You could have gotten your answer instantaneously if you had just bothered to read the first post on nearly every single page of this thread which has a link titled, "How to get started using DERO"...

A more pertinent question would be: why the hell are you mining Ethereum with an Nvida 1060 3GB card in the first place? The only algo this card does worse at than Ethash is CryptoNight. Mine a coin using any of the following algos and convert to ETH if you absolutely must have ETH: Neoscrypt, Equihash, Phi, Lyra2v2, X16s or X16r.

I know of what I speak: I have a 6x 1060 3GB rig and I mine ZEN with it, getting about 300 Sols/s per card at 70% PL using dstm 0.6.

Another vote for pool.sexy here. Although they aren't the closest to me w/r/t ping time, I always make within 1% of what minethecoin.com predicts based on average 24h difficulty and hashrate. Same goes for their UBQ pool (haven't tried anything else so far).

See Rule #9:

Good point - I'm not necessarily saying all or even most PPLNS pool operators are greedy, rather, that they* most are either greedy or incompetent, take your pick.

But even if the operators are highly competent and saintly in manner, PPLNS is still only fair if the time to find each new block by the pool is always inversely proportional to the pool hashrate by a fixed and predictable ratio. If, for example, it takes 5000 shares to find a block but the PPLNS window is 2000 shares then you just got screwed out of 60% of your hashrate. Conversely, if it only takes 1000 shares to find a block with a 2000 share window then you would still get credit for all of your hashrate even if the next block takes 3000 shares to find (this is how PPLNS rewards loyalty).



* - just to clarify, what I am saying is that few pool operators are both competent and not greedy.

Yeah, I feel bad for recommending it earlier in this thread, but that was right after the operators "did the right thing."


I had the same perspective - try to support the smaller pools - and I totally bought into the standard line that PPLNS is good because it punishes pool hoppers that swoop in as soon as a block is found and steal your payout percentage. Yes, PPLNS does do that, but make no mistake its main purpose is to limit the amount of liability a pool operator has for paying out on shares that don't find a block. Consequently, it is the smallest pools that benefit most from PPLNS and, conversely, the miners at these pools that suffer the most from it.

What do I - a mere member whom people like you think will be doomed to my lowly status forever - think? Well, firstly, that reddit post is unreadable. I made it through about the first paragraph before I gave up trying to parse the shitty gEnglish.

Secondly, all you people whining about merit being unfair need to shut up and give the damn system a chance; it's only been in effect for 3 months, after all.

That said, my impression as of now is that people that stick to certain sections which have a high signal to noise ratio but few merit sources (like altcoins\mining) will earn merit at a far slower rate than, say, those in bitcoin\technical discussion (or that favorite for merit-whoring, meta). However, adding a few more merit sources to the more neglected subfora would easily rectify this situation and theymos seems to be keen to make such tweaks (vs. outright dismantling a system he clearly spent much effort devising).

Finally, if you want a complaint about the merit system to be taken seriously your post history better not be filled with bounty submissions and sig campaign spam. Ergo, I'm not taking your complaint seriously.

That's the theory, alright; the reality seems to be far less rosy if the pool uses PPLNS, however, and these days most of them do (or the equally perverse variant, Pay Per Last N Time, PPLNT).

It's probably well known among those in this thread that as pool hashrate declines the average time to find each block goes up; perhaps less well-known or appreciated is that there will be wilder swings in time to find as pool hashrate goes down as well, because finding a block is a statistical event, not a mathematical certainty. Since PPLNS only pays you for the last n shares submitted (or n time for PPLNT), it automatically assumes an average number of shares (or time) to find each block. The pool operators can specify how much variance in time to find is permissible (ie - the number of standard deviations), but even if they are feeling particularly generous there will be an amount of time (or # of shares) beyond which you get no credit for your work.

The most egregious example of this in my recent experience (though I have collected many equally egregious ones in the short 6 months I've been mining) happened when a previously popular ZEN pool (Zhash.pro) went down for a day or two to change servers and never seemed to get back to its former hashrate, but it was clear to me that the PPLNS parameters still assumed the former hashrate because I was consistently earning around 60-70% of what I should have every 24 hour period. After watching this occur for over a week I finally called the pool operators out on it in their ANN thread and to their credit, they said they would look into it. The next day they reported that they had made some changes to various settings on the pool and lo-n-behold, earnings did improve spectacularly. In fact, for next couple of days I actually earned more than the calculator on minethecoin predicted!

Of course, that party didn't last too long and once again the pool resumed underpaying on a daily basis, except it was closer to 40% of expected, rather than the 60-70% of before. In fact, during my last mining session with them - where I was merely trying to get my existing balance of 0.0475 up to the payout threshold of 0.1 ZEN  - I mined for 8 hours at a very consistent 1750 H/s and only earned 0.024 ZEN, rather than the 0.0592 expected. In fact, it took another 8 hours of mining to finally hit 0.1 ZEN, and there was one episode where I mined for 3 hours and only got credit for 0.0011 ZEN the next day because a single block had been found in that 24 hour period (despite the pool claiming its average luck was 0.07 days [ie - 14 blocks per day]).

Consequently, I am now mining ZEN on Suprnova where I am also consistently underpaid, but only by 10%; an amount I can live with, relatively speaking.

Well, let's see... the network hashrate before the ASIC invasion was around 5MH/s, and let's say that was entirely from RX 560s* which will do 500H/s at 60W, so requiring 10000 cards drawing a total of 600kW.

The Baikal Giant-N does 20kH/s for the same 60W, so 40x more hashrate at the same power. Surely this will reduce overall energy consumption, right? Actually, no, because the network hashrate is now ~200MH/s which is 40x higher. So, total energy consumption is approximately the same as before the ASICs.


* - I chose these because they are surprisingly efficient at CryptoNight; an RX 570 will do 740H/s but draws 120-140W; so 50% more hashrate for double the power, an all around bad deal.

Somewhat dated info: 72MH/s for 6x 1060 3GB using ccminer alexis78phi variant.

Yeah, I'm in total agreement with you on this. Right now the only Nvidia-dominant coin I mine is ZenCash, but at the end of May a large fraction of mining rewards are going to be diverted to paying out on super/secure nodes, and I rather suspect I will stop mining it then. Maybe something else comes along that looks interesting, but as of now I am leaning towards selling almost all of my Nvidia cards while I can still get a halfway decent price for them and plowing the proceeds into more RX 560s and RX 570s.

I'm on board because of the first 3 reasons; I see it as a credible alternative to ZENcash - I never like to put all my crypto eggs in one wallet (!?) - so I mine it and XUN, too. Or, I should say, I was mining XUN up until the ASICs invasion. Now I just buy more at strategic times, and when stocks.exchange cooperates.

Pump-and-dump is illegal in securities trading, so unless you think that crypto is going to remain lawless and unregulated indefinitely this sort of thing will not only come to a screeching halt, there may be some negative consequences in the future for willingly engaging in bad behavior now.

From what I've read, TradeOgre hasn't exactly been problem free, either. I say let the DERO team concentrate on their roadmap (including hard-forking the ASICs into oblivion) and then worry about getting onto a major exchange like Bittrex.

Oh, I didn't try withdrawing XMR; I was able to withdraw the DERO I bought a few days ago... on the second attempt, anyway. I would check the withdrawal status on S.E to see if it actually got processed/approved. When I tried withdrawing DERO the first time I went through both confirmation steps (2fa & email) but the withdrawal was still marked as "waiting confirmation." I had to cancel that one and try again; for whatever reason it worked that time.

ASICs

Lawd ha mercee, that post sucketh mightily.

But did you notice the sig that Pajeet is wearing? Talk about irony...

Hmm, I like it. And though some of the mods seem to abhor automating any of this process (fearing it would be used maliciously), I think as long as there is an ability to appeal the disabling of the sigs by posting in meta and asking for a reevaluation would make this fair while cutting down on the mods' work.

I was just about to do the same today, but then I saw the fee was 0.001 and decided to convert my entire BTC balance to XMR. I'm otherwise not at all surprised that S.E operates inconsistently from user to user and day to day. 

While I am just as much in favor of stopping the shitposting and sig/bounty campaign spamming, I think requiring a certain number of merits per unit time would unfairly punish people like me because I spend the vast majority of my time in the altcoins mining and announcements sections where there seems to be few or no merit sources circulating. An alternate strategy would be to require members and below earn a certain number of merits per unit time to enable their signature.

I should note this idea has been independently conceived/suggested by many besides me, so I'm not going to claim originality. Just tossing it out as alternative.