Quote from: paraipan on November 09, 2011, 03:45:41 PM

Quote from: kislam on November 09, 2011, 03:16:51 PM

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on November 09, 2011, 03:01:18 PM

So given you accept that average reward is the same then for the sake of bias free article why not modify you parapgrah about rewards.

On average the reward will be the same but your paragraph only talks about instances where reward will be lower there is an exactly equally chance the reward will be higher so it makes no sense to talk about a scenario (naming Slush pool specifically) where a miner might get a lower reward. You could name both scenarios, and scenario of getting the average reward but why not get rid of all that.

I would recommend simply indicate that average reward for any fair pool is the same (unless the pool can be hopped). I would even add a sentence where the belief that PPLNS or score based pools "punish" miners is an urban legend. In long run each miner will receive the same value for their shares.

Then in a separate section talk about variance. Conflating the two and talking about only the downside scenario simply reinforces this mistaken belief about pool rewards.

I plan to, but unfortunately don't have the time right now to revise it in a way that will do it justice, so I have edited the OP to request the reader to also read post#15 for clarifications.

do what you please but you will ruin a nice guide in the process. Some people have personal agendas and you should take that into account when adopting their "corrections". Just my personal opinion.

Why do you think I am taking the time to formulate an appropriate response/rewrite? I definitely want to be impartial and mathematically correct, but also need to get across my own take on this very important issue without being influenced by 'personal agendas'.

cheers...