You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Having the pool fee hardcoded presents an issue where if lots of miners are participating the pool can run out of funds.
If the total transaction fees + miner rewards > block reward (this would be extreme and probably a flood case) or total transaction fees > pool fee.
Instead the fee should be a multi part calculation.
The pool takes a flat fee (or percentage of reward) and then the total cost for transaction fees is calculated by the number of transactions required, then the remaining balance is what is divided up into the transaction amounts. Well or something along those lines anyway...
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
@ByronAP wouldn't you normally substract the pool fee from the earnings whereas you substract the transaction fee from the actual payout of the Farmer/Miner?
@ByronAP wouldn't you normally substract the pool fee from the earnings whereas you substract the transaction fee from the actual payout of the Farmer/Miner?
Since the payout is 'share' based that gets reset at payout not taking the fees ahead of time could/would mean some payees can run into an issue where the payment for a valid but non-substantial amount of 'shares' calculates to a negative
Having the pool fee hardcoded presents an issue where if lots of miners are participating the pool can run out of funds.
If the total transaction fees + miner rewards > block reward (this would be extreme and probably a flood case) or total transaction fees > pool fee.
Instead the fee should be a multi part calculation.
The pool takes a flat fee (or percentage of reward) and then the total cost for transaction fees is calculated by the number of transactions required, then the remaining balance is what is divided up into the transaction amounts. Well or something along those lines anyway...
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: