Pools for everyone



  • I agree with you wholeheartedly, could never understand until now why people were selling at 89, just wish iI had thought of it...

    Anyway this should be the end of it with weekly Dividends. :-)

    Rich

    Less frequent atleast, that'sfor sure. Thing is even though dividend is weekly now, we know for a fact that the price is staying at 90 (Which is a good price, don't get me wrong). and not even 10% of the assets have been sold. will probably still attract some undercutters. But it's certainly great news!
    (Wrong topic though XD This isn't the asset-thread)



  • @keyd0s said in Pools for everyone:

    (Wrong topic though XD This isn't the asset-thread)

    Oops my mistake I started typing a reply, then looked at another post......


  • admin

    @keyd0s the price is 90, and will stay at 90 - changing it would be unfair to initial investors.

    Yes, there will be variations in payouts due to assets that earn their revenue in something other than Burst, but all pure Burst related assets should continue to payout the same amount.

    The payouts to date have been good, and the addition of the Pennywise mining will increase that - though not much for today's payout - there is only a couple of days of mining earnings.



  • You guys are comical lol I like that!

    @gpedro That a cool thought but I bet a coding nightmare! What computer could handle the mother of all pools lol

    The jokers are here but what about opening all the pools to all the miners? If you cant spread the wealth around at least share a little!
    Dont kill Burst because of you tiny wallet cause that how much it will be worth after you dominate it.


  • admin

    @tross So far ccminers pool has 22 registered miners, with 16 active miners - and 4 of those are me. It's distributing some of the power of Ninja. I'd love to see all the miners spread across all the available pools equally, but it's simply not happening. Creating pools that appeal to the high capacity miners helps diffuse the power of a single pool having that power.

    It doesn't hurt smaller miners, each still has the same chance of winning, it just helps distribute the high capacity miners over more than one pool.

    Looking at the miners on ccMiners pool, 4 are me, 1 is cc. So the pool has poached 11 miners from other pools. Let's look at 11 miners as a percentage of their base:

    Ninja - 1.2%
    Mining Club - 1.66%
    Burstcoin.biz - 1.75%
    Burstcoin.eu - 0.94%
    Tross Pool - 1.69%
    Burstteam.us - 0.52%

    ccMiner's pool is not devastating other pools, it's moved a handful of miners that has reduced the concentration of miners on other pools.

    @gpedro - I don't think the MOAP would work - I see multiple issues:

    1. The subscribed pools need to send their passphrases with each submission, so the operator of the MOAP would have to be completely trusted, and the server it's running on be capable of processing all the nonces for all the pools.
    2. The MOAP becomes a single point of failure - if for any reason the MOAP went down, all the subscribed pools are dead in the water.
    3. I really don't know if doing a reward assignment on a pool would work.


  • @haitch @tross Ok seems like for handling this we would also need a MOAS (Mother Of All Servers LOL), but it would be a cool way of making mining more fair...

    I agree that the plan have flaws, this came from my 10 minutes of madness, you can't expect a flawless plan LOL...

    Although it would really need to send the passphrase with the submissions? I mean if i am mining in a pool i don't send my passphrase to the pool, why a pool would have to send the passphrase to another pool if it would be like a simple (but giant) miner? The idea was that every pool would manage their own nonces and just submit the best one to the MOAP like a normal miner do... Although i agree that this would involve a fairly big amount of coding and time into it!

    Regarding the issue with the single point of failure i see it being bad yes and i certainly don't have a solution for it although maybe some kind of genious decentralized pool code could be the answer to some of the existing problems with the pools but i guess that we need a coding genious for invent such a thing... LOL xD

    Regarding the reward assignment, that was exactly my question, i was hoping one of you guys had tried this in some tests before since you guys manage pools for some really long time hehehe



  • @haitch You are full of Beans to put it nicely! Dont you see ccminer pool slowly rising? Do you see ninja falling no no no!

    This pool will collect a couple more miners and still ninja hasnt move an inch. Then what did you accomplish? How did you make this
    a better coin?

    They only have 16 miners but out preform my pool and lexicon with over 500 miners. What would happen if they double their ranks?
    If I was a solo miner wanting more burst I would see ccminer pool and try it first. A small pool that gets blocks is the best pool to be in.

    Your attitude is only helping yourself and has nothing to do with burst. "ccMiner's pool is not devastating other pools, it's moved a handful of miners that has reduced the concentration of miners on other pools". This is BS and it stinks! 11 miners was taking nothing from anything they mostly have been moving around anyway besides breaking up a concentration looked like what you guys did to ninja around last June when it was the ONLY ninja pool. But yet that ended up into a cluster f##k You made the circle jerk so congrats coin destroyer!


  • admin

    @gpedro yeah, I was mis-thinking it, the pools wouldn't need to send their passphrase, the MOAP would need to send it's passphrase to the wallet.Given the stress the existing pools get at the start of rounds, having a pool having to dela with say 14x as much traffic (due to expanded DL), x10 (10 subscribed the pool) - so the server would be hit with 140x the current traffic - good luck finding a server that can keep up with that .....


  • admin

    @tross Okay, so lets say I shutdown ccMiners pool - what happens? 12 miners either go solo or move to Ninja - adding around 1PB to Ninja. Your pool doesn't get affected, my other pools don't get affected, it's just that Ninja gets more capacity. Not long ago Ninja was getting over 50% of the blocks, cc's pool is not the sole reason for that changing, but is part of the solution. The existence of the ccMiner pool does not impact your pool at all. The absence of the pool gives particular business associates close to 51% of the network capacity, and that really hurts the coin. Distributing the mining capacity is what helps the coin.

    Oh, and as for "only helping yourself" - again, I earn 0 Burst from the pools. I pay my own money to host them, and get 0 Burst from them



  • @haitch LOL like i said Mother of All Servers xP

    Ok so i think this idea is a great theory but would not be feasible anyway and my 10 minutes of madness were just that, 10 minutes of madness... xD

    @haitch @tross I hope that something is done regarding this issue...
    I would like to see people brainstorming ideas regarding what can be done to de-centralize things instead of attacking each others...
    Many people have talked about this in the past (including me) and i also believe it's a big problem we are facing and will continue to face until a) there is +10 ninja pools or b) +60% of the network be mining in solo mode...
    I know very little about this matters so i can only through ideas and others with a deeper knowledge about de-centralized networks can opine on them and if we get lucky a good idea will come up and solve the problem...

    So maybe a good thing would be to make all pools with a max cap (like the mobile pool has but ofc with a higher cap, 1Tb would be too smal ofc) on it instead of splitting pools with minimum limits and who has big miners just solo mine wich i think should be the target of a trully de-centralized network...

    I think that the biggest pools will oppose to it but i think this would incentivizing solo miners and consequently de-centralize the whole network making it more reliable and fair...


  • admin

    @gpedro By adjusting the minimum deadline, the pools can regulate, sort of, the minimum capacity for the pool. I don't see it as reasonable to have a max capacity on pools other than the mobile pool - I prefer the "hey, this pool is not for you" approach.

    Over the past few days I've had several people contact me for the Ninja Pool code, and downloaded the VM - so more pool choice should be coming up. Claiming that a pool targeted to big miners is hurting small miners is ridiculous. Every miner has the same chance of winning the next block whether they're in a small pool or a big one. It's your capacity vs. the rest of the network. The burst-team.us pool has more registered miners than ninja and burst mining club combined, but only 16% of the number of won blocks. Those blocks are going to the same miners regardless of if they're in a small pool, big pool, or mining solo.

    A more fair distribution of miners across the pools would be great - but it's not happening, and a new pool pool is not making it worse.



  • @haitch I am not a ninja fan but I watch the network daily cause I have no life. I seen that a couple days and guess what I complained and guess what nobody cared. I am not worried about your 11 minions I am worried about the solo miners you attract or the large miners that might come from my pool. You are not retarded but cant you see this happening. If I am right then what would you say OH how did that happen. I give up there is no helping you. Do what you do best screw up this party! I post no more cause the stupidity is making me mad!
    Good bye and good life!


  • admin

    @tross I'm not trying to pull miners from others pools.

    Miners will make their own decisions about what is the best path for them.

    Closing down ccMiners pool just gives them one less choice. If they decide they want to pool mine instead of solo, they have one less choice. How does less choice help?

    More choice = more distribution.



  • @haitch what can be done to set up more pools? i would be willing to work on it. can these be hosted on AWS etc?


  • admin

    @falconCoin I have a downloadable template, and instructions for configuring. It just requires a vmWare Host. If you AWS provider will spin up an ESX host, you can run it.



  • @haitch said in Pools for everyone:

    More choice = more distribution.

    As i see it is not exactly like that because if there are less pools, it should worth more to solomine and that leads to much more de-centralization then have more pool choices or am i wrong?

    If pools do a well thinked max limit by address (like 20-30 Tb idk) this leads to the same path i talked in the above paragraph without releasing the number of choices on the network because this would make the biggest miners to a) replot their drives to multiple addresses (wich should mean more miners but more equality in mining power) or b) they don't like the hassle and downtime of replot their drives to fit the new rules and move to solomine wich leads to much more de-centralization...

    At least this is what i think but i may be wrong ofc! If i am right this is a win-win solution...



  • @haitch said in Pools for everyone:

    vmWare Host

    I have a few Linux machines laying around, tried getting wallet on that, not accomplished yet lol...

    But i would toss it one of those if it will help.


  • admin

    @gpedro Taking a very brief look at Luxe's monitor - there are over 7,000 pool miners, and 53 solo miners. The majority of miners are in pools, the question is how to get them to distribute rather than concentrate on one.


  • admin

    @falconCoin you'd need to wipe it and install the free ESX hypervisor - you'll also need a public IP address.



  • @haitch That is exactly my point... The problem is not the small miners but the concentration of the bigger ones so if all pools create a max cap per address their miners have to change a lot or are forced to go solo and that would really decentralize the network...

    The idea of mining in pools is not to concentrate big miners but to be used by small miners to compete with the bigger ones, this pool concept is in Burst and in every other crypto... Having the biggest miners in pools is the real problem, that was why i suggested like 1 month ago in BN that both ninja and club were splitted in at least another pool, they didn't looked against it but didn't showed desire to accomplish this ASAP too...

    On one hand I can agree with @tross when he says that building another ninja is not the way to go but on the other hand I can agree with you that if we don't have the ninja and club splitted, having another ninja pool is not entirely a bad thing, but IMHO this is like a bendict not a solution...

    I think the last solution i proposed of a max cap per address in every pool would be a really solution instead of a bendict, provably the cap of 20-30 Tb is not the better but that would be something that someone with a better know-how than me should speak off...

    I agree this would be a big hassle to the majority of the miners, but it's for the best to the communitty and the coin... Not to benefit no one personally but everyone, being who is mining for a really long time and is mining with 1 Pb or who just arrived and is mining with his newly 10Tb...

    Please do me the favour of don't discard this option just yet and consider it for some minutes and think how this can change everything by making the whole network more reliable, de-centralized and end all the network issues for good...


Log in to reply
 

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