I don't maintain the scrypt support, and certainly don't provide [unpaid] support if someone has problems with some scrypt altcoin.

I don't support altcoins. When/if Classic actually proposes a hardfork (no such proposal has been made yet) and it achieves consensus to replace Bitcoin (from the entire community, not merely some niche with an agenda), I will add support at that time.

(Also, people who support a reckless hardfork without consensus, ought to seriously consider whether they think the project can actually survive without any competent developers involved...)

That is most unusual indeed. Last time this happened to someone on this forum they restarted their machine and re-entered their credentials and everything worked after that. Perhaps in failover you never noticed it had never mined on solo and was always running on a backup?

Sure you haven't added a space or something in your username in your miner's config during copy/paste? Also once you fail to authorise you get throttled for attempted auths for the next 10 minutes (this has always been the case though).

Not unless classic usurps mainline.

No problems at main pool that I can see - usual problems are incomplete stratum implementations by rental services rendered non-working on the main pool due to it being behind an extra layer of DDoS protection - try port 3334 which is less protected.

So 0.9BTC for both ?

Hiya, is there any hosting time paid up on these or has it ended?

ftfy

Anyway, I put up the limit to 988,888 yesterday (and edited the first post)

Nothing has changed since the BIP100 vote was added to our (and other) pool coinbase sigs, other than gazik showing that BIP100 was a scam by the bitcoin core devs.
The bitcoin core devs seem to think that they control bitcoin, and that it isn't a peer 2 peer currency.
There are ways to prove them wrong, when you have a very large % of the mining network showing agreement for a change that the devs want to flex their imaginary power and push their agenda and bury it rather than proceeding with the obvious agreement of the majority of bitcoin mining.
The core devs want side chains and are pushing that since that is in their personal financial interest.

There is no need to force anything, there is a need to put in place BIP100 and allow the network vote, to accept or deny it, to occur.

I don't like the idea of block sizes growing at an exponential pre-determined rate, determined by one person.
Over 99% of the mining network has agreed to that and thrown out BIP101

Yes, in general, any block voting will effectively mean that pools will decide the vote, but the simple issue there is that if people care about bitcoin and what they want, they can vote by going to a pool that does what they want.

I also think that what I've done with regards to SPV is a point to show how bitcoin can work.
1 person can't make a change, but 1 person can inform others and make it well known what is going on and effect a change that way.

Happy Saturnalia

... and a payout due in a few blocks

maybe it is not perfectly written, but the result is nice!
I would like to have it.
Will you post me a link if you put it on Github please.