[1200 TH] EMC: 0 Fee DGM. Anonymous PPS. US & EU servers. No Registration!

[Rubberduckie]

I'm considering using this pool and wonder if it is 24/7 stable?

It seems to be almost to good to be true with 0% fee compared to other pools that have significant fees?

I have been mining with EMC for three months now. It's great!

It's especially great during the lucky streaks (like today)

[1714474901]

1714474901

[1714474901]

1714474901

[1714474901]

1714474901

[Inaba]

I would say it's 24/7 stable, yes.  Won't hurt you to give it a shot.

If you had started a couple days ago, you'd be in on the excellent lucky streak!

[Xmufa23X]

Is something wrong with the PPS Beta? The pps_history page seems to have disappeared, and I got paid early instead of tonight. Should I stop testing the PPS system?

[Inaba]

Nope, sorry ... I was making some changes and apparently I broke that page.  It should be working now. 

Payouts will be more frequent, generally.  Instead of the nightly payout, it will payout every time a block is solved.  I may change this back at some point, but I need to do it that way for some debugging issues I'm looking at.

[GenTarkin]

ah coo, I was wondering that cuz I started gettin all sorts of incoming tx from pps .. lol
I vote for nightly still =) , once you get ur debuggin stuff done or w/e

[PinkBatman]

I vote for nightly still =)

Agreed. I like to see the outcome day to day, I just really like stats. But I understand that we are just testing out this payment structure.

[Inaba]

I'll set it up so you can choose when to get paid out once I get the bugs worked out.

[Xmufa23X]

Sounds great! Thanks!

[jjiimm_64]

anaba,  getting this on the json api

Invalid all worker speed query: You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use near 'AND timestamp > DATE_SUB(NOW(), INTERVAL 15 MINUTE) ' at line 7
Whole query: SELECT COUNT(worker_id) AS shares, worker_speed.worker_name FROM worker_speed, pool_worker WHERE pool_worker.username = worker_speed.worker_name AND pool_worker.parent_id = AND timestamp > DATE_SUB(NOW(), INTERVAL 15 MINUTE) GROUP BY worker_speed.worker_name ORDER BY length(worker_speed.worker_name), worker_speed.worker_name ASC

edit: 

user stats working ok,  error when not asking for specific stats

works : https://www.eclipsemc.com/api.php?key=mykey&action=userstats1

not work: https://www.eclipsemc.com/api.php?key=mykey

[Inaba]

I made a change, is it working now?

[jjiimm_64]

I do not see the error now. 

thank you.

[stoppots]

wow 5 second block

[Rubberduckie]

wow 5 second block

Very nice

[Inaba]

Yeah!

I think I may have found at least one of the bugs plaguing me for PPS thanks to that block, too.  Hopefully the next block will see that it's fixed.

[GenTarkin]

Theres bugs on pps? I havent noticed any weirdness...

[Inaba]

There's bug on the backend for reconcilliation, nothing that affects users (other than it's been overpaying for PPS slightly... added up to about 10 BTC overpayment so far since the start).

[GenTarkin]

There's bug on the backend for reconcilliation, nothing that affects users (other than it's been overpaying for PPS slightly... added up to about 10 BTC overpayment so far since the start).

ah bummer .. goo dthing wasnt like 1k btc lol

[Xmufa23X]

Not sure if should be saying this, but I am making more money using PPS then the DGS method. (I just added a couple more 5830s to my mix, so my numbers will be slightly off.)

I estimated I make about 30,000 shares in 24 hours. So that's about 0.85 BTC a day. I was only making 0.1 per block using DGS. So unless we mine 8+ blocks a day, I will be making a tiny bit more with PPS. I figure if a block takes any longer then 3-4 hours, it's not worth it. And since it's hardly under 3 hours, and most of the time over 3 hours, I can make more using PPS. Which I have.

Assuming everyone does this, I'd imagine you (Inaba) will be losing out on money rather then cutting even. Which is strange, because other pools seem to be able to pay at the same rate per share, and sometimes even more.

I'm not really sure what to make of this observation, but just something I've noticed over the past week. So unless we hit lucky streaks of less then 3 hours per block, I think users will be making more using PPS. Maybe it varies depending on what you hash rate is... I don't know...

[organofcorti]

Not sure if should be saying this, but I am making more money using PPS then the DGS method. (I just added a couple more 5830s to my mix, so my numbers will be slightly off.)

You'll still be pulling in earnings from DGM for days to come, even though you've stopped mining on it.

[Meni Rosenfeld]

Not sure if should be saying this, but I am making more money using PPS then the DGS method. (I just added a couple more 5830s to my mix, so my numbers will be slightly off.)

I estimated I make about 30,000 shares in 24 hours. So that's about 0.85 BTC a day. I was only making 0.1 per block using DGS. So unless we mine 8+ blocks a day, I will be making a tiny bit more with PPS. I figure if a block takes any longer then 3-4 hours, it's not worth it. And since it's hardly under 3 hours, and most of the time over 3 hours, I can make more using PPS. Which I have.

Assuming everyone does this, I'd imagine you (Inaba) will be losing out on money rather then cutting even. Which is strange, because other pools seem to be able to pay at the same rate per share, and sometimes even more.

I'm not really sure what to make of this observation, but just something I've noticed over the past week. So unless we hit lucky streaks of less then 3 hours per block, I think users will be making more using PPS. Maybe it varies depending on what you hash rate is... I don't know...

It is impossible for PPS payout with a fee to make more than DGM without a fee on average.

If you've recently added new hardware, it means your score hasn't built up yet, so your payment is deferred. If you're 1.5 GH/s and the pool is 413 GH/s, you're really making 0.18 BTC per block, but the 0.08 BTC is delayed a bit.

EDIT: There is always the possibility of an implementation bug that will cause a change in the paid values.

I thought about saying this before, but it seemed pretty banal. In light of Inaba's following comment (and the earlier comment I didn't read), I guess I should have.

But if your stated PPS payments are calculated rather than observed, the above is the correct explanation after all.