 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »
|
I will be out of town starting tomorrow until sunday. As it is one of the very rare occasions that I can see the rest of my family (we're celebrating the 96th birthday of my grandmother) it is very likely that I will not monitor the status of my rig on a regular basis.  In case anything is not working correct, contact me via PM including your leaserig.net email adress (this is the only renter information I get) and add a screenshot (e.g. Leaserig hashrate statistics) for confirmation. We'll work things out once I am back home. |
|
|
|
|
Hmm, it seems that the last lease was cancelled due to an internet connection issue at about 03.00 CET while I was sleeping. Router logs show PPPOE timeout, seems the issue was related to my provider. At the moment everything is working normally.
|
|
|
|
You're welcome.  |
|
|
|
rented 4 hours of EURW01 (SCRYPT 2.15 MH/S) and would not stop turning off? Im about 17 minutes into it and havent been able to use it, can you check on it? I only have one pool, If I add another it will shut off.
My apologies for the late response, I was out of town because of an urgent family business. As you only used one pool my guess is that this one was unresponsive for some reason. Unfortunately there are no logs to check. According to the 72-hour stats your two hours were more or less useless with little to zero hashrate. If you are willing to accept this offer, just send me your pool and worker data via PM and I will setup the pools manually for four hours as compensation. I will send this post via PM, too. |
|
|
|
Using anything other than the immediate hash-rate would cause the clients pools to weigh in on the current speed. Every test shows that immediate hash-rate causes the least false positives and the most accurate results. As for +/- 5% it sounds like a lot of providers rate their rigs at -1% to -5% in order to deliver the promised hash-rate even on slow pools. Keep posting, we'll follow the feedback and see where it leads.
Is this your goal - that everyone rates his rig lower than it can actually deliver? Every provider who rates his rig lower than it actually performs abstains from possible profit. Your current rating system puts even more pressure on the providers as it has an effective influence on leases. From my point of view a strict no-go if you stick to your comment that you want to interfere with rentals as less as possible. As I posted earlier - trash the current rating system and implement a feedback system for customers on the leaserig website. May I also add, that the rig is "underperforming" means nothing, since there is variance, and it should be more fair if it was "rig is underperforming right now but was above expected for the last 72 hours". Yeah, we all know that it means more or less nothing but the warning message is really disturbing, especially when most of the rigs have a clean 24-hour history hashing above the declared speed. And - btw - I hate being "blamed" to underperform just because my hashrate is fluctuating withing normal limits. |
|
|
|
Using anything other than the immediate hash-rate would cause the clients pools to weigh in on the current speed. Every test shows that immediate hash-rate causes the least false positives and the most accurate results. As for +/- 5% it sounds like a lot of providers rate their rigs at -1% to -5% in order to deliver the promised hash-rate even on slow pools. Keep posting, we'll follow the feedback and see where it leads.
Is this your goal - that everyone rates his rig lower than it can actually deliver? Every provider who rates his rig lower than it actually performs abstains from possible profit. Your current rating system puts even more pressure on the providers as it has an effective influence on leases. From my point of view a strict no-go if you stick to your comment that you want to interfere with rentals as less as possible. As I posted earlier - trash the current rating system and implement a feedback system for customers on the leaserig website. |
|
|
|
Hi Monty,
Just so you know, I couldn't get the speed reporting working properly with BFGminer either. I tried all sorts of combinations of port numbers and whatever, but it seems it just doesn't like the API commands. I'm using gridseeds too, so a similar setup I would imagine. Once I switched back to CGminer everything was fine. Also, I noted that when running BFG miner with 20 gridseeds, a few of the gridseeds either didn't hash properly, or not at all. The effect seemed random it was different gridseed units each time (I checked the serial numbers). All in all, CGminer seems to be better (although you have to turn off the damn USB hubs before you run it, which is a pain).
The API commands seem to work fine with the gridseed version of CGminer. Not had a problem since I switched back.
Tested CGminer for a few hours now and it seems stable regarding to speed reports. PLUS I didn't even need to deactivate the USB hubs.  Had to hotplug the Gridseeds though after starting CGminer to be recognised so I am a little worried what happens if the rig goes down for some reason and I am not around. Any idea how to solve this? @SlipperySlope ipominer.com is one of the pools I am using in times my rig is not leased. You have to keep an eye on the multipool though as it sometimes is not the most profitable solution but ipominer.com is - in general - better than most other multipools you find on poolpicker.eu. |
|
|
|
Believe me, the bfgminer shows the correct hashrate a few seconds later. It's just a screen after startup confirming that bfgminer is listening on the correct port. EDIT: The only thing that is strange to me is the following message upon startup of bfgminer:  |
|
|
|
Ok, as I have the issue again, I am posting this in public since the helpdesk ticket was rather useless (#362) I have multiple machines that are connected via the leaserig proxy software. One Windows computer is running the proxy, plus cgminer 3.7.2 (all fine), a second machine runs BAMT with sgminer 4.1.0 (all fine) and a third computer using Windows and bfgminer downloaded here: http://cryptomining-blog.com/1396-download-bfgminer-3-10-0-for-windows-scrypt-mining-on-gridseed-5-chip-asics/ The leaserig proxy runs with the following comment: "leaserigproxy.exe [My ID] 4028" The bfgminer starts with the following settings: " --scrypt -o stratum+tcp://192.168.178.22:3333 -u GSD -p X -d gridseed -S gridseed:all --set-device gridseed:clock=850 --expiry 50 --scan-time 25 --queue 1 --api-listen --api-allow W:192.168.178.22 --api-port 4028"  Yes, the Gridseeds are working normally although it seems they are not hashing on this screenshot. Windows firewall and Avira Antivir has been turned off for testing - no difference. Even with firewall and anti virus software turned off the leaserig proxy software does not get a speed report. Again, the other two rigs are working perfectly fine.  Any hints to solve the issue are welcome. Just out of curiosity: The helpdesk people are doing this as volunteers or is it kind of a job? PS: And yes, it's a german system and the IPs have been changed by now - screenshots are from three or four days ago. |
|
|
|
Aside from all the price fixing discussions, good luck with that, I have a market price question.
If a rig is currently rented should there be a way for customers to bid on the next available time for that rig? IE customers could bid higher or lower than the current rate on already leased rigs and could offer lower on unleased rigs. Providers could then accept lower bids if they want and accept the highest bid for renewals which would require less constant price adjustments.
Sounds like a good idea. If you trash the current rating system with it - too many rigs with a clean 24h average marked as "under performing". |
|
|
|
Future will tell. Anyway consider me in... |
|
|
|
I suggest all of us providers to keep our prices above 0.008BTC/MHs/Day, it's good for all of us.
http://www.clevermining.com/profits/24-hoursIf I can rent for 0.08 I would at the moment... Clevermining is giving over 0.08 and that is a major pool. There are enough coins that are even more profitable then clevermining is mining if you look for them. Prices are high at the moment, cause the revenues are high at the moment. Yeah, I know, but the price on leaserig should always be above the multipool ones. And if we all keep our prices up, the customers still have to rent rigs, so we still earn. Won't work though. As good as it sounds there are more webistes which offer rigs for lease/rent. Leaserig is not the only one in a very competitive market. If Leaserig is too expensive, customers go, look and find rigs somewhere else. PLUS: everyone, and I do mean everyone including myself, wants to make maximum profit and wants to make it as quick as possible. So - in the end - it is a nice goal but it won't work... |
|
|
|
I don't care - just enjoying the rare moment that my GPU-rig is making real profit again. Enjoy it as long as it lasts. |
|
|
|
If Leasrig is going to get in the middle of the transaction, by doling out the money with local payments, and controlling the reputation of the rig owners with some automatic and debatably inaccurate color scheme, then there is no point for rig owners to put so much effort into building a reputation by providing a superior service. At that point, it's no longer a free market of individual business owners, it becomes a commodity exchange.
Within the last few hours I checked some rig which were "under performing" on the rigs page. Most of them have a clean 24h average hashrate above their advertised speed and are considered less valuable and get a warning pop-up?!  Of course I found rigs which were "really" under performing with an average hashrate lower than declared speed but I am not going to blame them to be inaccurate as I don't know any details. My suggestion is, let the customers decide whether they are satisfied with the service or not. Implement a rating system for customers on the leasrig website and disable the current rating system. |
|
|
|
Damn typos - I meant "range" |
|
|
|
I encourage and implore all providers to rate their rigs at a true and accurate speed. Based on the last 24 hour performance. IE if your rig is hashing at a straight line of 2.17Mh/s you should rate it 2.15 or less. Pool Swaps will bring down the 24 Hour a bit. If your rig has downtime or hash-rate fluctuation you should account for that.
The newest site build will encourage this.
So if I have a renter that uses a bad pool, and my hash rate suffers, that's my fault? I should be rated as underperforming for the action of a renter? My concern is real. I have this now, despite trying to contact the renter with info on how to select pools for better performance. So how does this improve the accuracy of the info on the site? It just muddies it in a different way. Right now, we are using current hash rate. So once your rig gets out of a lease and is relisted as rentable it will be based on YOUR pools. The above is not an issue. Once the legacy pool logic is rebuilt and the pool test queue put in place the speed rating will be based on a rolling average. This does improve the site. Almost half of the rigs left for rent do not perform at their advertised rate. So when do you plan to implement having it based on 24hr average, as my listed hashrate is under my 24hr average, but my hashrate fluctuates slightly, so if you refresh the page one minute it may show 3-4% below listed, hence an underperforming mark, then the next minute if you refresh it will show 3-4% above listed, and there is a green good status.. overall average is above listed.. This is a bit disturbing.. please implement the 24 hr average checking ASAP, otherwise people will loose business over nothing.. +1 In the past few days there hasn't been a single day without my rig being rented. Question is, where do you get the 24-hour average with my pools then? Additionally I have currently three rigs connected via LRP and speed reports ALWAYS fluctuate a little - in my case the range is roughly between 4.8 to 5.1 MH/s. The more rigs you conntect via LRP the greater the fluctuations will be. I do see the point introducing this but at the moment is is just not finished and does not reflect the real status of my rig. EDIT: Misleading typo corrected. |
|
|
|
@crystalsongmist My comment was not pointed directly at you. I was just quoting you as it was the n-th question on the last four pages. I didn't know this thread until yesterday until the issues started. From that perspective it was far too late to get my money out. And yes, I did read the last 4/5 pages of this thread to get the latest information. I was still able to initiate a withdrawal though while the website was still working with Tor though. As I said earlier: If it's gone, it's gone - if it shows up on my wallet, I am fine with it, too.  |
|
|
|
Just to clarify, btc-arbs is NOT down. It's just their server responding with an internal error.
And this means that...? Is it just me or is half of the forum users just to lazy to check at least the last 1, 2, 3, 4 pages of a given thread for answers? I am in the same boat, lost about .7 BTC - and frankly I don't really care. What is gone, is gone and I don't gamble with anything I cannot afford to lose... |
|
|
|
|
Finally my first Gridseeds arrived and are up and running on a spearate machine. Unfortunately the leaserig proxy does not get any speed reports resulting in wrong hashing speed showing up on the statistics page. Support ticket is already open and I hope to get this resolved soon.
|
|
|
|
Then you should check the pool profitability again. Either your calculation is wrong or the multipool is mining the wrong coin according to the stats page |
|
|
|
|
