FWIW, I'm showing a profit of 0.021 for the last 24 hours with ~1.2MH. middle pays around 0.01 in 24hr if you get lucky with 600kh. So your figure is quite similar, they often pay less then that because of the high diff mixed with fast coins though you'd be ok with a faster setup maybe middle mines LTC afaik, right now they show block diff of 61m One of the highest diff they show and I believe that is because it is LTC They do. I've had a suspicion for a while that when LTC hits periods of low difficulty, the smaller pools get lower than expected returns while mining it. For LTC, could you proxy us into something like wemineltc.com? That should bring down variance considerably when we go for it. Also, oddly enough the pool2 with custom diff. is working now. My stale rate (going from diff. 64 to 16) has dropped from 70% down to around 20-25% it looks like. Are you going thru tor or something? No, lol. Pretty much what appears to be happening is when a block is found (for like Worldcoin/Digitalcoin since they are fast) I am losing anywhere from 4 to 20 shares as being stales. I get flooded with stale messages on those. When it moves to something else, like LTC, I get as low as 0.1% stales (and can sometimes get tens of thousands of submits with 0 stales). This is my garage rig, I posted a screenshot of it before. It's been up and connected to pool1.us for about a month and a half now.  Can you post your cgminer config? |
|
|
|
FWIW, I'm showing a profit of 0.021 for the last 24 hours with ~1.2MH. middle pays around 0.01 in 24hr if you get lucky with 600kh. So your figure is quite similar, they often pay less then that because of the high diff mixed with fast coins though you'd be ok with a faster setup maybe middle mines LTC afaik, right now they show block diff of 61m One of the highest diff they show and I believe that is because it is LTC They do. I've had a suspicion for a while that when LTC hits periods of low difficulty, the smaller pools get lower than expected returns while mining it. For LTC, could you proxy us into something like wemineltc.com? That should bring down variance considerably when we go for it. Also, oddly enough the pool2 with custom diff. is working now. My stale rate (going from diff. 64 to 16) has dropped from 70% down to around 20-25% it looks like. Are you going thru tor or something? |
|
|
|
FWIW, I'm showing a profit of 0.021 for the last 24 hours with ~1.2MH. middle pays around 0.01 in 24hr if you get lucky with 600kh. So your figure is quite similar, they often pay less then that because of the high diff mixed with fast coins though you'd be ok with a faster setup maybe middle mines LTC afaik, right now they show block diff of 61m One of the highest diff they show and I believe that is because it is LTC They do. I've had a suspicion for a while that when LTC hits periods of low difficulty, the smaller pools get lower than expected returns while mining it. |
|
|
|
I'm currently looking at what it would take to get the LTC pool onto p2pool. That would lower the variance quite a bit for our LTC payouts.
That may help... I ran a split test between here and Middlecoin. After 12 hours, 0.027 was earned here and 0.063 earned at Middlecoin with the same hash rate. That's a pretty massive difference, and I have the feeling it's because of LTC. 12 hours isn't really a statistically significant time period.. Did you get your reject issue worked out? No, it's possible that this was the issue... on LTC I have little to no stales. Every time we go to the others like WDC though I drop down to 25-30% luck (with a massive amount of rejects, 70% or so). Which pool address are you connecting to? |
|
|
|
|
FWIW, I'm showing a profit of 0.021 for the last 24 hours with ~1.2MH. That's about 3x Bitcoin profitability. I don't see how I could have possibly made 3x that on Middlecoin, that would put them at 9x Bitcoin.
LTC also had a jump in price and a lowering in difficulty, which is the reason its profiability went to 4. It was around 3.4 this morning IIRC.
I'm going to disable LTC from the multiport for the next 48 hours and see how it affects profits.
|
|
|
|
I'm currently looking at what it would take to get the LTC pool onto p2pool. That would lower the variance quite a bit for our LTC payouts.
That may help... I ran a split test between here and Middlecoin. After 12 hours, 0.027 was earned here and 0.063 earned at Middlecoin with the same hash rate. That's a pretty massive difference, and I have the feeling it's because of LTC. 12 hours isn't really a statistically significant time period.. Did you get your reject issue worked out? |
|
|
|
|
I'm currently looking at what it would take to get the LTC pool onto p2pool. That would lower the variance quite a bit for our LTC payouts.
|
|
|
|
Flound, have you taken a look at Extremecoin? Just from casual notice, it seems to handle difficulty changes pretty well, and has a decent steady hash power behind it.
I've looked at it, but I believe the block reward goes from 200 down to 1 at block 5,000 or something crazy like that. It's going to fizzle out like a bad fart. |
|
|
|
All mining shares should result in a payout.
That is not a universally agreed-upon statement. Payout algorithms should distribute block rewards fairly and there is more than one way to do that. Proportional has been showed to be a deeply flawed system, which is why almost no pools use it (and the ones that do are gamed by pool hoppers). If you think the current system distributes block rewards unfairly, please explain exactly why you think that. Use numbers. Feel free to refer to a particular block on the pool if you like. Practically, I have little motivation to change the payout algorithm for the following reasons: 1. I believe that other than PPS, it is the most fair to all parties (dedicated coin miners and multipool miners) 2. It would require a fair amount of coding to change, and I have other priorities 3. Any payout method that requires me to potentially keep millions of shares in the db for 10+ coins (i.e. proportional) is going to result in the need for a larger DB system and increase fees for all users. |
|
|
|
Why don't you like time-based PPLNS? What do you see as unfair about it?
Even though we've done the work, but if a block isn't found during the time while mining a certain coin before it switches again, that work time has been wasted, and just wasted power. Like, even though we did the work but we didn't find a LTC block (for example) in a certain time frame we don't get rewarded for our efforts? In reality, *ALL* of the work other than the winning share is wasted power. And you do get paid, all you have to do is keep mining on the pool and be here when a block is found. Why should multiport miners get paid if the LTC pool finds a block on its own, 3 hours after MP moves off? Do you think that's fair? What if the people mining LTC have been doing it for 3 days with no blocks found? Should their reward be halved just because the multipool switched to LTC for 1/2 hour? That could easily happen with a proportional system. PPLNS is a proven, fair way of distributing rewards to dedicated miners. With short, time-based rounds you lose your shares quickly after you stop mining, but your payout also increases to a full payout much more quickly as well. |
|
|
|
Actually I have noticed this too.. mostly with high difficulty coins like NVC and LTC.. you can mine for 30 minutes.. then not go back and within 1 hour your mined shares are absorbed into long waits between finding blocks. So what happens is your 30 minutes of mining is gone and gives back nothing.. this happens more than it should as LTC and NVC can go a day without finding a block. There is no way to avoid this and it becomes a loss on a regular basis. Any ideas on how Flound could fix this?if we mine ltc and then switch to another coin without finding a block, will the shares count or are they gone after a while?
they "count" but the shares go away after a short while. I think this is a major problem with the pool. Flound I thought you said minimum 10 mins on each coin eveyr time there is a switch. I swear it switches more than that. Easy, change to Proportional or Pay Per Share. Proportional would be best as everyone gets paid proportional to the amount of shares they submit whereas Pay Per Share is more risky for the pool operator. As it is now, the LTC round time is set to one hour, yet it can take from a few hours to a few days to find a block. That means only the shares submitted at most an hour before a share is found gets paid anything. The rest of the shares get paid nothing. I think this is why many people are not seeing the profitability they are expecting. I vote for PROPORTIONAL!!!This^ Any issue I have had with this pool I would be willing to work on and have excepted them as not problems but the way things run. The time based PPLNS is not a good way to get paid and is the main reason for me not using the pool. I only use PPS or Prop pools with multiminer and I get almost exactly or a fraction of a percent more than my estimated. Why don't you like time-based PPLNS? What do you see as unfair about it? |
|
|
|
if we mine ltc and then switch to another coin without finding a block, will the shares count or are they gone after a while?
they "count" but the shares go away after a short while. I think this is a major problem with the pool. Flound I thought you said minimum 10 mins on each coin eveyr time there is a switch. I swear it switches more than that. It's a little more complicated than that now. Without going into too much detail, some coins have a minimum of 10 minutes, others have less than that. When some coins drop in difficulty, it's important to switch to them right away. Others not as much. As far as the time-based PPLNS, the question is how rewards are split between dedicated miners and multiport miners. Since the three "big" coins have a tiny amount of dedicated hashrate, the impact of the time-based PPLNS is very low at the moment. Remember that if you switch from LTC to a fast coin you are earning payouts the entire time you're off LTC, the people who stay on LTC are not. |
|
|
|
Still a bit upset I have to pay off your mistake (double payments from last week) at 1.5 percent fee. You made the mistake and I have to mine 1.5 percent harder to make up for it even though I was donating. I don't think you should have inserted the fee until everyone had EQUALLY paid off the mistake you made in the double payout. It would have been fair to both of us... I still have negative amounts which will now take 1.5 percent longer to pay off. All I want is fairness and the right to choose. May sound petty but its the truth.
Sorry but you're looking at this the wrong way. You already got a double, fee-free payout. The 1.5% would have been taken out of the future coins mined whether or not you had a deficit. If I had not paid out double you would not have earned those coins yet, and would be paying the 1.5% right now as you mine them, just as you are. |
|
|
|
I've started using this pool, with multiport, a few days ago. I'm hashing with a little more than 8Mh/s. Profit snapshot is showing me around 0.12btc/day, for example right now it's 0.1132btc/24h. Value is more or less confirmed by the amount exchanged at Cryptsy. But dustcoin is showing me that I should get 0.16 btc/day for litecoin, value which is conform to some other miners I have pointed to a litecoin pool.
25% less on multiport compared to mining litecoin only on another pool.
Any ideas?
I noticed this issue and stopped mining here. My post was never responded too, but my guess is it has to do with the fluctuating prices in the altcoins we mine. I'm still waiting for the feature to pick which coins you wanna mine profit wise, but I don't think it's coming anytime soon. I think between the orphans, fast-changing jumping, and fluctuating prices you end up losing instead of winning at this point. A few points. 1) The profit snapshot is just that, a snapshot. If the coins have dropped in value since being mined, the snapshot will show a lower value (even if you were able to sell the coins at a higher value before they dropped). To get prices closest to the value when being mined, use auto withdraw and auto sell. 2) With middlecoin and multipool there is now over 2GH hopping between coins. Middlecoin and many Multipool users sell everything they mine immediately, which normally results in a sharp drop of the coin price, and then a recovery a few hours later as more buy orders come in. Or, sometimes not. 3) With the fast coins like DGC and WDC, I think that the profitability is still not even as high as calculated due to the Multipool/Middlecoin effect. In fact it may be much lower. I'm working on some changes in stratum to help mitigate this, and also when WDC hits 600,000 blocks soon, the changes that the WDC devs made will take effect, and that should dramatically improve the situtation with WDC. My personal view is that 95% of these coins are on a downward spiral to 0 value. Speculating may make you some money in the short term, but long term it's better to mine and sell, mine and sell. |
|
|
|
|
Sounds like the problem's on Cryptsy's end. None of the hot wallets are low so there should be no problem with withdrawals.
|
|
|
|
I'm getting the following after building 0.4.4: novacoin-qt: src/kernel.cpp:393: unsigned int GetStakeModifierChecksum(const CBlockIndex*): Assertion `pindex->pprev || pindex->GetBlockHash() == (!fTestNet ? hashGenesisBlock : hashGenesisBlockTestNet)' failed.
Aborted (core dumped) |
|
|
|
|
Mining fee is now in effect. Your fee shows in the top left in parentheses next to your username and also in the Account Details box on the account page. The following users are lifetime fee exempt:
- Members who were already donating 2% of their earnings or more as of 8/27/2013
- Hero members
To ensure maximum transparency, members' fees are now listed in the detailed block payout info.
|
|
|
|
I'd say the evidence speaks for itself -- obviously nobody has been able to log on for the past couple hours. Until an update is posted in this thread, we can probably safely assume it remains broken.
Can you try to login now? I think we have a wannabe hacker trying to brute force passwords or just deny people access. There were several hundred accounts with failed attempts over the lockout threshold. |
|
|
|
I was looking at the stats and lots of the blocks switched to orphan status. And I saw a couple of people on Cryptsy chat mentioning it. But I didn't see anything on the CAP thread about it. So maybe not.
It looks like we did lose some blocks, wonder what happened. I have the recommended nodes added.. |
|
|
|
I think CAPs just forked.
What makes you say that? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
