Full Pay Per Share

Luxor links FPPS to valid submitted shares independently of pool block discovery. Braiins accounts for work by difficulty: a proof at difficulty d represents d base units. Submitted message count is therefore no universal measure of entitlement, and rejected work must not automatically be treated as accepted work. [Luxor — FPPS formula] [Braiins — Share accounting]

For an interval with unchanged difficulty, Braiins’ expression can be summarized as R=(S/D)×(C+AF): S is accepted work in base units, D network difficulty, C subsidy and AF the methodology’s average fees per block. R is gross rewards; the pool fee is deducted separately. S must not be a raw count of messages at different difficulties. [Braiins — FPPS specification and payouts] [Braiins — Share accounting]

Braiins closes its calculation after the UTC day ends and uses that day’s network blocks with normalization to the expected 144 blocks. Neither the network nor a particular pool must find exactly 144 blocks each day. This methodology’s daily period cannot automatically be equated with the last 144 blocks. [Braiins — FPPS specification and payouts]

Luxor describes a calculation for height h: it filters fees at ≤p5 and ≥p95 from the last 144 blocks and averages the remainder. It uses subsidy and network difficulty for that height. This filtering is neither a Bitcoin rule nor mandatory for every FPPS pool; Luxor allows methodology changes. [Luxor — FPPS formula]

When difficulty changes or a halving occurs within a day, Braiins splits the calculation into corresponding intervals. A halving changes subsidy, not automatically the calculation of the average fee component. Steadier rewards relative to pool luck therefore do not mean an unchanging daily BTC amount, dollar value or profit after electricity. [Braiins — FPPS specification and payouts] [Luxor — FPPS formula]

F2Pool distinguishes FPPS with a modeled fee component from PPS+, where subsidy uses PPS but the pool’s actual transaction fees are distributed using PPLNS. The latter’s fee component thus remains dependent on pool block discoveries. The label “fees included” alone does not resolve this difference. [F2Pool — FPPS and PPS+ payout schemes]

Rosenfeld’s PPS analysis shows the operator absorbing block-finding variance and needing reserves during long unsuccessful rounds. The same principle explains payment risk in an FPPS promise; the historical reserve model is not an audit of a present-day pool. An accrued claim has no protocol guarantee of payment if the operator fails. [Rosenfeld — PPS variance and reserves]

Braiins and Luxor distinguish balances from payout rules: schedule, minimum and any payout fee govern sending. Compare the same accepted work and period, the FPPS methodology version and the net amount actually received. A rate on the dashboard alone does not prove delivery to your wallet. [Braiins — FPPS specification and payouts] [Luxor — FPPS formula]