Difference between revisions of "Comparison of mining pools"

From Bitcoin Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 76: Line 76:
| 2013-07-01 ||          User<ref name="changeable"/> ||  [https://support.cex.io  link]                                || [https://ghash.io/  link]
| 2013-07-01 ||          User<ref name="changeable"/> ||  [https://support.cex.io  link]                                || [https://ghash.io/  link]
| [[Give Me COINS]]  || {{flag|us}}{{flag|eu}}          || 25 || [[NMC]]  || PPLNS                  || {{SharedFees}}    ||    ||  0%|| {{No}} || {{Yes}} || {{Yes}}
| [[Give Me COINS]]  || {{flag|us}}{{flag|eu}}          || 1000 || [[NMC]]  || PPLNS                  || {{SharedFees}}    ||    ||  0%|| {{No}} || {{Yes}} || {{Yes}}
| 2013-08-12 || Dynamic        || [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=272017.0  link] || [http://give-me-coins.com link]
| 2013-08-12 || Dynamic        || [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=272017.0  link] || [http://give-me-coins.com link]

Revision as of 09:51, 17 April 2015

Reward types & explanation:

  • CPPSRB - Capped Pay Per Share with Recent Backpay. [1]
  • DGM - Double Geometric Method. A hybrid between PPLNS and Geometric reward types that enables to operator to absorb some of the variance risk. Operator receives portion of payout on short rounds and returns it on longer rounds to normalize payments. [2]
  • ESMPPS - Equalized Shared Maximum Pay Per Share. Like SMPPS, but equalizes payments fairly among all those who are owed. [3]
  • POT - Pay On Target. A high variance PPS variant that pays on the difficulty of work returned to pool rather than the difficulty of work served by pool [4]
  • PPLNS - Pay Per Last N Shares. Similar to proportional, but instead of looking at the number of shares in the round, instead looks at the last N shares, regardless of round boundaries.
  • PPLNSG - Pay Per Last N Groups (or shifts). Similar to PPLNS, but shares are grouped into "shifts" which are paid as a whole.
  • PPS - Pay Per Share. Each submitted share is worth certain amount of BC. Since finding a block requires <current difficulty> shares on average, a PPS method with 0% fee would be 25 BTC divided by <current difficulty>. It is risky for pool operators, hence the fee is highest.
  • Prop. - Proportional. When block is found, the reward is distributed among all workers proportionally to how much shares each of them has found.
  • RSMPPS - Recent Shared Maximum Pay Per Share. Like SMPPS, but system aims to prioritize the most recent miners first. [5]
  • Score - Score based system: a proportional reward, but weighed by time submitted. Each submitted share is worth more in the function of time t since start of current round. For each share score is updated by: score += exp(t/C). This makes later shares worth much more than earlier shares, thus the miner's score quickly diminishes when they stop mining on the pool. Rewards are calculated proportionally to scores (and not to shares). (at slush's pool C=300 seconds, and every hour scores are normalized)
  • SMPPS - Shared Maximum Pay Per Share. Like Pay Per Share, but never pays more than the pool earns. [6]

Visual examples of the various payout methods

Name Location TH/s[1] Merged Mining[2] Reward Type Transaction fees PPS Fee Other Fee Gwk.png Stm.png GBT Launched Variance Forum Website
50BTC GermanyUnited StatesRussia No PPS or PPLNS kept by pool 6%[3][4] 1.5%[3][4] Yes Yes 2011-11-11 User[5] link link
pool.enso.kz Kazakhstan 0.06 No PPLNS kept by pool 0% Yes 2012-04-19 Dynamic link link
BitcoinAffiliateNetwork United StatesEuropeChinaNetherlandsAustralia 2000 NMC, DOGE PPS kept by pool 0% 0% No Yes 2014-07-15 User/Dynamic link link
Slush's pool (mining.bitcoin.cz) France 677 No Score shared 2% Yes 2010-11-27 User[5] link link
BitMinter United StatesGermany 2700 NMC PPLNSG shared 1% Yes Yes Yes 2011-06-26 User[5]/Dynamic link link
Blisterpool United StatesEurope 1.4 Devcoin + bonus[6] PPLNS shared 2% Yes Yes Yes 2014-02-01 User[5]/Dynamic link link
BTC Guild United StatesEurope 10500 NMC PPLNSG shared 2% Yes Yes No 2011-05-09 User[5]/Dynamic link link
BTCMine United States 0.1 No Score kept by pool 0% Yes 2011-03-11 Diff 1 link link
BTCDig United States 7 No DGM kept by pool 0% Yes 2013-07-04 User[5]/Dynamic 20SPM link link
btcmp.com Germany 1.4 No PPS kept by pool 4% Yes 2011-06-28 Diff 1 link
BTCWarp United States No Score kept by pool 0% Yes 2011-07-29 Diff 1 link link
CKPool United States 3500 No PPLNS shared 0.9% No Yes No 2014-09-20 User[5]/Dynamic 18SPM link link
Coin Miners United States No PPLNS kept by pool 0% Yes 2014-02-27 Diff 1 link link
CoinLab Protected Pool United States No PPS kept by pool 2-5% Yes 2012-08-09 Diff 1 link
Eclipse Mining Consortium Global 246 No DGM/PPS kept by pool 5% 0% Yes Yes Yes 2011-06-14 User[5]/Dynamic link link
Eligius United States 4000 NMC 105% PPS[7] CPPSRB shared 0% Yes Yes Yes 2011-04-27 Dynamic: 32 shares/m link link
GHash.IO Netherlands 60000 NMC, IXC, Devcoin PPLNS shared 0% 0% No Yes No 2013-07-01 User[5] link link
Give Me COINS United StatesEurope 1000 NMC PPLNS shared 0% No Yes Yes 2013-08-12 Dynamic link link
Merge Mining Pool United States 50 NMC, IXC, Devcoin DGM shared 1.5% No Yes No 2012-01-08 User[5] link link
MinerGate Europe Yes PPS, PPLNS kept by pool 2.5% 2% Yes Yes No 2014-03-24 Dynamic link link
Multipool United StatesEurope 400 NMC, IXC, Devcoin Prop. shared 0% Yes Yes No 2012-03-15 User link link
Ozco.in United StatesEuropeAustraliaChina 4 No DGM shared 1% No Yes No 2011-06-07 User[5]/Dynamic link link
PolishPool PolandUnited StatesChina 5 NMC IXC DEV PPLNS/PPS shared 0% 0% Yes Yes Yes 2013-07-07 User[5]/Dynamic link link
P2Pool Global (p2p) 800 Solo[8] PPLNS shared 0% No[9] Yes No 2011-06-17 User[5] link
PolMine Poland 700 NMC SMPPS shared 1% 0% Yes Yes Yes 2011-06-13 Dynamic/User link link
Triplemining Europe 7.5 No PPLNS[10] kept by pool 0% Yes Yes Yes 2011-06-28 Diff 1 for getwork/GBT, dynamic for stratum link link
  1. Note that pool hashrate is largely irrelevant but can be seen as a popularity measurement. Note however that it is a theoretical security issue if one pool gains above 50% of the total computational power of the network, thus consider joining a pool based on other metrics.
  2. Merged mining allows miners to mine on multiple block chains at the same time with the same hashing.
  3. 3.0 3.1 On or around October 18, 2013, the pool stopped payouts of mining earnings. 50BTC.com claims the pool was hacked and all mining earnings and records of the earnings were lost. They claim as a result, many people are blackmailing them with unrealistic claims. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=359277.0
  4. 4.0 4.1 On or around February 11, 2014, the pool failed to payout mining earnings. 50BTC.com claims their system was unable to deal with the transaction malleability problem. They claim this has been fully corrected. https://50btc.com/en/news/view/161
  5. 5.00 5.01 5.02 5.03 5.04 5.05 5.06 5.07 5.08 5.09 5.10 5.11 5.12 The difficulty of the shares can be changed by the user.
  6. Pool pays out merged coins and promotional or supplementary payments in Devcoins.
  7. As of March 8, 2014, payouts have been labelled as broken by the pool operator. There is no current ETA to a fix.
  8. Merged mining can be done on a "solo mining" basis (payouts in the merged chain are not pooled).
  9. Miner-operated proxy available.
  10. Triplemining keeps 1% to redistribute using a weekly jackpot and affiliations

See also