if you have, say, better than 90% accuracy in reporting spam or rules violations then you will receive a merit for each new report submitted (as long as it is accurate, of course).
Merit farmers will create a few thousand sockpuppet accounts, create multiple spam with each sockpuppet account, and then use their main account to report all their own sockpuppet spam. Voila, instant 1000 merit. Easy enough to stop that by limiting the number of posts that can be reported each day. And how is this any different from what is going on now, especially in the foreign language subforums, where there appears to be big ol' circle jerks of meriting? |
|
|
|
Its down again, yesterday I switched from zenpool.org as it was down for more than a day, now this is down too.
First time mining zencash and I'm not impressed with the pools/stability.
It looks like zhash.pro is the pool to beat now, at least when it comes to mining ZEN. They have servers in the US and EU and a decent chunk of the network hashrate. I've given up on luckpool after experiencing several days of earning 30% less than predicted here and there. Yes, I am well aware that earnings depend on blocks being found, but I am also aware that PPLNS can really screw you over if the time to find each block is not fairly consistent. |
|
|
|
Thank you for your work! Sorry for some bad words but I hate losing money  And it happens 'cause of that forking issues, it's very annoying. I still don't understand the person growing the alternate blockchain on and on, now it's 40250 (official 40256). I've just checked that the exchange is on the right side of the blockchain (the only reason I thought why it could be done). Hope the alternate will never get alive. dero.tech is a repeat offender with the blockchain going out of sync and has had a tiny minority of the network hashrate for a couple of months now so I'm not sure we should worry too much about what is going on over there. DERO did have a lot of problems with its blockchain at the beginning (and I was a loud critic of this as well) but over the last few months it has been running quite smoothly so what is happening the last couple of days is unusual, but not unheard of, and in all cases CaptDero sorted things out. I, personally, have moved my dedicated DERO rig over to mining MUSIC because of this, but likely only for a few hours or a day at most. |
|
|
|
|
Yo Claymore - I've been tweaking a 4x RX 560 rig over the last couple of weeks, mainly on Cryptonight, but just switched over to Ethash using v11.0 and something peculiar is going on here. I am using OverDrivenTool and v18.2.2 of the Adrenalin drivers and while mining Cryptonight I get 500 - 440 - 440 - 500 for cards 0 through 3, while mining Ethash I get 14.0 - 14.0 - 12.9 - 12.9 for the same card order... In other words, the first and last cards are fastest at Cryptonight while the first and second are fastest at Ethash. Same overclock, same card brand, even the same memory and BIOS straps in all of them.
Not sure what to do about it, if anything can even be done, but an 8-12% variation in hashrate seems a bit odd.
|
|
|
|
|
Confirmed - pool.dero.live is refusing connections and my wallet daemon is 10 blocks behind and counting... Yet again.
|
|
|
|
What do you think of providing merit to those who correctly report spam/shill posts that serve no purpose? I think this may end up helping the forum as a whole in the long run and could give some low levels a source of merit. Of course, there is the risk of possibly over-reporting which would lead to mods opposing this as people are just reporting to try to get merit.
I may have talked myself out of it, but I'm interested to see what others have to say about it.
Actually, this sounds like a good idea. And the framework to deal with the potential issue of over-reporting is already in place, in that you are told your accuracy score for reporting each time you report a new post (e.g. - 6 out of 6 for me, last time I checked). So if you have, say, better than 90% accuracy in reporting spam or rules violations then you will receive a merit for each new report submitted (as long as it is accurate, of course). |
|
|
|
After 24 more hours on Zpool, this time with NemosMiner 2.4.2, I earned even less - 0.606 mBTC - than I did with NPlusMiner 1.3.2 so I'm starting to feel that none of these multi-algo pools are worth a damn, really. Either mine a single coin - which is what I mainly do, anyway - or else use NiceHash.
Perhaps my earlier suggestion to do a moving average on instantaneous profitability - not average instantaneous and 24h profitability - would help, but I losing confidence in that possible solution as well.
direct mining a coin is nearly always going to be more profitable than algo switching, no matter how good the program. You just have to find good coins. When I am "in between" coins is when I look in on these programs. That has been my experience, yes, but it doesn't make sense if you think about it: the whole idea behind multi-algo pools with auto-switching software like NPlusMiner is to mine whatever coin is delivering relative outperformance at the time; something which is temporary by definition! Yet over the last few weeks I earned anywhere from 10% less (including fees of 7%) to 30% less per day than I would have made simply mining ZEN or NiceHash, and ZEN hasn't been especially profitable to mine during this time, either (in fact, that was why I was looking at multi-algo pools in the first place - difficulty vs. price was no longer so favorable for ZEN). Mind you, this rig does earn less now regardless of what it is mining compared to a month ago - and it has been quite the dramatic fall from grace, so to speak - but that affects everything I might choose to mine, not just ZEN or NH or multi-algo, convert to BTC. HOWEVER... I did find that my earnings much more closely matched what I would have made with NH if I selected a different auto-convert coin besides BTC. For example, I ran multi-algo mode on ZPool for several days with XVG, VTC and FTC selected as output coins and in all 3 of those cases I made a similar amount (in USD terms) as I would have with NH. From that I concluded that ZPool is basically trustworthy, it's just that auto-converting a bunch of shitcoins to BTC isn't nearly as profitable as you might imagine. |
|
|
|
Hopefully you checked up on inputs/outputs/etc., as that will help any communication/understanding.
I know what an input is *supposed* to be, I just can't figure out what it is w/r/t TZC. Every time your wallet has received a payment, for example a small mining pool payout, that will represent an input. That is probably why you have so many inputs.
Note that inputs, while associated with addresses, are not 1-to-1 with an address. You can have many inputs under the same, single address. Mmm-hmmm. I didn't ask about this, but ok. Nothing controversial here. The min, ave, max age are just a way of saying low, medium, high maturity. I don't remember the exact breakdown, but maybe inputs from 1-8 days in age may be min, 8-16 days ave, and 16+ days max? Anyway, it's just a 3-bucket way of considering your inputs and their age. lolwut?! You mean to say that what the wallet reports is completely made up, arbitrary and inscrutable??? Hmm, that sounds familiar, yes...  Your inputs that are under 24 hrs old (or perhaps 72 hrs if you don't have a conf on the original version wallet) are probably not being included in the count (e.g., the 148 you mentioned). Also, there may be a minimum input size to stake, but I have not gotten solid confirmation on that. So if that is true, inputs that are too small would not count either, theoretically. Right, so I waited yet another day to ensure that the youngest input would be >72 hours old and, whaddya know, the mix of min/avg/max has not changed at all (52/1/95). My weight in coin-days has increased to 10626, so in the immortal words of Bill Murray in Caddyshack, I got that going for me. Based on what you seem to be describing--a fair likelihood of many small inputs--it might be worth taking a moment to sweep up the tiny ones into larger inputs. You will reset the ages of any inputs you merge, but I think it would probably be worth it. Well, just when I thought I couldn't be any more confused now you say that merging lots of little inputs into a larger one will reset their age but somehow be worth doing? Please be aware that regardless of whether they are set right or not, a total coin balance of 1000 will probably take months or longer to hit a PoS stake--of course, if you are particularly lucky it could happen much sooner.  *Groan* This is like pulling teeth, I tell ya. I don't want some nebulous estimate from *you*, I want to do the estimating myself. I'm pretty sure all the info is there, I just need some help getting the units/magnitudes right. My understanding as of now is that "weight in coin-days" is the staking analog of mining hashrate, and, of course, the PoS and PoW difficulties are reported by the green checkmark. Now I just need to translate "weight in coin-days" into hashrate to be able to use (presumably) the standard reward estimation equation: Reward per Day = (86400 * Hash/s * Block Reward) / (Difficulty * 4295032833) |
|
|
|
Stocks.Exchange seems to cycle the functionality of their Dero withdrawals on and off with irregularity. It appears that the withdrawal feature is currently enabled.
We strongly advise that everyone keeps their withdrawal size to 30 Dero or less at this time to avoid any potential errors on Stock.Exchange's side.
When I observe the behavior in other communities I see promises, hype, and plans that often don't come to fruition. In line with the spirit of the Dero development team, we're quietly taking our exchange related matters very seriously. I rarely give assurances in this world, however, I can assure the community that your collective patience will be worthwhile in the end.
I had all but given up on getting my test deposit of 10 DERO back from S.E, but thanks to you I just retrieved my wayward coins. Those idiots really need to get their act together before even the greenest newbie on here is aware of how much they suck. |
|
|
|
Okay, well, what is an input and which coins are assigned to it?
NB - I have the whitepaper pulled up now and can see what an input is, but the wallet does not tell me this, nor does it allow me to chose to send my newest coins should I wish to conduct a transaction.
Inputs/outputs/addresses are all pretty fundamental aspects of blockchain and I regularly encourage participants in crypto to take 5-10 minutes to read some wikis on them. IMHO it only takes that long to get the basic concept, and it's very good knowledge to have if you are involved in this space. (A thorough, in-depth understanding would take much longer for most people--however that is not really necessary or as much positive cost/benefit, IMHO.) The semi-short answer is an input is an incoming amount to an address. Well I'm thoroughly flummoxed now... My wallet now holds 1001.9 TZC obtained through 192 mining payments to 2 addresses, and the last payment was a little over 48 hours ago so the minimum age of an input should be >2 days. The Penrose triangle, however, reports 148 inputs weighing 10178 coin days, of which 52 inputs are minimum age, 1 input is average age and 95 inputs are max age; so 148 inputs vs. 192 payments, and last payment was 2 days ago but still claiming that 52 inputs are minimum age. To muddy matters even more, the TZC whitepaper says that the minimum age for an input is 1 day, so is it any wonder that I am confused at this point? |
|
|
|
You can't evaluate a mining pool by comparing what you made on one day vs. another! Even if your hashrate is the same and you mine the same algo(s) for the same time(s) that doesn't account for changes in network difficulty or pool "luck" (finding a block is a probabilistic event, not a certainty).
It's even harder to fairly evaluate a multi-algo, auto-exchange mining pool as the algo-switching software (e.g. - NemosMiner) affects your earnings, too.
The only approach that has any chance of producing useful data is to compare two identical rigs with one running NiceHash and the other your multi-algo, auto-switching software on the pool of your choice. This comparison needs to be run for at least 24 hours, but preferably for several days, and you should note the total earned for each rig at the same time(s) each day.
I do it the simple way. Use multipool switcher and compare profit from each pool over a few days. Multipool switcher picks the best algo and best profitable pool. Most profitable pool should win. Not super scientific, but comparing to nicehash doesn't seem to either except for giving hash to nicehash. Sure, comparing two different multi-algo pools using the same profit-switching software (e.g. - MrPlus, NemosMiner, SniffDogMiner, etc.) would also give valid results, but after testing various ones for over a month now I've concluded they all suck so if the goal is to mine shitcoins and convert to BTC you might as well go NiceHash. I'm not saying I like that option, it's just that none of the multi-algo pools I've evaluated performed any better than NiceHash in multi-algo mode. Zpool performed quite well in single-algo, auto-convert to something besides BTC, but if BTC was specified as the output coin then profits went into the shitter as well. Could my testing have been more scientific? Absolutely, but I'm here to mine coins, not run a perpetual science experiment. |
|
|
|
Because it's an extra step to go to a shitty exchange and convert your BTC to ITNS? That step should be justified somehow. The quality of VPN service through ITNS is likely to be lower than the established commercial services with guaranteed bandwidth and availability. If I want high speed VPN I'll pay to a trusted provider with BTC. If I'm focused on anonymity and don't care about speed I'll just use Tor for free. I'm not saying there's no place for ITNS-based VPN on the market, it's just that market is already pretty crowded and fitting in there is no easy task.
Not in China and similar countries you won't. Any known VPN providers end up in the Great Firewall. That's the point here, it's almost impossible to block a decentralized VPN service without blocking every IP address in the world. Yep, that's my assessment as well, and why I am still mining ITNS. *If* Pallas and co. pull this off it will be a helluva use case for a coin. If not, well... I will have wasted a few hundred kW-hr of energy. |
|
|
|
|
After 24 more hours on Zpool, this time with NemosMiner 2.4.2, I earned even less - 0.606 mBTC - than I did with NPlusMiner 1.3.2 so I'm starting to feel that none of these multi-algo pools are worth a damn, really. Either mine a single coin - which is what I mainly do, anyway - or else use NiceHash.
Perhaps my earlier suggestion to do a moving average on instantaneous profitability - not average instantaneous and 24h profitability - would help, but I losing confidence in that possible solution as well.
|
|
|
|
Earning Tracker has memory and reads the past. So is accurate if your mining capability are close to constant. The estimates in the algo list however, have no memory. These are instant estimations provided by the pool based on CURRENT total pool hashrate and CURRENT coin value. These cannot be accurate in anyway because 1) the total pool hashrate is not constant and 2) the coin value is not constant and the one we should use is what it will be 10 to 12 hours later which off course... no one could really guess. We use estimations to take decisions TRYING TO predict the future. We use past data to tell how many BTC/D we've been making. The estimation bit does not apply to NiceHash as they pay the instant price depending on what bidders are willing to pay. Meaning that on NH, there is no 10 to 12 hours problem to solve. NiceHash do not provide estimate, they tell you how you've been doing and project to tell you when you get paid the same way the Earning Tracker does. I have not tried NH for a while now. So cannot tell if NH gives higher profits than other pools right now. However, I can tell even if it is now. It won't in a couple days. Lastly. Yes, you will find find short periods of time where following current_estimate will give better results than Plus. But in the long term... Plus shows better results. (At least for my rigs.) The Plus logic is not perfect and i'm happy to ear these constructive feedbacks. Keep it coming. They might help find the magic logic one day  Yes, I understand both how NiceHash works and that the estimated profitability for each algo is just a snapshot of that instant in time. I mentioned the latter because I keep my eye on the top 4-6 and they are consistently predicting >0.850 mBTC per day, yet I am just as consistently only earning <0.7 mBTC per day. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to evaluate a tool such as your NPlusMiner because it is difficult to separate out pool/algo effects from profitability estimation effects. I do have separate, nearly identical testing rigs which I could set up to mine to the same pool using different BTC addresses but it will take at least 1 week to get statistically significant results and I'm not sure I want to tie them up for that long doing an experiment that doesn't seem likely to be too rewarding. Still, I'll consider pitting your latest version - 1.3.3 - against NemosMiner 2.4.2 (selected because it switches based on instantaneous probability; more recent versions seem to be copying you, or vice versa, really can't tell who's poaching from whom here ). |
|
|
|
hi to all! is it normal that this happens?  Are you freaking blind? This was explained just a few posts above!!! |
|
|
|
I have some bad news for MrPlus... the profitability averaging function which attempts to blend 24h and instantaneous profitability does not appear to confer any advantage over NiceHash and, indeed, performs about 25% worse than it. The predicted per-day earnings displayed right before the list of algos is quite accurate after reaching 100% trust level - it says I will make about 0.666 mBTC per day and that is, indeed, what I have been making the last 3 days (more or less). If I take the average per-day earnings of the top 6 algos, however, I should be making 0.865 mBTC, which is similar to what NiceHash makes per day on this rig. Here's a recent capture of the relevant data as an example: Trust Level 100% [ 00 days 12:31 ]
Average BTC/H BTC = 0.00002775 | mBTC = 0.028
Average BTC/D BTC = 0.00066595 | mBTC = 0.666
Estimated Pay Date 2/27/2018 12:00:32 AM > 0.0025 BTC
+++++
Type: NVIDIA
Miner Algorithm Speed mBTC/Day BTC/Day USD/Day BTC/GH/Day Pool
----- --------- ----- -------- ------- ------- ---------- ----
ccminerpolytimos X17 35.66 MH/s 1.044 0.00104 10.062 0.02928 zpoolplus-
CcminerAlexis78cuda9 Xevan 12.94 MH/s 0.982 0.00098 9.465 0.07590 zpoolplus-
PalginHSR NeoScrypt 3.86 MH/s 0.927 0.00093 8.936 0.24025 zpoolplus-
ccminerpolytimos Lyra2RE2 149.93 MH/s 0.795 0.00079 7.658 0.00530 zpoolplus-
ccminerpolytimos Nist5 174.32 MH/s 0.738 0.00074 7.115 0.00424 zpoolplus-
DSTM Equihash 1.78 KH/s 0.704 0.00070 6.789 395.58398 zpoolplus-
Again, this has been consistent for several days now, using either 1.3.1 or 1.3.2 (which differ only in the Neoscrypt miner, AFAIK). I should also note that NemosMiner 2.4.2 - which only looks at instantaneous profitability - did outperform NiceHash by about 10%, but I am going to test that again just to make sure. |
|
|
|
I stopped and restarted the miner. But after about one hour it's sitll not showing the various algos and possible profits http://prntscr.com/ijgz0gis it normal? Add "-UIStyle Full" to your start[pool].bat file. This has been discussed several times over the last several pages, btw. |
|
|
|
|
I tried reconnecting to us.turtlepool.space about 30 minutes ago and things seem back to normal.
I never tried connecting to trtl.mine2gether.com because the ping time was too long from my location in the US (~124ms) but it sounds like it had similar problems as well.
UPDATE - 2.5 hours later I am still seeing the occasional disconnect warning from xmr-stak, but unlike yesterday the automatic attempt at reconnection is successful. So, might be a server load or DDoS issue.
|
|
|
|
Statistically this is possible, yes, but it should be a "tail event," if not an outright "black swan." Difficulty is supposed to dynamically adjust so that the target time to find each block is reached, yes?*
* - I suspect if the difficulty adjustment function was too aggressive oscillations in difficulty would result, with severe over and undershoot; perhaps that is what we are seeing as a result of, e.g., wild swings in network hashrate from NiceHash coming on/offline?
Hours would definitely be a tail event, yes, but it could theoretically happen just as 100 straight "heads" could happen in a long enough series of coin tosses. DERO's adjustment seems to do very nicely when we see spikes like yesterday's where IIRC we hit over 15MH/s for a while. I've seen blockchains get locked up for hours / days because of a spike like that. 12 minutes, which is what the original poster was asking about, wouldn't be especially uncommon with a 2 minute target time. More like 5 or 6 straight "heads" to continue the analogy. Aww, crap - I forgot to mention in that post that the time since the last block was found when I was writing it was about an hour; 30x the average ttf most definitely qualifies as the wispy, asymptotic end of the bell curve. A very simple block-to-block difficulty adjustment such as "last block was 30 seconds, multiply difficulty by 7" would be awful as you say. Varying by block but with some smoothing by averaging out the last X number of block times and calculating from there is the best case scenario. Yep, I'm an EE for my day job specializing in switchmode power conversion (generically speaking) so I have plenty of experience with feedback loops and how they misbehave. A simple, digital-friendly and usually bulletproof means of maintaining good transient response while not going batshit crazy responding to every whipsaw change is the moving or rolling average. While the general principle is applicable here - that is, adjusting difficulty vs. changes in network hashrate - I am not quite sure how that could be implemented in practice (hey, I'm a coin miner, not a developer!). |
|
|
|
|
Looks like the US server, at least, is down at turtlepool.space. Or is it just me?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
