search

RaptureCore / Rapture

Rapture
https://our-rapture.com
MIT License
10 stars 8 forks source link

Special blocks benefit large miners only #8

Open mooleshacat opened 5 years ago

mooleshacat commented 5 years ago

I run pool https://miningpool.easyx.info/pools and developer of EasyNOMP

I like the idea of special blocks, but it benefits only the larger miners.

wasj ust thinking about it,,,, those special blocks benefit larger miners because thats only for 1 round out of many so if we hit that, I take a 5-10% share while you take a 90-95% share LOL then next round is not special block so it never evens out like the normal blocks do

Unfortunately unless you mine solo and hit that special block, or you have a HUGE hashrate in comparison to the others in the pool, you will not get a very large share of the special block.

Can we fix this somehow?

Thanks

mooleshacat commented 5 years ago

Maybe PPS/PPLNS is the problem. Because of the way pools work I am not sure this is even possible to fix unless you convince all miners to mine solo through pool - if you even can do that...

RaptureCore commented 5 years ago

Discussing this with a few others in the community, I think the plan will be to remove lucky blocks in an upcoming update. They've been more trouble than they're worth. They were meant to be fun, create a wider distribution, and incentivize PoW but we pretty much all agree that they're more trouble than they're worth. Might deploy an alternate implementation that is far less problematic and is a bigger incentive for continual PoW mining (along with an algo change, because nobody likes the power/heat requirements of neoscrypt). So expect some changes that should help address this. I'll leave the issue open for now until it's been considered resolved by an update. Thank you for the feedback!

Robitussin-DM commented 5 years ago

Discussing this with a few others in the community, I think the plan will be to remove lucky blocks in an upcoming update. They've been more trouble than they're worth. They were meant to be fun, create a wider distribution, and incentivize PoW but we pretty much all agree that they're more trouble than they're worth. Might deploy an alternate implementation that is far less problematic and is a bigger incentive for continual PoW mining (along with an algo change, because nobody likes the power/heat requirements of neoscrypt). So expect some changes that should help address this. I'll leave the issue open for now until it's been considered resolved by an update. Thank you for the feedback!

+1

mooleshacat commented 5 years ago

Thank you for looking into it. I was unaware you were aware of it already and working on it. Sorry for wasting your time having to explain it all again, but at least now it is officially on the issue tracker.

I always appreciate a detailed response, rather than a short refusal to answer for X Y or Z reason :)

Knowledge is power, spread it :)

mooleshacat commented 5 years ago

Oops I just realized you were leaving this open . sorry :)