Show Posts
Apology accepted. But you're still not taking into account PPLNS, a reason why I suggested you do some reading (not all shares you submit are paid, not all blocks are equal in either length or difficulty, not all last N shares span a single block, etc).
it seems bminer was faster ... but as was pointed out earlier, @realbminer could have just watched this thread and tweaked with the fee to make it 2% faster by removing the fee for the duration of that test for all we know. It is the most untrustworthy and suspicious miner out there, hands down. Add that @realbminer didn't address the questions and you have an explanation why people are not trusting this miner and are sticking with dstm's. Remove the private connection if you want to be taken (more) seriously.
it seems bminer was faster ... but as was pointed out earlier, @realbminer could have just watched this thread and tweaked with the fee to make it 2% faster by removing the fee for the duration of that test for all we know. It is the most untrustworthy and suspicious miner out there, hands down. Add that @realbminer didn't address the questions and you have an explanation why people are not trusting this miner and are sticking with dstm's. Remove the private connection if you want to be taken (more) seriously.
Thanks for "gaining" me the ability to tweak devfees on-the-fly. Any evidences to back it up your claims?
The tests have been done multiple times by different people and the results and the results are pretty consistent.
This is simply not true.
Most of the previous reports, which were done without publishing the pool-test account, clearly state that bminers hash rate is lower on pool side but is reported localy higher. Everyone is able to read it on this thread.
