Bitcoin Forum
October 24, 2018, 05:53:01 AM *
News: Make sure you are not using versions of Bitcoin Core other than 0.17.0 [Torrent], 0.16.3, 0.15.2, or 0.14.3. More info.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 [268] 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 ... 375 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [1050 TH] BitMinter.com [1% PPLNS,Pays TxFees +MergedMining,Stratum,GBT,vardiff]  (Read 834526 times)
PhilWray
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 6
Merit: 0


View Profile
December 12, 2013, 07:52:24 AM
 #5341

Yahoo appears to have fixed their OpenID service. If you use Yahoo, try logging in again now.
Working for me - Thanks
1540360381
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1540360381

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1540360381
Reply with quote  #2

1540360381
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1540360381
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1540360381

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1540360381
Reply with quote  #2

1540360381
Report to moderator
1540360381
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1540360381

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1540360381
Reply with quote  #2

1540360381
Report to moderator
1540360381
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1540360381

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1540360381
Reply with quote  #2

1540360381
Report to moderator
DrHaribo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2492
Merit: 1019


Bitminter.com Operator


View Profile WWW
December 12, 2013, 08:00:08 AM
 #5342

So if you have 4 machines running 100gh, then wheater your multiplying or dividing it's done per 100 / machine and not the combined total off 400 ?

If fthat's the ase, then one would need a worker for each of the 4 machines.

General advice, set your minimum difficulty to your hashrate in GH/s divided by 1.4. Some info on difficulty and work submits per minute:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=27062.msg3142713#msg3142713

Someone else might advice you to multiply by 1.4 or divide by 1.8 or whatever. There is no magic difficulty that you have to use. And contrary to popular belief there is no "sweet spot" difficulty that makes your mining most profitable. Worker difficulty is a trade-off between variance and bandwidth usage (and server load for Bitminter). Follow the link above and read that, especially Organofcorti's analysis, and you'll learn how it works.

Doc, have you considered adding pps?

No time right now. Just trying to keep things running smooth at the moment.

▶▶▶ Bitminter.com - Your trusted mining pool since 2011.
MoreBloodWine
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1344
Merit: 1000



View Profile
December 12, 2013, 08:34:01 AM
 #5343

So if you have 4 machines running 100gh, then wheater your multiplying or dividing it's done per 100 / machine and not the combined total off 400 ?

If fthat's the ase, then one would need a worker for each of the 4 machines.

General advice, set your minimum difficulty to your hashrate in GH/s divided by 1.4. Some info on difficulty and work submits per minute:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=27062.msg3142713#msg3142713

Someone else might advice you to multiply by 1.4 or divide by 1.8 or whatever. There is no magic difficulty that you have to use. And contrary to popular belief there is no "sweet spot" difficulty that makes your mining most profitable. Worker difficulty is a trade-off between variance and bandwidth usage (and server load for Bitminter). Follow the link above and read that, especially Organofcorti's analysis, and you'll learn how it works.

Doc, have you considered adding pps?

No time right now. Just trying to keep things running smooth at the moment.

Def a good read, but that only helps with part of the thought.

Lets for sake of argument say I'm diving by 1.4.

If I have 100gh x 4 whicch gives 400gh and I divide by 1.4 that gives 286 if we round up. However, if we divide by the singular (100gh) we get 71 if we round down.

So the question is, regardless of if we divide, multiply but either 1.4 or 1.8 or w/e. Is it done as a whole or by the power of a single unit. Since in some cases it might be 400gh with 100 x 2 and 200 x 1.

I wana say it's a per unit basis which means diff workers.

Ex.

100gh x 4: One worker at 71 since theyre all the same

Ex. 2
100gh x 2: One worker at 71 since theyre all the same
200gh x 1: One worker at 143.

See where I'm going with this ?

I ask because, using the 100gh x 4, if we set one worker to 286, thats what each unit would try to run which seems to high where as using a diff of 71. That would seem more appropriat for a machine doing 100gh.

██████████████████████  ▀███▄          ▄██▄          ▄██████▄   █████████████████████████
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀   ▀███▄        ▄████▄        ▄███▀▀███▄   █████████████████████████
                          ▀███▄      ▄██████▄      ▄███▀  ▀███▄       ▐███       ███▌
                           ▀███▄    ▄███▀▀███▄    ▄███▀    ▀███▄      ▐███       ███▌
   █████████████████        ▀███▄  ▄███▀  ▀███▄  ▄███▀      ▀███▄     ▐███       ███▌
                             ▀███▄▄███▀    ▀███▄▄███▀        ▀███▄    ▐███       ███▌
                              ▀██████▀      ▀██████▀          ▀███▄   ▐███       ███▌
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄         ▀████▀        ▀████▀            ▀███▄  ▐███       ███▌
██████████████████████          ▀██▀          ▀██▀              ▀███▄ ▐███       ███▌

.
R E I M A G I N I N G    E N E R G Y
█▄
▄█████▄
▄████▀████▄
▄█████▌ ▐█████▄
▄███▀▀██▌ ▐██▀▀███▄
▄█████▄  ▀▌ ▐▀  ▄█████▄
█████████▄     ▄█████████
██████  ▀██▌ ▐██▀  ██████
▀██████▄  ▀▌ ▐▀  ▄██████▀
▀███████▄     ▄███████▀
▀▀██████▌ ▐██████▀▀
▀▀▀▀▄█▄▀▀▀▀
█████
[.
TELEGRAM    MEDIUM
.
TWITTER   FACEBOOK
]███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███

███
███
███
███
███
███
███


███
███
[PRE-SALE]
M a r c h 
24th███
███

███
███
███
███
███
███
███


███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
DrHaribo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2492
Merit: 1019


Bitminter.com Operator


View Profile WWW
December 12, 2013, 01:47:54 PM
 #5344

I ask because, using the 100gh x 4, if we set one worker to 286, thats what each unit would try to run which seems to high where as using a diff of 71. That would seem more appropriat for a machine doing 100gh.

The mining server looks at the hashrate per worker. So if you run a lot of hardware as the same worker but set a minimum difficulty based on the hashrate of just one of those devices, then the mining server will probably set a higher difficulty for you.

Anyway, the mining server will mostly take care of this for you. Setting a minimum diff is most useful for the first few minutes of mining so the mining server doesn't have to ramp you up from diff 4 to diff 512 in a hurry, it can start on a difficulty that makes more sense for your worker.

▶▶▶ Bitminter.com - Your trusted mining pool since 2011.
DrHaribo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2492
Merit: 1019


Bitminter.com Operator


View Profile WWW
December 12, 2013, 06:56:34 PM
 #5345

There's a website certificate issue with Firefox (works in other browsers). I'm in contact with Cloudflare.com (our content delivery network who this cert is from) to get this resolved.

▶▶▶ Bitminter.com - Your trusted mining pool since 2011.
Nemo1024
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596
Merit: 1000



View Profile WWW
December 12, 2013, 06:57:40 PM
 #5346

Trying to connect to Bitminter site now, I get on one machine:

Quote
Secure Connection Failed

An error occurred during a connection to bitminter.com. The OCSP server has no status for the certificate. (Error code: sec_error_ocsp_unknown_cert)

    The page you are trying to view cannot be shown because the authenticity of the received data could not be verified.
    Please contact the web site owners to inform them of this problem. Alternatively, use the command found in the help menu to report this broken site.

The other machines, also running FireFox, don't show this, but I don't dare logging in from them...


“Dark times lie ahead of us and there will be a time when we must choose between what is easy and what is right.”
“We are only as strong as we are united, as weak as we are divided.”
“It is important to fight and fight again, and keep fighting, for only then can evil be kept at bay, though never quite eradicated.”
DrHaribo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2492
Merit: 1019


Bitminter.com Operator


View Profile WWW
December 12, 2013, 07:00:35 PM
 #5347

I will get this resolved ASAP. Please use a different browser in the meantime if you have something other than Firefox installed.

▶▶▶ Bitminter.com - Your trusted mining pool since 2011.
MoreBloodWine
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1344
Merit: 1000



View Profile
December 12, 2013, 10:33:50 PM
 #5348

I ask because, using the 100gh x 4, if we set one worker to 286, thats what each unit would try to run which seems to high where as using a diff of 71. That would seem more appropriat for a machine doing 100gh.

The mining server looks at the hashrate per worker. So if you run a lot of hardware as the same worker but set a minimum difficulty based on the hashrate of just one of those devices, then the mining server will probably set a higher difficulty for you.

Anyway, the mining server will mostly take care of this for you. Setting a minimum diff is most useful for the first few minutes of mining so the mining server doesn't have to ramp you up from diff 4 to diff 512 in a hurry, it can start on a difficulty that makes more sense for your worker.

So if the server corrects with ideal diffs, then I could just ignore seting a minimum and let it settle in to that sweet spot on it's own after time, since for me when my hardware gets here will be 6 workers @ 100gh each. So I can either use one worker for the 6 identical workers at 71 or just forget setting a minimum and let them settle in on their own, assuming I didn't misunderstand what you just said.

██████████████████████  ▀███▄          ▄██▄          ▄██████▄   █████████████████████████
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀   ▀███▄        ▄████▄        ▄███▀▀███▄   █████████████████████████
                          ▀███▄      ▄██████▄      ▄███▀  ▀███▄       ▐███       ███▌
                           ▀███▄    ▄███▀▀███▄    ▄███▀    ▀███▄      ▐███       ███▌
   █████████████████        ▀███▄  ▄███▀  ▀███▄  ▄███▀      ▀███▄     ▐███       ███▌
                             ▀███▄▄███▀    ▀███▄▄███▀        ▀███▄    ▐███       ███▌
                              ▀██████▀      ▀██████▀          ▀███▄   ▐███       ███▌
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄         ▀████▀        ▀████▀            ▀███▄  ▐███       ███▌
██████████████████████          ▀██▀          ▀██▀              ▀███▄ ▐███       ███▌

.
R E I M A G I N I N G    E N E R G Y
█▄
▄█████▄
▄████▀████▄
▄█████▌ ▐█████▄
▄███▀▀██▌ ▐██▀▀███▄
▄█████▄  ▀▌ ▐▀  ▄█████▄
█████████▄     ▄█████████
██████  ▀██▌ ▐██▀  ██████
▀██████▄  ▀▌ ▐▀  ▄██████▀
▀███████▄     ▄███████▀
▀▀██████▌ ▐██████▀▀
▀▀▀▀▄█▄▀▀▀▀
█████
[.
TELEGRAM    MEDIUM
.
TWITTER   FACEBOOK
]███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███

███
███
███
███
███
███
███


███
███
[PRE-SALE]
M a r c h 
24th███
███

███
███
███
███
███
███
███


███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
DrHaribo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2492
Merit: 1019


Bitminter.com Operator


View Profile WWW
December 12, 2013, 11:10:52 PM
 #5349

So if the server corrects with ideal diffs, then I could just ignore seting a minimum and let it settle in to that sweet spot on it's own after time, since for me when my hardware gets here will be 6 workers @ 100gh each. So I can either use one worker for the 6 identical workers at 71 or just forget setting a minimum and let them settle in on their own, assuming I didn't misunderstand what you just said.

Basically everyone can forget setting anything at all. The server will make things work.

But if you have a high hashrate like 600 GH then you may want to set a minimum difficulty, maybe 512, to make the ride smoother right after you connect to start mining. This avoids the server having to ramp up your difficulty quickly from 4. Instead you get a good difficulty right away.

▶▶▶ Bitminter.com - Your trusted mining pool since 2011.
caminilegroup
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42
Merit: 0


View Profile WWW
December 12, 2013, 11:15:54 PM
 #5350

So if the server corrects with ideal diffs, then I could just ignore seting a minimum and let it settle in to that sweet spot on it's own after time, since for me when my hardware gets here will be 6 workers @ 100gh each. So I can either use one worker for the 6 identical workers at 71 or just forget setting a minimum and let them settle in on their own, assuming I didn't misunderstand what you just said.

Basically everyone can forget setting anything at all. The server will make things work.

But if you have a high hashrate like 600 GH then you may want to set a minimum difficulty, maybe 512, to make the ride smoother right after you connect to start mining. This avoids the server having to ramp up your difficulty quickly from 4. Instead you get a good difficulty right away.


Getting back to multiple devices on one worker.

I have 4 blades, the server sets each to 8, when I have them all on a separate worker. If I point them all to the same worker, the server assigns 32. Granted this seems like it is fine, but if it is expecting one blade to handle a diff of 32 then it seems overkill.

I might be missing something here, and when I look at the output of bfgminer it will show "52/32" and so on for each blade but my shares per min is obviously less than if I gave each one their own worker on 8.
MoreBloodWine
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1344
Merit: 1000



View Profile
December 12, 2013, 11:22:03 PM
 #5351

Basically everyone can forget setting anything at all. The server will make things work./quote]Guess I'm gettin to ya, sorry ;-/

██████████████████████  ▀███▄          ▄██▄          ▄██████▄   █████████████████████████
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀   ▀███▄        ▄████▄        ▄███▀▀███▄   █████████████████████████
                          ▀███▄      ▄██████▄      ▄███▀  ▀███▄       ▐███       ███▌
                           ▀███▄    ▄███▀▀███▄    ▄███▀    ▀███▄      ▐███       ███▌
   █████████████████        ▀███▄  ▄███▀  ▀███▄  ▄███▀      ▀███▄     ▐███       ███▌
                             ▀███▄▄███▀    ▀███▄▄███▀        ▀███▄    ▐███       ███▌
                              ▀██████▀      ▀██████▀          ▀███▄   ▐███       ███▌
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄         ▀████▀        ▀████▀            ▀███▄  ▐███       ███▌
██████████████████████          ▀██▀          ▀██▀              ▀███▄ ▐███       ███▌

.
R E I M A G I N I N G    E N E R G Y
█▄
▄█████▄
▄████▀████▄
▄█████▌ ▐█████▄
▄███▀▀██▌ ▐██▀▀███▄
▄█████▄  ▀▌ ▐▀  ▄█████▄
█████████▄     ▄█████████
██████  ▀██▌ ▐██▀  ██████
▀██████▄  ▀▌ ▐▀  ▄██████▀
▀███████▄     ▄███████▀
▀▀██████▌ ▐██████▀▀
▀▀▀▀▄█▄▀▀▀▀
█████
[.
TELEGRAM    MEDIUM
.
TWITTER   FACEBOOK
]███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███

███
███
███
███
███
███
███


███
███
[PRE-SALE]
M a r c h 
24th███
███

███
███
███
███
███
███
███


███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
DrHaribo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2492
Merit: 1019


Bitminter.com Operator


View Profile WWW
December 12, 2013, 11:42:22 PM
 #5352

I have 4 blades, the server sets each to 8, when I have them all on a separate worker. If I point them all to the same worker, the server assigns 32. Granted this seems like it is fine, but if it is expecting one blade to handle a diff of 32 then it seems overkill.

Whether you are mining with one 40 GH ASIC or four 10 GH ASICs doesn't matter. They do the same amount of work and find the same amounts of proofs of work. The four 10 GH ASICs will not do worse than the single 40 GH ASIC running at diff 32. The results are the same. To an outside observer everything is exactly the same. That observer can't even see if the results are produced by one or four physical devices.

Guess I'm gettin to ya, sorry ;-/

Not at all. I'm just trying to get some points through to everyone. I see a lot of misunderstandings lately about worker difficulty.

There is a belief that difficulty is a useful tweak you can do to improve your hashrate. This is wrong. It's a trade-off between variance and bandwidth usage (and for mining pool servers, the amount of proofs of work they have to process). Your hashrate is the same, regardless of difficulty.

Increasing the minimum difficulty is useful to those with high hashpower to prevent the burst of proofs of work when you start out at low difficulty and the mining server in a panic trying to ramp up your difficulty quickly enough.

I think the work submits per minute with a default setting of 20 is good for most people. If you have a very slow internet connection you may want to decrease that. If you are very worried about variance you can use the Easy Mode perk to be allowed to increase it above 20. But for most people 20 is good. It gives you fairly low variance, fairly low bandwidth usage and (kind of) fairly accurate live hashrate on the website.

▶▶▶ Bitminter.com - Your trusted mining pool since 2011.
Walter Rothbard
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250


Bytecoin: 8VofSsbQvTd8YwAcxiCcxrqZ9MnGPjaAQm


View Profile WWW
December 13, 2013, 04:20:09 PM
 #5353

Doc, have you considered adding pps?

No time right now. Just trying to keep things running smooth at the moment.

Can anyone comment on what the addition of PPS would do to other miners who stay on PPLNS?  From my understanding, I tend to prefer PPLNS - it seems more sustainable and less risk to the pool.  I'm not quite sure I understand how pools work when both payout systems are present as an option.

MoreBloodWine
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1344
Merit: 1000



View Profile
December 13, 2013, 07:59:27 PM
 #5354

Doc, have you considered adding pps?

No time right now. Just trying to keep things running smooth at the moment.

Can anyone comment on what the addition of PPS would do to other miners who stay on PPLNS?  From my understanding, I tend to prefer PPLNS - it seems more sustainable and less risk to the pool.  I'm not quite sure I understand how pools work when both payout systems are present as an option.
I don't even know what PPS is let alone fully understand PPLNS other than it's supposed to make pay more fair since it's supposed to be based on he amount of work you do for the server.

██████████████████████  ▀███▄          ▄██▄          ▄██████▄   █████████████████████████
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀   ▀███▄        ▄████▄        ▄███▀▀███▄   █████████████████████████
                          ▀███▄      ▄██████▄      ▄███▀  ▀███▄       ▐███       ███▌
                           ▀███▄    ▄███▀▀███▄    ▄███▀    ▀███▄      ▐███       ███▌
   █████████████████        ▀███▄  ▄███▀  ▀███▄  ▄███▀      ▀███▄     ▐███       ███▌
                             ▀███▄▄███▀    ▀███▄▄███▀        ▀███▄    ▐███       ███▌
                              ▀██████▀      ▀██████▀          ▀███▄   ▐███       ███▌
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄         ▀████▀        ▀████▀            ▀███▄  ▐███       ███▌
██████████████████████          ▀██▀          ▀██▀              ▀███▄ ▐███       ███▌

.
R E I M A G I N I N G    E N E R G Y
█▄
▄█████▄
▄████▀████▄
▄█████▌ ▐█████▄
▄███▀▀██▌ ▐██▀▀███▄
▄█████▄  ▀▌ ▐▀  ▄█████▄
█████████▄     ▄█████████
██████  ▀██▌ ▐██▀  ██████
▀██████▄  ▀▌ ▐▀  ▄██████▀
▀███████▄     ▄███████▀
▀▀██████▌ ▐██████▀▀
▀▀▀▀▄█▄▀▀▀▀
█████
[.
TELEGRAM    MEDIUM
.
TWITTER   FACEBOOK
]███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███

███
███
███
███
███
███
███


███
███
[PRE-SALE]
M a r c h 
24th███
███

███
███
███
███
███
███
███


███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
caminilegroup
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42
Merit: 0


View Profile WWW
December 13, 2013, 08:18:38 PM
 #5355

Doc, have you considered adding pps?

No time right now. Just trying to keep things running smooth at the moment.

Can anyone comment on what the addition of PPS would do to other miners who stay on PPLNS?  From my understanding, I tend to prefer PPLNS - it seems more sustainable and less risk to the pool.  I'm not quite sure I understand how pools work when both payout systems are present as an option.
I don't even know what PPS is let alone fully understand PPLNS other than it's supposed to make pay more fair since it's supposed to be based on he amount of work you do for the server.

PPS, pay per share. For people who don't mine constantly, and for a few hours at a time it is better.

MoreBloodWine
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1344
Merit: 1000



View Profile
December 13, 2013, 08:40:18 PM
 #5356

Doc, have you considered adding pps?

No time right now. Just trying to keep things running smooth at the moment.

Can anyone comment on what the addition of PPS would do to other miners who stay on PPLNS?  From my understanding, I tend to prefer PPLNS - it seems more sustainable and less risk to the pool.  I'm not quite sure I understand how pools work when both payout systems are present as an option.
I don't even know what PPS is let alone fully understand PPLNS other than it's supposed to make pay more fair since it's supposed to be based on he amount of work you do for the server.

PPS, pay per share. For people who don't mine constantly, and for a few hours at a time it is better.


So both mean fair pay...

PPS: Fair pay for say 12hr a day miners
PPLNS: Fair pay for always plugged in and running miners

Here's the thing though, how would adding PPS affect PPLNS ?

██████████████████████  ▀███▄          ▄██▄          ▄██████▄   █████████████████████████
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀   ▀███▄        ▄████▄        ▄███▀▀███▄   █████████████████████████
                          ▀███▄      ▄██████▄      ▄███▀  ▀███▄       ▐███       ███▌
                           ▀███▄    ▄███▀▀███▄    ▄███▀    ▀███▄      ▐███       ███▌
   █████████████████        ▀███▄  ▄███▀  ▀███▄  ▄███▀      ▀███▄     ▐███       ███▌
                             ▀███▄▄███▀    ▀███▄▄███▀        ▀███▄    ▐███       ███▌
                              ▀██████▀      ▀██████▀          ▀███▄   ▐███       ███▌
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄         ▀████▀        ▀████▀            ▀███▄  ▐███       ███▌
██████████████████████          ▀██▀          ▀██▀              ▀███▄ ▐███       ███▌

.
R E I M A G I N I N G    E N E R G Y
█▄
▄█████▄
▄████▀████▄
▄█████▌ ▐█████▄
▄███▀▀██▌ ▐██▀▀███▄
▄█████▄  ▀▌ ▐▀  ▄█████▄
█████████▄     ▄█████████
██████  ▀██▌ ▐██▀  ██████
▀██████▄  ▀▌ ▐▀  ▄██████▀
▀███████▄     ▄███████▀
▀▀██████▌ ▐██████▀▀
▀▀▀▀▄█▄▀▀▀▀
█████
[.
TELEGRAM    MEDIUM
.
TWITTER   FACEBOOK
]███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███

███
███
███
███
███
███
███


███
███
[PRE-SALE]
M a r c h 
24th███
███

███
███
███
███
███
███
███


███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
caminilegroup
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42
Merit: 0


View Profile WWW
December 13, 2013, 08:44:45 PM
 #5357

Doc, have you considered adding pps?

No time right now. Just trying to keep things running smooth at the moment.

Can anyone comment on what the addition of PPS would do to other miners who stay on PPLNS?  From my understanding, I tend to prefer PPLNS - it seems more sustainable and less risk to the pool.  I'm not quite sure I understand how pools work when both payout systems are present as an option.
I don't even know what PPS is let alone fully understand PPLNS other than it's supposed to make pay more fair since it's supposed to be based on he amount of work you do for the server.

PPS, pay per share. For people who don't mine constantly, and for a few hours at a time it is better.


So both mean fair pay...

PPS: Fair pay for say 12hr a day miners
PPLNS: Fair pay for always plugged in and running miners

Here's the thing though, how would adding PPS affect PPLNS ?

Shouldn't, right now there is only one pool that offers both pps & pplns. It would be nice to see another one too.
MoreBloodWine
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1344
Merit: 1000



View Profile
December 13, 2013, 08:46:59 PM
 #5358

Doc, have you considered adding pps?

No time right now. Just trying to keep things running smooth at the moment.

Can anyone comment on what the addition of PPS would do to other miners who stay on PPLNS?  From my understanding, I tend to prefer PPLNS - it seems more sustainable and less risk to the pool.  I'm not quite sure I understand how pools work when both payout systems are present as an option.
I don't even know what PPS is let alone fully understand PPLNS other than it's supposed to make pay more fair since it's supposed to be based on he amount of work you do for the server.

PPS, pay per share. For people who don't mine constantly, and for a few hours at a time it is better.


So both mean fair pay...

PPS: Fair pay for say 12hr a day miners
PPLNS: Fair pay for always plugged in and running miners

Here's the thing though, how would adding PPS affect PPLNS ?

Shouldn't, right now there is only one pool that offers both pps & pplns. It would be nice to see another one too.
I guess what I'm more curious about is if both were added, does a user choose the scale they want or the server just kinda sense what the user is doing and applies either or.

██████████████████████  ▀███▄          ▄██▄          ▄██████▄   █████████████████████████
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀   ▀███▄        ▄████▄        ▄███▀▀███▄   █████████████████████████
                          ▀███▄      ▄██████▄      ▄███▀  ▀███▄       ▐███       ███▌
                           ▀███▄    ▄███▀▀███▄    ▄███▀    ▀███▄      ▐███       ███▌
   █████████████████        ▀███▄  ▄███▀  ▀███▄  ▄███▀      ▀███▄     ▐███       ███▌
                             ▀███▄▄███▀    ▀███▄▄███▀        ▀███▄    ▐███       ███▌
                              ▀██████▀      ▀██████▀          ▀███▄   ▐███       ███▌
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄         ▀████▀        ▀████▀            ▀███▄  ▐███       ███▌
██████████████████████          ▀██▀          ▀██▀              ▀███▄ ▐███       ███▌

.
R E I M A G I N I N G    E N E R G Y
█▄
▄█████▄
▄████▀████▄
▄█████▌ ▐█████▄
▄███▀▀██▌ ▐██▀▀███▄
▄█████▄  ▀▌ ▐▀  ▄█████▄
█████████▄     ▄█████████
██████  ▀██▌ ▐██▀  ██████
▀██████▄  ▀▌ ▐▀  ▄██████▀
▀███████▄     ▄███████▀
▀▀██████▌ ▐██████▀▀
▀▀▀▀▄█▄▀▀▀▀
█████
[.
TELEGRAM    MEDIUM
.
TWITTER   FACEBOOK
]███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███

███
███
███
███
███
███
███


███
███
[PRE-SALE]
M a r c h 
24th███
███

███
███
███
███
███
███
███


███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
caminilegroup
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42
Merit: 0


View Profile WWW
December 13, 2013, 08:50:24 PM
 #5359

Doc, have you considered adding pps?

No time right now. Just trying to keep things running smooth at the moment.

Can anyone comment on what the addition of PPS would do to other miners who stay on PPLNS?  From my understanding, I tend to prefer PPLNS - it seems more sustainable and less risk to the pool.  I'm not quite sure I understand how pools work when both payout systems are present as an option.
I don't even know what PPS is let alone fully understand PPLNS other than it's supposed to make pay more fair since it's supposed to be based on he amount of work you do for the server.

PPS, pay per share. For people who don't mine constantly, and for a few hours at a time it is better.


So both mean fair pay...

PPS: Fair pay for say 12hr a day miners
PPLNS: Fair pay for always plugged in and running miners

Here's the thing though, how would adding PPS affect PPLNS ?

Shouldn't, right now there is only one pool that offers both pps & pplns. It would be nice to see another one too.
I guess what I'm more curious about is if both were added, does a user choose the scale they want or the server just kinda sense what the user is doing and applies either or.

You would choose whether you want pplns or pps, at least that is how it is on the other pool.
Dagger75
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 156
Merit: 100


View Profile
December 13, 2013, 11:15:51 PM
 #5360

Doc Haribo, has anyone else mentioned about some Bitminter blocks found on Blockchain not crediting/showing up on Stats page over the last few days?  I noticed several yesterday and just now noticed https://blockchain.info/block-index/447319/0000000000000004905185711720b267a133d5b2ed9b0e0e0d35ca1e5e4f429b {274733 (Main Chain)}didn't show up or credit but like 5 minutes later block 274737 was found and showed up just fine.

What's going on here as these are all showing up as being found by "Bitminter" on Blockchain but only some are showing up on the Bitminter Stats.  Hopefully just something simple i'm overlooking.  Thanks.

>>>http://foundation.leafco.in/<<<  Please help support our cause

>>>A True Alt, with a True Purpose<<<  $$Leafcoin$$
Pages: « 1 ... 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 [268] 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 ... 375 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!