<<  >> (p.3)
    Author Topic: PPLNS  (Read 63212 times)

    • Meni Rosenfeld (OP)
    Donator
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 2058
    Merit: 1057



    View Profile WWW
    March 07, 2014, 01:22:37 PM
     #41
    Quote from: lawabider on March 07, 2014, 12:07:28 AM
    Quote from: Meni Rosenfeld on August 28, 2011, 12:04:16 PM
    It doesn't help if N is chosen to be a given multiple of the difficulty at the time a block is found. If the difficulty is about to increase, it is more profitable to mine a short while before. For example, if N is set equal to the difficulty D, a share submitted D shares before the increase will be paid the full expectation in the D-window, and then when difficulty increased it will once again go inside the window and have more expected reward.

    I am new to learning bitcoin mining, but I don't get your statement above: If N is set equal to D, then on average the window will just cover the round, so on average there will be no overlap.
    That statement refers specifically to a change in difficulty at a roughly known future time. After the difficulty increases the retrospective window get larger, since it is a number of shares equal to the current difficulty.
    1EofoZNBhWQ3kxfKnvWkhtMns4AivZArhr   |   Who am I?   |   bitcoin-otc WoT
    Bitcoil - Exchange bitcoins for ILS (thread)   |   Israel Bitcoin community homepage (thread)
    Analysis of Bitcoin Pooled Mining Reward Systems (thread, summary)  |   PureMining - Infinite-term, deterministic mining bond

  • irrational
    Newbie
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 56
    Merit: 0


    View Profile
    March 22, 2014, 05:25:04 AM
     #42
    Quote from: Meni Rosenfeld on August 28, 2011, 12:04:16 PM
    The correct method is as follows.
    1. Choose a parameter X, which represents multiples of D to include in the window when difficulty is static. X=2 is a good choice.
    2. When a share is submitted, assign to it a score of 1/D, where D is the difficulty at the time the share is submitted.
    3. When a block is found, pay (sB)/X for the last share (the one before the winning share), where s is the share's score and B is the block reward. Continue backwards, paying each share based on its score, until you reach a share which brings the total score of the shares counted above X. Pay that share the amount (sB)/(tX) * min (r,t), where r is the score required to bring the total to exactly X and t is the score of the winning share. Don't pay any older shares.
    4. If the pool has just started, and a block is found before there are shares totaling a score of X, there will be leftover rewards and it should be decided what to do with them. It doesn't matter much, but I recommend that the operator keeps them (in a macroscopic view, if the pool ever changes, this is compensation for the funds needed to cash participants out). Other options include donating to charity, or distributing among the miners.

    How does this (specifically steps 2 & 3) change when a pool fee is involved? Is B simply reduced by the fee amount (e.g. B is only 99% of what it otherwise was in a 1% fee pool)?

  • Meni Rosenfeld (OP)
    Donator
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 2058
    Merit: 1057



    View Profile WWW
    March 23, 2014, 12:20:55 PM
     #43
    Quote from: irrational on March 22, 2014, 05:25:04 AM
    Quote from: Meni Rosenfeld on August 28, 2011, 12:04:16 PM
    The correct method is as follows.
    1. Choose a parameter X, which represents multiples of D to include in the window when difficulty is static. X=2 is a good choice.
    2. When a share is submitted, assign to it a score of 1/D, where D is the difficulty at the time the share is submitted.
    3. When a block is found, pay (sB)/X for the last share (the one before the winning share), where s is the share's score and B is the block reward. Continue backwards, paying each share based on its score, until you reach a share which brings the total score of the shares counted above X. Pay that share the amount (sB)/(tX) * min (r,t), where r is the score required to bring the total to exactly X and t is the score of the winning share. Don't pay any older shares.
    4. If the pool has just started, and a block is found before there are shares totaling a score of X, there will be leftover rewards and it should be decided what to do with them. It doesn't matter much, but I recommend that the operator keeps them (in a macroscopic view, if the pool ever changes, this is compensation for the funds needed to cash participants out). Other options include donating to charity, or distributing among the miners.
    How does this (specifically steps 2 & 3) change when a pool fee is involved? Is B simply reduced by the fee amount (e.g. B is only 99% of what it otherwise was in a 1% fee pool)?
    This will be applied when the payment is calculated. If the fee is f (e.g., 1% fee is f=0.01), the amount to pay for a share will be (1-f)*(sB)/(tX) * min (r,t).
    1EofoZNBhWQ3kxfKnvWkhtMns4AivZArhr   |   Who am I?   |   bitcoin-otc WoT
    Bitcoil - Exchange bitcoins for ILS (thread)   |   Israel Bitcoin community homepage (thread)
    Analysis of Bitcoin Pooled Mining Reward Systems (thread, summary)  |   PureMining - Infinite-term, deterministic mining bond

  • baristor
    Sr. Member
    ****
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 636
    Merit: 262


    View Profile
    January 06, 2015, 08:39:52 AM
     #44
    the cex io guys deffered me to this link when asked why im having negative balance for holding 1gH/s

  • -ck
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 4606
    Merit: 1701


    Ruu \o/


    View Profile WWW
    January 06, 2015, 08:54:13 AM
     #45
    Quote from: baristor on January 06, 2015, 08:39:52 AM
    the cex io guys deffered me to this link when asked why im having negative balance for holding 1gH/s
    And that's bullshit on cex's part. PPLNS is a pooled mining reward system which you cannot possibly have a negative balance. You have a negative balance for buying a rip off cloud mining service which gets its "income" from a pooled mining reward.
    Developer/maintainer for cgminer, ckpool/ckproxy, and the -ck kernel
    2% Fee Solo mining at solo.ckpool.org
    -ck

  • Meni Rosenfeld (OP)
    Donator
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 2058
    Merit: 1057



    View Profile WWW
    January 06, 2015, 10:55:54 AM
     #46
    Quote from: ckolivas on January 06, 2015, 08:54:13 AM
    Quote from: baristor on January 06, 2015, 08:39:52 AM
    the cex io guys deffered me to this link when asked why im having negative balance for holding 1gH/s
    And that's bullshit on cex's part. PPLNS is a pooled mining reward system which you cannot possibly have a negative balance. You have a negative balance for buying a rip off cloud mining service which gets its "income" from a pooled mining reward.
    I agree.
    1EofoZNBhWQ3kxfKnvWkhtMns4AivZArhr   |   Who am I?   |   bitcoin-otc WoT
    Bitcoil - Exchange bitcoins for ILS (thread)   |   Israel Bitcoin community homepage (thread)
    Analysis of Bitcoin Pooled Mining Reward Systems (thread, summary)  |   PureMining - Infinite-term, deterministic mining bond

  • aurel57
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 1358
    Merit: 1001



    View Profile
    January 06, 2015, 08:43:00 PM
     #47
    Quote from: baristor on January 06, 2015, 08:39:52 AM
    the cex io guys deffered me to this link when asked why im having negative balance for holding 1gH/s

    Now you know what kind of people your dealing with...

  • kano
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 4746
    Merit: 1908


    Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


    View Profile
    January 06, 2015, 10:54:08 PM
     #48
    Quote from: aurel57 on January 06, 2015, 08:43:00 PM
    Quote from: baristor on January 06, 2015, 08:39:52 AM
    the cex io guys deffered me to this link when asked why im having negative balance for holding 1gH/s

    Now you know what kind of people your dealing with...
    ... "what kind of people" a sizable % of the network (>10%?) of people are silly enough to deal with ...
    It's actually quite astounding that so many people do, and even before when this was already obvious, that a much higher % were.
    Pool: https://kano.is - low 0.5% fee PPLNS 3 Days - Most reliable Solo with ONLY 0.5% fee   Bitcointalk thread: Forum
    Discord support invite at https://kano.is/ Majority developer of the ckpool code - k for kano
    The ONLY active original developer of cgminer. Original master git: https://github.com/kanoi/cgminer

  • RandoMiner
    Newbie
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 2
    Merit: 0


    View Profile
    June 26, 2019, 09:37:43 AM
    Last edit: June 26, 2019, 10:32:41 AM by frodocooper
     #49
    Heya everyone,

    thank you very much esp. Meni Rosenfeld for explaining the PPLNS method in great detail. Maybe someone here can shed a bit of light to a little detail:
    I am trying to implement the scheme and therefor have consulted this thread and re-read it numerous times.
    Also I have studied the source code of some open source pools. I am pretty much sure to have understood it, but have found different implementations, and am in doubt especially about to how to understand the boundary conditions.

    My main question still is - how to treat the "last" (oldest) share - meaning the one which brings the Totalscore > X.

    a) let r become negative and include this share into the payment.

    b) stop 1 share before - at the "last" share where Totalscore <= X.

    After studying a lot I came to the following conclusion (method b) and would like to sum up and show how my understanding is, in one post so to say. It maybe help others, and would like to ask for comments if everything is correct.

    Therefor I prepared an example with 10 shares, and easy to calculate numbers.
    The following mini spreadsheet visualizes what I mean:

    https://pasteboard.co/IlbdR2U.png

    Boiling everything down, it looks like a very simple pseudo code:

    Code:
    0. TotalScore = 0, X = 2, B = Block.Reward


    1. Calculate score of Winning share:

    s = Share Diff NW Diff and remember as t


    2. Do WHILE TotalScore < X
          
          s = share.Difficulty network.Difficulty

          TotalScore += s

          r = X - TotalScore

          Payout = (s * B) (t * X) * min(r, t)

          TotalPayout += Payout

          share.Next()

    What do you say - is that a correct PPLNS implementation?

    Thank you very much!

    Randominer  Smiley

  • kano
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 4746
    Merit: 1908


    Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


    View Profile
    June 27, 2019, 02:11:13 AM
     #50
    PPLNS has no scoring.

    Each share has the same value per difficulty, you just add up the total difficulty of a miner's shares and divide it by the total difficulty of all the shares used for N to get their % of the total reward.
    Pool: https://kano.is - low 0.5% fee PPLNS 3 Days - Most reliable Solo with ONLY 0.5% fee   Bitcointalk thread: Forum
    Discord support invite at https://kano.is/ Majority developer of the ckpool code - k for kano
    The ONLY active original developer of cgminer. Original master git: https://github.com/kanoi/cgminer

  • RandoMiner
    Newbie
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 2
    Merit: 0


    View Profile
    June 27, 2019, 08:54:14 AM
    Last edit: June 27, 2019, 10:19:17 AM by frodocooper
     #51
    Thank you kano, appreciate your answer!

    I am using Mendis terminology. His "score" is the "share diff" "NW diff" - just wording stuff.

    Good to hear a confirmation of how PPLNS is supposed to work - in the end quite simple Wink

    --

    I was going after his various enhancements which he updated in this OP.
    There he indicates to have a solution for some extreme on the edge cases, where I try to get my head around.

    So I should rephrase my final question - then would be - if I correctly implemented the "Mendi Rosenfeld Windowed PPLNS" method Smiley
    I figured btw - payouts of his method are different - as PPLNS in your description always pays out the exact Blockreward.
    Mendis method has  variance in there.

    Thx & Cheers!
    Pages: « 1 2 [3]  All
      Print  
Page 2
Viewing Page: 3

IRLBTC™ © 2025 IRLBTC.com