[ANN][The Original Multipool - Scrypt/SHA256/Scrypt-N/X11] multipool.us

[kslavik]

I think that due to the nature of this pool, the lower period of time is better. I would love to see other coins such as FTC, NVC, TRC to be reduced as well.

I think the period should be = Average time to find a block * 2.

[1713571532]

1713571532

[1713571532]

1713571532

[1713571532]

1713571532

[Torn]

After a discussion I had with a user this morning, I am thinking about changing the LTC round time to something lower, I think a more reasonable time period would be something like 4-6 hours.

My rationale is the following: (Assumes ~400MH on multiport and ~100MH on LTC)

- Even at 80MH, block time should be about 8-12 hours.  We don't want to reward people for shares they submitted much longer ago than that.
- When the multiport is on LTC, the average block time should be around 2-3 hours.

If we use 4 hours as the round period:

- LTC-only miners are not affected at times when the multiport has not been on LTC in the past 4 hours.  It affects LTC-only miners who hop off to another pool more quickly, but not those who stay on Multipool.
- It only takes multiport miners 1 hour before reaching 50% of shares submitted in the past 24 hours (rather than 6 hours at a 24 hour round time).  That means on average, the first block will be paid at ~75% and the next block will be paid at 100% of what the expected reward would be if we were using share-based PPLNS.

I am grateful for all of the constructive feedback I've received lately regarding the payout structure.  Thanks to those who have contributed.

You are doing most of the work and for that, We Thank You!

T.

[nicksmith]

Added new coins to Android app and pushed to Play, should see it soon on devices

[flound1129]

I think that due to the nature of this pool, the lower period of time is better. I would love to see other coins such as FTC, NVC, TRC to be reduced as well.

I think the period should be = Average time to find a block * 2.

I should note that this didn't become a major issue until recently, since the multiport used to be on LTC for much longer time periods before a) feathercoin came back into profitability and b) digitalcoin started having longer periods of high profitability which just happened recently.  So people who have been mining on the pool for several months should be confident that their past LTC payouts have been reasonably fair.

[B.T.Coin]

After a discussion I had with a user this morning, I am thinking about changing the LTC round time to something lower, I think a more reasonable time period would be something like 4-6 hours.

I'm all OK with that. The only question is how (when) to do it.
The ideal situation would be to switch the time period when the multiport hasn't been on LTC for 24 hours since all shares of the multiport users would have expired. How will you handle this when the multiport has been on LTC within the last 24 hours? What will happen to the submitted shares when you shorten the time period?

[Torn]

I think that due to the nature of this pool, the lower period of time is better. I would love to see other coins such as FTC, NVC, TRC to be reduced as well.

I think the period should be = Average time to find a block * 2.

I should note that this didn't become a major issue until recently, since the multiport used to be on LTC for much longer time periods before a) feathercoin came back into profitability and b) digitalcoin started having longer periods of high profitability which just happened recently.  So people who have been mining on the pool for several months should be confident that their past LTC payouts have been reasonably fair.

I verify that. Up until a few days ago I was exclusively on LTC but when the "others" came into play it changed the whole dynamic tremendously. Going from 5ltc every few days to tidbits is useless so I jumped onto the multiport. Unless the mp is on ltc, it is not good for a small miner like myself (1500ish kh/s) to mine it. After a 48 hr period on mp, I now have 5-6 coinages slowly adding up which even if they overall are worth similar in value to slow trickles of ltc, It still looks better to be getting paid something.
Like many I'm sure, I'm still a bit skeptical about the coin-hopping thing so we will have to see and let Flound keep tweaking on it as I know he will. The beauty of open-source! We shall see results as quickly as anyone else.

Lovin' the experiment so far.

T.

[flound1129]

After a discussion I had with a user this morning, I am thinking about changing the LTC round time to something lower, I think a more reasonable time period would be something like 4-6 hours.

I'm all OK with that. The only question is how (when) to do it.
The ideal situation would be to switch the time period when the multiport hasn't been on LTC for 24 hours since all shares of the multiport users would have expired. How will you handle this when the multiport has been on LTC within the last 24 hours? What will happen to the submitted shares when you shorten the time period?

Yes, I am aware of this, it depends on whether the multiport goes back on LTC anytime today.

If it doesn't, I'll wait until 12 hours past the last block we found when the multiport was on LTC.

If we go back to LTC after the current FTC session, then I will wait until the multiport has been on LTC for at least 1 hours and do it then (reason is that at that point, we'll have approximately 50% dedicated miner and 50% multiport shares in the DB at a 4 hour window).

After I shorten the time period, any submitted shares that are older than that will not be included in payout calculations.

[flound1129]

BTW I think I've dropped enough science on the ARG thread to be entitled to consulting fees by now, but if anyone else wants to participate feel free.

[markm]

Wow. I haven't read this entire thread but pigheaded "I me me mine" get rich quick schemers have pretty much always been told from the start that trying to secure a blockchain is insanely expensive, it is extremely unlikely they will be able to secure yet another blockchain, especially in view of the fact the vast majority of already-existing blockchains still have not managed to be secured, heck even among those that use merged mining to secure as many chains as possible with a given amount of hash power not all are anywhere near secure, so it is crazy to fragment the available hashpower even farther by launching yet another scam.

They don't, it seems, care.

This that is happening to them is exactly what they knew would happen, and only the suckers who fell for the scam care, the bag-holders.

If the "developers" did not know it was going to happen they are unqualified for the "developer" job.

Thus any that are at all competent knew perfectly well what was going to happen and sucked in the bag-holders regardless.

In other words, they are deliberate, with-premeditation scammers.

The whole big argument in this thread spilling out to others just pretty much makes that simple fact pretty hard to fail to see, except maybe for the stockholm syndrome victims. (The fellow scammers who are part of the scam, jumping into each new ponzi early and dumping on the bag-holders of course knew it all along too and maybe might try to spew bullshit claims that its not a scam but they are pretty transparent too presumably.)

-MarkM-

[Aurum]

markm, that was complete babbling gibberish. Are you drunk?

[thef]

markm, that was complete babbling gibberish. Are you drunk?

He was exposed to Vlad2Vlad today. Give him some time for the effect to wear off  .

I actually understand what he's saying even though it could be clearer, so I'm not sure why everyone else is confused.

[flound1129]

Wow. I haven't read this entire thread but pigheaded "I me me mine" get rich quick schemers have pretty much always been told from the start that trying to secure a blockchain is insanely expensive, it is extremely unlikely they will be able to secure yet another blockchain, especially in view of the fact the vast majority of already-existing blockchains still have not managed to be secured, heck even among those that use merged mining to secure as many chains as possible with a given amount of hash power not all are anywhere near secure, so it is crazy to fragment the available hashpower even farther by launching yet another scam.

They don't, it seems, care.

This that is happening to them is exactly what they knew would happen, and only the suckers who fell for the scam care, the bag-holders.

If the "developers" did not know it was going to happen they are unqualified for the "developer" job.

Thus any that are at all competent knew perfectly well what was going to happen and sucked in the bag-holders regardless.

In other words, they are deliberate, with-premeditation scammers.

The whole big argument in this thread spilling out to others just pretty much makes that simple fact pretty hard to fail to see, except maybe for the stockholm syndrome victims. (The fellow scammers who are part of the scam, jumping into each new ponzi early and dumping on the bag-holders of course knew it all along too and maybe might try to spew bullshit claims that its not a scam but they are pretty transparent too presumably.)

-MarkM-

Not sure if you're for us or against us, but welcome to the fray

[kslavik]

markm, that was complete babbling gibberish. Are you drunk?

+1. I didn't get too

[flound1129]

markm, that was complete babbling gibberish. Are you drunk?

+1. I didn't get too

I think he was saying that all of these new scrypt coin devs are either incompetent or scammers.

[kslavik]

markm, that was complete babbling gibberish. Are you drunk?

+1. I didn't get too

I think he was saying that all of these new scrypt coin devs are either incompetent or scammers.

I agree to that.

To avoid difficulty swings:  Every 10 blocks (or whatever the # for the coin to be mined in 5-10 minutes) just do 10% difficulty adjustment toward desired target.

[TXSteve]

Maybe it'd be a good idea to set up multipools for ARG, LKY, PXC -- just to make it easier to throw them a few hash during high diff to keep them going

I was looking at vern's lucky pool and I couldn't even register because he has more than 50% of the measly 10 mhs network hash

I mean after all we aren't trying to kill them off

[markm]

markm, that was complete babbling gibberish. Are you drunk?

+1. I didn't get too

I think he was saying that all of these new scrypt coin devs are either incompetent or scammers.

Well yeah, but in so many more words!

-MarkM-

[flound1129]

Maybe it'd be a good idea to set up multipools for ARG, LKY, PXC -- just to make it easier to throw them a few hash during high diff to keep them going

I was looking at vern's lucky pool and I couldn't even register because he has more than 50% of the measly 10 mhs network hash

I mean after all we aren't trying to kill them off

ARG will die whether we mine it or not.  There's already another 400MH coming onto their network during the low diff periods that's not us.  So leaving now would actually weaken the network and potentially allow a bad actor to accumulate enough coins to do a 51% and double spend.

Luckycoin's going to implement a fix.  ARG isn't because their dev is MIA.  (Actually their dev is Baritus now, and he's likely dumped the 10000 ARG "bounty" he received to take over, and so doesn't care anymore.)

[flound1129]

Oh dear, not a poll!

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=257620.0

[Torn]

Oh dear, not a poll!

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=257620.0

I like polls. Sometimes I like polling my mmm hmmm.
My momma said life's like a box of chocolates. Sometimes soft and hot 'n squishy is ok, they still can be 'et.

Summary of poll post.. Wahhh wahh wahhh.. multipoll.. wahh wahh wahh.. multipool bad people.. We must vote to stop the bad people! Much tears and gnashing of teeth.

Only a select few are supposed to be mining ARG and I did not get the memo. Damnit Flound! It's your fault. How dare you mine coins. You have corrupted us all now and you shall be flayed for it I'm sure as soon as we can find our flayers.. or is it flayees?


T.