I’m attempting to grasp this technique form of deeply, however there are some issues that I don’t get. In “Evaluation of Bitcoin Pooled Mining Reward Techniques” 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/Problem, B is the block reward and c is linked to common variable price. That is invariant with respect to variety of shares already submitted. Actually, the geometric technique is claimed to be hopping-proof. This outcome makes use of the actual selection for the decay charge r= 1 - p + p/c.
Presumably, aside from making neat the system above, the thought is to have this anticipated worth to be unbiased additionally from the decay charge (and in flip unbiased from issue, 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 charge (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 system neat, nor (and extra importantly) for making the anticipated payout per share unbiased from issue (by getting rid the r variable someway).
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 system and I favor to not belief.
