Payout change for pools.



  • @socalguy said in Payout change for pools.:

    Hopefully, this fixes it. Selling my shares to make up for the deficit isn't fun. lol

    @rds said in Payout change for pools.:

    as long as they return sometime, any future earnings for that earner can be used to offset the debit until they are square.

    yea I doubt a miner will return if they knew they owe a pool some burst.

    Not sure I agree with your take of the integrity of most people here. Already I saw 2 people (@ccminer and @Ip85 ) offer up the return of double payouts just today. If I was made aware of a double payout, I would offer to pay back as well. there is no honor in keeping something that was sent to you by mistake. That being said, there are those miners on autopilot who would not notice a double payout. Unless they are listening to this forum they may not even be aware of the issue.

    That is where my solution instead of having @haitch use his own funds to make the pool whole would work to at least alleviate some or most of the inequity.



  • There are around 3800 miners right now on burst.ninja pools that haitch has on his colo. Let's say, 100 miners, catches the double pay and returns the burst to the pool every payment cycle. I think that's only 2.63% of the total miners willing to return the double pay each payment cycle. That's very low.

    I don't disagree with your option but having to deal with deficits, credits, and who gets paid how much will eventually become a cluster of confusion in my opinion. As a pool owner, I don't want that. I always strive for clean payments and clean data. Which is why I agree with @haitch. For now, a manual payment is best. Hopefully, in the future, we can come up with a better solution.

    *edit: I only included the pools that haitch listed above in my calc.



  • @socalguy just joined your pool lets start forging some block's :)



  • @socalguy said in Payout change for pools.:

    As a pool owner, I don't want that. I always strive for clean payments and clean data.

    Agree, that's why,

    1. why is the pool sending out double payments? Not clean, fix the software.
    2. if a double payment is detected the software should correct the problem not a human that will have to be babysitting 24/7.
    3. so if a double payment slips out past the new, improved software, the software needs to flag that account to never get another payment until x is mined from that account and kept by the pool. There are storage registers for each miner that keeps Q (queued), D (deferred), U (unconfirmed) and life of pool payments. Add another column for double payments that need to be recovered. Simple enough.


  • @rds I think the underlying problem here is that the sources are not complete / there does not seem to be anyone able to modify and compile the ninja code, so what might be an easy fix is not possible.

    We could really do with some completely new pool code.

    Rich



  • @RichBC

    ahh, hat would be a problem. Would love to help but I'm only up to

    10 print "hello world",
    20 goto 10



  • Coincidentally, I just opened this thread and read this:

    Lex Pool (A rewritten pool based on uray source)

    Lexicon Nov 26, 2016, 10:55 AM
    Hi Guys,

    just uploaded the modification i made to Urays source to prevent ghost blocks, forks and negative balances.

    I cut my mining teeth on the ninja style pools so inertia keeps me on a pool with no source code for implementing changes.

    Maybe the Uray/Lexicon code will be the answer ?



  • @haitch thank you for your hard work haitch!..



  • this will get us what we earned at least until there's a burst nation drought ... Sometimes I feel i get more from rain than anywhere else. I am getting tired of scammers too.



  • @rds said in Payout change for pools.:

    Maybe the Uray/Lexicon code will be the answer ?

    Yes they have done a great job with that code taking forward the v2 Code. Unfortunately I do not like the Algorithm for the Historic shares and the way the information is presented relative to the ninja code and always seem to do badly when on Pools using it.

    I really think we could do with some ground up new Pool Code. Learn all the lessons, what is liked and disliked in the Current Pool codes and start again.

    Rich



  • perhaps the bitcoin pool approach to it?


  • admin

    @rds said in Payout change for pools.:

    @haitch said in Payout change for pools.:

    @rds I top the pool up from my own funds.

    That's a great gesture by you but in the long run you can't keep using your funds to fix these mistakes.

    It's what I've been doing for the past two years. Without Catbref the code can't be updated to recognize the double payouts. The other alternative is to manipulate the DB to void payments, but I'm not going to do that as there would be a risk of depriving miners from the income they've legitimately earned, so I take the hit for pool errors.

    Hopefully switching to the manually triggered payouts will avoid the issue, and hopefully Adam will stop sabotaging the blockchain soon.



  • @haitch said in Payout change for pools.:

    @rds said in Payout change for pools.:

    @haitch said in Payout change for pools.:

    @rds I top the pool up from my own funds.

    That's a great gesture by you but in the long run you can't keep using your funds to fix these mistakes.

    It's what I've been doing for the past two years. Without Catbref the code can't be updated to recognize the double payouts. The other alternative is to manipulate the DB to void payments, but I'm not going to do that as there would be a risk of depriving miners from the income they've legitimately earned, so I take the hit for pool errors.

    Hopefully switching to the manually triggered payouts will avoid the issue, and hopefully Adam will stop sabotaging the blockchain soon.

    You don't have to "manipulate" the database to void payments. You need to think outside the box.

    So, if you can't change the code for whatever reason, you have decided to manually change the payout, how that is done I'm not sure.

    Here's what you could do.

    Run the code as normal. any payout instruction will port to another new fully sourced program that processes payments. One of the main functions of the new program will be to insure that there are no double payments. This program for all intents and purposes will replace you as the "manual payout" oversight. This program could also store flags for miners that have received double payments and insure that no payments are made to them until they have repaid the pool.

    Or just keep using your own funds to fix problems that need to be fixed.


  • admin

    @rds I can't change the program - that's the issue. I made one tiny change to it a couple of years back, it took me 2 days to figure out the command line to compile it - the command line was over 800 characters long. What I'm doing is setting the auto payout threshold very high, then when I want to trigger the payout dropping it back to 300. The pool still does the payouts, the manual part is that I can control when they happen.



  • @haitch said in Payout change for pools.:

    @rds I can't change the program - that's the issue. I made one tiny change to it a couple of years back, it took me 2 days to figure out the command line to compile it - the command line was over 800 characters long. What I'm doing is setting the auto payout threshold very high, then when I want to trigger the payout dropping it back to 300. The pool still does the payouts, the manual part is that I can control when they happen.

    ok, i see.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to Burst - Efficient HDD Mining was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.