📅 Original date posted:2013-11-15
📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Q = Total pool size (fraction of all mining power) q = My mining
>> power (do.) e = fraction of block fee that pool reserves
>>
>
> Unfortunately the math doesn't work that way. For any Q, a bigger
> Q gives you a higher return. Remember that the way I setup those
> equations in section 3.2 is such that I'm actually modeling two
> pools, one with Q hashing power and one with (1-Q) hashing power.
> Or maybe more accurately, it's irrelevant if the (1-Q) hashing
> power is or isn't a unified pool.
My Q and q are meant differently, I agree to your Q vs Q-1 argument,
but the q is "me as a miner" participating in "a pool" Q. If I
participate in a pool I pay the pool owner a fraction, e, but at the
same time I become part of an economy of scale (well actually a math
of scale...) and that can end up paying for the lost e. The question
is what is the ratio q/Q where I should rather mine on my own ? This
question is interesting as it will make bigger miners break away from
pools into solo mining, but I also agree that from pure math the most
advantageous scenario is the 100% mining rig.
> The equations give an incentive to centralize all the way up to 1
> miner with 100% hashing power.
>
> Of course, if that one pool were p2pool, that might be ok!
Ha, yes, and then the math for p2pool starts... a math where we have
much more stales...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJShgxWAAoJEKpww0VFxdGRoiwH/3RGTH503PJ8UWuyKjrxscb4
dG3TyThZCDs12DvtC+2TPKnIkQFinGx9442tZU/O+qmwsGJsNVoEcnGmKEYz/vlI
XzFF30ugslB4FKwHZYRqXELaKR4RvUtSzu6td8P3n+e6d0MZsuemMornpbXZkw3n
CbMlYuiG4h3iUAwTaOTS26cFbZoo6eyogydDjnS7Ogi2Ur85Rydi/Lj24rj7UxYB
+WUkYAv3bCqCzTkv1LxO7HwY1SICZDmoGRbuil5M7bJ+MftYt6Q6DVprGSVP0mOV
9eEVeMVY/WmMZCI/01ruXpzC3gxU60vOd/a3q9G2hd9Tn00HzugAllEXh7ZzzUs=
=unP8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Michael Gronager [ARCHIVE] /
npub1nc…gw452
2023-06-07 15:09:27
in reply to nevent1q…0ssm
Author Public Key
npub1nc78dlt7hp3v5dl32qu3m678h2j0ss374glcjnz8df75xcx7ngpq4gw452Published at
2023-06-07 15:09:27Event JSON
{
"id": "8cc08572144ae98968d08bdd1b5f5124999e9e6f26868a16f9392db1e3b1ecb2",
"pubkey": "9e3c76fd7eb862ca37f150391debc7baa4f8423eaa3f894c476a7d4360de9a02",
"created_at": 1686150567,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"366591e3422b1dfb01ae68e0b716cfb17ec74ddec49ddd1afaae513acc5fcb82",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"f671d4cd6182c9ef1c6a9e46aca67a11c7e166c35ab488a4501fd670fe1c3b7f",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2013-11-15\n📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----\nHash: SHA1\n\n\u003e\u003e \n\n\u003e\u003e Q = Total pool size (fraction of all mining power) q = My mining\n\u003e\u003e power (do.) e = fraction of block fee that pool reserves\n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e Unfortunately the math doesn't work that way. For any Q, a bigger\n\u003e Q gives you a higher return. Remember that the way I setup those\n\u003e equations in section 3.2 is such that I'm actually modeling two\n\u003e pools, one with Q hashing power and one with (1-Q) hashing power.\n\u003e Or maybe more accurately, it's irrelevant if the (1-Q) hashing\n\u003e power is or isn't a unified pool.\n\nMy Q and q are meant differently, I agree to your Q vs Q-1 argument,\nbut the q is \"me as a miner\" participating in \"a pool\" Q. If I\nparticipate in a pool I pay the pool owner a fraction, e, but at the\nsame time I become part of an economy of scale (well actually a math\nof scale...) and that can end up paying for the lost e. The question\nis what is the ratio q/Q where I should rather mine on my own ? This\nquestion is interesting as it will make bigger miners break away from\npools into solo mining, but I also agree that from pure math the most\nadvantageous scenario is the 100% mining rig.\n\n\u003e The equations give an incentive to centralize all the way up to 1\n\u003e miner with 100% hashing power.\n\u003e \n\u003e Of course, if that one pool were p2pool, that might be ok!\n\nHa, yes, and then the math for p2pool starts... a math where we have\nmuch more stales...\n\n\n-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----\nVersion: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)\nComment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org\nComment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/\n\niQEcBAEBAgAGBQJShgxWAAoJEKpww0VFxdGRoiwH/3RGTH503PJ8UWuyKjrxscb4\ndG3TyThZCDs12DvtC+2TPKnIkQFinGx9442tZU/O+qmwsGJsNVoEcnGmKEYz/vlI\nXzFF30ugslB4FKwHZYRqXELaKR4RvUtSzu6td8P3n+e6d0MZsuemMornpbXZkw3n\nCbMlYuiG4h3iUAwTaOTS26cFbZoo6eyogydDjnS7Ogi2Ur85Rydi/Lj24rj7UxYB\n+WUkYAv3bCqCzTkv1LxO7HwY1SICZDmoGRbuil5M7bJ+MftYt6Q6DVprGSVP0mOV\n9eEVeMVY/WmMZCI/01ruXpzC3gxU60vOd/a3q9G2hd9Tn00HzugAllEXh7ZzzUs=\n=unP8\n-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----",
"sig": "8652da0b64d1fb4b76e50560138ddb9377f68d4ab398253d63de716b619a00396ca2779abfd86cbd240017a88b96ab6dab85ad565a7fcf1bc9401d0750a4e761"
}