I’m attempting to grasp this methodology form 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 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. In truth, the geometric methodology is claimed to be hopping-proof. This outcome makes use of the actual alternative for the decay price r= 1 - p + p/c.
Presumably, aside from making neat the method above, the concept 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 Technique by calculating the anticipated payout per share, however I can not 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 one way or the other).
Additionally, within the bitcoin speak dialogue it’s mentioned 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.
