What does this mean on the OP?

Yes sorry for the misunderstanding.


I thought you meant that you weren't okay with the payout fluctuating by 0.003.  Big difference, yeah.

Adding a luck indicator to the pool stats would help a bit.

By the way poolwaffle check your PM. I sent you one but maybe you can't PM me back because you are a newbie. No need to reply on content here, just making sure you saw it.

Price risk is pretty bad on these coins. They could (and likely will) crash at any time.

The reason I suggest turning them off is there is usually going to be an almost-as-profitable coin the mine that won't incur the price risk. I guess you could program in some kind of profit threshold where you are willing to mine-and-hold (temporarily) if the profitability is sufficiently better.

You could switch it on and off when someone is available to manually trade them. Better than nothing.

God no, I love waffle. I said earlier in this thread I was in the process of building a switching pool that does the same thing.

I'm just saying that 500 MH pool is going to have a lot of variance, you were the one who said you couldn't accept that. It's unavoidable (other than growing the pool or offering something like PPS which is a whole other issue).

Also, I actually think there is more variance than is visible on that table because there are some very big payoffs on some of these coins that it is hard for a small pool to hit (but it will eventually/occasionally hit them, or it will hit them more if it gets bigger).

If you're not willing to accept variance then you have no business on a 500 MH pool.  Just take a look at the pool hash rate and move on (until it gets bigger at least).

Well cows has been mining a lot of MEOW and MEOW has been hot so it isn't surprising that it adds to earnings. Luck is probably a factor too.

Easy yes, but quick no. Given variance you need to test for quite a while to get a realistic comparison, otherwise you are just comparing luck  (mostly on the smaller pool, but even on middlepool as well).

People looking at doing "IPOs" should look at how real startup financing and IPOs are structured in terms of liquidity protection for the investors and relatively little money generally going in right up front and more money going in later once some level of success has been achieved.

I'm not even talking about legalities here, just the basic economics and motivation of why startups are structured that way. In summary, real startups who are looking to create value will have no trouble with this structure (and will themselves be rewarded if successful) but get rich quick artists and other scammers looking to enrich themselves at the expense of investors will not find it attractive.

As a founder/startup, you want to align yourself with the former group not the latter. How you structure your offering says a lot about your motives (perhaps unintended).

In theory, probably. Not much you can do in the USA without potentially breaking some law. Google the book "Three Felonies a Day."

In practice unless you are running a business and/or using the BTC in connection with illegal drugs, etc., you have nothing to worry about.

Middlecoin is like 40x bigger than this pool so you will definitely see much less variance there. Whether expected earnings are higher or lower is hard to judge especially since middlecoin is so opaque about what they are doing. I guess only time will tell. At this point it is a bit of a leap of faith (plus lower fees here).

Bump. Still WTB. One successful trade yesterday.

Almost certainly some other kind of network configuration problem.  Firewall still not right, bad gateway, netmask, etc.

Well if you just keep the timestamp for their one previous share and EMA off that on each new share that requires minimal database structure.

One idea would be to scale the hash rate calculation by shares. Instead measuring shares in the last so many minutes, measure minutes for the last N shares (with N chosen to give a reasonably accurate hash rate estimate). This will give slower hash rate estimates for small miners, but more accurate estimates.  Or likewise some similar exponential moving average which might be easier to compute.

Unfortunate but entirely understandable.

No, just TCP

Well the luck is better now! And thankfully that was right after I increased my hash rate a lot.  But it still would be nice to show it.


Still this.


Are you aware of an actual problem caused by the switching method? As far as I can tell this pool is designed to switch very efficiently. Our earnings here should be excellent.

When I was running blades I used bfgminer as the proxy for this pool. Worked great. You might try that.