# Difference between revisions of "Talk:Why pooled mining"

(some words on request for deletion) |
|||

Line 4: | Line 4: | ||

... given a 500Mh/s machine. I studied maths but sorry in this case I don't even bother to look into the formulas presented as the "experiment bitcoin" proofs it very far wrong. | ... given a 500Mh/s machine. I studied maths but sorry in this case I don't even bother to look into the formulas presented as the "experiment bitcoin" proofs it very far wrong. | ||

--[[User:Giszmo|Giszmo]] 21:37, 21 June 2011 (GMT) | --[[User:Giszmo|Giszmo]] 21:37, 21 June 2011 (GMT) | ||

+ | * I am reverting the delete request because your arguments are complete nonsense. The math is probably correct, and the page was contributed by a well-known and trusted member of the community. If there are some errors in the math, perhaps correction is needed, but certainly not deletion. Consider especially that the conclusions it supports are also correct: solo mining ''is'' always inferior to pooled mining. --[[User:Luke-jr|Luke-jr]] 14:28, 22 June 2011 (GMT) |

## Revision as of 14:28, 22 June 2011

## Request for deletion

This whole page is about spreading FUD about solo mining and comes to conclusions like:

- And conversely, your probability of /never generating a block even after millions of years/ is about 96+ percent.

... given a 500Mh/s machine. I studied maths but sorry in this case I don't even bother to look into the formulas presented as the "experiment bitcoin" proofs it very far wrong. --Giszmo 21:37, 21 June 2011 (GMT)

- I am reverting the delete request because your arguments are complete nonsense. The math is probably correct, and the page was contributed by a well-known and trusted member of the community. If there are some errors in the math, perhaps correction is needed, but certainly not deletion. Consider especially that the conclusions it supports are also correct: solo mining
*is*always inferior to pooled mining. --Luke-jr 14:28, 22 June 2011 (GMT)