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

[murraypaul]

From several of the posted logs, it looks like it could be as simple as the pool publishing a difficultly which is actually half that of what it accepts.
Could it be that simple, an off-by-power-of-two error somewhere?

[1714825627]

1714825627

[olrosseel]

I don't know what happened but I didn't have any shares in the last rounds ...

Maybe something goes wrong with the h parameter? And I used h=256 but suddenly I'm also getting a lower difficulty.

[phzi]

Looks like there's still some glitches with the new difficulty settings.

I used h=64 on uswest, but right now it's at difficulty 32. I thought it wasn't supposed to go lower than the "h=xx" setting?

EDIT: Now it's back up to 64, so it didn't stay on 32 very long, but it was there for a few minutes.

h= is a hint.  It only suggests the starting value.  You can use d=  if you want fixed difficulty with no variance.

From several of the posted logs, it looks like it could be as simple as the pool publishing a difficultly which is actually half that of what it accepts.
Could it be that simple, an off-by-power-of-two error somewhere?

Very unlikely.  It appears the problem occurs when vardiff change and coin change happen one after another.

Kinda irrelevant now with this new awesome fixed difficulty - thanks poolwaffle!

[poolwaffle]

Would leaving LTC on the list affect negatively anything in the pool?
It's probably better to leave it on for those odd days when all other currencies collapse...

Definitely can leave it, really doesn't affect much, just some CPU power when blocks come in (not bad compared to faster coins) and disk space (easy).

I used h=64 on uswest, but right now it's at difficulty 32. I thought it wasn't supposed to go lower than the "h=xx" setting?

h= is only being used as a starting point, vardiff still functions as normal (up or down based on speed), mostly for people who want to use vardiff, but don't want a disconnect to shove them back to 16 and require a warmup.  If you want a static difficulty (and if playing with difficulty settings, you probably know about what difficulty you should be at) just use the d=XX version

From several of the posted logs, it looks like it could be as simple as the pool publishing a difficultly which is actually half that of what it accepts.
Could it be that simple, an off-by-power-of-two error somewhere?

Very unlikely, its just the server starts enforcing the new difficulty earlier than it should it looks like (interaction with block changes).  In those logs, people are seeing it say "switch to 64 difficulty", and then while still submitting shares at difficulty 32, some of them happen to be 64+ (valid) and some happen to be 32-64 (invalid).

I don't know what happened but I didn't have any shares in the last rounds ...

Maybe something goes wrong with the h parameter? And I used h=256 but suddenly I'm also getting a lower difficulty.

h= is just a starting point (see above).  Email me with your address so I can check on the shares thing?

[phzi]

Hey PoolWaffle:  was it only CasinoCoin and AlphaCoin affected by your update this morning?  I saw a much smaller payout then I expected given my earned and unconverted (minus alpha+casino) when I went to bed.  Might have just been a slow night I guess, or did we get some really late doge orphans?  Profit looking like it was under .007BTC/MH for me.  Not too concerned - slow days and good days and what not - but this is the first time I have seen my profit massively differ from the stated pool average.

[Zoella]

Was at 4% rejects after a few hours on uswest at h=128. Switching to p=128.

[poolwaffle]

Hey PoolWaffle:  was it only CasinoCoin and AlphaCoin affected by your update this morning?  I saw a much smaller payout then I expected given my earned and unconverted (minus alpha+casino) when I went to bed.  Might have just been a slow night I guess, or did we get some really late doge orphans?  Profit looking like it was under .007BTC/MH for me.  Not too concerned - slow days and good days and what not - but this is the first time I have seen my profit massively differ from the stated pool average.

Only casino/alpha affected, and only affected the per-coin balances, not the overall confirmed/unconfirmed (at least on the stats page, didn't check miner pages).  However, we did have a decent number of coins (specifically mooncoin) that were still unconfirmed when payouts went out this morning, which might have some of the difference there

[bolus7]

Hey PoolWaffle:  was it only CasinoCoin and AlphaCoin affected by your update this morning?  I saw a much smaller payout then I expected given my earned and unconverted (minus alpha+casino) when I went to bed.  Might have just been a slow night I guess, or did we get some really late doge orphans?  Profit looking like it was under .007BTC/MH for me.  Not too concerned - slow days and good days and what not - but this is the first time I have seen my profit massively differ from the stated pool average.

I saw a big chunk of unexchanged seem to disappear as well

http://i801.photobucket.com/albums/yy294/bolus7/waffle_zps929c88cb.jpg

[poolwaffle]

Hey PoolWaffle:  was it only CasinoCoin and AlphaCoin affected by your update this morning?  I saw a much smaller payout then I expected given my earned and unconverted (minus alpha+casino) when I went to bed.  Might have just been a slow night I guess, or did we get some really late doge orphans?  Profit looking like it was under .007BTC/MH for me.  Not too concerned - slow days and good days and what not - but this is the first time I have seen my profit massively differ from the stated pool average.

I saw a big chunk of unexchanged seem to disappear as well

Thats most likely them right there.  I assume that graph is using the API, its very possible the API was showing the balances (sorry, I'm almost always looking at the global stats page)

[phzi]

Was at 4% rejects after a few hours on uswest at h=128. Switching to p=128.

My rejects are down significantly since I switched to d=512

(Not sure what p= is... didn't see poolwaffle mention that)

[Zoella]

Was at 4% rejects after a few hours on uswest at h=128. Switching to p=128.

My rejects are down significantly since I switched to d=512

(Not sure what p= is... didn't see poolwaffle mention that)

My mistake.  -p d=128. After about 45 minutes I'm at 0.2% rejects.

[qsrab]

whats with the 0.00757057 btc/mhash?

[eMiz0r]

Almost 1 million shares accepted on different GPU's and 256 rejected on average on the main server. Eventhough EU server is hosted in Amsterdam (and very close by to my home location), is there any other reason why I should switch given the fact that I've got almost 0% rejected shares?

[phzi]

whats with the 0.00757057 btc/mhash?

It is called variance.  If you look historically, we have had bad days (e.g. 0.00493365 BTC/MH) and great days (e.g. 0.02306003BTC/MH).  Pool luck is always changing, but we have been consistently averaging over .01BTC/MH since the pool went public.  Wafflepool doesn't avoid highly profitable coins just because the difficulty is high (e.g. Dogecoin), so variance will be higher then some other pools, but profits over time should also be higher.

[qsrab]

whats with the 0.00757057 btc/mhash?

It is called variance.  If you look historically, we have had bad days (e.g. 0.00493365 BTC/MH) and great days (e.g. 0.02306003BTC/MH).  Pool luck is always changing, but we have been consistently averaging over .01BTC/MH since the pool went public.  Wafflepool doesn't avoid highly profitable coins just because the difficulty is high (e.g. Dogecoin), so variance will be higher then some other pools, but profits over time should also be higher.

In that case, it should beat mining dogecoin alone...

[ekoice]

excuse me, how should the new h= or d= config should look like? (im using comand line for my rig 3x280x Gigabyte = 2.1 mh/s). thanks.

[eMiz0r]

In your configfile: -u [BTC address] -p d=256

for example

[ekoice]

thank you emiz0r.

[phzi]

In that case, it should beat mining dogecoin alone...

Wafflepool has consistently (on average) far surpassed the profits of mining dogecoin alone.  Anyway, mining only dogecoin is a bit of a fool's game now, because you waste tons of time mining near worthless low-reward blocks.  And then smart auto-switching pools like WafflePool hop on and snag a chunk of the valuable blocks, leaving pure-dogecoin pools kinda in the dust. This is likely the reason that dogecoin pools seem to consistently have <90% luck.

Dogecoin's design is pretty ridiculous, frankly.  But the whole thing is just a profitable joke, so oh well.

[skabbo]

In that case, it should beat mining dogecoin alone...

Wafflepool has consistently (on average) far surpassed the profits of mining dogecoin alone.  Anyway, mining only dogecoin is a bit of a fool's game now, because you waste tons of time mining near worthless low-reward blocks.  And then smart auto-switching pools like WafflePool hop on and snag a chunk of the valuable blocks, leaving pure-dogecoin pools kinda in the dust. This is likely the reason that dogecoin pools seem to consistently have <90% luck.

Dogecoin's design is pretty ridiculous, frankly.  But the whole thing is just a profitable joke, so oh well.

I'll take a profitable joke over an unprofitable one any day.