Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
The calc math is roughly correct Id say.
What I see is happening is quite simply LARGE pools "outluck" small pools on block hits.
Think about it like this, if you had 90 people flipping coins on one side as a team and 10 people on the other side and the rule is that whichever side have the highest percentage of heads/tails then the 90 people flipping coins will in the vast majority totally dominate the 10 people flipping coins except if you got constant same difficulty and unlimited time then it will even out but it would take many many years if you ask me.
That is not the reason. The small pool that only has 10 people also only splits the reward 10-way instead of 90-way.
The only reason people join pools is if chance of finding a block is so far into the future that by then the difficulty could drastically change and they could mine for a month and end up with nothing.
However with the HPM I have I could discover 7 blocks/day, I don't really need a pool.
The whole logic of low hashrate pools will even out over time vs high hashrate pools is entirely flawed. This would be valid if we were talking about constant block rewards and constant same difficulty.
The fact that block rewards gets reduce quite often and difficulty fluctuate quite often effectively will keep a low hashing pool at a disadvantage and lower earnings ALLWAYS because it will have much greater variance during difficulty/block reward periods.
Low hashrate pool would need the hand of GOD to assist them if they want to actually reap the same earnings over time which realisticly just wont happen no matter how you try and slice it.
This is unfortunate though, it would be great if all hashrates were balanced among pools for equal chance of getting blocks per difficulty/blockreward period but right now with Memorycoin the competition and interest is too low to sustain a fairly equal split across all the available pools.
Ok, I have identified the problem that was hanging the blockchain market... more rounding issues. The problem arises when I have to revalidate price calculations using rounded or truncated data. There is no way around the fact that information has been lost and thus the validation step has to be 'fuzzy'.
My 'quick fix' was to increase the epsilon I use for comparing claim_by_cover outputs as the rounding error was 870 satoshi in this instance. This means I have to choose between lower meaningful divisibility or switching over to 128 bit numbers for all balances. I can then ignore the lower 64 bits for comparison purposes but still use them for price multiplication purposes. This would add an average of 16 bytes per bid/ask and keep all of the rounding errors so small as to be inconsequential. Perhaps 1000 satoshi is inconsequential for all practical purposes.
The changes required to fix this problem will require all testers to recompile and break the blockchain.
If you want to process the current blockchain you will have to update and recompile your client otherwise your client will fail to validate the hacked solution. After Miami I will probably convert all amounts over to 128 bit numbers and just eat the bandwidth and storage costs to provide reliable and meaningful calculations.
Another suggestion from the suggestion master:
Could it be possible to add a total amount of MMC won per address ?
thanks for the suggestion. implemented it. http://www.mmcvotes.com/address/MVTEchagLNup4HJycBxbxWVXdiXaWLvbDu
:
I have no issue if he outright earned the coins but whats been said is that he simply gave himself the coins and later when he got caught made it public.
http://youtu.be/ztF3ocmzQU4
Video based on data from the site http://agran.net/memorycoin2_trading.html
January 8 - January 19
No! The miners are free to ignore any transaction they see fit - allowing zero fee transactions is just a convenience until we can calculate transaction fees properly based on block difficulty (energy price)
