Pools for everyone

  • Why cant all the pools lower their target deadline and allow a miner to mine at any pool?

    Where else is mining segregated?

  • @tross This target deadlines was not the solution that was encountered in like september/october last year to make not so many users to use just the largest pools?
    What is the point of get the target deadlines released at this point? I don't seriously get it tbh... Can you explain it to me @tross ?

    What i get that will happen if the target deadlines are lower is that the smaller pools will disapear because there will no miners to mine in them just because they will be mining all in the same big pools, so basically what this lead me to believe is that the target deadlines being lifted will centralize more the whole network by making the miners to mine in just the bigger pools... If i am wrong please explain it to me in a way i can understand your points...

  • Actually I thought it would be beneficial if the large miners spread out among the pools that we have. But instead they created another large only miner pool that will also bring hard times on the pools. Let ccminers pool get a couple more large miners and they are next to ninja so how will the rest of us be doing?

    If you can think back we had a lot more solo miners. Where did they all go? Where the rest of the larger miners are! So as rewards go down 5% every month you will see more go join a pool. Where will they look? Where other big miners are!

    So in the near future you will have 3 large miner pools that have a target deadline of 5 days 24hours 24hours . They will probably get 75% to 80% of the blocks the rest of the solo miners 10% and 10% for the small /middle miners. If I cant pay for my vps then I have to close so I sure other people dont wish to use private money and earn a minus. Miner I am sure dont wont to be mining for burst dust.

    Now if it is only worth while to be a large miner where will all the other go? Assets and burst will be dumped driving the burst value down.

    So why do I say drop the restrictive deadlines? To at least keep burst alive!

  • @tross Ok i am getting that your point is that small miners will have not a chance to mine in the future, so for that i see two things that can be done:

    • what you are saying in order to allow small miners to get something out of the lager pools (even if that will be Burst dust and leads to centralization of the mining);
    • and pump the shit out of burst price so the dust being mined is worth enough for mining still be worth for everyone.

    Now, i have alternative crazy idea that just crossed my mind while reading your post, i don't know if it's feasible or not so don't call me crazy right away and give it a bit of thought please. What if...

    We create a Mother Of All Pools (MOAP)? I'm not sure if my question is clear enough so let me try and explain what i mean...

    First of all i am not sure if a pool can point its reward assignment to another address but if it can maybe my suggestion is a valid one.

    The idea is to create a unique pool (MOAP) and every single pool out there have to point its reward assignment to this unique pool, then everytime someone hits a block the pool that won the block will not receive the whole block reward but a percentage of it and every other pool will receive a small percentage like a miner gets with the historic rewards right now...

    For solo miners it gives an extra solution too... They can try to hit the whole block reward and compete with the Mother Of All Pools or they can point his reward assignment to this Big Pool (MOAP) and just compete with each pool out there but they will dispense a part of the block reward as any other pool out there although they will still earn an historic share in every block...

    I hope i explained it in a not much confusing way and that you and everyone understands my point... If this is not the case let me know and i will try to paraphrase it...

    Basically i think this would lower the final block reward a bit but in the end it should make the rewards a bit more fair and if this MOAP don't charge a fee, it should not make the reward smaller in the long term, just more fair for everyone (pools and solo miners)... Thoughts?

    Is possible a pool to point its reward assignment to another address and make this Mother Of All Pools?

    Basically this would lead to a false centralization if i am right, it's like making a pool work like the blockchain works currently by having all this pools connected to it. The point is just one: allow to make the mining rewards more fair and adjustable in the future by making possible to mess with the percentages of historical/current shares...

    So now enough of my crazyness LOL... tell me guys if you think this would be feasible or not, i think the concept is really good, just don't know if it's possible but if it is this would make Burst have without shadow of doubt the most fair mining system out there!

  • @keyd0s said in Haitch's Assets Asset:

    @RichBC haha, thing is though it's profitable to do so. you know all shares will stay at 90,- each (Which I think might be the thing holding this asset back), so getting 2 from dividend and sell for 89 is an easy 1burst per share profit :p

    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. :-)


  • 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. :-)


    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.