At the current difficulty and PPS rate it's about 1.056 LTC/day for 500 MH/s. See the calculator on the website.

I suggest using us2.litecoinpool.org, the West coast has pretty good connectivity to Asia.

I'd like to point out that exchange fees are negligible compared to the extra rewards you get. Let's take F2Pool for example. Their website says that they offer a PPS system with 4% fee, plus 1000 DOGE for every LTC mined. At the time of this writing, 1 DOGE is worth about 0.000055 LTC, which means that the extra dogecoins add about 5.5% to your payouts. This gives an effective PPS ratio of (1 - 0.04) × (1 + 0.055) = 101.3%, far lower than the 108% we're currently offering.

I've said before that most of the miners I've received feedback from don't want to have to worry about multiple currencies; I'll add that those who do, generally prefer to diversify their portfolio themselves rather than holding on passively to whatever merged mining yields - which I think makes sense, as it gives you infinitely more options. Given this, in my opinion receiving payouts in a single currency actually makes things easier.

The pool pays out in litecoins only.This has been brought up before, see this post.

I think what really matters is the value of the rewards a miner accrues at the time they are credited. If one wants to invest in Dogecoin or some other cryptocurrency because they expect the price to go up, they can always do so by exchanging their litecoins.
By the way, I'm pretty sure that if you do the math you'll find out that our payouts are significantly higher than Antpool's or F2Pool's, even when you account for the extra dogecoins.

Sorry but this is misleading (and I say this against my own interests). First of all, one entity controlling 51% does not mean an attack is going on: the entity would have to intentionally plan an attack, and I'm pretty sure this is against the interest of any pool. Secondly, one does not need to have 50% in order to perform such an attack, even with 30% the probability of succeeding is relatively high.

You literally quoted the answer to your first two questions yourself. The answer to the third question is the "PPS ratio" that you can find on the top right of every page of the website. For further details, see this other post and the pages linked from there.

Wrong algorithm. Try scrypt:1024 instead.

And the usual warning: as explained on the website, GPU mining Litecoin today is very unprofitable and strongly discouraged.

Thank you!

Yes, that's how it works. It is briefly explained on the pool's homepage, as well as in the FAQ and in the first post of this thread:

Trial and error. For a Gridseed I would try powers of two between 16 and 256. In theory the share difficulty shouldn't affect stability (only bandwidth usage and the precision of hash rate estimates), but as I've mentioned before many older ASICs are finicky.

Have you already tried forcing a low share difficulty as I suggested?  This has been reported to help in the case of Gridseeds before.
Also don't underestimate the possibility that the power supply is insufficient, as Gridseeds can be very sensitive (they were the first scrypt ASICs after all).  For instance, it is possible that your previous pool used a less intensive merged mining strategy than the one adopted by litecoinpool.org, so your miner would now be receiving Stratum job pushes more frequently, resulting in a higher load.

There are a couple of links to 3rd-party apps at the bottom of the FAQ on the website, but they were added quite some time ago, so I don't know if these apps are still working. (If you happen to find another app that supports the pool's API, please let me know.) By the way, if you like the web/iPhone interface, last time I checked there was an option in Safari to make it accessible directly from the home screen.

If your Gridseed stops some time after it starts mining, the first things I would check are the power supply and the USB cable. The second thing I would try is lowering the clock rate in steps of 50 MHz to see if that can fix the issue. Last thing that might help in the case of Gridseeds is forcing a difficulty of 256 or lower.

What you say is true, but it doesn't change the fact that nowadays mining Litecoin with anything other than an ASIC is unprofitable. If you're not convinced, I invite you to do the math. At the current price of $28, and assuming you pay 0.06 $/kWh (which is very cheap), in order to be profitable at 7 W you would have to do at least 125 kH/s. You didn't mention your Pi's hash rate, but if my memory serves it should be lower than that by at least one order of magnitude.

Yes, I'm the one who wrote all the assembly code, among other things.

Keep in mind that the power draw depends significantly on the CPU load. Even if we assumed that mining would only cause a 2 W extra draw, it would still take at least 40 kH/s to justify it. And even if we somehow managed to achieve such hash rate, it would take 3 months to mine 0.01 LTC, and that's before subtracting the cost of electricity!

From a technical point of view, it isn't.  If you mean more in general, then of course Segwit and LN are going to affect the markets, which most probably explains what happened in April, with the price going from $4 to $25.  This is bringing a lot of new attention to Litecoin, which means more miners are entering the game, which in turn may well lead to a significant increase in difficulty.  As always, there are many factors to consider and anything could happen, so different people will make different predictions of future profitability.

Using a different account wouldn't help. If you really need different share difficulties then you have to use at least one Stratum proxy for every desired difficulty; or connect workers directly, of course. This is a limitation of the Stratum protocol itself (each connection can only set one difficulty at a time), so there's not much that can be done about it.


Sorry but it is my duty to point out that mining on commodity hardware such as CPUs and GPUs is a bad idea. And mining on a phone is an exceptionally bad idea. Saying that it is unprofitable would be a euphemism; even assuming free electricity (and there is no such thing) and that the network difficulty is not going to rise, it would take a phone years just to make 0.01 LTC.

See the man page.

I totally understand that one may attach a sentimental value to the meaning of the particular blocks they find. From a mathematical point of view, however, I am convinced that our system is perfectly sound and fair.
Even when thinking about the 6048th block, consider that your argument would also apply to those miners who do not wish to signal. In fact, simple math shows that the probability that one of them finds said block and the block does signal is much higher than the probability that you find it and it does not signal!
In short, both factions could well reason that the system favors the other party. But this is the result of looking at only one side of the equation. The truth is that the unwanted effects balance out, and nobody is favored.

Yes, the possibility of paying merged-mined coins directly to miners was discussed before (see here for example). The problem with such a feature is that it would complicate the accounting system and other things considerably. For instance, due to how merged mining works it would be hard to apply a fair PPS system directly to each secondary chain. It would also be rather difficult to allow only part of the pool to be paid in litecoins only, as I think that most miners would still prefer to be paid this way. Personally I must say that I'm pretty happy with the payout system we've been using since 2014. It keeps things simple, manageable, and easy to understand.

You say that this is not fair because the variance is not the same as it would be in a solo mining situation. Drawing this conclusion actually requires you to make assumptions about the algorithm used by the pool to decide when (not) to signal, but for the sake of simplicity let's suppose that you are right, and that our system does result in lower variance for all its users. If anything, I would say that such a system increases fairness, as luck becomes less of a factor. But let's say that you disagree, and that your idea of fairness requires higher variance. Now, consider what would happen if this pool started signaling with 100% of its blocks, as you suggest: the users who do not want to signal would simply move to a non-signaling pool such as LTC1BTC, and the effective variance of their contribution would be even lower. For the remaining 99% of the pool, on the other hand, variance would remain practically the same.

There is also another important element to consider here, which has not been mentioned yet: the 75% goal needs to be reached over an 8064-block period. That is a lot of blocks, which significantly lessens the impact of variance.


I think you're confusing percentages of pool hash rate with percentages relative to the whole network. The pool miners voting "No" have about 2.5 GH/s, and that's less than 0.1% of the network's hash rate. The 75% threshold that would trigger a SegWit lock-in is currently about 6% away in terms of blocks mined since Batpool started signaling, and 6% of the network means about 170 GH/s. That is, the gap that needs to be filled is 68 times as large as the fraction of pool users who are voting "No".

The signaling ratio of the whole pool is proportional to the hashing power of the users voting "Yes" (or abstaining). Right now, this figure is around 98.8%, as about 1.2% of the hashing power of the pool belongs to users who have voted "No".
For technical reasons we cannot currently provide a guarantee that the blocks any given miner finds do or do not signal. In practice, however, this makes no difference, as the contribution towards SegWit activation would be the same.