Quote from: klwolf2000 on April 18, 2018, 11:40:17 PM

Quote from: Wolfy10 on April 18, 2018, 11:18:36 PM

Quote from: klwolf2000 on April 18, 2018, 10:45:04 PM

Quote from: Wolfy10 on April 18, 2018, 08:55:58 PM

Quote from: klwolf2000 on April 18, 2018, 08:32:42 PM

Quote from: Wolfy10 on April 18, 2018, 07:43:54 PM

Quote from: klwolf2000 on April 18, 2018, 07:29:10 PM

Quote from: Wolfy10 on April 18, 2018, 07:24:04 PM

Quote from: klwolf2000 on April 18, 2018, 06:41:32 PM

Quote from: luxortech on April 17, 2018, 06:26:52 PM

Quote from: ReadyPlayer1 on April 12, 2018, 01:48:58 AM

THANK YOU!!!! This was exactly what I was looking for. Seriously - thank you. And that's the research I found out too bc I didn't think anyone would respond.

I will say that for anyone interested to know, Luxor pool makes significantly less earnings.

Hi ReadyPlayer1, first of all thanks for the compliment on our support. We pride ourselves in our community, on Drift, Discord, and Twitter. I really suggest giving us another try, and comparing the payments after a week at each pool. You'll find that PPLNS and Proportional payments (Coinmine and Suprnova) are based on variance. Sometimes they pay more, sometimes alot less.

At Luxor, we pay PPS. I want to take this excerpt from our friends at SiaMining, that have this great descriptor comparing both:

Despite the similar names, PPS (Pay Per Share) and PPLNS (Pay Per Last N Shares) are two very different reward systems.

PPLNS is a modification of the proportional system. The proportional system is perhaps the most natural way to distribute rewards: whenever the pool finds a block, it distributes its value (minus a fee) to miners proportionally to how many shares they have submitted since the previous block. This naive approach is unfortunately easily exploitable by using a technique called pool hopping. PPLNS corrects this issue by considering only the last N shares submitted right before a block was found, and disregarding the rest. If the value of N is chosen appropriately, the system becomes resistant to hopping, but with one side effect: in order to receive fair retribution, in a PPLNS system miners must maintain a relatively constant hashrate at all times. Being a proportional system, PPLNS only rewards miners when a block is found and confirmed by the network, and since finding a block can take considerable time, rewards have a high variance. Additionally, from time to time the pool may find a block that never confirms because another block was found and confirmed before it. Such blocks, called orphans, have no value, and result in missed rewards for miners.

PPS rewards miners with a certain amount (the PPS rate) for every valid share submitted. This amount is determined based on the expected number of shares needed to find a block, and on the reward that finding a block would yield. Note that we say expected because mining is a random process, so we can know how many shares will be needed on average in the long run, but not how many will be effectively needed. Since shares are much easier to find than blocks, a miner typically finds several every minute, which drastically reduces the variance of rewards. It is therefore possible for a miner to reliably estimate his earnings, as they do not depend on the luck of the pool. Because miners get paid per share and can tally how many shares they submit, they can easily verify that the promised reward is given, making it impossible for the pool operator to cheat. For the same reason, PPS is completely immune to pool hopping. All in all, PPS arguably offers the fairest payouts for all miners, regardless of hashrate or frequency. The one downside to PPS is for the pool operator, who has to take on the risk of bad luck in finding blocks. To compensate for this risk, PPS pools traditionally charge a higher fee.

Everything else being equal (fee, difficulty, and block reward), in the long run both systems are expected to find the same amount of blocks, but since PPLNS cannot pay for orphaned blocks, PPS miners are expected to receive slightly higher payouts. There are several places on the internet where it is stated that PPLNS yields higher rewards than PPS. The only reason for this is that for a long time PPS pools have had much higher fees than their PPLNS counterparts. For instance DeepBit, which was once the biggest Bitcoin pool, used to charge 3% for PPLNS, but 10% for PPS.

At Luxor, we charge a flat 3% fee for PPS, which is very competitive in the market as of now.

I like your sia pool but the decred pool fees need to go down to 1% at most. Anyone adding their b29 to the pool will be paying about $135 a month just to use the pool which is the cost for hosting at a data center.

Hi, I think you're overestimating the fee a bit. Still, PPS covers for all the variance of the pool which can have a huge cost. On top of that, Luxor pays for orphans and rejects which the rest of Decred pools don't. So, Luxor's real fee is lower than 3% since you get paid for each an every share you submit.

Currently I'm mining at coinmine.pl and my miner stats show at 100% efficiency and only 4 rejects for the past week so I'm still not seeing the benefit of paying 3%... If there is something else I'm missing or that they don't show in the stats I would like to know but the payouts have been good. They also charge only a 1% fee.

Coinmine.pl had an orphan rate of 0.34% in the past 4 weeks which translates into over 100 DCR that Luxor would have paid to miners. So to compare fees you could add that rate to their 1% (which by the way you don't have an actual way to prove they charge that since they are PPLNS) and at the same time you could subtract that 0.34% from our fee.

On top of that we stake 10% of our fee in a wallet to help Decred get listed on more exchanges or some other community proposal. That's another 0.3%.

Now the real fee difference is 1% and we provide consistent payouts every day. The pool operator is assuming all the variance risk just for 1% extra, at most.

Coinmine.pl stats: https://www2.coinmine.pl/dcr/index.php?page=statistics&action=blocks

There still isn't a 1% difference its 1.66% and with PPLNS there is also luck involved which can increase earnings over longer periods of mining where PPS doesn't include luck... The current mining rate for the B29 will net about $4600 a month and even at the 1.66% difference that is $76 a month extra which is a lot when you consider most GPU's don't even make that much in a month.

With the introduction of Baikals, B29s and Innosilicon just announced another miner for DCR GPU miners don't have much space mining DCR. It won't be profitable anymore. That comparison is useless.

Luxor "nominal fee" is 3% - 0.3% Donation - 0.34% orphan rate = 2.36%.

Coinmine fee is 1%. Therefore, the fee difference is 1.3%.

I think our user experience and product is much better. I would personally pay a 1% difference for better support, help the Decred project to succeed and have a better UI than a generic pool. You may not value that stuff and you prefer 1% less and that's ok.

Happy hashing! Cheers!

Coinmine.pl: 1% + 0.34% - Luck%= ?%<1.34%
Luxormining: 3% + 0 = 3% (Doesn't matter what else changes because its 3% anyway you put it since there is no luck factored in with PPS. Also this number gets put into POS which also nets Luxor more $$$ and becomes a loss for miners since they can't reinvest.)

I would really love to mine at luxor pool because I do like the new GUI and the support but unfortunately the fee difference compared to coinmine alone, is the cost of hosting fees per month. Sure after time this will change as more miners enter the arena but the coins value will also increase leveling everything out until the market is too saturated with miners. Since owners of the B29 miners paid $11,000 each, they need to make their capital back ASAP before new miners hit the market like the new Innosilicon D9's. If Luxor changed their pool to PPLNS and dropped their fees down to 1% that went towards projects or POS or whatever it doesn't seem unreasonable to me and I'd join no problem.

We would like you to join in the future. We will run a 0% promotional fee upon getting 100 RTs on Twitter so look forward to that.

We could stop paying for orphans and rejects or supporting the Decred project and cut the fee in half. If we switched to PPLNS we could potentially don't charge a fee at all. We want Luxor to be different and that comes with a higher cost right now.

Please do that and I will join the pool in a heat beat!!! Grin

There you go: https://twitter.com/LuxorTechTeam/status/986314452751601669