█▓▒░-< [ZPOOL.CA][BTC Multipool] The miners multipool >-░▒▓█ Paid 925+ BTC

[crackfoo]

Hey crackfoo, me again.

I am wondering 2 things;  one;  the site doesnt specify but I assume usernames with a "[BTC ADDRESS].workername" is still valid for zpool?  Its not posted anywhere that I could find.

Second;  any chance of a snowball in hell of having final xpool remainder balances transferred to zpool?

After a short time trying it;  I think I'm sold on zpool.  I still kinda miss the graph from xpool though   I believe I got working a script in my batch file to refresh my video driver between instances of ccminer to make sure my hashrate doesnt drop if my driver freaks out.


Thanks again for your time and services!

zpool does not support the use of workername. Simply supply the BTC address you want to get paid in.

Unfortunately due to xpool's complexities, I have no way to remove pending payouts.

Thanks!

[JaredKaragen]

cool;  no sweat here;  I think I timed my miners over the weekend to only leave maybe a few hundred satoshi to die in xpool =)

I left worker names on and the pool seemed to ignore them;  but ill strip them out today just to be politically correct.

I do however have an issue with Zpool;   The pool keeps driving my difficulty up slowly;  and a large percent of my submitted shares aren't getting acknowledged in my miner;  my hashrate on the pool after my machine has been connected for over an hour seems to be half of what it actually is.  It feels like I could be loosing out on a percentage from this;  take a look at my ccminer screenshot below.   With other pools and a diff of 1 or 2;  I see an accepted message for every submitted message....  At first the shares are all acknowledged;  but after the stratum changes my difficulty a few times;  its missing out on a lot of shares.

Nothing else has changed otherwise between xpool and zpool.

Since the also-switching feature takes up the password slot;  I cant force a difficulty level =(  Maybe add it so you can just add it to the end of each on the list of algos like is done with the profit level selection?

[crackfoo]

...

Since the also-switching feature takes up the password slot;  I cant force a difficulty level =(  Maybe add it so you can just add it to the end of each on the list of algos like is done with the profit level selection?

...

You should be able to add the difficulty into the field as well. Like so:

ccminer -r 0 -a x11   -o stratum+tcp://mine.zpool.ca:3533 -u joe -p d=1,x11,x13,x14,x15,quark,lyra2
ccminer -r 0 -a x13   -o stratum+tcp://mine.zpool.ca:3633 -u joe -p d=1,x11,x13,x14,x15,quark,lyra2
ccminer -r 0 -a x15   -o stratum+tcp://mine.zpool.ca:3733 -u joe -p d=1,x11,x13,x14,x15,quark,lyra2
ccminer -r 0 -a lyra2 -o stratum+tcp://mine.zpool.ca:4433 -u joe -p d=1,x11,x13,x14,x15,quark,lyra2
ccminer -r 0 -a quark -o stratum+tcp://mine.zpool.ca:4033 -u joe -p d=1,x11,x13,x14,x15,quark,lyra2

You can see the details for including diff with algo selection  here:

http://www.zpool.ca/site/multialgo

Let me know if this sorts you out!

Thanks for mining!

[JaredKaragen]

awesome!   I wasnt sure if I could input the difficulty with a comman and the algos after.  Ill update my batch now.

BTW:  Theres a night and day difference between zpool and xpool.  I wont go back!

*edit*

fixed the problem!

[JaredKaragen]

You can see the difference in % share just by changing the difficulty level;  and when it ramped up to where it should have been =)

[crackfoo]

awesome!   I wasnt sure if I could input the difficulty with a comman and the algos after.  Ill update my batch now.

BTW:  Theres a night and day difference between zpool and xpool.  I wont go back!

*edit*

fixed the problem!

That's great to hear you're seeing better results and also great to hear you're liking zpool! I'm happy with it as well. It's much less complicated than xpools structure and way more robust, flexible and lightweight.

Cheers!

[JaredKaragen]

in the profitability section;

'scrypt'   => 1,
'scryptn'   => 0.5,
'c11'      => 2.0,
'x11'      => 5.5,
'x13'      => 3.9,
'x14'      => 3.7,
'x15'      => 3.5,
'nist5'      => 6.0,
'zr5'      => 10.0,
'drop'      => 5.0;
'neoscrypt'   => 0.3,
'lyra2'      => 1.3,
'quark'   => 6,

I want to understand how to relate it;

Is scrypt the base, and these numbers are what determine the "normalization" between them like was done with hashrate reporting in xpool? 

Do I increase or decrease the value to give that algo more precedence?  By guessing I would think that the number is the multiplier; but even if it is, it's a crapshoot if it's an inverse effect code-wise.

MY first algo is X13;  but it never gets an initial response then rolls to lyra2 every time.  That has been one issue I have noticed so far...
It blipped into X11 once yesterday automatically;  but right back to lyra with defaults.  With my video card it's a 11Mh on lyra2, and 11.7Mh on X11;  so lyra is almost always more profitable for me by observation.

This evening it switched to X11 and stayed there;  I had a correlated change in earnings during that time.... so that lead me to ask about the tables because the description on the site is basic with just how to;  but little direction on effects either way =)

Still very impressed with the new site/service.

[Blackross]

I dont get it.... i mine with both scrypt and sha256, and all i see is titcoin being deposited to my bitcoin address?

http://zpool.ca/?address=152XVMY1H8Ly43iZJhR6bzuhDgFjVvA38q

I have the miners set up to mine straight to btc (as far as i know).

Adding the -p  "c=BTC" to the end of the startup for the miners

[crackfoo]

I dont get it.... i mine with both scrypt and sha256, and all i see is titcoin being deposited to my bitcoin address?

http://zpool.ca/?address=152XVMY1H8Ly43iZJhR6bzuhDgFjVvA38q

I have the miners set up to mine straight to btc (as far as i know).

Adding the -p  "c=BTC" to the end of the startup for the miners

The c=BTC should be what is set for your password. The problem is because TIT uses the same address version (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/List_of_address_prefixes) as BTC so it's not possible to know which to use so it's 50/50 if nothing is specified in the password field. I think if you import your privkey for that BTC address into a TIT wallet, you'll get the TIT that has been sent...

If you've tried adding the c=BTC in the password field and nothing has changed, try using a new BTC address and make sure you specify c=BTC from the start.

Hope this helps

[crackfoo]

All is correct with X13 pool?

Last 48 hours mining X13 pool. Sometimes with alot of hours nothing happend. Yesterday watch what happend. 4-5 hours mining this Gongyicoin - nothing, after that all mined for 2-3 hours AmberCoin but almost all was Orphan. After that download few hours new blocks AmberCoin. After that again only this Gongyicoin and...
Now again mine only this Gongyicoin but nothing happend. Only with CPU is alowed mining this coin?
I read about this GYC:
R & D Author: GYc team
Core algorithm: Quark
Algorithm: x13 algorithm based on improved specific anti budget wallet algorithm, graphics and professional mining machine are not mining, computer CPU can mining



PS. I'm impressed from fast payment

Yes I've been monitoring X13. Amber has been forking quite a bit the past few days and now all the exchanges have it in maintenance. I'm not sure why no block has yet to be found on  Gongyicoin. We've been watching the logs and there's no errors so perhaps just really bad luck? We may rent some hash and give it a blast and see what happens.

[joblo]

The estimate graph on the quark pool page, and the estimate_current returned by the API is always zero,
The values for x11 and lyra2v2 seem reasonable though I can't attest to their accuracy.

Ahh ok! I see what you mean. Seems SHA is the same bug it seems.

Thanks, something to look into.

You can add x13 and qubit, they aren't providing an estimate either.

[crackfoo]

The estimate graph on the quark pool page, and the estimate_current returned by the API is always zero,
The values for x11 and lyra2v2 seem reasonable though I can't attest to their accuracy.

Ahh ok! I see what you mean. Seems SHA is the same bug it seems.

Thanks, something to look into.

You can add x13 and qubit, they aren't providing an estimate either.

yup!

[crackfoo]

The estimate graph on the quark pool page, and the estimate_current returned by the API is always zero,
The values for x11 and lyra2v2 seem reasonable though I can't attest to their accuracy.

Ahh ok! I see what you mean. Seems SHA is the same bug it seems.

Thanks, something to look into.

You can add x13 and qubit, they aren't providing an estimate either.

yup!

Seems like something funky with memcached. Will continue to look into.

Thanks

[Blackross]

I dont get it.... i mine with both scrypt and sha256, and all i see is titcoin being deposited to my bitcoin address?

http://zpool.ca/?address=152XVMY1H8Ly43iZJhR6bzuhDgFjVvA38q

I have the miners set up to mine straight to btc (as far as i know).

Adding the -p  "c=BTC" to the end of the startup for the miners

The c=BTC should be what is set for your password. The problem is because TIT uses the same address version (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/List_of_address_prefixes) as BTC so it's not possible to know which to use so it's 50/50 if nothing is specified in the password field. I think if you import your privkey for that BTC address into a TIT wallet, you'll get the TIT that has been sent...

If you've tried adding the c=BTC in the password field and nothing has changed, try using a new BTC address and make sure you specify c=BTC from the start.

Hope this helps

Works like a charm.... now i just gotta catch up lol.

[joblo]

The estimate graph on the quark pool page, and the estimate_current returned by the API is always zero,
The values for x11 and lyra2v2 seem reasonable though I can't attest to their accuracy.

Ahh ok! I see what you mean. Seems SHA is the same bug it seems.

Thanks, something to look into.

You can add x13 and qubit, they aren't providing an estimate either.

yup!

Seems like something funky with memcached. Will continue to look into.

Thanks

Thanks, I know your busy adding new coins. Keep up the good work.

[crackfoo]

The estimate graph on the quark pool page, and the estimate_current returned by the API is always zero,
The values for x11 and lyra2v2 seem reasonable though I can't attest to their accuracy.

Ahh ok! I see what you mean. Seems SHA is the same bug it seems.

Thanks, something to look into.

You can add x13 and qubit, they aren't providing an estimate either.

yup!

Seems like something funky with memcached. Will continue to look into.

Thanks

Thanks, I know your busy adding new coins. Keep up the good work.

Should be sorted out now.

Let me know if you find other oddities.

[joblo]

The estimate graph on the quark pool page, and the estimate_current returned by the API is always zero,
The values for x11 and lyra2v2 seem reasonable though I can't attest to their accuracy.

Ahh ok! I see what you mean. Seems SHA is the same bug it seems.

Thanks, something to look into.

You can add x13 and qubit, they aren't providing an estimate either.

yup!

Seems like something funky with memcached. Will continue to look into.

Thanks

Thanks, I know your busy adding new coins. Keep up the good work.

Should be sorted out now.

Let me know if you find other oddities.

Looks good.

[douche]

hey crackfoo.  Will i receive some Gongyicoin for the hash seeing it is no longer on the list of supported coins to mine today?  Yhsy4mitpjb1mwx893Y3XbicdB243aNzuc.

[crackfoo]

hey crackfoo.  Will i receive some Gongyicoin for the hash seeing it is no longer on the list of supported coins to mine today?  Yhsy4mitpjb1mwx893Y3XbicdB243aNzuc.

We're trying to figure out why it is not generating blocks. It's had a lot of hash on to it and still didn't make a block. Most of the info I can find is Chinese so it's hard to know if the algo is actually X13... we don't want to waste hash on it any more ATM.

[Daleaus]

Way to go! I like Zpool but it does need more miners for sure, especially using auto profit switching.