GPU mining is pretty much Dead. Its all Asics now.

An given comparison.

You can go and spend $45-$55 per Usb Block Eruptor in the Bitcoin market.
And it will yield you about 333 Mhash/Sec. They consume 2 watts each
and the size of your thumb.

Now you can go spend $300 pick up a HD 7970 at rates of 600 Mhash.
Alt mining is generally ~300% profitability, sometimes more.
http://www.coinchoose.com/

600 *3X(Profitability of scrypt) = 1800 Mhash equivalence at Bitcoin mining.
So its like 1.8 Ghash in equivalence basically for $300.

333*6= 1998 Mhash.
2Watts 6=12 Watts.


So you get more Hash rate, About 15 times less power, silent.
Size of your thumb, and its just more convenient.

GPU is DEAD. You need to move away from it.
And switch to Usb block eruptor if you want to continue mining.
And even so there are even more efficient mining ways out there.

这是自己写的还是翻译的？

Reject rate is wayyyy too high...
2.6001 accepted, 1.2583 rejected.

I tried the pool out for a day and made a lot less than LTC mining would have.  I know this is a short timescale so I can’t read too much into that but having looked through a lot of this thread I’d like to just add my comments.

I do like the idea of the pool. Taking all the management of switching coins and currency changing for a reasonable fee is a service I would like to buy. It’s very much like buying a mutual fund, but I wouldn’t do that without seeing the fund manager’s track record.  A simple table of BTC/KH/day would satisfy this.  You could add comments about bugs and faults that may have cause bad days.

Having read much about VARDIFF earlier in this thread I don’t know whether or not that caused my bad results or not. But seeing the pool switch from coin to coin without my 300Kh miner having time to submit a share, I suspect I was losing out to miners more suited to the 512 difficulty. But I can’t verify that without a track record of the pool for the same time period, it may simply have been an unlucky day.
So add the track record and I’ll be back to give it another go.

I have a mechanism for moving away from a coin that is producing too many rejects, or if the daemon or pool process go down. But not if it's not generating blocks like it should be. I should add that. Also I don't have any fork detection, which would be hard.

I should have monitored that coin longer before leaving it unattended.

Today I have been mining for 12 hours and have .03 BTC to show for it with a reject rate of  .01 MH with 2.5 MH/s - Something is definitely wrong, litecoin is better than this. My immatured exchange is actually dropping meaning I should be getting my un-exchanged dropping meaning it should be cashing out more quickly. Something seems wrong with middlecoin?

BLOCK! BLOCK! BLOCK! BLOCK! LOL

Same here

Is this also useful for people with low hashrates? I'm going to give it a try on my 340 Kh/s.

Pool is indeed back up after a couple hours of downtime.

The point of Vardiff (or even a lower dynamic value based on what coin is currently being mined) is for smoothing out and attempting to normalize share payouts within a pool. Yes it has no impact on pool profitability as a whole, but it certainly prevents fast coin blocks from only going to the handful of people that were able to submit a share in time (luck + latency to server). I personally would rather a consistent reliable income from a pool (the point of a pool) than whenever a fast coin comes around it feels like solo-mining within a pool as we all compete to be the lucky guy who found the block within his 512 diff share of work, where the rest of us lose out and get to eat electricity costs until maybe hours / days from now we are lucky enough to discover our own fast block.

Nobody pool mines for high variability results, we'd solomine if we wanted a payout for a particular coin between long periods of time. Just add VARDIFF or a hard coded diff value based on target coin so we can get our tiny slices of fast coins and stop playing the lottery within the pool (that's for the pool as a whole to play with everyone else!). They add up.

5x 7950s @ 580kh/s per rig (it could perform faster, but I had to undervolt to squeeze both of them on a 20A breaker). I=20, expiry 1 queue 0 scan 1

Needs 256 diff. I've got 5.8MH/s pointed at this and getting 60% and 70% rejects on my two rigs. I'm about to mod cgminer to forcibly split your work between my GPUs. Too many blocks go by with not a single share submission = 100% wasted time and electricity. When that happens it actually costs us money, seeing as how we still have to pay for the electricity. Mining on other pools until this is addressed.

Yes, this is a problem (there's a reason VARDIFF exists, for optimization for all combinations of hash strength and latency). After reading the thread it seems you are unwilling to accept this as a valid issue, which is sad.

Hi, I was all in for the past few days to try 256 difficulty but something just occurred to me.

It doesnt matter if we go 32, 512 or 1024 for the global profit, if someone is about to find a block he will do it regardless of the share diff. Changing share diff wont increase the pool profit imo.

We can still speculate if the 512 is making old rigs fall behind and the 7xxx rigs may be indeed chewing income from those rigs, but the only way to know for sure would be to compare % of reject Mhash or daily payouts per acceppted average Mhash.

There are some real world factors I don't take into account very well. One is that when we switch, we lose out on a few seconds of hashing. I've "tweaked" some specific coins to adjust for this, as to not switch as often to coins that are only going to be mined for 10 seconds then switch back.

Also, I'm sure it's the case that having that gap while switching is putting wear and tear on GPU fans, and creating system instability.

The real solution is to eliminate the gap.

I really think we need two things in this pool.
256 difficulty.
2 payments per day.(i thought we agreed this was ok before?)
anyway, since were not constantly mining the same coin, the "512 diff is the same as any other diff" doesnt apply now if we were constantly mining one single coin, that is different. but when we switch to 512k diff coins, and only submit one share in an hour, then it changes to another coin that is 1m diff, then we wasted all that work on nothing.

I think if there was two ports and each varied work slightly you would find miners themselves would switch to whichever gave the fastest hash without a need to manage further on your end