Quote from: kano on April 22, 2015, 01:28:33 AM

Quote from: organofcorti on April 21, 2015, 11:14:16 PM

Quote from: kano on April 21, 2015, 10:35:13 PM

...
I guess also there needs to be clearly stated that anti-hop functionality is deployed on some pools - slush for example - that means you will not be paid your fair share if you disconnect from the pool either on purpose or due to an outage.

The expected loss is related to the amount of time you disconnect vs the % of the average block find time that the pool pays (whatever that may be)
If you simply just disconnected and don't come back, then it would be related to a % of the average expected loss.

You could compare that to a 'lock-in contract' where you lose out by leaving, except you don't gain much by staying.
There is possibly a very small gain when others lose out by leaving - the amount lost by anyone who disconnected may be distributed to everyone who didn't - so if the pool is 5PH and someone with 5TH lost 100% of their payout, everyone might gain about 0.1% more on that particular payout on their expected 100% less orphans less fees ... of course that depends on how the payout is calculated.

I'm not sure anyone has proven that to be the case, Kano. From your description you could as easily be talking about PPLNS with a very small N, which is still a fair reward method, and for any fair system expected value of a share should always be B/D.

The expected value of shares submitted over a period of time including disconnections should be the sum of the shares submitted.

Well just to use the simplest argument based on one assumption: that the pool's anti-hop deterrent does work:
The expected payout is E if you mine 24/7
The expected payout if you hop is expected to be E-e lower by some 'e' if the hopping deterrent works.
So E-e is less than E if e>0

Bah! Humbug! Redefining expectation, that's cheating.

Moreover, that's what I said when I caught Bitclockers out. You shouldn't use a man's words against him.