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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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?

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.

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.

(...)
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?

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

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.

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!

(...)
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.
(...)

Thanks for that, that opened straight away.

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.

(...)
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
(...)

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 ^^

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.