I’m making an attempt to grasp this technique sort of deeply, however there are some issues that I don’t get. In “Evaluation of Bitcoin Pooled Mining Reward Methods” by M. Rosenfeld, there’s a good survey of mining reward programs. I understood how the Geometric Methodology 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 price, p=1/Issue, B is the block reward and c is linked to common variable price. That is invariant with respect to variety of shares already submitted. In truth, the geometric technique is claimed to be hopping-proof. This consequence makes use of the actual selection for the decay price r= 1 - p + p/c.
Presumably, other than making neat the method above, the thought is to have this anticipated worth to be impartial additionally from the decay price (and in flip impartial from problem, making difficulty-based pool-hopping to be non-profitable).
I attempted to show the identical for the Double Geometric Methodology 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 method neat, nor (and extra importantly) for making the anticipated payout per share impartial from problem (by getting rid the r variable by some means).
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 method and I choose to not belief.
