I’m attempting to grasp this methodology type of deeply, however there are some issues that I don’t get. In “Evaluation of Bitcoin Pooled Mining Reward Programs” by M. Rosenfeld, there’s a good survey of mining reward methods. I understood how the Geometric Technique works, and in the identical article (Appendix E) it’s calculated the anticipated payout per share
(1 − f )(1 − c)pB
the place f is the operator charge, p=1/Issue, B is the block reward and c is linked to common variable charge. That is invariant with respect to variety of shares already submitted. Actually, the geometric methodology is alleged to be hopping-proof. This consequence makes use of the actual alternative for the decay price r= 1 - p + p/c.
Presumably, aside from making neat the formulation above, the thought is to have this anticipated worth to be impartial additionally from the decay price (and in flip impartial from issue, making difficulty-based pool-hopping to be non-profitable).
I attempted to show the identical for the Double Geometric Technique by calculating the anticipated payout per share, however I can’t use the actual type of the decay price (for DGM)
r = 1 + p(1 - c)(1 - o)/c
(the place o is the cross-round leakage) neither for making the anticipated payout per share formulation neat, nor (and extra importantly) for making the anticipated payout per share impartial from issue (by getting rid the r variable in some way).
Additionally, within the bitcoin speak dialogue it’s stated by Rosenfeld that
( (1-c)^4(1-o)(1-p)p^2(1-f)^2B^2 ) / ( (2-c+co)c+(1-c)^2(1-o)p )
I couldn’t discover a proof of this formulation and I choose to not belief.
