[POOL][Scrypt][Scrypt-N][X11] Profit switching pool - wafflepool.com

[rrodent]

Well now that I wasted a day...   tada  0.00004894

Thanks for setting me straight waffle.

/smh@self

[1714680397]

1714680397

[phzi]

whats killing our numbers today? high hash or what. the larger the pool grows the lower our numbers get.

Variance?  The stats day _JUST_ started.  (Daily stats are based on midnight to midnight GMT, not between payouts).

[igroock]

whats killing our numbers today? high hash or what. the larger the pool grows the lower our numbers get.

Variance?  The stats day _JUST_ started.  (Daily stats are based on midnight to midnight GMT, not between payouts).

Ok, first of all check the time at which I made my post, then reply. I was talking about Feb 24

[phzi]

Ok, first of all check the time at which I made my post, then reply. I was talking about Feb 24

Are you really complaining about 0.00970608BTC/MH?  That's pretty damn good...  Look at the history in the table - daily return always goes up and down.  Again, it's called variance.

Man, some people I tell you...

[cloudrck]

Ok, first of all check the time at which I made my post, then reply. I was talking about Feb 24

Are you really complaining about 0.00970608BTC/MH?  That's pretty damn good...  Look at the history in the table - daily return always goes up and down.  Again, it's called variance.

Man, some people I tell you...

A lot of people jump on pools having no clue what they are doing. They expect this to work like a 9-5 salary position where the paychecks are the same each time.

[igroock]

Ok, first of all check the time at which I made my post, then reply. I was talking about Feb 24

Are you really complaining about 0.00970608BTC/MH?  That's pretty damn good...  Look at the history in the table - daily return always goes up and down.  Again, it's called variance.

Man, some people I tell you...

A lot of people jump on pools having no clue what they are doing. They expect this to work like a 9-5 salary position where the paychecks are the same each time.

Good one smart ass. I mined on WP before it hit 1GH

[GalacticMiningCorp]

I switched to WP around 6:30PM PST last Friday and so far have received 2 payouts totaling 0.037BTC. For my 1.5mhs, I'm extremely happy (yes, I understand variance).

Thanks, PoolWaffle, for an awesome service! I hope a donation percentage is on your backlog

[cloudrck]

Ok, first of all check the time at which I made my post, then reply. I was talking about Feb 24

Are you really complaining about 0.00970608BTC/MH?  That's pretty damn good...  Look at the history in the table - daily return always goes up and down.  Again, it's called variance.

Man, some people I tell you...

A lot of people jump on pools having no clue what they are doing. They expect this to work like a 9-5 salary position where the paychecks are the same each time.

Good one smart ass. I mined on WP before it hit 1GH

Your point?

[CrashOD]

Hello all, I have read through half of the posts on this thread and can't seem anything related to what I'm seeing. I only just started at this pool ~8 hours ago and everything was working well at first but now it has climbed to what seems like a 100% reject rate and am trying to figure out what on my end would cause this. I have ~100 cpu miners at 50Kh/s all working on one address as the worker (do I need to split them up?). I'm running a stratum proxy that connects to an Ubuntu server forwarding all traffic to the pool. I've checked the connection on my server and all seems good. On the stratum proxy console, I'm seeing messages like this over and over (with the Job ID changing every so often):

2014-02-24 20:37:00,700 INFO proxy jobs.submit # Submitting 9b035e96
2014-02-24 20:37:00,762 WARNING proxy getwork_listener._on_submit_failure # [62m
s] Share from '1L6Gycs8a9UhzhEsxzhiFFVA4GREtkmPkh' REJECTED: (-2, u"Job '857a' n
ot found", None)
2014-02-24 20:37:00,793 INFO proxy jobs.submit # Submitting 28f94704
2014-02-24 20:37:00,855 WARNING proxy getwork_listener._on_submit_failure # [62m
s] Share from '1L6Gycs8a9UhzhEsxzhiFFVA4GREtkmPkh' REJECTED: (-2, u"Job '857a' n
ot found", None)
2014-02-24 20:37:01,667 INFO proxy jobs.submit # Submitting 51b18119
2014-02-24 20:37:01,744 WARNING proxy getwork_listener._on_submit_failure # [62m
s] Share from '1L6Gycs8a9UhzhEsxzhiFFVA4GREtkmPkh' REJECTED: (-2, u"Job '857a' n
ot found", None)

I'm also noticing that it's detected a new block incredibly often, is this causing my CPU miners to not be able to submit even 1 share before a new block is found, causing all rejects? My hashrate is showing correctly on the site, but I'm now seeing 0 shares submitted for the last 10+ blocks. I appreciate the information and help. Thanks.

[gtraah]

Hello all, I have read through half of the posts on this thread and can't seem anything related to what I'm seeing. I only just started at this pool ~8 hours ago and everything was working well at first but now it has climbed to what seems like a 100% reject rate and am trying to figure out what on my end would cause this. I have ~100 cpu miners at 50Kh/s all working on one address as the worker (do I need to split them up?). I'm running a stratum proxy that connects to an Ubuntu server forwarding all traffic to the pool. I've checked the connection on my server and all seems good. On the stratum proxy console, I'm seeing messages like this over and over (with the Job ID changing every so often):

2014-02-24 20:37:00,700 INFO proxy jobs.submit # Submitting 9b035e96
2014-02-24 20:37:00,762 WARNING proxy getwork_listener._on_submit_failure # [62m
s] Share from '1L6Gycs8a9UhzhEsxzhiFFVA4GREtkmPkh' REJECTED: (-2, u"Job '857a' n
ot found", None)
2014-02-24 20:37:00,793 INFO proxy jobs.submit # Submitting 28f94704
2014-02-24 20:37:00,855 WARNING proxy getwork_listener._on_submit_failure # [62m
s] Share from '1L6Gycs8a9UhzhEsxzhiFFVA4GREtkmPkh' REJECTED: (-2, u"Job '857a' n
ot found", None)
2014-02-24 20:37:01,667 INFO proxy jobs.submit # Submitting 51b18119
2014-02-24 20:37:01,744 WARNING proxy getwork_listener._on_submit_failure # [62m
s] Share from '1L6Gycs8a9UhzhEsxzhiFFVA4GREtkmPkh' REJECTED: (-2, u"Job '857a' n
ot found", None)

I'm also noticing that it's detected a new block incredibly often, is this causing my CPU miners to not be able to submit even 1 share before a new block is found, causing all rejects? My hashrate is showing correctly on the site, but I'm now seeing 0 shares submitted for the last 10+ blocks. I appreciate the information and help. Thanks.

Your proxy has failed. DEF!!!! < I am running via NO proxy at all & using the normal Stratum TCP:// address for wafflepool and I am getting acceptions all over the place, Rejection rate VERY LOW

[CrashOD]

Your proxy has failed. DEF!!!! < I am running via NO proxy at all & using the normal Stratum TCP:// address for wafflepool and I am getting acceptions all over the place, Rejection rate VERY LOW

I've verified that the connection is good and the proxy is passing through traffic. If I restart my stratum_proxy and all miners pull new work, I get some ACCEPTED shares for a bit but then they slowly all turn to REJECTED which makes it seem as if my CPU miners just can't keep up with the fast block times and then just start submitting too old of work.. It is detecting the new blocks and the miners are updating correctly but I'll keep an eye on my proxy and see if there is configuration changes needed. Thanks.

[gtraah]

Your proxy has failed. DEF!!!! < I am running via NO proxy at all & using the normal Stratum TCP:// address for wafflepool and I am getting acceptions all over the place, Rejection rate VERY LOW

I've verified that the connection is good and the proxy is passing through traffic. If I restart my stratum_proxy and all miners pull new work, I get some ACCEPTED shares for a bit but then they slowly all turn to REJECTED which makes it seem as if my CPU miners just can't keep up with the fast block times and then just start submitting too old of work.. It is detecting the new blocks and the miners are updating correctly but I'll keep an eye on my proxy and see if there is configuration changes needed. Thanks.

Well if you have tested it, what your saying is possible . How low is your hashrate? Maybe VERY VERYYYY Low hashrate is not good for 512 difficulty but I thought low hashrate doesnt matter not sure how low is ok.

[LostSavage]

I think the 512 difficulty is too much for CPU mining.  I ran cpuminer on 3 cores of my machine (33 kh/s total) and got work submitted after 21 mins.

You may want to look at mining Primecoin (XPM).  This is where I put my CPU to work: http://www.peercointalk.org/index.php?topic=485.0

[phzi]

I think the 512 difficulty is too much for CPU mining.  I ran cpuminer on 3 cores of my machine (33 kh/s total) and got work submitted after 21 mins.

You may want to look at mining Primecoin (XPM).  This is where I put my CPU to work: http://www.peercointalk.org/index.php?topic=485.0

This simply isn't true.  CPU mining is perfectly viable at 512 share difficulty.  Share difficulty DOES NOT MATTER - it only increases variance.

It sounds to me like his stratum proxy is lagging - try pointing the miners direct to the pool and see what happens.

[hak8or]

This simply isn't true.  CPU mining is perfectly viable at 512 share difficulty.  Share difficulty DOES NOT MATTER - it only increases variance.

It sounds to me like his stratum proxy is lagging - try pointing the miners direct to the pool and see what happens.

While my thing isn't CPU mining, a diff of 512 is giving me much higher rejects than a lower difficulty, which is obviously causing issues for me.

[LostSavage]

I'm not sure the 512 shares out of ~100,000,000 shares in my example is worth anything.  My example is worse than that as it is 512 shares in 3 shifts (~300,000,000 shares).

Unless the price of Bitcoin (currently ~$450) goes back up, CPU mining is just a little above break even (unless you get free power).  I just turned my Primecoin miner off as I think it is a loss for me after A/C costs.

Edit: 1 Share at 512 diff is 512 shares (I think)

[Spiffy_1]

why not mine the top three profitable coins and split hash according to difficulty.. those tiny new coins are the money but for obvious reasons the whole pool cant hit it. diversify your coin portfolio.. have eu mine something and other pool something else... wemineall can mine several coins at once so a much bigger pool should easily dobit too

[phzi]

This simply isn't true.  CPU mining is perfectly viable at 512 share difficulty.  Share difficulty DOES NOT MATTER - it only increases variance.

It sounds to me like his stratum proxy is lagging - try pointing the miners direct to the pool and see what happens.

While my thing isn't CPU mining, a diff of 512 is giving me much higher rejects than a lower difficulty, which is obviously causing issues for me.

This is not true... you will see higher variance in rejects, and possibly spikes of higher rejects, but over time it evens out no matter what the share diff.

This is simply obvious - your chance to discover a block is proportional to your hashrate... shares are no different.

why not mine the top three profitable coins and split hash according to difficulty.. those tiny new coins are the money but for obvious reasons the whole pool cant hit it. diversify your coin portfolio.. have eu mine something and other pool something else... wemineall can mine several coins at once so a much bigger pool should easily dobit too

PoolWaffle has clearly stated he's working on it - this requires a massive re-work of the profitability switcher.

[qwertzuiop1]

Vardiff is awesome, it really is.  We get good estimates of hashrates, miners always see shares submitted, etc.  The down side of it, is a massive amount of overhead on the server side.  We need to track all of the miners, their recently submitted shares, and their difficulties separately (memory).  And then every 15-30 seconds or so, we need to calculate some averages (cpu time), push them to the clients (bandwidth), and then constantly check to make sure they're obeying them.  The change from vardiff --> 512 was more of a necessity at the time.  Tons more hashrate came on (and actually, this is _way_ more influenced by a large number of small miners, than by 1 big one - as we track it on a per connection level, high-hashrate single connection is tons lighter than 500 small guys), and our load spiked, bandwidth spiked (which caused orphaned blocks increase), and the simplest answer at the time was to hard-lock difficulty.  After doing it, we noticed our server requirements are about 1/4, our orphan rate dropped significantly (2-3%), and overall there wasn't a _ton_ of backlash (some is to be expected, and I had to explain variance repeatedly).

Poolwaffle!

OK, we understand that vardiff uses cpu power. But why fixed 512? You know that this kills cpu miners. What would change if you would allow to set it lower and the default would be 512?
And those who are saying that higher diff only makes higher variance: I can have tens of machines running at 20-30 khash/s each. And yes my (say) weekly average share will be the same. But think about PPLNS! I lose the advantage of the LN part! If i only find shares every 5-10 rounds then i will run like PPS.
And please don't misunderstand me, i highly appreciate and adore your work, and i also understand the need to change as the pool grows, but its frustrating to see my profitability plunge.

Edit: It's easy to misunderstand the PPLNS part. The sentence would be correct as: If i only find shares every 5-10 rounds then i won't benefit of PPLNS's "luck equalizer" effect.

[tblack]

Hi!

How can I calculate from accepted shares and avarage KH that my miner works fine? Like it should be like this many accepted and I got that many.