it were 1 pool.

Not to mention a host of other potential issues that I don't even understand.

H20 is already actively involved with managing the coins and exchanges in the stable, which the pool requires in order to maintain his/our profitability as the newer coins can often be amongst the most profitable for a time.

Obviously we all want the same thing here but there are probably limits to what H20 can accomplish without this becoming a full time job and even then there will still be limits for whatever reasons.

This. I don't see why people keep trying to say difficulty doesn't matter. If it didn't, why is there even a difficulty to begin with? Why is there VarDiff? If all of this were really irrelevant there would be no need for any of that.

The is the point of misunderstanding.  There is no progress.  Each hash is an independent random trial.

If you only do one hash per block, that hash has the same chance as a hash done by a miner with the strongest rig.  He will do many more hashes, so will have higher odds, but each hash, done by anyone is equal.

GPUs and (probably) ASICS have a "scan-time".  They can't do one hash.  They have to lots of hashes all at once.  The scan time is how long to do an entire run.

The lost hashing power is something like

(network latency + scan-time/2) (block time)

You are correct, I spoke in an oversimplification, but the effect is the same. Here is the long (more correct) version, with the same result in the end.

Forgot the2 part, because you'll randomly complete shares at a rate that statistically evens out to half the time less then the average and half the time more than the average.


Better?

There technically IS a progress.

If you flip a quarter 50x you can expect that you will get heads 25x and tails 25x. If you got heads 49x, you can reasonably expect that over the next hundreds/thousands/millions you will end up getting more tails than heads because statistically they should be about equal.

The same thing here. If you had a lot of 10s blocks when the average should be 30s, you can reasonably expect that you are going to have an equal number of 50s blocks. Otherwise the AVERAGE is lower than the average; you can't possibly have a lower average than average. That's like saying 2=6. It's just not mathematically possible.

Pretty much what this guy said. It's not a cumulative probability, each is its own separate dice roll

Incorrect. Predicting the time it takes to solve a share/block whatever is exactly that, a cumulative probability.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of statistics that you refuse to budge on. We can't have a legitimate discussion about the diff rate with that in our way.

I will try one more time.

Gambler sits down to flip 5 coins. Say the first 4 are heads. The GAMBLERS FALLACY is that he thinks since the first 4 were heads, he is "due" for a tails. This is obviously incorrect, as there is a 50/50 chance. THAT is gamblers fallacy.

Statistics/Probability is when you predict, before any coins are flipped, how many will be heads/tails. Probability is 3.125% of 5 consecutive heads. Probability examines the entire set. The gambler may of got 4 heads that time, and be in a position of having a 50% chance, at this point, of getting all 5. But if he tries the whole sequence again, do you think he will once again get 4 heads?



Complete contradiction. That "typically" you talked about? Thats the average. That's all it is man.