Quote from: vladimir on January 24, 2011, 04:36:57 PM

If so than to me this seems to be an exercise in futility. Past performance does not guarantee the future results.

This is not about past performance, on the contrary. At any point in time, no matter how long the round has been active, there is the same expected time before finding a block. But what you will gain is not constant, it depends on the number of shares. Because of this, you can optimize.

Quote from: slush

because each instance of pool has own merkle root. So submitting shares from another pool (even based on the same code) won't work.

Thanks, I will correct this.

Quote from: slush

Good point is the switching between pools. But unless there are not two pools with similar hashpower, it's probably not relevant.

Even with two identical pool, unless they start their rounds at the same time, you can switch between them and gain a lot.

Quote from: slush

I'm just missing some graph in section 4.2, which shows time (X), hashpower(Y) and vertical lines where new block was found. All of this is public information and it would add more weight to sentence "there was no evidence that people gave up on old blocks".

I have to admit I have been lazy. I intended to provide that graph, but there was a network outage during the time I gathered my data, so there was a gap of a few hours, and I didn't want to start again. If you keep a log of computing power over time, and rounds over time, maybe you could send me the data, so I don't waste your bandwidth again ?

Ryo

Posts

Merits