Quote from: juhakall on May 11, 2013, 05:57:22 PM

I would really like to hear some proof that DGM indeed works that way. I don't feel 100% confident that it's fair in that case, but haven't seen any real proof that it's not, either. It might definitely feel like you are losing expected payout when abandoning a round, but unless you have proof that DGM works that way, I'm more inclined to believe that the opinion is just based on a misunderstanding.

The huge failure of DGM is that it's almost impossible to understand (I mean really understand, not just on the "capacitor is being charged" -level

) if you aren't a hardcore mathematician. I'm far from that level myself, and thus Bitparking doesn't feel as attractive anymore. Then again, even if you can understand a pool's payout method, it's another thing whether they have implemented it properly...

What can I say I've looked at the math.

The target for DGM is "same payouts as pps", like all 'hop-proof' methods it has the net effect of setting your maximum reward as a ceiling and then punishing the miner who doesn't mine continually or drops out of a round. It transfers most of the risk and variance from the pool ops to the miners.

If everything goes perfectly, you'll see about the same earnings you'd get on pps... when the pool has bad luck (or you do re:connection issues, low accepted shares etc) your earnings will drop off accordingly. Since it's waiting until confirmation of block generation and paying based on the last 5 rounds these losses will be obfuscated because they happen proportionally over the next 5 rounds. As I miner all you'll be able to notice is that your earnings seem to have decreased.

All I can say is, look at the equations - they aren't that hard to figure out. DGM does exactly what it was designed to do - transfer risk taken by pool ops to miners instead.