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

[tblack]

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.

I have 2 cpu miners too with 38KH/s. One of the pointed HC, to keep my presence. (They are almost nothing compared to my 9 older GPUs)
The other is on WP.
Last 18 hours: [2014-02-25 12:06:27] accepted: 80/84 (95.24%), 36.13 khash/s (yay!!!)

[1714666188]

1714666188

[Pukito]

If I have 2 workers, I need to put them with 2 different users or I can put with same?

example:

worker 1:-u 1GqgsR6Ut66BnasLyc2k9NCdWqUBJmtELE_worker1
worker 2:-u 1GqgsR6Ut66BnasLyc2k9NCdWqUBJmtELE_worker2

or

worker 1:-u 1GqgsR6Ut66BnasLyc2k9NCdWqUBJmtELE
worker 2:-u 1GqgsR6Ut66BnasLyc2k9NCdWqUBJmtELE

Thanks!

[richmke]

If I have 2 workers, I need to put them with 2 different users or I can put with same?

Both will work.

FYI: Since worker stats are not available yet, I have separate BTC addresses for each worker. That way I can monitor each one.

[richmke]

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.

Qwert brings up a good point. If you have very stable hashing rate, then PPLNS is fine. I find that my hash rate varies by +/- 10%, and diff 512 can make that worse. In some pools I was in, my payout rates were 97% because of my natural variance, when it should be over 100% (benefit from other people coming and going).

Is there a way to modify PPLNS so that the variance is not as big a killer?

[M!tch]

could anybody tell me, how many traffic a rig with five r9 280x (3.6mH/s) mining at wp uses? (the os is smos linux/litecoin bamt) will it work properly with 3g or even just edge? which data plan will i need for a month?

[qwertzuiop1]

Is there a way to modify PPLNS so that the variance is not as big a killer?

In my opinion the only way to achieve this (with static diff.) is to have a bigger n. But a bigger n would be bad for the pool, because it would penalize faithful miners against pool hoppers. The only reasonable solution (again IMHO) is to have the ability to reduce the diff.

[CrashOD]

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.

I was really hoping that it was the stratum proxy lagging, as I hadn't checked that before, but my tests show a 50ms delay from miner to stratum proxy to external proxy to Wafflepool. I'm not sure that that kind of delay is enough to cause this issue though. When I was mining Litecoins before I switched to this pool, I was always getting a difficulty < 200. Any time it went above 300, I started to have the issue of less accepted shares because of the time it takes the cpu to calculate such a high difficulty share. If you say CPU mining is perfectly viable at 512 share difficulty, then I'll keep working on my config to see where my setup is going wrong. I am really hoping to be able to stay at Wafflepool. Thanks for the info.

[CrashOD]

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)

This is similar to what I'm seeing. Even with 100 cpu miners, I maybe get in 1 share every 2 blocks and all the old work is rejected as the other CPUs take too much time to finish their share and then when submitting, it's too old. At least that's how I understand it works.

So it seems in the end it is a mix of the high difficulty + such a short block time on certain coins. I imagine that if Wafflepool starts mining on an altcoin with a long block time, my rejects would go away.

[Undone]

Just curious if anyone else has received a payout within the last few hours.

Just started mining Sunday evening in the central U.S. Probably didn't have .01 BTC at the time of yesterday's payout, and didn't receive anything then, and haven't received anything this morning (meaning in the 11:00 - 13:00 GMT time span today). That's completely fine - just wanting to make sure I have everything set up correctly.

My stats do show perfectly fine.

Thanks.

[tblack]

Just curious if anyone else has received a payout within the last few hours.

Just started mining Sunday evening in the central U.S. Probably didn't have .01 BTC at the time of yesterday's payout, and didn't receive anything then, and haven't received anything this morning (meaning in the 11:00 - 13:00 GMT time span today). That's completely fine - just wanting to make sure I have everything set up correctly.

My stats do show perfectly fine.

Thanks.

Check your stats. Payouts could be late again as I see a lot of unconverted again.

[Undone]

Sounds good. Thanks for the reply.

Can you confirm that you were paid yesterday?


**EDIT** Just want to say that this morning's payout just came through for me.

Thank you, wafflepool! Loving it.

[poolwaffle]

@PoolWaffle: is there a reason you have chosen to hide sfire from the miners page?

I'm doing my best to not treat him/(them?) any differently.

Yet, 7a8678b8 definitely isn't showing on the miners page anymore...

Overall, I couldn't care less about this whale - big hashing power like this causes way less server load then tons of little miners.  And I suppose I understand why you might hide him from the miner's page (to stop questions), but it still smells off when you seem to have been very upfront about the pool's operations until now.

He politely requested to be removed from that list via email, was nothing to do with what I wanted, just that he requested it.  Didn't seem like a problem (also is literally 1 line of code), if anyone else would specifically like to be removed from the list, feel free to email me, I'd be happy to make it happen.  Same goes, if people think that list is annoying/useless (I'm not sure there actually is much use to it), I'm perfectly OK with removing it entirely, so we just have per-address stat pages.


As for all of the talk of 512 difficulty for CPU miners.  Again, it really doesn't change anything.  You won't get any higher reject rate (or at least you shouldn't unless something is wrong on your miner) than with vardiff.  You will see many different blocks causing work restarts, but these work restarts take a few microseconds or so (especially on CPU - where they take much less time than GPU) and you won't get a share in during each block, but your stats will be (over a long enough time period) exactly the same if the difficulty is hardlocked at 1, or hardlocked at 512 (or vardiff).

The only logical point I've heard here is the issue with PPLNS timeframes and hardlocked 512.  But again, even this, overall you should end up with the exact same amount of payout over a long enough time.  There might be PPLNS rounds where you have 0 shares in the full 10 rounds that are paid on a block, and you'll earn less than you would have on vardiff.  But there will also be sets of 10 rounds where you have more than your normal amount of shares, and will be paid significantly more than you should have.  There is some variance on the side of which blocks were found at which times, and you might have different per-round earnings than another person with a slow hashrate, but again, over a long enough time, you will have the exact same average earnings.

I keep using the words "over a long enough time", and I haven't explained what that means, partially because there really isn't a good answer (without me doing a bunch of math).  It essentially means that over infinite time, things will be equal.  Obviously we don't have infinite time.  The longer the time frame, the closer your averages should be, the shorter the timeframe, the more the variance could show.

For example, if I ask you to flip a coin 2 times and tell you I'll only pay you if you flip a tails, a lot of people are going to have 2 tails, a lot of people would have 2 heads.  This would be 2 extremely different results (in terms here, some people would be paid 0, some people would be paid 200% of what they expected).  Now, if I tell you to flip it 100 times each, you'll notice some people still have lower than average numbers (maybe 30 tails), some have higher than average (70 tails), some have just about correct (45-55).  Over a long enough time (number of flips here), everyone will come very close to 50/50 (on average).  People with faster miners just flip coins faster, people on CPUs flip coins slower.

[lagster]

For example, if I ask you to flip a coin 2 times and tell you I'll only pay you if you flip a tails, a lot of people are going to have 2 tails, a lot of people would have 2 heads.  This would be 2 extremely different results (in terms here, some people would be paid 0, some people would be paid 200% of what they expected).  Now, if I tell you to flip it 100 times each, you'll notice some people still have lower than average numbers (maybe 30 tails), some have higher than average (70 tails), some have just about correct (45-55).  Over a long enough time (number of flips here), everyone will come very close to 50/50 (on average).  People with faster miners just flip coins faster, people on CPUs flip coins slower.

Are you working on/going to implement soon some sort of "coin flipping" distribution for all the wafflepowah at your command over more than one coin at a given time?

[starpool]

+1 for a donate button, or a way to contribute more. I think you're doing a great job. My hash rate is > 20 MH/s and I'd gladly donate .5-1% above your fee. Many of us came from MC and that fee was 3.88%.

MC's biggest problem was lack of communication. As long as you keep talking to us, there should be NO complaining - only suggestions, questions, and thanks!

It's Bitcoin, not BitCHcoin.    It's the wild west and we need more frontiersmen and less whining.

שָׁלוֹם

[saxo50]

Thanks for what your doing poolwaffle!  Work with wafflepool has been a great experience for me so far!

[poolwaffle]

Are you working on/going to implement soon some sort of "coin flipping" distribution for all the wafflepowah at your command over more than one coin at a given time?

We're actually testing it today on a more broad scale than we'd like (making it as fine-grained as we want is challenging on a technical side).  Right now, about 1/5th of our hashrate (EU cluster) has a more open set of coins that it can deal with (essentially 5+ difficulty), where the others are only dealing with 20+ for now.  We want to split it further than that, but again, its not something that happens overnight (unlike the hashrate boost).

[CrashOD]

I'd like to add that I was completely wrong about my issues. I thought it was my slow CPU miners, but it can't be because as everyone else said, the diff should have just increased variance, but I switched to Middlecoin (which is locked at 1024 diff) and I'm getting no REJECTED shares. So sorry for that confusion, but I only seem to have this problem on Wafflepool, which is too bad. I've tried multiple Wafflepool servers, but just get continuous REJECTED shares. I'll keep trying, I really want to mine here. Thanks to all for the information and suggestions.

[phzi]

I'd like to add that I was completely wrong about my issues. I thought it was my slow CPU miners, but it can't be because as everyone else said, the diff should have just increased variance, but I switched to Middlecoin (which is locked at 1024 diff) and I'm getting no REJECTED shares. So sorry for that confusion, but I only seem to have this problem on Wafflepool, which is too bad. I've tried multiple Wafflepool servers, but just get continuous REJECTED shares. I'll keep trying, I really want to mine here. Thanks to all for the information and suggestions.

Definitely sounds like something wrong with your stratum proxy.  Are you using the stratum CPU miner, or longpoll?

--

@wafflepool: I would say replace the miners page with a summary of how many miners we have in various hashrate brackets.  Something like:

51.2MH+: 4 miners
25.6MH-51.2MH: 6 miners
12.8MH-25.6MH: 10 miners
6.4MH-12.8MH: 30 miners
3.2MH-6.4MH: 20 miners
1.6MH-3.2MH: 20 miners
800KH-1.6MH: 200 miners
400KH-800KH: 130 miners
200KH-400KH: 150 miners
100KH-200KH: 100 miners
0-100KH/s: 100 miners

Provides an interesting stats summary, whereas the current miners page has grown fairly useless except as a competition to see where you sit in the pool.

[CrashOD]

I'd like to add that I was completely wrong about my issues. I thought it was my slow CPU miners, but it can't be because as everyone else said, the diff should have just increased variance, but I switched to Middlecoin (which is locked at 1024 diff) and I'm getting no REJECTED shares. So sorry for that confusion, but I only seem to have this problem on Wafflepool, which is too bad. I've tried multiple Wafflepool servers, but just get continuous REJECTED shares. I'll keep trying, I really want to mine here. Thanks to all for the information and suggestions.

Definitely sounds like something wrong with your stratum proxy.  Are you using the stratum CPU miner, or longpoll?

I'm using minerd miners (no default stratum support) connected to a central stratum proxy. That stratum proxy connects to a headless linux VPS forwarding all traffic to whatever pool I choose. All I did was change the IP on the VPS to point to Middlecoin instead of Wafflepool and all of my rejects went away. So something else is going on, because my miner configurations haven't changed at all since I started mining LTC a year ago. I guess I was just having connection issues to just Wafflepool.

[amcdon]

Provides an interesting stats summary, whereas the current miners page has grown fairly useless except as a competition to see where you sit in the pool.

And even then, it never seems to be in much of an order (at least that I can see?) so it's not even really useful for that.

I say either get rid of it or actually sort the hashrates in descending order.