So heres a thought, anyone here consider putting together a theoretical luckbased approach ?
I know its been discussed here but I think it would still be interesting to actually do it.
Pull the last 2 or 3 blocks and see how far out of the difficulty range the avg is ie. 3blocks(just a number i like) combined gives 6million, that avg out at 2million per block so not terrible unlucky, however a different pool have their last 3 blocks at combined of 10million, thats > double avg difficulty per block thus we work a formula into the duration hopper should stay at this pool for this new block which would be the 1st block after the last 3blocks used for sample.
My rough approach would assume the following:
Right now we seem to use a 40% of diff approach, now if we use that as our base value and apply the difference of the last 3 blocks in example above we will get the following.
10million shares across 3blocks = 3333333.33 shares per block
This means the last 3 blocks lasted on avg 213% longer
We will then calculate our 40% into current difficulty which would be 625211.2 and add 213% which gives 1331699.85 difficulty thus the new difficulty for the selected pool to stay on for the 4th block(block just after the previous 3)
Now the reverse would be implied when a pool got really lucky in last 3blocks, thus we would be avoiding them or leave them far earlier than 40% of difficulty.
I hope this makes somewhat sense
it does in my twisted mind.
please note: This is some hectic thumbsucking, would be nice to check it out in practice.
I know its been discussed here but I think it would still be interesting to actually do it.
Pull the last 2 or 3 blocks and see how far out of the difficulty range the avg is ie. 3blocks(just a number i like) combined gives 6million, that avg out at 2million per block so not terrible unlucky, however a different pool have their last 3 blocks at combined of 10million, thats > double avg difficulty per block thus we work a formula into the duration hopper should stay at this pool for this new block which would be the 1st block after the last 3blocks used for sample.
My rough approach would assume the following:
Right now we seem to use a 40% of diff approach, now if we use that as our base value and apply the difference of the last 3 blocks in example above we will get the following.
10million shares across 3blocks = 3333333.33 shares per block
This means the last 3 blocks lasted on avg 213% longer
We will then calculate our 40% into current difficulty which would be 625211.2 and add 213% which gives 1331699.85 difficulty thus the new difficulty for the selected pool to stay on for the 4th block(block just after the previous 3)
Now the reverse would be implied when a pool got really lucky in last 3blocks, thus we would be avoiding them or leave them far earlier than 40% of difficulty.
I hope this makes somewhat sense
it does in my twisted mind.please note: This is some hectic thumbsucking, would be nice to check it out in practice.
Hate to be the wet blanket that rains on your parade,
but blocks are solved as a poisson process. Part of the definition of a poisson process is that it has no 'memory' of prior events. This means that each new block has a the same probability of being solved before as any other block. So a 'luck' based approach would only work randomly and increase variance. Sorry.Now, who's going to open up another forum thread called 'Hoppers here!'. c00w must be getting sick of our meanderings, much as I enjoy them
Indeed but the luck averages out over time:
Luck this difficulty (1563027) 1724037 shares (-9.3%)
Luck at difficulty 1379223 1384144 shares (-0.4%)
Luck at difficulty 876954 875473 shares (+0.2%)
If a large pool has significantly worse luck than that you can usually suspect some foul play.