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

[ellave]

So no payout for 48 hours now or is that just me?  Also our hash from the 24 hours prior when the stats where really screwed seem to have not counted for anything 

[Multipulty]

So no payout for 48 hours now or is that just me?  Also our hash from the 24 hours prior when the stats where really screwed seem to have not counted for anything 

I well as

[dgross0818]

Between Middlecoin Wafflepool and CleverMining, I tend to spend most of my time on Clevermining. The BTC/Day per Mh/s is usually a wash but the clevermining website and stats are the best followed by Wafflepool. Middlecoin has the worst frontend and the operator/H20 often goes MIA during critical times and we are left to guess what's going on. It's clear H20 doesn't care about middlecoin as much as he once did or he would do something to prevent the mass exodus of miners. Hash rates have dropped nearly down to 50% of what they were a month ago.

I just can't understand what he's thinking. 

Me neither. Not caring, apparently. Still pulling in over $3k in coin a day, so he must not be too concerned.

Maybe he just got burnt out :/ Shame as he was set for life with this operation... Even if scrypt ends up going all ASIC, people still need pools, and he can branch out with N-Factor and other algorithms to attract even more miners. He had the first mover advantage and consistently showed greater profit than other pools. Over 23GH on this pool was pure insanity, with over 400 BTC a day being paid out... how many business run by one guy do over $300,000 in revenue a day? Furthermore, with rigs selling on sites like eBay for $1 per kh/s, that was like 23 million in equipment he was effectively controlling...

[trc]

It's a two ended stick with you-know-what on both ends. Channeling that much power without breaking something is hard if not impossible.

The only thing he needs to improve is communication - and a bit more manual trades like in the old days, alright. That's thousands of people and you can't make them all happy but a few tweets a day would go a long way.

All of them multipools have their own kind of problems at the moment. Just a brief experience of a few days on each shows that:

Wafflepool doesn't know what to mine with all that power right now without forking an actually profitable coin. They mined WorldCoin almost all day long. It goes like this: WDC-DOGE-LTC-WDC-WDC-WDC-LTC....

CleverMining has still absurd amounts of rejected shares issue and yes, this actually affects your earnings. Duh!

HashCows guys seem to be working personally on the background but their problem is the website interface. Lacking the simplest of the stats even some 20Mh/s pool is able to offer. If they can keep up the manual trading and get some technical help for the site maybe, they'd be #1 in no time.

[DraculJC]

2014-03-04 02:27      0.03705025
2014-03-05 01:39      0.01280991
2014-03-06 05:15      0.03644351

Total for 4 ( Start saturday at 13:00) days payout are 0,08630367 at 3500khash

Is that normal?

[Damnsammit]

2014-03-04 02:27      0.03705025
2014-03-05 01:39      0.01280991
2014-03-06 05:15      0.03644351

Total for 4 ( Start saturday at 13:00) days payout are 0,08630367 at 3500khash

Is that normal?

No.

Normally you should get -0.12 per MH at Middlecoin.  h2o is a convicted coin thief.

[Dishes]

It's a two ended stick with you-know-what on both ends. Channeling that much power without breaking something is hard if not impossible.

The only thing he needs to improve is communication - and a bit more manual trades like in the old days, alright. That's thousands of people and you can't make them all happy but a few tweets a day would go a long way.

All of them multipools have their own kind of problems at the moment. Just a brief experience of a few days on each shows that:

Wafflepool doesn't know what to mine with all that power right now without forking an actually profitable coin. They mined WorldCoin almost all day long. It goes like this: WDC-DOGE-LTC-WDC-WDC-WDC-LTC....

CleverMining has still absurd amounts of rejected shares issue and yes, this actually affects your earnings. Duh!

HashCows guys seem to be working personally on the background but their problem is the website interface. Lacking the simplest of the stats even some 20Mh/s pool is able to offer. If they can keep up the manual trading and get some technical help for the site maybe, they'd be #1 in no time.

What's actually happening is that H2o has become so powerful he can now steal coins that you mine on other pools. That's why they are all low paying ATM. 

[Damnsammit]

What's actually happening is that H2o has become so powerful he can now steal coins that you mine on other pools. That's why they are all low paying ATM. 

Amen to that.

He is one sneaky mofo...

[Accordus]

Waterfall Average, who is best? Interesting results.


Let say you want to see which pool (listed by Poolpicker) would gave you the most BTC/Mh/s if you were to use any of it for any length of time!
So in other words, what are the results if you want to know the average of averages of any consecutive days on each pool?

See my Excel sheet, and debate me that I did the calculation wrong in it! I am unsure of myself.

It turns out MC is clear 4th with 0.0086 BTC/Mh/s.
CM, HC, WF are at least 16% better with CM being the leader of these three with 0.0106 BTC/Mh/s.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/75de6mam5n1mia3/PoolPicker%20WaterfallAverage.xls

[daynomate]

Waterfall Average, who is best? Interesting results.


Let say you want to see which pool (listed by Poolpicker) would gave you the most BTC/Mh/s if you were to use any of it for any length of time!
So in other words, what are the results if you want to know the average of averages of any consecutive days on each pool?

See my Excel sheet, and debate me that I did the calculation wrong in it! I am unsure of myself.

It turns out MC is clear 4th with 0.0086 BTC/Mh/s.
CM, HC, WF are at least 16% better with CM being the leader of these three with 0.0106 BTC/Mh/s.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/75de6mam5n1mia3/PoolPicker%20WaterfallAverage.xls

Yes a simple 21-day average is available here where I assume you grabbed your stats from:
http://poolpicker.eu/

The flaw in your point is that past performance means nothing for future results.

[trc]

@accordus

Try to upload it on google drive or similar. Not downloading a random excel file. No offence.

However, it's not that simple to compare!

Those reports only show the accepted shares and disregard rejected shares. For example, you direct your rig to clever and got 0.01BTC/MHs/day with a reject % of 10 and got the same 0.01BTC/MHs/day with a reject % of 2 from another pool. The difference of 8% isn't reflected on the BTC/MHs/day calculations. On which one do you think you actually made more?

There's also worker unit efficiency. On one server you get 80% efficiency, on the other you get 95%. Many factors affect actual income and the reported hash power by the pools aren't your actual, pure hash power.

So you can be earning more on a pool with lower BTC/MHs/day if those other factors are in your favor and the reported hash rate is closer to what you have.

[Accordus]

Yes a simple 21-day average is available here where I assume you grabbed your stats from:
http://poolpicker.eu/

The flaw in your point is that past performance means nothing for future results.
[/quote]

Yeah, but my data is more complex than a simple 21 average. My method suggests that even hashing through any arbitrary BAD DAYS on any pool you should (have) stay(ed) on CM as long as you could.
Of course, past means nothing about future results. But better indicates overall pool direction or competence/luck maybe? And maybe this is what we want to know. How knowledgeable/lucky the operator is.

Just and idea anyways.

[p2mmao]

I've mined this pool for around 38 hours, I still don't received my payout, is it normal?  Now it seems the pool stops exchange coins for me, my state is below:

1.1185       0.00235729    0.00802408    0.00402734

   

[ebliever]

I've mined this pool for around 38 hours, I still don't received my payout, is it normal?  Now it seems the pool stops exchange coins for me, my state is below:

1.1185       0.00235729    0.00802408    0.00402734

   

You need to reach 0.01 in the last figure to get a payout, except once a week you get paid out if you are over 0.001 BTC.

[coinGeek]

Yeah, but my data is more complex than a simple 21 average. My method suggests that even hashing through any arbitrary BAD DAYS on any pool you should (have) stay(ed) on CM as long as you could.
Of course, past means nothing about future results. But better indicates overall pool direction or competence/luck maybe? And maybe this is what we want to know. How knowledgeable/lucky the operator is.

Just and idea anyways.

Predicting future pool performance would involve predicting future trends in the altcoin world and future trends in pool strategy and execution. You need to look at what was going on with the coins the resulted in the past pool numbers.

When you start predicting the future results you will know you're on to something.

    

[Accordus]

@accordus

Try to upload it on google drive or similar. Not downloading a random excel file. No offence.

However, it's not that simple to compare!

Those reports only show the accepted shares and disregard rejected shares. For example, you direct your rig to clever and got 0.01BTC/MHs/day with a reject % of 10 and got the same 0.01BTC/MHs/day with a reject % of 2 from another pool. The difference of 8% isn't reflected on the BTC/MHs/day calculations. On which one do you think you actually made more?

There's also worker unit efficiency. On one server you get 80% efficiency, on the other you get 95%. Many factors affect actual income and the reported hash power by the pools aren't your actual, pure hash power.

So you can be earning more on a pool with lower BTC/MHs/day if those other factors are in your favor and the reported hash rate is closer to what you have.

Here you go Gdrive:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bx4B_4ZqlMVBY3lVNXBpT3dWbTg/edit?usp=sharing
It is still the same random Excel file though. No offense.

Anyway, I used Poolpicker data, which I have no idea how reject and hash rates are calculated.
So you may be true or wrong on it.

[coinGeek]

Anyway, I used Poolpicker data, which I have no idea how reject and hash rates are calculated.
So you may be true or wrong on it.

poolpicker says they use btc/MhSec numbers directly from the pools except for MC which doesn't publish them. For MC he uses

(payout_today - payout_yesterday) / (accepted + rejected) at payout time.

On of the problems with his data is that you don't know for sure what the other pools are doing. Maybe they are trying to make themselves look better by fudging a little?? There's a good chance they all aren't doing exactly the same thing though so...

End of the day though, it's the best numbers we have.

EDIT: http://markable.in/file/f04df8f8-a054-11e3-a1ac-984be164924a/

[Slipknot79]

>predicting future trends in the altcoin world

No problem, altcoins are becoming more and more wortless.

[suchmoon]

>predicting future trends in the altcoin world

No problem, altcoins are becoming more and more wortless.

That is great news, I prefer my coins without wort.

[ebliever]

>predicting future trends in the altcoin world

No problem, altcoins are becoming more and more wortless.

I've been tracking the relative size of the BTC market cap to the market cap of all others at http://coinmarketcap.com/ for the past 6 weeks or so. In general the relative sizes have been stable (9-10% of total mineable market cap is non-bitcoin), but recently that jumped as high as 14% due to Auroracoin's supernova. That is subsiding but it remains the case that altcoins, by this measure, are growing - not shrinking. At least until Auroracoin declines to trivia.

In general I expect a few altcoins to emerge as winners with a superior feature set. They will then grow and ultimately supplant Bitcoin. In time you'll look at someone using bitcoin the same way you'd look at someone using Windows XP today. But that's probably a ways off, I admit.