"Quote from: robo2 on June 17, 2018, 07:17:09 AM
Hi. Why my masternode is mising all time(i start it couple times)? Can somebody paste all lines of bulwark.conf?

For the vps wallet

rpcuser=
rpcpassword=
port=52543
rpcallowip=127.0.0.1
externalip=
server=1
daemon=1
listen=1
promode=1
masternode=1
masternodeprivkey=

Fill in the missing values like IP and masternodeprivkey. You also need rpcuser and passwords to not be empty

The local, controller wallet only needs rpcuser and rpcpassword

If you are having trouble starting the masternode try
startmasternode "all" 0
from the controller wallet, after you unlock it with passphrase
If it can't start, make sure the masternode input is not locked by the wallet, that happens sometimes.
Enable coin control, go to inputs (in send) and unlock the 5000 bwk. Then start the masternode again"

Hi again

After:
Enable coin control, go to inputs (in send) and unlock the 5000 bwk +  startmasternode "all" 0   

masternode start first time and i earn 4 transactions but finally wallet freeze.
Now i cant start this masternode again "missing":
masternode status -> "Masternode not found in the list of avalible masternodes. Current status: Not capable masternode: Could not connect to ...:52543 (code -1)

I use windows vps and other two coin masternodes works perfect on this vps

Well, I have to disagree. Hashrate is constant, depends on the gpu and settings only, does not depend on luck. So it's a stable metric for the miner software, when calculated in a fair way.
How is it weird to report what the miner effectively computes? Every fair miner does that.
On the pool side, found shares are what counts, and this metrics is shown on the pool, with historical graphs for each miner address.

So, I don't get the "transparent" thing. I do report both accurate hash from the miner and accurate shares from the pool.
All data is there, raw, for everyone. It's not on others.


So, here you're talking luck and variance.
Yes, there is a large variance from round to round (1 round = 1 hour).

This variance is caused by 2 things :


- network variance (I added the graph of the net variance on the dashboard a few weeks ago). When netdiff varies, so do the blocks per hours for the whole net.
- your personal variance. The more hash you have, the less variance you'll experience. On average, you may be unlucky on some rounds, but then more lucky than average on others. On average, everyone luck is the same, so in the long run you can't loose every time.

I do agree that
- Lowering pool diff
- having rounds longer than 1 hour
would make the luck factor less visible.
I may lower the pool diff later on, but my priority it to have a stable and reliable pool, and I have somehow to adjust to the global net hashrate and to the average miner hash.
So yes, small miners see the luck factor more. But on average, it's the same.

I do not see a transparency issue there. The shares are what they are, I report what the miner sends, I can't influence your miner on sending less shares on a good round .
pool shows graphs and share counts, miner has logs with found shares, all is transparent. Some others pools do not even provide that data.
I think I'm the pool providing the most data.
On the other pool, you don't even have the historical data to compare and see your luck from hour to hour...


I could, but this is no transparency issue. Pool fees are displayed on the pool website.
They are not on the one you say is "most transparent".


Bis-pool miner may indeed be better suited for Amds and computes the hashrate in the miner the same way, so can be compared to EggPool.
The other one does not compute the hash rate in the same way, so the hashrate improvement you saw is not a real one. You were not comparing the same metric.
(Not a transparency issue neither from Eggpool: I say how the hashrate is computed - number of tested solutions per second - coinsaurus computes a different thing and does not say what nor how)


So, I do understand your concerns, mainly Amd efficiency and variance because of low hash.
I get it that another pool may give better results for your case (but do your tests again, I'm 100% sure it's not the one you believe it is) and that's ok with me.

Honestly, I just don't get the lack of transparency you hold against EggPool , and why you say the other pool, the most opaque one, is the "most transparent".

Thanks for the review!

I'd like to point a few things:

This is no more accurate. Coinsaurus now publicly admits to have 8% fees built in the miner, via randomly diverted shares.
Those were not accusation by the other pools, but facts checked by the bismuth team.


Agreed.
Your tests may not reflect the current state of the pools rentability. Don't take a single test, done at different times, as a stable comparison.
If you really compare again, you'll see that your results now will be very very different from what you report.


Also, what do you mean by "most transparent"? What is not transparent in Eggpool, what could I improve?

my coin is very low , but it my work hard ,  i don know  why  dev or other can't say link for me ?  i ask support 8 hour , but don see any  reply ,  and i post 3 ,4  reply in this topic  but  i cant get my coin . Again , it not much for me , for all

pls sent pm me link, i can't remember link !

in their defence
poolowners: ok, they earn alot of money. but still no options for us miners. the owners "work" with the pool and good support no matter the question. no other pool are better at the moment.
dev: they also work with this and in the end. money makes people active. many updates to the software all the time.
i see your point. but time will fix those "problems". 5% pools can happend at any time and devs 10% will dissapear when the coin has no big major update.