[ANN] profit switching auto-exchanging pool - www.middlecoin.com

[Zoella]

...and after a solid 12 hours or so of awesome silence the posts are back haha

My hashrate has been stable (it varies more by the hour than 512 diff, however, averaged across the day, is very accurate), my rejects low, and payout better than what Coinwarz calculates again, so I'm going to let H2O continue to do what he does best. Reading page after page of this (mostly) crap isn't worth his time... not surprised he removed this thread from the MiddleCoin site.

1024 Difficulty doesn't pose any problems unless your config is wrong, or you are a slow miner and getting really unlucky with your shares. What it has done is reduce server load and bring about better stability. I've been getting around 0.013 BTC per MH/s the past two days after making sure my config is correct, which I'll gladly take.

If you are having trouble with the pool then try another and see if the problem is with your equipment or the pool. If your settings work fine on another pool, however, not here, you are still probably still doing something wrong (with regard to 1024 diff), or using the wrong server. Depending on your latency, you will have to find out which works best for you. If you have multiple rigs, set them to different servers for a few days and compare payouts per MH/s (or KH/s)

Also, though it should be obvious, most of us are here for the money... if that means crushing a (probably junk anyway) coin or two then I think most of us are fine with that. There are already WAY too many terrible coins out there, and having so many threatens the legitimacy of the few that have proven (through popular acceptance/great dev teams/solid marketing) that they deserve to be here. If we can kill off junk coins and make money on it, I think that's a bonus. Many serious miners have invested 10k or more in mining equipment - they want an ROI above all else

Excellent points, all.

[1714857131]

1714857131

[1714857131]

1714857131

[1714857131]

1714857131

[1714857131]

1714857131

[Zoella]

For those of you who have tweaked your settings since the 1024 diff increase.. What have you changed in your settings?  I haven't changed any thing on my system yet.. Its still chugging along OK, just curious if there's something I should take another look at.

My final setting as of a few hours ago are similar to my original setting.  I dropped intensity from 19 to 18, and increased TC from 24000 to 24192.  I seem to have dropped about 15KH, but gained about 60WU.  I've also gone from approximately 5-7% reject rate to 0.38%.  Granted this has only been running a few hours on one 7950, but I'm going to see where it sits after 24.

 (5s):638.4K (avg):635.4Kh/s | A:270336  R:1024  HW:0  WU:643.8/m

[falsealarm_bf]

...and after a solid 12 hours or so of awesome silence the posts are back haha

My hashrate has been stable (it varies more by the hour than 512 diff, however, averaged across the day, is very accurate), my rejects low, and payout better than what Coinwarz calculates again, so I'm going to let H2O continue to do what he does best. Reading page after page of this (mostly) crap isn't worth his time... not surprised he removed this thread from the MiddleCoin site.

1024 Difficulty doesn't pose any problems unless your config is wrong, or you are a slow miner and getting really unlucky with your shares. What it has done is reduce server load and bring about better stability. I've been getting around 0.013 BTC per MH/s the past two days after making sure my config is correct, which I'll gladly take.

If you are having trouble with the pool then try another and see if the problem is with your equipment or the pool. If your settings work fine on another pool, however, not here, you are still probably still doing something wrong (with regard to 1024 diff), or using the wrong server. Depending on your latency, you will have to find out which works best for you. If you have multiple rigs, set them to different servers for a few days and compare payouts per MH/s (or KH/s)

Also, though it should be obvious, most of us are here for the money... if that means crushing a (probably junk anyway) coin or two then I think most of us are fine with that. There are already WAY too many terrible coins out there, and having so many threatens the legitimacy of the few that have proven (through popular acceptance/great dev teams/solid marketing) that they deserve to be here. If we can kill off junk coins and make money on it, I think that's a bonus. Many serious miners have invested 10k or more in mining equipment - they want an ROI above all else

Excellent points, all.

What part of that last paragraph is "excellent"? With that mindset I should be supporting companies that mine and sell conflict diamonds just because they invested in it and want to see an ROI? This is not the crusades, or the wild west and your investment does not give you a license to kill. The longer we can remain on the right side of ethics and help stabilize this market, the quicker the cryptocurrency usage will pickup.

[Zoella]

...and after a solid 12 hours or so of awesome silence the posts are back haha

My hashrate has been stable (it varies more by the hour than 512 diff, however, averaged across the day, is very accurate), my rejects low, and payout better than what Coinwarz calculates again, so I'm going to let H2O continue to do what he does best. Reading page after page of this (mostly) crap isn't worth his time... not surprised he removed this thread from the MiddleCoin site.

1024 Difficulty doesn't pose any problems unless your config is wrong, or you are a slow miner and getting really unlucky with your shares. What it has done is reduce server load and bring about better stability. I've been getting around 0.013 BTC per MH/s the past two days after making sure my config is correct, which I'll gladly take.

If you are having trouble with the pool then try another and see if the problem is with your equipment or the pool. If your settings work fine on another pool, however, not here, you are still probably still doing something wrong (with regard to 1024 diff), or using the wrong server. Depending on your latency, you will have to find out which works best for you. If you have multiple rigs, set them to different servers for a few days and compare payouts per MH/s (or KH/s)

Also, though it should be obvious, most of us are here for the money... if that means crushing a (probably junk anyway) coin or two then I think most of us are fine with that. There are already WAY too many terrible coins out there, and having so many threatens the legitimacy of the few that have proven (through popular acceptance/great dev teams/solid marketing) that they deserve to be here. If we can kill off junk coins and make money on it, I think that's a bonus. Many serious miners have invested 10k or more in mining equipment - they want an ROI above all else

Excellent points, all.

What part of that last paragraph is "excellent"? With that mindset I should be supporting companies that mine and sell conflict diamonds just because they invested in it and want to see an ROI? This is not the crusades, or the wild west and your investment does not give you a license to kill. The longer we can remain on the right side of ethics and help stabilize this market, the quicker the cryptocurrency usage will pickup.

In your rather, umm...daft analogy, these shitty altcoins would be the glass imitation gemstone crap you see on TV shopping channels.

I completely agree with dgross0818 that there are way too many shitty coins out there diluting the market and giving legitimate cryptocurrencies a bad name.  There are no ethics from pump & dump joke coins.

[csf3lih]

I have made an Android application for Middlecoin in my spare time. If you would like to BETA test it feel free to try it out. Would love to hear about your thoughts.

Please as this is an early build, the first time you run the program let it download and process the statistic from Middlecoin.com (currently no progress bar, could take a while) until you get the "Download Complete" message before you add addresses, search and check pool statistics. Thanks.

http://i41.tinypic.com/2j3od21.png

http://i40.tinypic.com/33c84xz.png

http://i44.tinypic.com/xft2fd.png

http://i40.tinypic.com/24yvj3d.png

Download: http://www.sendspace.com/file/7wywf3

Untested but should work from Android 3.0

hi
nice work, thanks for the app.
I have tested it on android 4.4.2 . It works well.
It would be nice to have some graphs, like the other app "Middlecoin".
My computer sometimes crashes and it would be nice to have a notification when there are no submitted shares in a given period, or when the speed goes below a given value.

Thanks

Thanks for the feedback, appreciate it!
Yes I agree about the graphs. Will be looking into it when I have some spare time. Notification and/or a widget would also be quite nice. The challange is that the file cointaining statistics for the users is quite large, like 2.8mb. That would be a lot to download continuously on for example 3G.
Will be looking at it how these said thing could be implemented. Thanks for trying it out!

Thank you so much for this great app, android 4.3 here, works like a charm.
Would be great if you could add total paidout, total balance(=balance+unexchanged+immature), and if its not much of trouble, also income per day(=total paidout/days), per week, estimated income per month maybe.
These would be very helpful, as I dont need to take out my cal and do the math myself

[kalus]

What part of that last paragraph is "excellent"? With that mindset I should be supporting companies that mine and sell conflict diamonds just because they invested in it and want to see an ROI? This is not the crusades, or the wild west and your investment does not give you a license to kill. The longer we can remain on the right side of ethics and help stabilize this market, the quicker the cryptocurrency usage will pickup.

your analogy of middlecoin being a conflict diamond miner is incoherent.

nobody is dying if we mine a coin.

child laborers are not used to mine coins.

middlecoin is not a cartel that controls the world's supply of altcoins to manipulate the market and maximize profit.

This is not the crusades

let me know how you equate middlecoin mining a coin with the fucking CRUSADES.  holy fuck between 1-3MILLION people died during the crusades.  

your investment does not give you a license to kill.

True, but nobody's fucking killing anybody.  

let me know if you come up with the middlecoin bodycount.  sheesh.  

[Anubite]

If we can kill off junk coins and make money on it, I think that's a bonus.

I can agree on that, sounds epic. Do you feel middlecoin will make the best decisions about which are pump'n'dump scamcoins to kill off and which are quality coins having implementations and advantages over LTC and BTC?

__

On to my reception and overview of 1024 pool difficulty.

For those of us with sub 2mh/s rigs, I feel we suffer. It takes my r9 290x at 962 kh/s anywhere from 45 seconds to over 2 minutes to complete one packet of work. It frequently takes my nVidia rig at 230kh/s over 10 minutes.

It appears that when a coin switches, that whole packet of work is rendered useless as cgminer starts to work on the new coin. If the coins switch enough, this adds up BIG TIME.

Below is an image of my hashing at MC.
Orange stars = Before diff 1024
Green Star = After



After having done absolutely nothing to my rigs, why else could this be happening?

[Cryptos2go]

I thought the 1024 diff was supposed to be temporary? Any news on this situation?

I haven't seen anything, but I can't say it's really bothering me.  I'll admit to being concerned originally, but as so many people pointed out the variance covered it.  No discernible difference in payouts for me.

I can't say I'm seeing any problems with my returns from the farm as a whole, mostly just curious.

...and after a solid 12 hours or so of awesome silence the posts are back haha

My hashrate has been stable (it varies more by the hour than 512 diff, however, averaged across the day, is very accurate), my rejects low, and payout better than what Coinwarz calculates again, so I'm going to let H2O continue to do what he does best. Reading page after page of this (mostly) crap isn't worth his time... not surprised he removed this thread from the MiddleCoin site.

1024 Difficulty doesn't pose any problems unless your config is wrong, or you are a slow miner and getting really unlucky with your shares. What it has done is reduce server load and bring about better stability. I've been getting around 0.013 BTC per MH/s the past two days after making sure my config is correct, which I'll gladly take.

If you are having trouble with the pool then try another and see if the problem is with your equipment or the pool. If your settings work fine on another pool, however, not here, you are still probably still doing something wrong (with regard to 1024 diff), or using the wrong server. Depending on your latency, you will have to find out which works best for you. If you have multiple rigs, set them to different servers for a few days and compare payouts per MH/s (or KH/s)

Also, though it should be obvious, most of us are here for the money... if that means crushing a (probably junk anyway) coin or two then I think most of us are fine with that. There are already WAY too many terrible coins out there, and having so many threatens the legitimacy of the few that have proven (through popular acceptance/great dev teams/solid marketing) that they deserve to be here. If we can kill off junk coins and make money on it, I think that's a bonus. Many serious miners have invested 10k or more in mining equipment - they want an ROI above all else

I'm also getting .013 btc/mh/s from the farm as a whole, but my slower rigs don't seem to be doing as well. The 3x 270 rig didn't come online before the 1024 diff so I cant say for sure though.

It would be nice to have support for different threads per gpu (1vs2) in cgminer (3.7.2?) so I could try consolidating some of these slower cards with the faster ones.

This pool has mostly always been good to me since I started mining here last July.
 

[csf3lih]

For those of you who have tweaked your settings since the 1024 diff increase.. What have you changed in your settings?  I haven't changed any thing on my system yet.. Its still chugging along OK, just curious if there's something I should take another look at.

My final setting as of a few hours ago are similar to my original setting.  I dropped intensity from 19 to 18, and increased TC from 24000 to 24192.  I seem to have dropped about 15KH, but gained about 60WU.  I've also gone from approximately 5-7% reject rate to 0.38%.  Granted this has only been running a few hours on one 7950, but I'm going to see where it sits after 24.

 (5s):638.4K (avg):635.4Kh/s | A:270336  R:1024  HW:0  WU:643.8/m

Finally a constructive post, thank you. My 7950's rejects rate decreased 3% after I changed I from 20 to 19, and the hash is down by just 10kh. I will try increase TC from 24000 to 24192 and down I by 1 as you did. see if that improves re furthermore.

[Zoella]

Anubite,

Please just TRY playing with your configuration. Your image is completely irrelevant. This rig is running 3 little 7850's.



This rig hasn't been touched since the switch, and it is running fine.

You're blaming the pool when it OBVIOUS there is something wrong with your rig.

And just to be curious, are you really trying to blame the pool on stats from what, an hour?!?!

[Zoella]

For those of you who have tweaked your settings since the 1024 diff increase.. What have you changed in your settings?  I haven't changed any thing on my system yet.. Its still chugging along OK, just curious if there's something I should take another look at.

My final setting as of a few hours ago are similar to my original setting.  I dropped intensity from 19 to 18, and increased TC from 24000 to 24192.  I seem to have dropped about 15KH, but gained about 60WU.  I've also gone from approximately 5-7% reject rate to 0.38%.  Granted this has only been running a few hours on one 7950, but I'm going to see where it sits after 24.

 (5s):638.4K (avg):635.4Kh/s | A:270336  R:1024  HW:0  WU:643.8/m

Finally a constructive post, thank you. My 7950's rejects rate decreased 3% after I changed I from 20 to 19, and the hash is down by just 10kh. I will try increase TC from 24000 to 24192 and down I by 1 as you did. see if that improves re furthermore.

Glad I could help. I remember reading that the TC was normally best when divisible by the number of stream processors, but everybody seemed to get the best performance at 14000 so that's where I started.  I then tried 12,13,14, and 15, but 13.5 * 1792 seemed to work out best so far. Here's my full arg string.  Let me know if you see anything I should tweak further after your testing!

-I 18 -g 1 -w 256 --lookup-gap 2 --thread-concurrency 24192 --gpu-powertune 20 --gpu-engine 1100 --gpu-memclock 1450 --temp-target 80 --auto-fan

[Anubite]

Anubite,
Please just TRY playing with your configuration. Your image is completely irrelevant. This rig is running 3 little 7850's.
(see post for source image)
This rig hasn't been touched since the switch, and it is running fine.
You're blaming the pool when it OBVIOUS there is something wrong with your rig.
And just to be curious, are you really trying to blame the pool on stats from what, an hour?!?!

You have some pretty nice dips going on after the increase.

You called me a hypocrite when I began to mine here to show you what I mean. This pool has quality, nearly instant hashrate updates. Once it was stable, I took a screen cap. Had I mined any longer you'd be all "omg you hypocrite just stfugtfonoob, omg banish him."

On to my reception and overview of 1024 pool difficulty.
For those of us with sub 2mh/s rigs, I feel we suffer. It takes my r9 290x at 962 kh/s anywhere from 45 seconds to over 2 minutes to complete one packet of work. It frequently takes my nVidia rig at 230kh/s over 10 minutes.
It appears that when a coin switches, that whole packet of work is rendered useless as cgminer starts to work on the new coin. If the coins switch enough, this adds up BIG TIME.
(see post for source image)
After having done absolutely nothing to my rigs, why else could this be happening?

Oh but I must have done something to them even though I say otherwise! Really, man?

Someone please get this guard dog off me and help address these concerns. I'm not trying to troll, it appears there is something amiss here.

[Zoella]

Now you ask for help.

Wow.

Why don't you ask if anyone here could recommend some settings for your 290x. Or you could check out the 290x thread...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=301641.0

If something's not working to your satisfaction, try and find an answer for it before just blaming others.

[dgross0818]

If we can kill off junk coins and make money on it, I think that's a bonus.

I can agree on that, sounds epic. Do you feel middlecoin will make the best decisions about which are pump'n'dump scamcoins to kill off and which are quality coins having implementations and advantages over LTC and BTC?

__

On to my reception and overview of 1024 pool difficulty.

For those of us with sub 2mh/s rigs, I feel we suffer. It takes my r9 290x at 962 kh/s anywhere from 45 seconds to over 2 minutes to complete one packet of work. It frequently takes my nVidia rig at 230kh/s over 10 minutes.

It appears that when a coin switches, that whole packet of work is rendered useless as cgminer starts to work on the new coin. If the coins switch enough, this adds up BIG TIME.

Below is an image of my hashing at MC.
Orange stars = Before diff 1024
Green Star = After



After having done absolutely nothing to my rigs, why else could this be happening?

I would hope that the coins with strong fundamentals will be able to survive getting hit with multi-pool traffic, however, this is certainly a new frontier, and we can't discount the possibility that we may damage a "good" coin. Then again, we have examples of forks, 51% attacks, etc with BTC, FTC and others, and those are still around even after many posted about the "critical condition" they were in at the time. Heck, BTC has had so many times in its relatively short history when it's future was thrown into question, however, thus far it's always bounced back. We will damage a small coin if we mine it with the hashpower we have, however, there are a number of ways to mitigate this, through algorithms in the coins themselves to dynamically redistributing pool hashing power so that we don't so quickly overwhelm a "small" coin. Remember how long FTC was "stuck" when the exchange rate dropped and the difficulty was crazy high? Those dedicated to it banded together and made sure transactions still went through and the coin didn't die :]

Anyways, more relevant to your issue, the "slow" miners and higher difficulty shouldn't affect payout. I know it seems that way when you're working on a share for 8 minutes and then the pool switches coins, however, unless my 2am statistics brain is shot, the probability of solving does not increase with time (The likelihood that a block WAS solved increases with time until one is, however, the instantaneous probability doesn't). If you have a miner that just received work vs one that's hashing away for 8 minutes, assuming they are otherwise identical, both have an equal likelihood of solving at any one instant in time. Otherwise it's like saying it's more likely to flip a heads after you just flipped 3 tails in a row... nope still 50/50. Sometimes a miner will take less than a second, other times it will take an hour. That's where the whole "luck" thing comes into play.

That said, there's definitely an issue in your hashing if your accepted shares dropped that much after we went to 1024. Without having experienced the same issue it's tough to hypothesize. I'll let you know tomorrow if I figure it out :]  May have to fire up the 135KH/s laptop to test with to see if I can replicate it

[CryptoCoinSolutions]

When setting the bitcoin wallet address as the miner username, (workerName), in the cgminer command, is it best to use a different bitcoin address for each machine mining, or should all rigs use the same bitcoin address?

[interupted]

Same address is fine.

[dablanket]

For those of you who have tweaked your settings since the 1024 diff increase.. What have you changed in your settings?  I haven't changed any thing on my system yet.. Its still chugging along OK, just curious if there's something I should take another look at.

My final setting as of a few hours ago are similar to my original setting.  I dropped intensity from 19 to 18, and increased TC from 24000 to 24192.  I seem to have dropped about 15KH, but gained about 60WU.  I've also gone from approximately 5-7% reject rate to 0.38%.  Granted this has only been running a few hours on one 7950, but I'm going to see where it sits after 24.

 (5s):638.4K (avg):635.4Kh/s | A:270336  R:1024  HW:0  WU:643.8/m

Finally a constructive post, thank you. My 7950's rejects rate decreased 3% after I changed I from 20 to 19, and the hash is down by just 10kh. I will try increase TC from 24000 to 24192 and down I by 1 as you did. see if that improves re furthermore.

Glad I could help. I remember reading that the TC was normally best when divisible by the number of stream processors, but everybody seemed to get the best performance at 14000 so that's where I started.  I then tried 12,13,14, and 15, but 13.5 * 1792 seemed to work out best so far. Here's my full arg string.  Let me know if you see anything I should tweak further after your testing!

-I 18 -g 1 -w 256 --lookup-gap 2 --thread-concurrency 24192 --gpu-powertune 20 --gpu-engine 1100 --gpu-memclock 1450 --temp-target 80 --auto-fan

Thanks for your explanation on how to get proper TC
Really helps alot on my 7950

[Anubite]

I would hope that the coins with strong fundamentals will be able to survive getting hit with multi-pool traffic, however, this is certainly a new frontier, and we can't discount the possibility that we may damage a "good" coin. Then again, we have examples of forks, 51% attacks, etc with BTC, FTC and others, and those are still around even after many posted about the "critical condition" they were in at the time. Heck, BTC has had so many times in its relatively short history when it's future was thrown into question, however, thus far it's always bounced back. We will damage a small coin if we mine it with the hashpower we have, however, there are a number of ways to mitigate this, through algorithms in the coins themselves to dynamically redistributing pool hashing power so that we don't so quickly overwhelm a "small" coin. Remember how long FTC was "stuck" when the exchange rate dropped and the difficulty was crazy high? Those dedicated to it banded together and made sure transactions still went through and the coin didn't die :]

Anyways, more relevant to your issue, the "slow" miners and higher difficulty shouldn't affect payout. I know it seems that way when you're working on a share for 8 minutes and then the pool switches coins, however, unless my 2am statistics brain is shot, the probability of solving does not increase with time (The likelihood that a block WAS solved increases with time until one is, however, the instantaneous probability doesn't). If you have a miner that just received work vs one that's hashing away for 8 minutes, assuming they are otherwise identical, both have an equal likelihood of solving at any one instant in time. Otherwise it's like saying it's more likely to flip a heads after you just flipped 3 tails in a row... nope still 50/50. Sometimes a miner will take less than a second, other times it will take an hour. That's where the whole "luck" thing comes into play.

That said, there's definitely an issue in your hashing if your accepted shares dropped that much after we went to 1024. Without having experienced the same issue it's tough to hypothesize. I'll let you know tomorrow if I figure it out :]  May have to fire up the 135KH/s laptop to test with to see if I can replicate it

Thanks for the history on those coins. We certainly avoided problems when the community rallied, but shit can happen fast if someone really wanted it to.   If it happens to a popular coin, or enough coins, the alt market or even BTC itself may tank until new coins with new versions of scrypt and the like, with PoW and PoS show up

Indeed, it seems possible not to trash a coin with certain algorithms tailored around them specifically, and at very least this pools stops mining EAC after around 5-10 blocks and doesn't completely trash it (accept during EAC x2, had 1-2 hour waits during the for 3-4 different blocks, though, man was that rough). It still does hurt block rates for a while and drives the price down, a double whammy shunning more people from making it a stronger coin for MC to eventually use more effectively. My only interest in calling out MC over this is also everyones interest. Profits. I just feel that decent profits over time are better than mad profits on a highway to hell, and this pool rides that line reeeeeaaaly closely, in my opinion. "With great power comes great responsibility." (lol)

On the other topic. Yeah, I can't think of anything else. Maybe my little nVidia rig would best be used on a single pool somewhere if it keeps up, because it seems to not be affecting my 290x -all- that much.

So, if I am working on a unit, and the coin switches, somehow that unit still counts? It never seems to be returned to be "accepted" after we have gone on to other coins. I derive this from the fact that it takes about the average "work unit time" after a coin switch to send in a share, e.g. the longest periods between submits are after switches. So in theory, it could take my nvidia rig up to 20 mins to send if if we never switched but once in that time. This would explain why it almost doesn't show up in my hashing graph.

My whole idea could be blown away by being able to find out exactly what happens to the current share I am working on when the coin switches.

If you do set that up, thanks much. Most of the people who haven't noticed anything have hashrates shy of 1mh/s or more, and the issues at hand seems to be my low hash rig. This is why I am not so apt to believe something non-willfully changed on my end. It's quite the coincidence in timing.

Half relevant, if I am working on a share and a block is found, does it report instantly or finish the work unit?

[jedimstr]

What if I were to tell you me Reject were under 2% around 1.69% In 2 days only 1 GF and STale is very low under 0.5%

What does this mean


Primary is middlecoin.com

Seconday is Eu.middlecoin.com

 Have restarted CGminer for 2 days so far.

That's one of your problems right there.  Don't use the old main middlecoin.com as your primary.  It (and USWest which is currently identical) is on old code that's been less efficient than what's on the new beta servers. H2o has plans to update that one too and have Middlecoin.com be a front for all the regional servers that will give you the best location for your relative latency, but this hasn't been implemented yet, so for now if you want best returns, you should connect to the beta server closer to you.

Try setting your cgminer to the EU, USEast, or Asia beta servers with whichever server gives you the best sustained ping (lookout for spikes over a minute or so pinging) as the primary.

[kb24mvp]

All my miners are showing 1-2% rejects but middlecoin shows up to 10% at a time and its fluctuating quite hard

I've been monitoring all my miners closely and the rejects are all in that range even when MC starts spiking up with rejected mh/ shares

thoughts?