I must have an account on every BigVern's pools... but the BOT/CAP one is just not reliable.

I moved a few MH to the new http://swmining.mine.nu/bot yesterday.

So far so good.

1% fee, but it is stable and I got only 1.5% reject for the last 14 hours.

Just FYI, I am not affiliated to anyone.

The launch and POS support is great. The name BOT is just unfortunate. My first thought was this being "botnet" related.

IMHO, CAP would have been way better.

Up to now, I have accumulated 462 BOT (sounds weird... does it?).

I will be mining for a couple more days to reach ~1000... but I won't bet much more on the name "BOT".

Something does not add up with the stats at the http://nbc.cryptcoins.net/ pool.

The pool show to be ~80% of the network hash rate for a while, but it found only 30% of the blocks.

My real payout is also ~1/3 of the estimation (I understand PPLNS and did wait plenty).
                     
Can someone please explain what am I missing?                     

Sample
=====
Block found for a moment:
22719,22715,22713,22711,22709,22702,22694,22693,22690                     
that means the pool got only 9 block over the 29 found on the network (9/29 = ~30%)                     

And hash rate stats were 91 MH/s pool over 111 MH/s network = ~80%

My reject ratio is ~4%.

DS8c9KHujKZdK4DZXRKbiDzKKmPz31bCHn

I did vote no. Anyone can simply ignore his posts if they choose to.

I share the belief that Hazard might serves a purpose by helping the community to get better at discerning good coins from the bad ones...

Beside, personally, I found WeedCoin entertaining.

Voting won't work. You will end-up with as much posts promoting and fighting about what should be approved.

The solution will come naturally... we actually need a bunch of clone coin failure to pile up, so most miners/pools/exchange will start to tune-out or become more picky about betting on true innovation.

I think vaginacoin is jumping the shark and we might already be close to a turning point.

Hazard:

Any longterm plan to seriously promote the *use* of WEC on a marketplace, say, silkroad?

Of course, it is all about how much it is worth/convenient before people start to use it... but a serious attempt to get its value "peg" to a few tangible things might help to differentiate it from other alt-coins.

Thx.

nearmiss:

Great job with wec.scryptmining.com. It has the lowest reject rate I ever got from a pool.

Looking forward for your expertise to be applied to other coins routinely profitable above Litecoin (e.g. WDC, NVC).

Check your PM.

Uv3J6UWNn4w6zZQkPeLH3UnzguErXtCk7V

Mining at wec.scryptmining.com:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 (5s):2.549M (avg):2.517Mh/s | A:29953  R:174  HW:0  U:138.5/m  WU:2296.8/m
 ST: 2  SS: 48  NB: 129  LW: 1904  GF: 1  RF: 1
 Connected to 198.245.60.126 diff 16 with stratum as user XXXXXXXXXXX
 Block: ef4792468b498db3...  Diff:403K  Started: [00:12:41]  Best share: 1.24M
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 [P]ool management [G]PU management [S ]ettings [D]isplay options [Q]uit
 GPU 0:  78.0C 4909RPM | 618.3K/625.3Kh/s | A:7490 R:42 HW:0 U: 34.62/m I:19
 GPU 1:  72.0C 4037RPM | 635.1K/630.3Kh/s | A:7518 R:52 HW:0 U: 34.75/m I:19
 GPU 2:  75.0C 4876RPM | 630.9K/630.7Kh/s | A:7425 R:41 HW:0 U: 34.32/m I:19
 GPU 3:  74.0C 4806RPM | 636.4K/631.8Kh/s | A:7533 R:39 HW:0 U: 34.82/m I:19
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While I understand well there is no *advantage* to pool hopping between PPLNS pools, I am not clear about the *disadvantage* when switching.

My goal is to understand the cost (if any) when a rig moves to a new pool.

Lets assume here clean switching (e.g. disabling/enabling pool in cgminer), not failover scenarios.

My Take on this
============
For a while, you are still being paid for the pool you left, while you are now being underpaid under the new pool. Also, the "lost shares" in one pool are irrelevant when your shares count (or not) in the other one.

Intuitively, this seems to average out and there is no *disadvantage* for clean switching between PPLNS pools on the long run.

Am I right?

Looks great. I sent a 0.3 BTC donation to help for the development.

Looking forward for the code to be on GitHub so it can be recompiled and put on the "production" setup.

Thanks.

I did test from 2 different pools and all deposit succeeded.

The pool without tx fee was indeed slower (~3 times slower on a single test). No big deal, but good to know.

Thanks frozen for getting a definitive answer.

BTER and Vircurex say they will not credit deposit from mining pools (or solo mining) directly.

It seems we have to use our wallet as an intermediate.

Why is that?