 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »
|
I tried clevermining for 5 hours. I got 36% reject rates in 5 hours mining but I mined 0.00230624 BTC in 5 hrs at 900 kh/s. If you do the math that will be 0.011 in 24 hours. This is nice, even with high reject rates I still profited. I tried CM before but I only look in the reject rates, i did not look at the amount of coined I mined. My rejects are rejected untracked stratum share, what does it mean?
What are your current miner settings? Reject rate seems consistent with intensity 18 or above. I run R9 270x's @ 17 with 3-5% rejects at CM, but typically < 3% in other pools. |
|
|
|
Looking much, much better. Thanks for all the hard work getting this sorted out. Great pool, great operator - couldn't be happier  |
|
|
|
|
I think a few of the newer pools were not expecting such a big jump in hash. Payout is still covering electric costs with a little extra, so I'm keeping a little here. Looking forward to the new interface.
|
|
|
|
MiddleCoin is at 0.008~0.009 BTC per 1 MH/s so this is why people should be leaving.
Meh, so are Clever, Waffle, and Hashcows. None of the multipools are doing any better--according to their own webpages data. Incorrect. Clevermining is reporting 0.0103BTC/Mhash, with a 0.01267BTC/Mhash over the past 30 days. according to middlecoin.info: Rate since last payout (BTC /MH) 0.0058large discrepancy, and in this case ckoeber is right. cleverming's payouts are flawed.. you want to know why check this out: http://clevermining.com/users/17fZoMHnQ4or5GhrwXznRZ52jPE3pqjmwMhttp://clevermining.com/users/1NWeAFSpiJ76SThym7wGQ8fgWgQHibPBz9Check the dates, I'd mined for a little more than 24 hours on join date and look at when the payout arrived and look even after such a long while some of it is left stuck there for eternity even though it was part of the earning that took place within a 24 hour period. You mined less than 0.01 - no daily payout, then. You received weekly payout for balance over .001 on Sunday. Similar to MC-style, only they pay immediately when 0.01 is reached. |
|
|
|
Try another switching pool with 10x less hash or more if you want profits for right now. There is no coin doing well enough for good profits at this kind of hashrate. Doge was the reason for the recent payout buffs, and MC is over 1/3 their hashrate anyways. A tipping point is being reached.
I have personally returned to hashcows. They are mining coins with 70-120 profitability rating atm.
What in the world are you talking about? MC is @ 14-15Gh, down from 20Gh. Tipping point would have already been reached. Prior to the operator going on hiatus and the staggering profits, this pool's been really stable with very low reject rate. As far as payout, other pools are still reliably earning between 0.009 - 0.012/Mh/day. Seriously, you're all over the place. One minute you're preaching about the ills of MC and the next you admit you've been mining here but decided to go elsewhere because of profitability decline. What's your point, exactly? |
|
|
|
h20 is not ignoring the coins, just raping a bit less: 5 ghs instead of 22 ghs, for a reasonable payout.
he's getting profit for his miners so what he does makes sense. coins just need to evolve.
MafiaCoin indeed. Don't burn your clothing in an attempt to stay warm.  If not MC, then another will come along and are already coming along. How about summing up the net total of all known multi-pools? The only solution you're proposing is abstinence from MC. The ultimate solution is in code. You are never going to be able to convince people to let go of profitability when some have invested tens of thousands of dollars in mining equipment, if not hundreds of thousands by now. At least target the actual, reparable problem instead of eagerly blaming a single pool for problems that stem from inherently flawed design. |
|
|
|
remember the dinosaurs: big, deadly and extinct.
there is a fix for the multipool disease - aggressive kgw or new algos.
You nailed it. I see the issue as being a very well known exploitable vulnerability that everyone likes to pass around as being something new and deadly. Evolve, coins, or be lost forever in time. |
|
|
|
If you guys keep raping Earthcoin, it's done. The market can't take your dumps anymore, and you are about butcher what has been a great milkcow.
I feel your pain, but at the same time, it's simply not going to happen. Multi-pools are sprouting up all over the place and it's only going to get worse. Coin dev's really need to stay ahead of the game. If GPU mining can have such an affect, it's going to be all hell when viable scrypt ASIC's arrive. |
|
|
|
|
I'm assuming there's a buildup of unexchanged causing low initial payout???
The stats really don't tell you too much about what's going on behind the scenes. I stay on a pool for 6 days and average the total payout over 5 days, excluding the first. It could, of course, be poor performance. Holding out for now - new development is occurring.
|
|
|
|
|
Do you plan to add a statistic for currently unexchanged/immature amount after each round?
|
|
|
|
|
It would be a wise move to drop the fee down, not necessarily a permanent move, but rather a measure of good faith. I spread my hash around, so situations like this have minimal affect. Some pools that I've mined with even kick-back a little when major issues arise. It's just a good business practice. Mining is unlike any other business I've ever had to deal with. People simply accept lack of support and communication. I get it, profit speaks at the end of the day, but to retain customer base in times of trouble, there needs to be a little give-and-take.
|
|
|
|
Oh boy, yet another multipool trying to squeeze the life out of a coin, before leaving the coin believers to pickup up the difficulty pieces until it starts all over again.
So here's an idea for you. Someone else build a multipool (lets call it B) that picks up the coin next on the multipool (A) list and thus staying ahead of the difficulty game.
Then someone else does the same with a mutipool (C) that tries to beat multipool (B) to the next easiest coin.
Rinse and repeat creating multipools until there are no new desirable coins to mine.
Then take a step back and realize that you could all just stay mining the same coin and peace would be restored in the mining world.
Poorly designed coins are not the responsibility of multi-pool providers. Whether through investing or mining, people are simply trying to make some money. Coins can become multi-pool resistant if the developers so choose. If they do not so choose, it's their own fault. Every step of the way people are going to find ways to squeeze every last bit out of a coin. Good luck trying to change that. EDIT: This pool actually does seem to care about negatively affecting coins. I say, let the coin evolve on it's own. Challenge the developers to create something seaworthy so we all wind-up with a solid platform in the end. |
|
|
|
Hi drexel232, We saw you helping us advertising in the middlecoin forums. Thanks for the support. Regarding the issue which you mentioned, we update you once we find out. Anyway we are closely monitoring.  Not a problem. Didn't realize your pool has been around for over a month now. Congrats! I'll be adding a little more once my new rig is complete. |
|
|
|
Hi drexel232,
Was doing a check when saw your post.
Everything ok so far?
Profitability was good until 2014-02-19 06:00:00+08:00. I noticed the estimated amount wasn't increasing and thought the stats may have stalled since rejects stayed @ 0%. I've honestly never seen my rigs with 0% rejects for 6+ hours straight. I went from about .009/Mh/day to .007/Mh/day. No big deal. Since you're in alpha, thought I'd pipe-up, but I assume you're following along closely anyways |
|
|
|
What am i missing with altcoinplex that makes it diff from other multi pools besides paying out in 3 diff coins?
Just having a proxy that splits the hash power to some coins at the same time? Instead of slamming one at a time?
Basically, little to no coin switching. The list of coins are mined constantly, but at varying percentages. EDIT: Have to see how it performs under load, but I'm guessing that reject rates would be similar to mining a single coin directly. All day, I've been < 1%. |
|
|
|
Interesting, no movement in current round info going on ~6 hours - showing 100% accept, no rejects. Coin too difficult / no blocks found, stats stalled or are we mining thin air? EDIT: Very slow moving, but moving. I'm wrong. |
|
|
|
-Edit- I've been asking waiting and hoping H20 would implement some kind of hash allocation algorithm for several months. Here's a coinspiracy : Maybe H20 has done just that. Altcoinplex is the next stop after the CM test. Should be interesting, maybe they will have a few more coins in a day or 3. Thanks to whoever mentioned it.
You completely read my mind!!!! I thought the exact same thing: MC 2.0. |
|
|
|
That is a neat idea but the problem would be if you pick some coin combo the majority want nothing to do with and your hashing power and a few others might not be enough to find blocks reliably. For example you add litecoin for some reason and there is only 20 mhash/sec total mining it.. No block for a long time. Extreme example.
Any ideas on how to overcome that without creating a support nightmare? That is why i question alt coin pools that allow you to mine specfic coins while everyone else is mining something else. The many pools for each coin would all have to have considerable hashing power for their diff of the coin to work so people are happy. Otherwise long droughts.
Picking the wrong coin would simply be that - picking the wrong coin. People would have the choice to be wrong, same as any other investment opportunity. A restricted number of coins would be offered and perhaps added/removed via community voting? It's a legitimate concern; however, I think it could be solved if properly designed. How exactly? I'm not entirely sure but if I did solve the problem, I would find myself in midst of developing what I want If the switching engine was designed in a similar fashion as altcoinplex (and I'm speculating here, they're brand new), then it would simply be a matter of dynamically distributing the power based on user-selectable criteria. The criteria could be min/max shares found, simple time-based allocation, or even coin price thresholds. I don't see support being a issue given proper development attention. The pool would be designed to behave this way. There are definitely technical challenges to overcome, but it sounds fun |
|
|
|
|
