Made a few deposits, and it seems to take varying amounts of time for deposits to be processed.

Also, last deposit I lost after hitting the mine on the first line five times in a row... can I blame that on the payment processor...?  

The "broken by design" part is due to the fact that the pool pays by generation – so payments are limited to the 50BTC, plus income from fees, that can be fit into that part of a block. So, since the PPS system means that the pool can reward more than 50BTC during a round, rewards accumulated during long rounds cause a backlog that will have to be fit into future blocks.

Once you get over the threshold, you can get an estimate on your place in the queue on this page made by twmz: http://eligius.st/~twmz/


And yes, I agree that it could be made a little bit clearer, since the information about the payout threshold on the stats pages dates back to the time when the pool was still proportional.

I've seen the same, and from what I could figure out it occurred with sendmany transactions in which I had multiple receiving addresses, and where the client would display the total received in the tx under one address in the wallet.

I can't be 100%, but if the card has been tested in another machine I do feel fairly confident that it's the power supply. It would probably be an older ATX 1.x type, and one rated at 350W can be likely to have too little power on the +12V rail for a ~100W GPU since it would have to be shared with the CPU and anything else that needs 12V.

The ticking sound makes me think of power supply issues, as I've heard it with failing PSUs. It tries to power up, but fails and starts over. It's not a very power hungry card, but if it's an older PSU it could be that it can't provide the 12V power needed even if it's in working order.

So, what kind of PSU are you using? Does it have a 6-pin PCE-e connector, or did you have to hook the card up with an adapter?

I'm pretty sure the "free" in the policy should be read as "not restricted to standard rules", rather than "free from transaction fees".

I made an odd numbers round, and was musing about the fact that I only could use integers for the fee and that decimals would have made it possible to add even more odd numbers. Not a very important feature, I suppose.


Is it possible that a counter for remaining time is on the to-do list, though? Would make it easier for players to see how much time remains without having to count the hours since the last deposit and then subtract that from the extension time for the round.

You're of course free to deposit your regular 0.5 or 1.0BTC – if you're that kind of bore.

And in case your new to this system, I can add that things are automated and more or less instant. Deposited coins go directly into the pot, and moments after it's big enough they pop back up in your wallet!

Great idea. Seems well built so far, so plenty of thumbs up. I missed the option to set a 5.12% fee for my game, though... 

Tired of all those regular multipliers with nice, round numbers? Let's do one that's a little more towards the odd side: http://bitcoinduit.com/game/viewRound.php?id=odd_numbers 

ROI: 36%
Minimum deposit: 0.26BTC
Maximum deposit: 1.09BTC
Fee: 5%
Round expires after 83 hours of inactivity.

Could you perhaps put the date of the latest version in the thread title? This thread gets posts quite frequently, so it would make it an easy way for forum readers to track updates by spotting it directly on the new replies page.

My bad. The BIOS with the "Enhanced smart fan function" (where I assume "enhanced" means "We got it right this time! Promise!") was for the 5870SO version...

Did you get the BIOS update for it? Gigabyte seem to let their cards run a bit hotter to benefit noise levels, but since is there is a fix addressing temperature for the UD version I assume they got things wrong with that one.


I'm also interested in knowing how well the Zalman cooler works, especially if there's no spacing between it and the next card.

I have two Gigabyte dual fan cards (5870OC and 5850OC), and they work well alone, or with one slot spacing and a slow 120mm fan feeding a bit of air into the space between the cards – but placing them on top of each other barely works with even with extra airflow and the top GPU running its fans at 100%.

The wireless is probably the culprit here. Mining doesn't take much bandwidth, but latency can be a big problem. Not sure if there are any settings you can use to improve it. Encryption and authentication probably adds quite a few unnecessary milliseconds, especially with normal consumer adapters and routers, but turning that off is of course limited by what else the network is used for.

In any case, if you can move the rig to test it with a physical connection I'd recommend trying it out.

The transaction has probably been sent, but the reason you're not seeing it would probably mean that it has yet to be included in a block, and therefore can't be found through the payment information from blockexplorer.com. It also takes blockexplorer some time to update its database.

Mybitcoin listens to the network and shows bitcoins as received in the account before they are in blocks. You can locate pending transactions yourself by searching for your address here: http://bitcoincharts.com/bitcoin/

Normally it shouldn't take long for transactions to show up. If your client is online when the transaction is sent you'll often see it as "0/unconfirmed" after a few seconds (because the client listens for transactions that are broadcast over the network as well, but it may miss them sometimes), and it should be included in a block and getting confirmations soon after that – the actual time depends on the priority of the transaction and how busy the network is, but normally somewhere between 20 minutes and an hour for the average transaction.

But, there are exceptions, and sometimes you may be unlucky and have to wait a bit longer before the transaction is processed.

Right now I'm seeing over 380 shares sent in the last hour on the ~410MH poclbm miner on my desktop machine. I haven't seen anything near that efficiency with any other client/pool combination.

Could you add something to make addresses easier to spot? Putting a stronger color and maybe an underline on visited links would be a simple solution but it could help a bit (unless the user has clicked a lot of miners, but still...)

1. No.

2. How about uniform distribution for depositing accounts only? If it includes zero accounts, people could spam the pyramid with lots of accounts hoping to get a few bitcents... and if there's a large percentage of those accounts it will be likely that the random payment bounces over a lot of them before it reaches someone who gets more than the minimum.

That would be the way you would expect this to work. If people who entered into the previous round gets carried over it would mean that the "new" round is not a new round at all but a trick to get more people to enter the same pyramid.

Seems you are working out your problems well enough, so I guess I can go back to asking you to work on getting 1.2BTC sent back to 1JVhf8zqxrYiKogeHs5kp57rTgtdDiC3hB as well.