Scrypt is Scrypt-N (with N=10), so the stratum protocol would simply need to be extended to allow the server to communicate what Scrypt N value to use when hashing a given block.

Try for longer then 8 hours...  The BTC/MHD published on the site is over the last 24 hours, so it won't be accurate for the last 8 hours.

---

Is CoinShift using some fancy logic to avoid wasting hashing power on Tag?  TAG has some really stupid prevention measures that prevent blocks from occurring 'too' often, based on the time between the last 6 blocks.   So even if you're solving valid blocks, the network will continue to refuse them until that time lock has passed.

---

Any plans to add FlutterCoin (FLT) or SpainCoin (SPA) ?

Maybe post in their forum thread then, if your post has nothing to do with ScryptGuild?

Difficulty affects network load and variance - higher difficulty means less network load at the cost of increased variance; lower difficulty means more network traffic and decreases variance.  Ideally, you should find a value that causes only occasional shares - e.g. a few a minute - to balance network traffic and variance.

The site is entirely 404 error pages at the moment...

Interested to see how long this lasts.

Edit: back up... didn't take tooo long.

USWest server just hiccuped, it appears.  Was not responding for about 30 seconds.  Seems fine now, however.

I tend to avoid measuring performance until several days have passed.  That said - my average hashrate looks fine.  I am losing shares to reject rate and losing a few KH/s due to the need to re-tune my miners, but WafflePool's displayed rates look quite accurate compared to accepted WU.  As I have said before, I did prefer when WP accepted 1-block-late shares.  However, mining profits per card are still looking decent right now given current market conditions, and the new stratum layer does seem pretty effective so far.

Hm, does look like I have a noticeable dip in accepted shares around 4am across 5 miners.  No crashes tho.  Will watch to see if this behavior is repeated.

Considering the minimum hashrate over the period you are viewing was 0MH/s, you average number is not going to be correct either.  Server isn't reporting the wrong KH/s anywhere I have seen.

Yes it was true... What you are saying is not true. Show me a quote of WafflePool saying that - because he didn't.  A Chinese whale with ~20GH that has been mining at WafflePool (used to mine at MC for a while) is mining at GHash until the promotion is over.  But WafflePool has NOT been proxying to GHash at all.

Not the case.  PoolWaffle did build a stratum proxy and was testing proxying 25% of the pool when GHash implemented the tiered reward scheme.   However, WafflePool stopped mining at GHash as soon as they posted info about the 1.25x bonus.

The reason WafflePool's rates are higher now is probably: luck, or, the new custom stratum server that PoolWaffle built is really doing it's job. 

Time will tell.

Classically, in this sense, would mean "before now".  CM's BTC/MH rate has always been inflated because of reject rate skew.  WafflePool has had a consistent <1% reject rate for almost all users over it's life as a pool - even if you set your intensity through the roof (say, 23).  This is because WP only considered shares stale if they were 2 blocks behind, not just 1.  Under the new switcher scheme, shares are rejected in a different way, and this encourages more reasonable tuning settings to maintain a ~2% reject rate (so far in my tests).

The question with GPU mining, is... what algorithm?  I cannot predict the figure, but I doubt profitable SCRYPT mining with GPUs will last much longer.  And based on recent developments, I would say a few months at best. So, the question then becomes: do we need more cryptocurrencies with new algorithms?  Can an scrypt-adaptive-n or scrypt-chacha or sha3 or etc variant be the next Litecoin?  Vertcoin mining is currently hovering near the profitability of Litecoin mining, and Vertcoin is based on scrypt-adpative-n, which cannot be mined with the upcoming scrypt ASICs.  Is there enough utility in alternative blockchains that Vertcoin (for example) could maintain it's speculative value and actually support a mass incoming of GPU miners?

Nice update, Wil.  Looking forward to see some workers charts after a day or two.

Looks like we are going to close the day around .075BTC/MH.  Cross fingers for a last minute litecoin block to bring up the day's numbers!!!

We looked to be having good luck with litecoin blocks (including 2 in quick succession earlier in the day).  Definitely helping the profit numbers.

---

@PoolWaffle - could you add a few "luck" statistics?  Such as "expected" profitability based on switcher estimated profitability and work done (submitted shares); vs real profitability based on work done, blocks found, and block exchange value.  (After rejected share info, maybe. heh)

Most of WafflePool's variance seems to come from Litecoin mining these days - profitability peaks and valleys particularly when we have good/bad luck at finding litecoin blocks..

Yup - and now Alpha-t says they are going to up their promised MH/s to match competitors (aka KnC).  This is going to be an interesting year for scrypt for sure.  I wasn't expecting 100MH devices until sometime next year.

Vertcoin requires different mining software.  There is no multi-pool capable of mining Vertcoin so far.

WafflePool just switched to a new fully custom stratum layer, and changed what qualifies as a rejected share.  Because of the change to rejected share determination, the WP stats are going to (for the first time) be more roughly equivalent to CM's stats.  Classically, CM stats always appeared falsely higher then WP - this should decrease now.

Aurora has a very long maturation time before it can be traded, and is a highly volatile market.  You can mine AUR, it isn't unlikely it will be worth half as much when you can actually sell it at market.

"Below LTC" is really a misnomer.  CM's profitability to currently below the "statistically average LTC profit", which is a lot different then actually being less profitable then LTC mining.  PPLNS LTC pools will have periods far below and far above average LTC profit as well.

What about it?  Seems to be hovering around .08 fairly consistently, with some typical up/down variance.

--

I have my rejects stabilized to about 2% now, with about a 2% loss in hashrate.  My old 'WafflePool' optimized miner config pushes about 10% rejects on average.  Very interested to see if the profitability increase continues and makes up for the lost shares.

--

Xintensity is a huge functional improvement, and sgminer kicks ass (now has support to nscrypt and multiple kernels too)

Oh, I knew what I was doing by cranking my miners the way I did - but as I said, I have discovered many blocks for WafflePool, and a rare few were orphans.
Ya... I still think that was one of the best parts about wafflepool - haha.
Indeed.

--

I am getting around 2.5% average reject rate now after re-tuning for the new reject profile.

Looks like the new stratum server is costing me overall about 2% in decreased hashrate, and 2% additional rejects (very short sample period so far, mind you)

Guess this was the point of these changes.  Not overly pleased myself.

Lots of litecoin mining, but no litecoin blocks.  Variance sucks sometimes.

Given the current activity around LTC right now, I wouldn't mind holding the LTC I am mining either.  But, it seems like it would be quite difficult to implement given wafflepool's no-signup system

From <1% rejected consistently to >10% rejected so far.

I am testing different configs on 2 rigs now to see if I can get the rejects down - hard to sample over a short period of time.  I do know that I hated this block reject scheme on clevermining, however.  I liked the reject scheme on waffle before. But, I will admit I am very interested to see what kind of reject rate sfire would have under this new scheme - it might made a big different on profits depending on how badly people were abusing this.

Can we get some reject % data, and maybe ourselves vs pool (along with shift info maybe)?

My rejects are through the roof... I have discovered 1000s of blocks for WafflePool, of which only a few were orphans.

What made WafflePool seem so fair previously, IMO, was that share generation was statistically consistent between mining fast coins and slow coins.  Now, a share is "worth more" then a slow coin share, because the slow coin will have less shares lost to 'rejects'.

Yes.  It is an API interface to the stats table (so other programs can access the information without needing to pull the more detailed stats and html information).

WafflePool's profit switching system considers each block and its difficulty, reward, exchange depth and price, etc (and throws in a few other offsets).  If we are mining Doge, it's because at the difficulty of that block, it was more valuable to mine then the alternatives.

Keep in mind, also, that PoolWaffle has indicated that the new switcher mines multiple coins simultaneously - ala, splitting WafflePool's total hashrate at multiple coins.  If you want many miners at once connected to WafflePool, you will notice workers diverge in mining duty on occasion.