Yes this could be possible, just it's a question of bitcoin price and electricity price. As now I don't fit in with current btc/electricity ratio.

The backup1.mmpool.org interface was down for a short period but the other mining points were operational.

Bitcoinwisdom is showing an estimated next difficulty of +1.13% and the spreadsheet is showing that the network  is on pace for a 1.05% increase, but the 3 day moving average is -2.79% so the estimate is on a downtrend. With only 123 blocks to go I would say the chances of the difficulty adjustment falling within the unclaimed range of +.5 to +1.0% is pretty high right now.

LOL - I wonder if there's too much information on the web site when a 163% block is called a 'looong block'
The CDF shows that 1/5 of blocks are expected to be longer than that.

Long time lurker since late 2010... I'm 1LjJJS3rbo91FEdbY6o7YoVEEwkEtb7WZh. Thanks for running this pool folks. (And yes, that was rented hash power).

Sent you a PM on the 830.

Interested in one or both of the Samsung 840's depending on price.

Thank You

I noticed last night that one of my S5s was not working, and sent a note.  This morning I looked and it was only hashing at half speed.  I sent Lee a note and Within the hour I received a reply that he had replaced my miner with a new one and it is hashing away.

great service.

Now I am digging in the couch to find some loose change to buy more machines

Barbara

Well I think it is concerning that ~54% of the network hash rate is made up of pools based in china (and likely have a lot of their miners based in china).

It is my understanding that a lot of miners in china are actually very large mining farms, often controlled by a small group of people with some groups controlling multiple farms.

It is pretty amazing to see Ghash go from worried about 51 percent to a smaller pool.  If you look at last 24 hours they are only 2 percent of blocks found. https://blockchain.info/pools

I will be happy if we get the 1 percent raise only with btc price slowly going up.

Looks like the pool is down?

My miners are hashing good (1 TH each) but when I view the stats page they are only doing 800 GH/sec. And the speed rejected is like %2 to %4. When I've tried other pools I was always at at least 980-1TH/sec. Any idea what that could be? I'm just trying out this pool for the first time today.


Also, does the mining default to PPLNS?
And I put D=1024 in the password, but it still cranks it up to 4096 by itself.

I'm strictly mining BTC, nothing special. The title of this thread says "higher profits than difect mining BTC", where are those higher profits coming from and how long after you start mining there you will see that?

I'm pretty familiar with settings up my pools, but this one seems a little confusing. I'm just a little more concerned with why the difficulty is jumping way up to 4096 when I set it at 1024 in the password field to 1024 using "D=1024" from help from a previous post.

Also why my hashing speeds on my miners here at home are going full blast but when I check the westhash site I have high speed rejected stats. Unless I'm just not understanding this pool and it's setup.

Thanks.

Hype or not, it's fairly accurate. Spondoolies has always mentioned in the past that their margins were not great. In addition to ASICs, each board in the SP20 contains 16 VRM phases (twice as many as an S1) compared to the S5's zero VRMs. The controller was designed entirely in-house instead of leveraging an off-the-shelf devboard. By a pure components count I bet the SP20 is over the S5 by a full order of magnitude. The PCB very likely contains quite a bit more copper as well, given the current density required for their ASIC topology. That they sold SP20s at the same price point as an S5, I'd believe the last of the machines they actually took a loss on.


I'm going to try as hard as I can to make a solid miner design in the next several months, and if I can do what I want to do you'll eat those words.

Anyway, MBP's miner buyback.

About time for me to get one I think...Thanks for all your guys/gals hard work out there with these reviews and such.

I think it really depends on if you are right in saying that the massive drop in hash rate was due to ghash going down.

If you are correct then the miners would have been only effectively temporary taken offline and that hash power would have effectively be put back on the network, and all else being equal the estimated next difficulty will rise from where it is now.

If however the drop in hash rate was due to some amount of miners being "permanently" being taken offline then the average block time will continue to fall and will decrease the estimated next difficulty verses where we are now.