I believe WafflePool's profitability switcher takes into account orphan/reject rate when choosing a coin.  As PoolWaffle has previously indicated that if a coin with 10% orphan rate is 15% more profitable then the next option, we mine it.

Periods of high rejects just mean we are currently mining a fast or low-diff coin.

I am fairly sure the idle bug is fixed, but I have heard the extranonce stuff seems possibly unstable.

If you're using the bitbandi/sgminer code, then the included fix is a bit different - https://github.com/bitbandi/sgminer/commit/77545de0e8b0d0a6e57cf518920de5e6b818e290 .  You won't want to be using pool->idle = true; AND this commit.  Closing the stratum connection like in that commit causes pool->stratum_active = pool->stratum_notify = false (but does not affect pool->idle).   I can't say if this works, as I haven't tested it myself.  But, from my read thru of the code, the program flow will be quite different then my patch, and I was marking the pool idle instead of suspending stratum for a reason.

I somewhat agree. But, hashrate vs other nscrypt coins is definitely relevant now.

Lol... sometimes it is good to give back.  I have made plenty of profit from the various dev's that have built c/sgminer, and if I can patch an annoying bug with a single line, I would prefer to honor the open source nature of the crypto communities by sharing my fix.  If someone wants to pay (or tip) me for the time it took to debug this, I will be appreciative. But I don't see the need to demand compensation.

I am happy, on principle, to have offered this freely.

My 'idle miner' patch that has been effective on my rigs is a single line change:

in util.c, auth_stratum function

Either immediately before or immediately after the 'JSON stratum auth failed' applog, add one line:

This correctly marks the pool as 'Dead,' after a failed stratum auth, and the next alive pool will be chosen.  Because the pool is marked idle, a reconnect attempt will be made periodically. If auth is succesful, the pool is marked 'Alive,' and mining resumes.

Without this 1 liner, the pool is still seen as alive after a failed auth. So, sgminer sits and waits for work even tho the connection was not successful. (Truthfully, the connection and auth are seperate ideas in the stratum protocol, so you can connect but fail auth, in which case you did 'connect' successfully).

Note, of course, I offer this 1 line of code with no warranty whatsoever. You have been warned! ;-]

This isn't true... everyone will have half the hashing power, so everyone will get the same amount of coins (everyone would still have the same proportion of total network power, since everyone's rate halves).

Would be an interesting thing about payouts in scrypt currencies actually - could pay no fee and the pool can include the transaction in the next block mined.

20 or 10EXE per block sounds like a good call to me, and gradual block decrease seems like it might work well.

I would say go forward with a hardfork, just push it at least 1 week away so everyone has time to upgrade.

Value stability is extremely important to a transaction medium.  Current value also correlates very closely with network hashrate and therefore network security.  If value continues to fall, vertcoin will end up the nscrypt crown holder, and exe will be left with with little to no hashrate (and therefore no network security, and therefore next to 0 utility).

And besides, cryptocoins have vastly more similarity to comodities then currencies.

We are talking about trying to stabilize value, because at this point it is crucial for network longevity.

Lol... read the last few posts maybe?  We're hardly "fucked," although some patience is indeed necessary.

Sounds like a plan to me.  Looks like we're not the only one with a transaction stuck - CoinShift has had their latest payment unconfirmed for a few hours now (and it isn't seen by blockchain either).

Apparently there are a few pools already supporting replace-by-fee (from v0.9.1).  The tools for using it are pretty preliminary tho.

If the transaction doesn't get confirmed after a day, can always just broadcast a new raw transaction with the same inputs and a high fee tho.

The transaction was broadcast just fine.  Blockchain seems to be missing a lot of unconfirmed transactions lately.

http://blockr.io/tx/info/268af44752fec4d58e9ec7b9df78da485b177ceb659ea30bd774982f06385b11

Be patient, it should confirm eventually.

Looks like the latest WafflePool payment is lost in the nether for the moment.  It was broadcast to the network, and my local node sees it, but still no confirmation after several hours.

@PoolWaffle: Maybe a good time to try replace-by-fee, heh?

No matter, should get confirmed eventually.

Awesome.

So, the miner sends a subscribe to extranonce updates before auth, telling the server it supports extranonce updates.  Then, the server sends a stratum notification when the extranonce needs to change?

Looks clean.  Will throw this on my rigs and see how it goes.

Also keep in mind that most people see fairly significant power savings when hashing scrypt(n=11) vs scrypt(n=10).  My 290s can be tuned up to 470KH/s with low reject rates, and use less power then when they are hashing scrypt at 850KH/s.

I made a post somewhere above about this.  I showed how you can use p= to automatically switch between nscrypt and scrypt depending on what is more profitable (within a margin of error).  The idle bug does throw a bit of a wrench in this tho.

(Personally, I'm not mining here until the idle and p= problems are resolved.  But I have been buying hashing power on occasion.)

It appears to be a bot on Cryptsy that automatically places smallish orders on both the sell and buy sides.  If you put up a big buy or sell wall, it will almost always put up an order 1sat in front of it.  If you sell or buy into its orders, it moves the orders on the opposite market side closer.

Looks like we lost our 3500 buy order.  My orders all got eaten too.

If we don't establish a solid price base as a group soon, this coin is going to lose most of its hashrate.

At 3000sat, that's a pretty small market cap.  There must be enough people that believe in the potential of nscrypt and specifically EXEcoin that we can stabilize the market value.  If sellers (miners and holders) see a large enough buy wall, they are much more likely place higher sell orders instead of selling into the buy orders.

A few account miss getting added to the payment queue?

Payments have been fine for most people it seems.

With skilled tuning, you can get 55%+ out of an nscrypt rig.  Recently, there have been a few times where nscrypt was more profitable then scrypt for my rigs on nicehash, and the price went above 11BTC/GH for a bit.

I think as more scrypt ASIC miners roll out (presuming there is really any reason to have alternative blockchains beyond BTC and LTC), nscrypt will become increasingly more profitable for GPU miners.

FYI: NH is in EU, so you're best off using EU stratum endpoints if buying hashing power there.

EXE doesn't need another exchange right now - we need more buy volume on cryptsy to ensure a solid marketcap floor.

EXE's biggest potential advantage is the falling profits in scrypt mining by GPUs.  To take advantage, we need to create a solid price floor so that miners feel comfortable not just leaving their rigs on EXE, but also comfortable holding the coin knowing that the price is likely to increase. I think it should be this community's goal to create enough price stability that EXE can surpass VTC in network hashrate.