 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 »
|
|
Welcome back Terk. Screw the haters. I'm in this for the money, not to support shitty alt coins that we all know aren't going to make the cut.
|
|
|
|
If the "Last 24h Profits" are N number BTC shouldn't the payout be ~ N Number BTC?
No. Balances below 0.01 are not paid out every day, unexchanged amounts may fluctuate, and there are probably other reasons for these amounts to differ. I'm mining more than .01, doing around .12 BTC a day. I've been on this pool 3 days, and yet to receive the total expected BTC. I just want what I mined. Will wait for next payout and decide to stay or leave. 99% of the time there is a problem with your address. Cut and paste your address here (from the wallet) and I'm sure Terk will look at it. It's often as simple as a lowercase/uppercase letter difference. |
|
|
|
You must be new here. I post this idea not because it's necessarily 'correct' (Although, it is) but because having that little percentage thing never go below 100% would stop the endless tirade of posts in this thread about "HOW ARE WE UNDERZ 100%!!! TERK IS STEALING" etc etc etc.
Clearly Terk is not stealing, there is more money to be made keeping this pool alive over the long term then there is with any sort of short sighted behavior such as stealing.
My point is that little percentage on the website is supposed to represent what this pool brings in when compared to just mining straight LTC. Well it seems, regardless of the number of blocks found in a day, if you are mining LTC, then you are mining at 100% of what mining LTC would bring in. Understand my point? Because of variance there is no way to ever know what 100% this or 80% that is with crypto... You just go with what you got. And if what you got is 6 blocks over a 24 hours period, that's 100% of what you brought in.
So you think it would be ok to just make up a number and call it 100% LTC? So in a given day, 100% LTC on clevermining gives 0.00320 BTC/day, 100% LTC on pool Y gives 0.00400 BTC/day and 100% LTC on pool Z gives 0.00250 BTC/day? It's not a made up number. It's a calculated value. Variance causes the actual result to vary around that value, but if all variables stay the same and the sample size becomes large enough, you will see that the actual result will trend really close to the calculated value. Think of mining as a lottery and more hashrate gets you more tickets. Having more tickets makes you more likely to win, but unless you have all tickets, you're not guaranteed to win. Exactly. If we just say that it was 100%, people will get even more confused if they compare it to straight LTC profitability BTC/MHs/Day. We can't make up that number, because that would be faking stats. Even if the trend is really close to the calculated value, it still won't be exact. Why should we even change it? I think all Terk needs to change is add a FAQ to include all these explanations. Everything you guys are saying is correct, and you all are missing my point. My point is to change the way the percentage is calculated to represent the SITE's percentage vs just showing what the percentage is compared to the mathematically perfect situation of getting our number of LTC blocks per day when we factor our pools hash rate vs the global hash rate vs the 2.5 minute estimated time per block etc etc... While statistically everything you guys are bringing up is correct, all it does is confuse the young un's. If clevermining is mining LTC, then the pool is averaging it's own 100% return on LTC. This isn't the global figure you have mentioned in messages above (which is correct, in it's own way), this is the site's percentage. That's what I'm getting at. Then the swings in percentage would be based on that return but averaging in the ups or downs of actual alt coins besides LTC. |
|
|
|
I think if we are mining LTC then the profitability should just say 100%, never below. If you are mining LTC you are getting 100% of what you should be getting with it, just sometimes that's less then you want. It's still 100%.
No, you are not, and you are bad at maths. 100% LTC = Estimated found blocks in the period with the current pool hashrate. That will never be the case, it will be more or less. If we get less, like 89%, we can't just say it was 100%, since Terk would have to pay the missing 11% from his own pocket. If we get more, say 138% and we say it was 100%, Terk would be pocketing 38% of the earnings for himself. Your maths and common sense is terrible. You must be new here. I post this idea not because it's necessarily 'correct' (Although, it is) but because having that little percentage thing never go below 100% would stop the endless tirade of posts in this thread about "HOW ARE WE UNDERZ 100%!!! TERK IS STEALING" etc etc etc. Clearly Terk is not stealing, there is more money to be made keeping this pool alive over the long term then there is with any sort of short sighted behavior such as stealing. My point is that little percentage on the website is supposed to represent what this pool brings in when compared to just mining straight LTC. Well it seems, regardless of the number of blocks found in a day, if you are mining LTC, then you are mining at 100% of what mining LTC would bring in. Understand my point? Because of variance there is no way to ever know what 100% this or 80% that is with crypto... You just go with what you got. And if what you got is 6 blocks over a 24 hours period, that's 100% of what you brought in. That 100% is based on the projected ideal LTC profitability. Even pure LTC pools won't be exactly 100% LTC Profitability all the time due to the same variance you mention. In a bad luck streak, a pure LTC pool could be getting 65% or in a good luck streak it could be getting 130%. True, and I'm guessing that percentage on the website is based on that. I guess I was just thinking it would be nice to shut up everyone who doesn't understand variance by nipping that in the bud and leaving it as a minimum of 100%. Although, I admit some bad choices on mining alt coins could potentially put us genuinely under 100%. Terk's code now allows the pool to split it's hashrate over multiple coins at once so that opens up a mathematical problem to sort out as well. Either way it would be nice if people understood that sometimes the pool is up, sometimes down, you're looking at a minimum of 7 days to understand how it's really doing. He should remove that hour by hour stat page. |
|
|
|
I think if we are mining LTC then the profitability should just say 100%, never below. If you are mining LTC you are getting 100% of what you should be getting with it, just sometimes that's less then you want. It's still 100%.
No, you are not, and you are bad at maths. 100% LTC = Estimated found blocks in the period with the current pool hashrate. That will never be the case, it will be more or less. If we get less, like 89%, we can't just say it was 100%, since Terk would have to pay the missing 11% from his own pocket. If we get more, say 138% and we say it was 100%, Terk would be pocketing 38% of the earnings for himself. Your maths and common sense is terrible. You must be new here. I post this idea not because it's necessarily 'correct' (Although, it is) but because having that little percentage thing never go below 100% would stop the endless tirade of posts in this thread about "HOW ARE WE UNDERZ 100%!!! TERK IS STEALING" etc etc etc. Clearly Terk is not stealing, there is more money to be made keeping this pool alive over the long term then there is with any sort of short sighted behavior such as stealing. My point is that little percentage on the website is supposed to represent what this pool brings in when compared to just mining straight LTC. Well it seems, regardless of the number of blocks found in a day, if you are mining LTC, then you are mining at 100% of what mining LTC would bring in. Understand my point? Because of variance there is no way to ever know what 100% this or 80% that is with crypto... You just go with what you got. And if what you got is 6 blocks over a 24 hours period, that's 100% of what you brought in. |
|
|
|
|
I think if we are mining LTC then the profitability should just say 100%, never below. If you are mining LTC you are getting 100% of what you should be getting with it, just sometimes that's less then you want. It's still 100%.
|
|
|
|
After borrowing a friend's MacBook and testing, I can confirm this issue.
It is not an issue specific to version 2.3.3, and actually doesn't even seem to be a bug in the code at all, but for some reason the OS X binary for version 2.3.3 produces 1/3 wrong hashes for algorithm scrypt. Binaries for all other platforms are not affected. The problem appears to be caused by a bug in the particular compiler used to produce the binary (Apple's version of Clang for OS X Lion), and is only triggered at -O2 or higher optimization levels. The issue does not appear if using gcc on OS X, nor does it appear with the latest version of Clang on Linux.
I have now updated the OS X package for version 2.3.3 with a binary compiled at -O1. It would be nice if you could confirm that it works.
Seems to be working fine now with updated version 2.3.3 you posted overnight. Thanks! I know CPU mining is essentially dead, but it's nice to know you still maintain this. Cheers! |
|
|
|
I just did a full re-install of my OS and noticed a new version of CPU miner was out (Before I was on 2.3, first one with stratum built in). Anyway, I've installed the new version and while it works, with the same hash rates as before, I'm noticing I'm getting a ton of "accepted xx/xx (%) (booooo) compared to the older version. Has something changed in newer versions? If I stick my old boot hard drive into the machine the 2.3 version of CPU miner on it, it works on the same pools with nearly 100% accepted rate. With this new version I'm getting accepted rates around 60-70%.
Weird. It would be nice if you could try all versions from 2.3 to 2.3.3 (they are all available at SourceForge) and see which of them seem not to work. Also, please post (or send me via pm) the exact command-line options you are using so that I can test if there's a problem with the server you are connecting to. Originally I was on 2.3 as I mentioned in the post, and now I am on 2.3.2 and it's working fine. When I rm minerd from the usr/bin/minerd and replace it with the 2.3.3 version I get much lower.... well, it still says accepted but says "boo" and the percentage drops. 2.3.2 seems to work fine with near 100% accepted over several hours. This was tested over the last 2 days on both give me coins and clevermining. Launch strings are: minerd --url stratum+tcp://us.clevermining.com:3333 --userpass <my address>:x -t 24 and minerd --url stratum+tcp://ltc.give-me-coins.com:3334 --userpass <my worker>:x -t 24 I tried less threads to see if that helped and it made no difference. This is a 2012 MacPro upgraded with dual 6 core 3.46 Xeon 5690's. 32GB RAM. Fresh install of OSX 10.9.2. The same result happened when tested on my older 2008 3.2Ghz 8 core MacPro. with 10.9.3 (Appleseed Beta release). |
|
|
|
|
I just did a full re-install of my OS and noticed a new version of CPU miner was out (Before I was on 2.3, first one with stratum built in). Anyway, I've installed the new version and while it works, with the same hash rates as before, I'm noticing I'm getting a ton of "accepted xx/xx (%) (booooo) compared to the older version. Has something changed in newer versions? If I stick my old boot hard drive into the machine the 2.3 version of CPU miner on it, it works on the same pools with nearly 100% accepted rate. With this new version I'm getting accepted rates around 60-70%.
MacOS 10.9.2 (Clean install) and the latest version of CPU miner.. Can someone possibly walk me through how to uninstall this most recent version and the re-install using the older version? (I still have the older version in a folder backed up).
/edit I successfully downgraded to version 2.3.2 and am back to seeing normal accepted rates. I wonder what it is about 2.3.3 that causes so many "boooo" submissions?
|
|
|
|
Hi, I am new to mining and have few questions
I have 2 rigs ( 1 blade and 1 PC running 10 Gridseeds 360K), would it be a problem if I use the same user on both rigs?
Will I get more duplicate/rejected shares with same user on 2 different rigs? or should I just create a new BTC address ?
Thank you for any help
One address or two separate the rejected would still be the same (combined). Two addresses does allow you to sort out which machine is down if you have issues. |
|
|
|
I noticed something amusing today. Can you spot a difference between these two fragments of cgminer logs: [2014-04-23 04:08:23] Network diff set to 766
[2014-04-23 04:08:23] Stratum from pool 0 detected new block
[2014-04-23 04:09:00] Network diff set to 901
[2014-04-23 04:09:00] Stratum from pool 0 detected new block
[2014-04-23 04:09:14] Network diff set to 1.01K
[2014-04-23 04:09:14] Stratum from pool 0 detected new block
[2014-04-23 04:09:15] Network diff set to 314
[2014-04-23 04:09:15] Stratum from pool 0 detected new block
[2014-04-23 04:09:40] Network diff set to 288
[2014-04-23 04:09:40] Stratum from pool 0 detected new block
[2014-04-23 04:09:49] Network diff set to 299
[2014-04-23 04:09:49] Stratum from pool 0 detected new block
[2014-04-23 04:10:40] Network diff set to 317
[2014-04-23 04:10:40] Stratum from pool 0 detected new block
[2014-04-23 04:11:26] Network diff set to 319
[2014-04-23 04:11:26] Stratum from pool 0 detected new block
[2014-04-23 04:11:29] Network diff set to 325
[2014-04-23 04:11:29] Stratum from pool 0 detected new block
[2014-04-23 04:08:23] Network diff set to 766
[2014-04-23 04:08:23] Stratum from pool 0 detected new block
[2014-04-23 04:09:00] Network diff set to 901
[2014-04-23 04:09:00] Stratum from pool 0 detected new block
[2014-04-23 04:09:14] Network diff set to 1.01K
[2014-04-23 04:09:14] Stratum from pool 0 detected new block
[2014-04-23 04:09:18] Network diff set to 314
[2014-04-23 04:09:18] Stratum from pool 0 detected new block
[2014-04-23 04:09:39] Network diff set to 288
[2014-04-23 04:09:39] Stratum from pool 0 detected new block
[2014-04-23 04:09:48] Network diff set to 299
[2014-04-23 04:09:48] Stratum from pool 0 detected new block
[2014-04-23 04:10:40] Network diff set to 317
[2014-04-23 04:10:40] Stratum from pool 0 detected new block
[2014-04-23 04:11:25] Network diff set to 319
[2014-04-23 04:11:25] Stratum from pool 0 detected new block
[2014-04-23 04:11:29] Network diff set to 325
[2014-04-23 04:11:29] Stratum from pool 0 detected new block
The first one is from CleverMining, the second one from WafflePool (or maybe it's the other way around). Great minds think alike? Actually what you are reading is from one pool, not from both. whichever one "pool 0" is in your settings is just reporting a change even if it's not the pool actively being mined on. I only figured this out (by accident) after having two machines side by side, one on a stable LTC pool with Clevermining as a fall over and the other on Clevermining with the LTC pool as it's backup. The network dif changes (in my case, from clevermining) were reporting instantly on both machines at the same time even though they were technically mining on different pools. |
|
|
|
Yes my miners have been slowly losing hash rate until they shut down completely on CM. So I switched to ipominer, CINNI and they had problems with cinni servers and again my miners shutdown, but never switched to backup. So down all day. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
So I switched back to CM and gridseeds shutdown again. Not sure what is going on?
I had a day when all my gridseeds shut down at once. I did "this and that" and they finally started up. I left the house, came back. Again they all shut down. Long story short, I finally concluded that plugging my phone into a port on the front of the computer that runs my mining software was what caused it. Pardon me for not qualifying what "this and that" includes, nor detailing what mining software I am using and etc. I tied a knot in the cable that I was using to charge my phone so I would recognize it and never use it again (but I kept it in case I wanted to prove it was the culprit). ...I use a USB mapping utility called UsbTreeView, and on its diagram the port where my phone was plugged in, it showed a yellow "i" indicating a problem. I am not suggesting that your telephone is causing your problem, but rather I am encouraging you to maybe look elsewhere besides the gridseeds and power supply, as I had to do. A prime example of what we techie people hate. You try everything under the sun to get something working again, and it winds up being the thing that can't possibly have anything to do with it. "I just got this great new lamp at the thrift store! Oddly every time I turn it on my computer BSOD's." |
|
|
|
...
setx GPU_MAX_ALLOC_PERCENT 100
setx GPU_USE_SYNC_OBJECTS 1
--scrypt -o stratum+tcp://eu.clevermining.com:3333 -u xxx -p --thread-concurrency 27400 --lookup-gap 2 --gpu-engine 880 --gpu-memclock 1250 --gpu-powertune 20 -w 512 -I 18 -g 1
...
Hi, I would try to lower the intensity a bit. Maybe try with -I 16 as a starting point. If you are using lookup gap 2 try lowering intensity even more, like I 13..... Lookup gap 1 and you can push it to like 19 or 20. |
|
|
|
Terk: Ignore the haters. Don't let the irrational minority influence what you already know is best for the majority. CleverMining didn't grow to 33GHs+ because of poor decision-making on your end. Remember that.
Comeonalready: You are a grade A hypocrite. How do you know what the majority of miners want. You say Terk should follow your suggestions as if you speak from a position of knowledge about "what the majority of miners want." But you don't know "what the majority of miners want" because you aren't the majority. You are one single sad complaining voice.
Yes, I am complaining that my own decisions as to where to mine codified into my miner configuration are being overridden because people like you choose not to make decisions for yourselves. Granted I may not know what everyone wants, but neither do you, and neither does Terk. And Terk has a vested interest in choosing to move miners to another of his servers, as only then can he earn a commission from them. (I am not suggesting at this time that this was the primary reason for his decision, but one could easily argue that if they desired.) It takes barely any effort to maintain a sticky host name in order to please both crowds. And at the time of your post, clevermining pool hash rate was 12GH/s not 33GH/s+ as you suggested. It grows to 33GH/s+ as a result of one very large miner who has shown that he will move his hashpower around as it best suits him. Based on your comments I'm not sure the Clevermining pool is going to offer the mining experience you are seeking. Perhaps another pool will suit your needs better. Are you suggesting that clevermining is not the pool for me because it is a pool reserved for simpletons? Are you basing this on your own experiences? The reason I am here is that Terk has shown himself to be intelligent and capable, and he is the one to whom I am directing my complaints, not you. When the day comes that I am mining on your pool, then I will ask for your suggestions. You call Terk intelligent and capable, yet your previous posts basically called him a dumbass for setting up the pool the way it's setup. (i.e. not to your liking). I think another pool might suit you better, as clearly this one isn't going to be modified to your preference. There are plenty of other options out there for you to try. I suggest you sample them. |
|
|
|
Terk: Ignore the haters. Don't let the irrational minority influence what you already know is best for the majority. CleverMining didn't grow to 33GHs+ because of poor decision-making on your end. Remember that.
Comeonalready: You are a grade A hypocrite. How do you know what the majority of miners want. You say Terk should follow your suggestions as if you speak from a position of knowledge about "what the majority of miners want." But you don't know "what the majority of miners want" because you aren't the majority. You are one single sad complaining voice.
Yes, I am complaining that my own decisions as to where to mine codified into my miner configuration are being overridden because people like you choose not to make decisions for yourselves. Granted I may not know what everyone wants, but neither do you, and neither does Terk. And Terk has a vested interest in choosing to move miners to another of his servers, as only then can he earn a commission from them. (I am not suggesting at this time that this was the primary reason for his decision, but one could easily argue that if they desired.) It takes barely any effort to maintain a sticky host name in order to please both crowds. And at the time of your post, clevermining pool hash rate was 12GH/s not 33GH/s+ as you suggested. It grows to 33GH/s+ as a result of one very large miner who has shown that he will move his hashpower around as it best suits him. Based on your comments I'm not sure the Clevermining pool is going to offer the mining experience you are seeking. Perhaps another pool will suit your needs better. |
|
|
|
LOL, [insert county]coin dev talks about scams.
No, multipools don't scam miners.
Yes, multipools can kill your shitty clone coins.
I second that. And even if they steal, well, i'm ready to pay for my convenience  Third. I like the ease of use multi pools offer. Also, It's humorous to read scamcoins claiming that multipools are scams. Wake up sheeple! |
|
|
|
Warning for all miners ! ! ! This pool cheats his users, I have connected 3 separate rigs.
I had to mine 3.4 usd/daily (LTC) for 1000kh/s....real profit was 2.4 usd/daily
As they dont have solid statistics of your earnings, you have to manully calculate your daily profit. I reccomend all users do your math, you will see they steal 20-30 % of your profits ...
I think you jump to colclusions before checking or understanding how the pool works or even asking u if there is a issue for that fact. This is a PPLNS pool if we find less blocks per day (which we have been) ALL users get paid less. If you check payments tab against blocks found and see any blocks missing you are welcome to come and contact us and we can work through whatever the issue is and correct it if any exists. There is also a daily earnings section of the site so your lack of statistics is also complete rubbish If you would like to run around accusing before actually talking to us then you may move to another pool also. All my rigs are already out from your stealing website. I know how "pool" works, and I - as a miner want profit and dont need to hear some poor excuses like "this is PPLNS" ... and other crying. All I want to say, is that my profits for last weeks was 20-30 % lower than should be, that is fact, that is not problem of last 1-2 days ... I lost lot of coins due your stealing or ... broken system... If your clients do not have profits they have to have - inform them, otherwise its stealing this is just warning for another users .... do not believe these thieves, if you want to find out how much they steal from you, unfrotunately you have to calculate it manually. I wont waste my time for this website or this thread no more. Bye all and gl to all miners |
|
|
|
When you can please re-implement an updated cpu miner.
1.4.2 is what is available. and this error that was corrected prevents us from conecting to the servers.
I used other miners, but the work does not seem to be getting turned in, as accurately as your software you provide. even though the hashrates are faster in some. none have come close to te 1.4mhs i was able to get with the provided software. cpu only.
i realize it may be a pain to put it in now, i'd be fine with a stand alone cpu only version of the same software.
Would there be any other reasons the java client is not able to connect to your servers? it's almost as if we are ddosing ourselves or something. By loggining in .... i can't imagine the servers being overloaded yet.
Did I just read that you are trying to mine bitcoin using CPU so you can get 1.4mhs? If so, I'll spare you the normal reasons why you shouldn't use a CPU and just leave this one reason here: Even if you mined for 10 years at that speed, you wouldn't ever make enough to be able to withdraw it from the Bitminter website. |
|
|
|
I should have got 0.01 BTC today but got 0.0062, don't know what that is all about. Well, strange, moving on to the next pool.
Bye. |
|
|
|
|
