The height of the red rejects is on a different scale than the rest of the graph.   I've noticed that even 1 or 2 rejected shares will create a very large spike on the graph even though it is only a couple rejected shares.

Still something that should be investigated if possible

Woot I'm seeing mined blocks from staking. 

But the earnings of everything reporting on the site seems to indicate that it's not paying out what the site is reporting it should.  All graphs look flat, the hashrates of the workers are showing significantly lower than what is being reported locally.  Are you saying that we should see similar earnings to what we've seen in the past few days if we keep mining hmq1725?  I trust you, but it's very hard to judge if our miners are actually effective when the tools to measure the performance on the pool show otherwise.

I do see that I was getting shares of a few Esper mined, but again it seems near impossible to know what returns that we can expect from it when the graphs are all showing either flat or decreasing earnings.

Because the price with 45 coins total was like $120 per coin.  There are now 20 billion coins.  You do the math.

I'm seeing the same thing.  I think I'm disabling hmq1725 for now.   Not sure why the pool hashrate is so low compared to what local miners are saying.

There is a luck factor with any block discovered.  Some blocks take far more hashing power to fully confirm and therefore have "bad" luck and requires more shares to complete.  Others are quick and therefore have good "luck".  No one can predict how much hashing power is going to be required until after the block has been completed.  Since the block only pays out a specific number of coins blocks that require more hashing power are considered unlucky.  Over the long term it averages out to make the 100%. 

You're always going to get whatever the miner is tuned too.  The benchmarks are a snapshot of what you got when you benchmarked that particular miner, but is not a guarantee of the work you will get the next time.  Generally speaking most miners get a fairly good average hashrate locally, but that is just how many hashes are being checked and not the actual amount accepted by the pool.  This is why you can see very different results on the pool worker outputs vs what you see locally.  There isn't a lot of tweaking you can do locally to your miner other than to try a different build or driver.  What the Multipoolminer is XX% better is basically saying that because it has switched algorithms it may have had better potential profits than if you had mined with that one algorithm continuously.  This isn't necessarily true either because a single miner continuously can have varying exchange rates as well throughout the day.  This also doesn't take into account that the coins don't always automatically get sold at an exchange right when you mined the coins.  So the value when you mined it doesn't necessarily reflect the price it was sold at.  The rate that it is showing you is a rough guide of how much multipoolminer thinks you should have earned if the coins were sold at the value the pool is reporting.  Some coins take multiple days even to mature to the point that they could be sold so the price is very difficult to actually predict.  This is also why on pools like zpool and MPH you may not immediately see the returns you expect unless you run it for a week or more and look at the average of what you earned over that time.

Unless you are mining the coins into your own wallets and taking them to the exchanges yourself can you really accurately measure how much you are making in the very short term.  Multi-algo does generally allow you to get a decent average return regardless of how a particular coin performs.

Those AcSpWrk as far as I know is coming directly from the worker output on the pools.  That is likely a more accurate result for that one pool, but it can fluctuate fairly dramatically based on your luck.  The hash rate you see locally is simply the number of hashes your card is checking, but not the actual amount of work that is accepted by the pools.  Over long term I would say the TopAvgSpd would eventually give a good best guess of the hashrates you can expect over time.  Luck will make some pretty big swings at times though.

Part of the issue with multi-ago/pool setups is going to be dependent on when the coin sales or exchanges really happen vs the value when you are mining the coin.  A coin may look very profitable when you mine it, but if the price tanks or you don't get it to the exchange and actually sell it the real returns may be very much different.  Overall though that is true of all coins you mine regardless of method.  I would say that miner control has the most potential for high returns because it checks many multiple pools and some pools may be operating better than others, but you still have to rely on those pools to pay out properly.  I would say that to get a good gauge of how it is doing you would need to look at averages over several weeks and see what is paying out the best and what is not.  It's not just as simple as pointing it to the most profitable coin on the most profitable pool this minute/hour/day because so many factors can change and you still have a lot of luck.

The wallet hasn't been updated to the new version yet.  Novaexchange admins are on vacation until next week and so it likely won't be updated until then.

Looks like minStakeAge is 24 hours on the main net

src\main.cpp(44): unsigned int nStakeMinAge = 24 * 60 * 60 ; // 24 hours

Always encrypted wallet.  Preferably cold storage, but that likely isn't possible right now.  Best to have multiple backups of your encrypted wallets.

I understand I was in your shoes not that long ago.  The response I got from crackfoo is he doesn't do Multi-algo so he didn't really have much information to offer to me.  I've since figured it out through various posts in this thread and just playing with the settings.

For example if you include decred in your password string it will not allow you to do a custom fixed difficulty with the d=XXX option.  Crackfoo said he's tried to get it fixed a couple of times, but it is still a problem.

Also it can be really difficult to know if the multi-algo process is actually working the way that you intend.  Part of the issue is that many coins take multiple days to mature and confirm that your returns will likely look low for the first few days at least.  It should balance out in time, but I would not look to the first 3 days for averages of your earnings unless you avoid the algorithms with long maturing coins.  Netko on Nist5 seems to be the worst offender in delayed payouts.

Novaexchange has a note about limited support due to Swedish holiday.  It will likely have to wait for them to come back.

2017-06-23 09:36 - Limited support until Monday

All swedes are celebrating Swedish midsummer (https://youtu.be/u8ZLpGOOA1Q) so the support will be limited until Monday June 26

Stats is documented here:
http://zpool.ca/site/benchmarks

Which the benchmarks at the top can also be used to get a decent profitability factor for the multialgo by looking up your GPU type and seeing what miner the person used and what hash rate they were getting.  Ultimately though you'd want to do your own benchmarking.

Ultimately though I wouldn't recommend anyone do Multi-algo unless they understand the concepts that affect all mining.  There is a lot of tinkering and fiddling that goes with getting it working well.  Things that are going to be unique to your setup and people aren't always going to have a clear and concise answer on how to fix the problems that you might be seeing.

Super bonanza blocks have started to become fully confirmed and crediting the pool accounts with the coins.

I would make sure your payout wallet address is correct because it looks like it is doing autopayouts and there isn't an option on the pool to disable them entirely.  Even the high amount is only 250,000 so it will likely trigger.

If you setup the electra.conf that Euro posted on the previous page it will sync okay.

Looks like Electra updated their wallet to try and resolve their blockchain issue.  Any plans to try and recover something from it?

Everyone will have to update their wallets to get the coins that were mined.

It may be working, but you'd still have to wait for the blocks to confirm to see the transfer anyways so it will be at least a few days if not more.

So I guess at this point is there a reason to put more hashing power onto the pool?  I don't think the blocks get found faster if the difficulty is going to be variable is it?  It seems to me like it is more of a countdown timer to give people time to update their wallets before the coins start flooding out.