Bitcoin Forum
September 21, 2021, 09:40:09 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 22.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 »
1  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Pools (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][AUTO-SWITCH] Profit-switch auto-exchange pool: CleverMining.com on: February 22, 2014, 02:34:49 PM
Could somebody explain me the reason for bouncing of hash rate from 1.5MH/s to 2MH/s, the diff is +-500kH/s from time to time. Is this because of the pool problems, or am I pushing the cards too much? Have three MSI 280x cards, running C:1050 M:1500 and thread concurrency:14336...it's really annoying to see that the cards aren't doing its max profit.

Quote
http://organofcorti.blogspot.com/2012/10/71-variable-pool-difficulty.html
The number of shares submitted by a miner with a contant hashrate follows a Poisson distribution. The standard deviation - a measure of how much a variable varies - increases only as the square root of the average number of shares per time period. Thus the more shares submitted in a given time period the lower the variability in shares submitted for that time period. So the lower the difficulty, the lower the variance, and the longer the time period over which the number of shares is assessed, the lower the variance.

Check your U value (submitted shares/minute). At that hashrate, I'd expect you to be around 1-2 shares/min, which consulting the table above yields an hourly ~18% variance (~3.6% daily).
2  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Pools (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][POOL] Profit switching pool - wafflepool.com on: February 21, 2014, 01:44:35 PM
A number of people are experiencing wildly fluctuating reported hash rates since the difficulty lock. I really don't think this is a problem as the shares submitted per round appears to remain reasonably steady. It might be worth extending the time over which the reported hashrate is measured & averaged.

This explains it very well:
http://organofcorti.blogspot.com/2012/10/71-variable-pool-difficulty.html
3  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Pools (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][AUTO-SWITCH] Profit-switch auto-exchange pool: CleverMining.com on: February 12, 2014, 03:52:20 PM
Started mining on this pool and my discard rate percentage is crazy.

Getworks   Accepted   Rejected   Hardware Errors   Utility   Discarded
337           39           9           0                   1.765           669


scan time = 28
expiry = 7
queue = 1

even at queue 0 it was this bad.. tried 30/30 on scan and expiry and no diff..

is this normal for the pool ?

Scan time  and Expiry shouldn't really have any effect on a Stratum pool.  But I wouldn't set my Expiry that low in any case.  Put them back to default Scan = 30, Expiry = 120 and see what happens.

You really only need to play with these setting if your solo mining or using a Getwork pool, so you would have a low scan time to detect new blocks.  But Stratum pools will tell you when there is a new block, so it's not necessary.


+1! Smiley

Try setting both to 9999 and queue to 0 (remember that the staged work, ST, is always 1+queue).

Your discarded stats are normal, as staged work is discarded on "new blocks" (real new blocks for the mined coin or coin switches, displayed as NB on cgminer's stats).

Discarded work approaches ST*Getworks. As you were using extra staged work in queue = 1 (meaning ST=2, two staged work items), you should get around 2*337 = 674 discards.
4  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Pools (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][AUTO-SWITCH] Profit-switch auto-exchange pool: CleverMining.com on: February 11, 2014, 12:26:09 AM
Queue is actually "extra work items in queue", that's why when using 0, staged work (ST) is still at 1. It was useful back in the days before stratum, but since now work is locally generated (LW) at will by cgminer, it only serves as a hindrance on coin switches, although it shouldn't be happening.

Weirdly I tried setting my queue to 0 in my 50-50 config that load balances between Clever and Middle, and my rejects went up a lot to over 10%. I set it back to 3 where I had it previously and now rejects are back in the 2% range.


Interesting, although that's really strange, since it's just work queued locally. Try to see if you can replicate that again! Smiley

On my latest tests, I'm seeing no significant difference in changing queue values. Ping time to server and intensity seem much more correlated to rejects than anything else (lower pings help to mitigate higher intensity values).
5  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Pools (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][POOL] Profit switching pool - wafflepool.com on: February 10, 2014, 05:41:22 PM
poolwaffle, are you sending "Clean Jobs == true" on the stratum work packet? (params[8] == true)

This should minimize stales.

Yep.  We send it on every work change request that isn't difficulty adjustment (which we send again after 30 seconds with the flag if the user isn't respecting the new difficulty).

But we're seeing a TON of shares submitted a significant amount of time after the clean jobs request.  A lot of them 15-20 seconds after telling them the old work isn't valid, and those shares are still being accepted, which leads me to the guess that people have pushed their miners to max out hashrate (and in this case accepted shares) rather than actual accepted shares.

I see. Undecided

Since avg_time_block = (coin_difficulty * 2^32) / pool_hashrate_on_coin, you could, for example, reject stale share submissions after avg_time_block doubles (meaning more than 50% of the pool has already switched over to the new coin).

If the 1 block old shares have any chance of resulting in a valid block (they do) they should be accepted! Rejecting them only makes profitability "look" higher while it is actually lower. You were the only pool doing this right don't be like the crap pools!

The problem is the probability of finding a block in the old coin tends very quickly to zero, as less and less miners are mining the old coin.

Once more than 50% of miners have switched, stales should be discarded. Tongue
6  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Pools (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][AUTO-SWITCH] Profit-switch auto-exchange pool: CleverMining.com on: February 10, 2014, 05:05:55 PM
Clean jobs is set to true when the pool sends new work because of new network block found. If only merkle root hash was updated, then clean jobs is false. Also, it is always set to true when sending first work for a new coin job after coin change.

Is that OK or do you think it should work differently?

Nope, that seems correct! I'll tinker a bit more with queue sizes, since it should be flushing upon receiving clean jobs -- meaning queue size should be irrelevant too, for rejects.
7  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Pools (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][POOL] Profit switching pool - wafflepool.com on: February 10, 2014, 04:14:26 PM
poolwaffle, are you sending "Clean Jobs == true" on the stratum work packet? (params[8] == true)

This should minimize stales.
8  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Pools (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][AUTO-SWITCH] Profit-switch auto-exchange pool: CleverMining.com on: February 10, 2014, 04:12:36 PM
Hmm, I figured as much for Scantime and Expiry.  I've always left queue to the default of 1, no matter where I've been.  I can try it again later after the updates.

Queue is actually "extra work items in queue", that's why when using 0, staged work (ST) is still at 1. It was useful back in the days before stratum, but since now work is locally generated (LW) at will by cgminer, it only serves as a hindrance on coin switches, although it shouldn't be happening.

Terk, are you sending "Clean Jobs == true" on the stratum work packet? (params[8] == true)
9  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Pools (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][AUTO-SWITCH] Profit-switch auto-exchange pool: CleverMining.com on: February 10, 2014, 02:16:31 PM
I have been watching this thread for the past week, trying out the pool and something is incredibly wrong.  Not submitting stales, my total reject rates for each card averages 4-6%.  Submitting stales they all skyrocket to 50-60%.  The only way I can reduce those is to reduce the intensity on my cards down so low that I lose a total of 800 hash/775wu.  That puts the rejects to 2-4%.  I don't have to slow my cards down anywhere else I tried.  I toyed around with scantime and expiry as well, since I saw that mentioned.  No change.  I would prefer to run at my full 8Mh as opposed to running gimped.  Has anyone had any success lowering their rejects down and not having to slow down their rates?

Forgot to mention that random cards go sick or dead within 6-10 hours when I use this pool and I've been able to run them for 2-3 days straight elsewhere with no issues.

Scantime and Expiry should be irrelevant in a stratum pool (I have both at 9999), but Queue should be 0.
10  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Pools (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][POOL] Profit switching pool - wafflepool.com on: February 10, 2014, 01:50:28 PM
Actually, there should be a variable time interval for accepting stales depending on the coin being mined. There is a higher probability of stales contributing to finding blocks on faster coins (lower diff) than on slower ones (higher diff).

You could stop accepting stales when the probability of finding a block for a particular coin falls below a threshold (50%?). This will depend on the coin's diff and pool's hashrate still on it.
11  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Pools (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][POOL] Profit switching pool - wafflepool.com on: February 10, 2014, 01:35:39 PM
(...)
tldr We should reject "1-stale" shares for better profitability, but some users will be all "WTF MY REJECTS ARE HIGHER NOW!!!?!".  Should we reject "1-stale" shares Yes/No?

Yes! Grin

At least for a few days (a week maybe?) so that you can have some real data to see how those stales affect profitability overall.
12  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Mining (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN] cudaMiner - a new litecoin mining application [Windows/Linux] on: December 18, 2013, 06:02:57 PM
On GTX 780 (Ti) and Titan cards, one of the best launch configurartions seems to be

T number of SMX x 32

i.e. T15x32 for 780 Ti
T14x32 for Titan
T12x32 for GTX 780

Upped from 550 to 570 kHash simply by going from x24 to x32. autotune will currently not find x32 configurations.

Christian


Yep, thanks for that! Grin 675kH/s now! Grin

(Gigabyte 780 Ti OC edition)
13  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Mining (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN] cudaMiner - a new litecoin mining application [Windows/Linux] on: December 18, 2013, 04:05:11 PM
if I use  -l T15x24  with good results on 780Ti with 15 SMX you should be able to use -l T14x24 on the Titan. I believe it has 14 SMX enabled, whereas the GTX 780 has 12 SMX.

Also be sure the card is not configured for double precision computation (it makes it slower for single precision work loads)

I also had that one bizarre autotune result with 1000 kHash/s, but that was too good to be true... and in fact it wasn't working for me either.


Getting 650kH/s on T15x24 on a Gigabyte 780Ti OC edition with the latest cudaMiner version. Grin
14  Economy / Securities / Re: [Active Mining] The UNofficial Active Mining Discussion Thread [UNmoderated] on: October 31, 2013, 07:31:20 PM
So no financial report?

Are you kidding?

How stupid must one be to expect anything except complete financial loss from ActiveScamming?

You actually thought there was going to be a financial report?

That's cute.

I suppose you also think VBS is going to update his failed ActiveScamming profit projections?

Too bad VBS ran away a month ago.

VBS is desperate to cover his ass from the inevitable repercussions of his aiding and abetting ActiveScamming's fraudulent unlicensed security scheme.

He could apologize to his victims at the very least.  What a coward!

You seem to have a permanent knack to manipulate everything... Roll Eyes

My original estimates were targeted at the short to medium term profit which was based primarily on the delivery of 20k Avalon chips and made sense until Ken decided to cancel those orders and ask for a refund.

At that point I decided to stop doing more, as: (1) without quantities, (2) more concrete dates for eAsic hardware delivery and (3) correct sales revenue, they would just turn into 100% speculation and I didn't want that.

Even so, all my estimates specifically described the scenarios and conditions they were based on, as thoroughly as possible, with the available info at the time they were made.
15  Economy / Securities / Re: [IPVO] [Multiple Exchanges] Neo & Bee - LMB Holdings on: September 28, 2013, 12:13:39 AM
(...)
We are also adding the additional services such as international remittance, we are currently working towards having in excess of 1 million locations worldwide at the time of launch, where we can transmit the Bitcoin across the globe to these agents and the end user can walk away with the Government Fiat in their local jurisdiction, the transmission will be completed with Bitcoin instead of the slow banking systems currently used. The benefits of using Bitcoin for this process can reduce the costs in comparison to the traditional operators in this space.
(...)

This is excellent news! Huge market there! Grin
16  Economy / Securities / Re: [IPVO] [Multiple Exchanges] Neo & Bee - LMB Holdings on: September 26, 2013, 10:39:29 PM
http://ge.tt/5UxhJ8t/v/0?c
Opened the .ods in LibreOffice and saved as .xls. Didn't check to see whether the conversion went okay.

Thanks for that, that opened straight away. Smiley

Looking through that at a high level it shows exactly what I expected.

Bitcoin falls from $230 to $56 and in turn the equity in the company (it's shareholder value) falls from $2.1m to $800k. That is with only $2.5m of total deposits to start with vs almost identical capital. Obviously this scales up if the deposits are larger and there's no way this business will be a success with only $2.5m of deposits.

It's really simple, if you claim to make money from BTC rising value then you (or your customers) must lose if it goes down. The risk profile is symmetric, unless you add assymetry via external option purchases, which are not mentioned (and no-one could write the volumes anyway).

This business is not a bank, it's a bet.

I suggest Neo can attempt to disprove this by showing what the profitability looks like with a 5% decline every month for a year and with substantial deposits. The reason is must be done like this is usually it's hard to make perhaps 1-3% on gross interest margin, so you need deposits that exceed your capital by a large factor to make profits once costs are accounted for. Most banks have leverage ratios (assets/capital) of 20-30 for that reason.


Options purchases have already been mentioned earlier. Smiley

(...)
We shall operate our own reserves for trading both EUR & BTC and not deposits, our strategy will be constantly monitored and adjusted. Not every BTC and Euro will be derived from the public markets and we also have several options on futures. Our strategies will be kept private because we do not want to buy off the back of our own hype, this will be partly unavoidable but we will be doing everything we can to mitigate that risk.

If someone withdraws €5m and other withdrawals that day alone make the total €7m, we will also take deposits that day at the same price point, even if the deposits that day total €5m we will already be in a strong position because we would have the trading benefits of adding that €7m to the market prior to the decrease, increasing the strength of our own reserves.
(...)
(...)
This spreadsheet provides details that will enable you to input different parameters (The Blue Cells) to see the effects they will have on our reserves, we have omitted any parts in relation to options trading, so trades on the spreadsheet are very simple public and dark pool markets, even with a crude strategy with the figures that are a direct replica of the seven days when the price of Bitcoin took its fall following the April bubble we would be damaged, but still very much in business. The key figure to watch is "the next day BTC requirement" as this will indicate the amount of Bitcoin that will either be added to our reserves when balancing the customers wallet for the next day, or how many BTC we need to use from our reserves to top up the customers wallets.

www.lmb-holdings.com/opening_week_crash.ods
(...)
17  Economy / Securities / Re: [BitFunder] Asset Exchange Marketplace + Rewritable Options Trading on: September 24, 2013, 06:38:19 PM
In my honest opinion, I do not believe that making a claim that the site is 'virtual currency' and that
'No assets on the site are to be considered real.' would convince any U.S. Federal Judge (esp. when
a U.S. Citizen goes out of their way to put it in a server in Belize when they operate their own hosting
service in the U.S
) that the service is not guilty of something already and deny an FBI warrant request.
The U.S. Government does not care where your services are hosted, or how you claim ownership is
divided up, and especially if you are a U.S. citizen that appears to be in control (and sometimes if you
are real lucky, they do not even care if you are a U.S. Citizen to begin with), if they want to make an
example out of you they will. (see. KimDotCom)

 Wink  I know you are not very smart drawingthesun, so I will connect Dot A to Dot B for you:

Ukyo is talking specifically about ACTM in the above paragraph, and is not impressed with their sophisticated shell company in Belize.

Actually, if you read the paragraph (which may take some effort), it's clear that Ukyo is referring to BTCT.co, which is ran by a US citizen (Burnside), who operates his own US hosting service (http://www.kattare.com/) while registering the company in Belize. The fact that a literal quote from the BTCT.co disclaimer ("No assets on the site are to be considered real") is in the paragraph only adds to it ^^

Nice digging there, finding a Ukyo quote from 11th December 2012, months before ActM existed! LOL! Grin Grin Grin
18  Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated] on: September 22, 2013, 12:10:28 AM
September 16, 2013

Subject: ActiveMining’s virtual “Board of Advisors” Stand Down

It is with deep regret that we wish to announce that the current ActiveMining’s virtual “Board of Advisors” is standing down, effective immediately.

The reasons for our resignation are threefold:

1) Some members of the board wish to pursue other avenues within the Bitcoin world that are tied to potential conflicts of time and interest, so the ethical choice is to step-down.

2) The board was originally convened primarily to improve upon pressing communication issues and the initial setup of the internal structure of ActiveMining. Despite our best efforts, some issues still remain in these areas, especially Marketing/PR. As such, we have recommended and facilitated the hiring of professional PR services which Ken has agreed to do.

3) Various strategies being undertaken by ActiveMining are contrary to those being advised and incompatible to the beliefs of current advisors to what would be the best overall outcome. At this time, we feel ActiveMining would be better serviced by a new board with a line of thought more in-line with the CEO vision and/or the hiring of key internal staff, such as a Director of Sales and Marketing.

We have made a number of diligences and recommendations, including:

- Engaging professional PR services to resolve what we see as significant PR and marketing issues.
- Creating a high quality website incorporating a new web store (for which we prepared a template).
- Revamping of the product line-up to reduce costs and to increase clarity for customers (for which we provided specifications) from the consumer to the professional market.
- A more strategic approach to the business as a whole, emphasising profitability and stability (for which we provided detailed guidance).
- Reduced emphasis on the CEO being the key decision maker across all areas of the business. In particular, we strongly recommend that ActiveMining hires new staff in key areas.
- Increased communication and clarity for shareholders.
- Increased information for customers.

We are grateful for the opportunity to serve as virtual advisors for ActiveMining since the 20th August 2013, and we offer our best wishes for its success.

Since there's been some controversy about the reasons why the advisory board was dissolved, I thought to elaborate a bit. Smiley

The initial motive for creating it in the first place was to push forward some issues that kept reappearing, especially the lack of consistent PR. Everyone on the advisory board kept at it while it made sense to do so. The decision to step down was mostly because we felt a certain point was reached where we've already addressed and insisted as much as possible on what we believed are/were the main issues we thought ActM needed improvement on (the list above) and concluded what Ken really needs is on-site help from key internal staff.

Like the title says we were "advisory" and there's not much else to do when you feel you've pretty much addressed everything, whether agreed to or not.

Personally, I think professional PR services/marketing is of the utmost importance and should be pursued asap. Other than that I would say that the consumer side of VMC is still unexplored and smaller systems on mini-ITX cases would rack a lot of sales, as not everyone wants a 4U case.
19  Economy / Securities / Re: [IPVO] [Multiple Exchanges] Neo & Bee - LMB Holdings on: September 21, 2013, 11:14:22 PM
I'd have to say the prospectus looks very thorough and solid, with detailed milestones and expected expenditures.

The initial and immediate effort in marketing/PR is laudable, I think it will be key for your long-term success and immediate capture of public attention. Get that snowball going downhill asap! Grin

Did a little digging about the software house you're using, they seem an excellent choice: http://www.pvs.com.cy/index.php/company-profile-software-development-cyprus/
20  Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated] on: September 20, 2013, 01:06:46 AM
Like ffssixtynine said, that spreadsheet is very out of date now (it was made in July) and I haven't updated it anymore. Smiley
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!