Re: [12000 GH/s] Slush's Pool (mining.bitcoin.cz); TX FEES + UserDiff; ASIC tested
Hi, I'm mining for the first time, on Slush as it was frequently recommended. Still haven't got my head around the rewards systems. I've been running at 1.6Gh/s for about 10 hours, and the rewards are so far pretty low. I'm assuming this has to do with the scoring. How long should I wait until the reward rates are more representative?
I'm also running around 1.6Gh and here's what I've been getting:
18958 2013-07-05 15:50:22 3:10:51 56002768 4102 0.00180373 244940 25.33712441 60 confirmations left
18957 2013-07-05 12:39:31 0:04:38 1348242 103 0.00185563 244919 25.00910000 39 confirmations left
18956 2013-07-05 12:34:53 1:19:39 23519214 1678 0.00153073 244916 25.06413957 36 confirmations left
18955 2013-07-05 11:15:14 0:09:40 2823303 210 0.00190709 244905 25.08810000 25 confirmations left
18954 2013-07-05 11:05:34 1:27:29 25736694 1858 0.00181915 244903 25.28290685 23 confirmations left
18953 2013-07-05 09:38:05 3:03:50 53744650 4067 0.00187024 244896 25.21930000 16 confirmations left
Those 3 hr plus rounds aren't exactly helping anyone's rewards
With the long rounds the PPS reward system might give you better results but overall I find that I earn more on Slush. I'm too lazy to do the hard math right now, but in general Slush's reward system is ratio based (with aging to prevent pool hopping) so you can see that my results between round #18958 (0.00180 BTC) which was 3+ hours and #18957 (0.00185) which was 4+ minutes was about the same. Now with PPS (on BTCGuild for example) you would get ~ 0.00444 BTC for round #18958 based on what their PPS rate is, but for #18957 you would have received 0.00011 which gives you about 0.00455 BTC versus Slush which gave 0.00365 BTC. Not that great if you look at it. However, if the rounds start getting shorter then you would start making more because a couple of short rounds like #18957 and #18955 would earn you significantly more (e.g. 0.00185 vs. 0.00011 per round which is an order of magnitude more). Since this is all still luck based, there is no set time to wait until rates are more representative. I can only say wait and see. Well, at least that's how I understand it. I'm sure the more knowledgeable folks on here will do a better job explaining the results and correct me where I'm wrong. There's probably a duration someone can calculate statistically with 95% certainty that you'll see more "representative results", but I'm guessing that's probably a large number.