Stakepool Fees

Discussion in 'PoS Pools' started by Dyrk, May 21, 2016.

  1. 2017/12/15 - Decred v1.1.2 released! → Release Notes  → Downloads
?

Stakepool fees you are ready to pay

  1. 1%

    12 vote(s)
    33.3%
  2. 2% - 5%

    10 vote(s)
    27.8%
  3. 5% - 7.5%

    6 vote(s)
    16.7%
  4. 7.5%

    3 vote(s)
    8.3%
  5. 7.5% - 10%

    2 vote(s)
    5.6%
  6. 10%

    1 vote(s)
    2.8%
  7. 10% - 25%

    2 vote(s)
    5.6%
  8. 25%

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. Shadowlance

    Shadowlance Full Member

    Jan 9, 2016
    220
    155
    Male
    And I think wars should be fought with rainbows and unicorns and sugar drop gum balls. But guess what, we don't live in that world. Luckily for you, no one is forcing you to join a pool as has already been stated. Pool operators have expenses as you've already been told. Expenses that we pay for out of our own pockets. We're providing a service that makes you money. Why do you think we should shoulder the expenses while you gain the reward?

    But the great thing about Decred is that you don't need to join a pool. You think the fees are too expensive, fine. Don't join one. Even better, when the source is released, why don't you run your own pool? You can set the fees as low as you want. I'm sure people will flock to your service. Hell, I might even join myself. I've always enjoyed disaster movies.
     
    ClokworkGremlin and Lee Sharp like this.
  2. Lee Sharp

    Lee Sharp Sr. Member

    Dec 28, 2015
    308
    217
    Male
    Independent Consultant
    Houston, Texas
    When you are shopping, consider this. When you join a pool, your tickets are there for up to 6 months until they vote. (Yes it may be sooner.) If a bottom dollar pool runs out of money and closes with little or no notice, you may miss those votes.

    That said, once the code goes public, I can think of a way to run a minimal pool on one server. Sure it is all eggs in one basket, and if that server is down, you are out of luck. But it will be cheap. :)
     
  3. .m.

    .m. New Member

    Jan 23, 2016
    55
    10
    So much ranting - and fees are already down to 5% :)
    Are we going to see a competition or an oligopoly of chosen ones ?
     
  4. Lee Sharp

    Lee Sharp Sr. Member

    Dec 28, 2015
    308
    217
    Male
    Independent Consultant
    Houston, Texas
    Hard to have "chosen ones" with open source.

    But we will see some drop out. Or break the rules, and get removed from the master list.
     
  5. Kandiru

    Kandiru Member

    Feb 21, 2016
    206
    87
    Would anyone be interested in an alliance of solo stake miners? You have to donate a VPS to join, but we would each run a voting node in the pool. Fee would be 0%.

    I currently have a 2% missed rate solo mining, so a 5% fee is too high for me to be interested. I would benefit from joining forces with other solo miners to make a federated stake pool, however.

    The downside would be many people would have the power to vote in a way you didn't want, but you are trusting 2+ people with that power when you join a pool anyway. If anyone did vote against the owners wishes, they would be removed from the pool.

    Depending on what people wanted to do, we could also allow non-VPS donating people to join the pool with a 2-3% fee?
     
  6. Dyrk

    Dyrk Sr. Member
    Developer

    Jan 7, 2016
    518
    376
    Male
    Wonderland
    @Kandiru i think its almost impossibile to do, anyway there should be someone with the "power", like owner of root account.

    When you join third-party pool, you should trust 2-3 persons. But when u join community-driven pool, you should trust 1000 persons.
     
  7. drunkenmugsy

    drunkenmugsy Sr. Member
    Advocate (Reddit)

    Dec 28, 2015
    405
    218
    Male
    That is an interesting concept. I dont think this would be feasible with the current state of the stake pool software though. Not having control over all hosts could cause issues if 1 has a problem. I am biased as a pool Op but on this I am just relaying facts.
    You would do better running your own node on AWS(or similar) as a backup to your primary and call it good.
     
  8. Kandiru

    Kandiru Member

    Feb 21, 2016
    206
    87
    I'm not anticipating many people joining, but if you had 3 people with 1VPS each, that would result in a good pool with no fees and no increase in hosting costs over the status quo.

    It does require some trust, but no more than using a public pool.
     
  9. ceejep

    ceejep Sr. Member
    Developer

    Dec 14, 2015
    192
    220
    It's relatively easy to do. Make a 1of3 P2SH multisig address with a voting pubkey from each wallet. Use that in --ticketaddress. P2SH multisig is natively supported by the stake manager.

    The only downside is if you disagree with each other in terms of voting. Whoever gets to the miner's daemon with their vote first gets to choose the vote bits.
     
  10. root

    root Member

    Feb 3, 2016
    381
    76
    Regarding voting I'd be worried more about PoS pool operators having PoW pools as well.

    3 VPS shared PoS pool sounds like a good idea. I already mentioned AWS is still free for 12 months. We shall start a new topic I think.
     
  11. decredited

    decredited New Member

    Mar 12, 2016
    5
    2
    Male
    If you have a 2% missed rate why would you want to increase your risk by pooling with others? Additional people in this design would increase your risks. e.g. missed votes, unpaid VPS, or old software on VPS. If you are asking others to do work for free for you, eventually those people are likely to stop doing the work.
     
    drunkenmugsy likes this.
  12. Kandiru

    Kandiru Member

    Feb 21, 2016
    206
    87
    Well I would still run my vps, just it would also vote for other people, and their vps would also vote for me. If they go offline, I don't lose anything.
     
    decredited and drunkenmugsy like this.
  13. zero

    zero Full Member

    Jan 1, 2016
    288
    121
    Male
    I believe a low proportion of missed tickets is more important in most cases than very small % fees differences. I think pool operators will keep their fees as low as possible for attracting more users at first and then for keeping their users. Switching between pools or even trying solo PoS mining is quite easy if someone finds the fees unreasonable high.
     
  14. Dyrk

    Dyrk Sr. Member
    Developer

    Jan 7, 2016
    518
    376
    Male
    Wonderland
    We are launching service with PoS market analysis for our registered users at https://stakepool.dcrstats.com/
    You'll receive email notification each time, when it worth to buy a ticket. Our algorithms analizing tens of factors within the previous and future thousand blocks.
    We are working on improvements to maximaze profit of our users. Feel free to ask for changes and new factors in analysis, we know that some big PoS-players doing a lot of calculations manually. Let leave robots job to robots ;) we are going to automize everything for you.

    See example of one of the beta emails below (click for fullsize):

    [​IMG]
     
  15. ClokworkGremlin

    ClokworkGremlin Sr. Member

    Jan 10, 2016
    535
    381
    Male
    Whatever I want.
    I think the idea is that it's an "or" grouping, not an "and" grouping. If he's in a P2P pool and all members or the pool are hosting votes for each other, then the odds of failure aren't the possibility that any one host fails to report when called, they're the possibility that ALL hosts fail to report.

    Assuming he, at 98% success rate, pairs with 2 other people each of whom have a (fairly bad) 95% success rate, the odds of anybody in the
    P2P pool failing are
    0.02*0.05*0.05=0.00005 or 1 in 20,000.

    This is the whole point of the stake pools having multiple servers. If we assume an officially-run stakepool has servers each of which have a 99%(or better) uptime, then they should only miss 1 vote for every 999,999 successful votes, something that no single server would be able to accomplish.
     
    decredited and woot like this.
  16. decredited

    decredited New Member

    Mar 12, 2016
    5
    2
    Male
    Yes, but that wasn't my point. There are more risks in the threat model than the statistical percentage of missed votes. If that is all one is concerned about, there are simpler ways to ensure two additional votes happen in your scenario. There are plenty of reputable clouds that will support a person in this respect for free or low cost. In this way you don't need to worry about a botnet voting for your tickets, for example.
     
    ClokworkGremlin likes this.

Share This Page