Quote from: gyverlb on January 19, 2014, 05:33:04 PM

Quote from: mdude77 on January 19, 2014, 10:18:03 AM

[...]
Yes, I understand that. I still want to see some numbers!

You keep claiming you do better in p2pool than a conventional pool. Let's see numbers to prove it! We know theory and reality usually don't meet.

I don't compute these numbers anymore (at least not accurately) because:
- I read and understood the p2pool code,
- I validated them ages ago and have no reason to believe that p2pool behavior changed since (both because our income is still high enough and the code changes didn't introduce changes in the way the distribution works, stales are used, efficiency is computed, ... that could affect the basic principles),
- they are only one part of our above 100% PPS efficiency now (which makes isolating the p2pool's income and corresponding hashrate difficult, we simply use a 30-day sliding window and check the global income vs a theoretical 100+% PPS which is our target).

Reporting these numbers if they were available wouldn't even be of much interest: this would just say that our numbers match the expected p2pool behavior on our setup and you wouldn't even be able to verify that I didn't misrepresent them.
Either you trust my understanding of the system and my earlier experiment results and don't need recent numbers or you wouldn't have any reason to trust numbers I would provide (there's the possibility that I would fabricate good looking numbers hoping to lure you into a pool where your hashrate would work for me).
In my opinion you shouldn't trust anybody here (people luring others on "magical" pools looked like a sport on bitcointalk not long ago): if you can't use public data, your own understanding and/or your own experiments there's really no point in discussing this.

You're one of the few people who's number I'd assume is right.

But oh well, since you won't back it up, I see no reason to believe your claim that you come out ahead with p2pool would be accurate.

M