[ANN][AUTO-SWITCH] Profit-switch auto-exchange pool: CleverMining.com

[suchmoon]

The time has finally come! If you pay for electricity in the US and are mining with a radeon GPU the cost of the electricity is greater than the value of the BTC youre receiving through this pool for most.  Its been a fun ride everyone.  The LTC hashrate has increased over 50% in the last 2 weeks(!!!) and is only going to continue to rise rapidly.  ASIC are here and are only going to get cheaper and more powerful.

However, the depressed BTC is actually a good thing.  There is much profit to be made by selling hardware and buying cheap BTC

US is quite large and power costs range from 0.08 to 0.30 USD per kWh. I'm sure there are plenty of places where GPU mining is still profitable. Having said that I switched to X11 not because of energy costs but because of heat. It was either that or to invest into cooling, which is ultimately pointless waste.

[1714872813]

1714872813

[1714872813]

1714872813

[1714872813]

1714872813

[byt411]

I think if we are mining LTC then the profitability should just say 100%, never below.  If you are mining LTC you are getting 100% of what you should be getting with it, just sometimes that's less then you want.  It's still 100%.

No, you are not, and you are bad at maths.

100% LTC = Estimated found blocks in the period with the current pool hashrate. That will never be the case, it will be more or less. If we get less, like 89%, we can't just say it was 100%, since Terk would have to pay the missing 11% from his own pocket.
If we get more, say 138% and we say it was 100%, Terk would be pocketing 38% of the earnings for himself.

Your maths and common sense is terrible.

[jpchrist]

The time has finally come! If you pay for electricity in the US and are mining with a radeon GPU the cost of the electricity is greater than the value of the BTC youre receiving through this pool for most.  Its been a fun ride everyone.  The LTC hashrate has increased over 50% in the last 2 weeks(!!!) and is only going to continue to rise rapidly.  ASIC are here and are only going to get cheaper and more powerful.

However, the depressed BTC is actually a good thing.  There is much profit to be made by selling hardware and buying cheap BTC

US is quite large and power costs range from 0.08 to 0.30 USD per kWh. I'm sure there are plenty of places where GPU mining is still profitable. Having said that I switched to X11 not because of energy costs but because of heat. It was either that or to invest into cooling, which is ultimately pointless waste.

Sure, just not places where people live.

[Joe9]

Clevermining looks great, but the one thing that keeps me from using it is that I can't look at my workers individually.

[jpchrist]

Clevermining looks great, but the one thing that keeps me from using it is that I can't look at my workers individually.

Sure you can, just use different BTC addresses for each miner. Pretty obvious...

[lixxy]

Does Clevermining have plans for adding X11? Wafflepool announced X11 is going to happen and I'll be forced to switch in the near future if Clevermining doesn't plan on doing the same! I'd love to stay here though!

[PCMiner]

I think if we are mining LTC then the profitability should just say 100%, never below.  If you are mining LTC you are getting 100% of what you should be getting with it, just sometimes that's less then you want.  It's still 100%.

No, you are not, and you are bad at maths.

100% LTC = Estimated found blocks in the period with the current pool hashrate. That will never be the case, it will be more or less. If we get less, like 89%, we can't just say it was 100%, since Terk would have to pay the missing 11% from his own pocket.
If we get more, say 138% and we say it was 100%, Terk would be pocketing 38% of the earnings for himself.

Your maths and common sense is terrible.

You must be new here.   I post this idea not because it's necessarily 'correct' (Although, it is) but because having that little percentage thing never go below 100% would stop the endless tirade of posts in this thread about "HOW ARE WE UNDERZ 100%!!! TERK IS STEALING" etc etc etc.

Clearly Terk is not stealing, there is more money to be made keeping this pool alive over the long term then there is with any sort of short sighted behavior such as stealing.

My point is that little percentage on the website is supposed to represent what this pool brings in when compared to just mining straight LTC.  Well it seems, regardless of the number of blocks found in a day, if you are mining LTC, then you are mining at 100% of what mining LTC would bring in.  Understand my point?  Because of variance there is no way to ever know what 100% this or 80% that is with crypto... You just go with what you got.  And if what you got is 6 blocks over a 24 hours period, that's 100% of what you brought in.

[patlaka2000]

I agree with PCMiner. If you want to know what is the profit difference between all the pools for the last 10 days this is a useful link: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VOAhFX1XRizdaTp71qnYI5pRh9VIZEQ51LHuGUmxri0/pubhtml

Make sure you watch Profitability comparison - 10 day average.

Also LeaseRig is not a thing to consider as you have to pass through a ton of applications, verification and approvals to start renting rigs.

I'm also waiting for X11 or Groestl versions of clever. It seems that these newer algorithms are speeding up and mining is less noisy and cooler  

 

[jedimstr]

I think if we are mining LTC then the profitability should just say 100%, never below.  If you are mining LTC you are getting 100% of what you should be getting with it, just sometimes that's less then you want.  It's still 100%.

No, you are not, and you are bad at maths.

100% LTC = Estimated found blocks in the period with the current pool hashrate. That will never be the case, it will be more or less. If we get less, like 89%, we can't just say it was 100%, since Terk would have to pay the missing 11% from his own pocket.
If we get more, say 138% and we say it was 100%, Terk would be pocketing 38% of the earnings for himself.

Your maths and common sense is terrible.

You must be new here.   I post this idea not because it's necessarily 'correct' (Although, it is) but because having that little percentage thing never go below 100% would stop the endless tirade of posts in this thread about "HOW ARE WE UNDERZ 100%!!! TERK IS STEALING" etc etc etc.

Clearly Terk is not stealing, there is more money to be made keeping this pool alive over the long term then there is with any sort of short sighted behavior such as stealing.

My point is that little percentage on the website is supposed to represent what this pool brings in when compared to just mining straight LTC.  Well it seems, regardless of the number of blocks found in a day, if you are mining LTC, then you are mining at 100% of what mining LTC would bring in.  Understand my point?  Because of variance there is no way to ever know what 100% this or 80% that is with crypto... You just go with what you got.  And if what you got is 6 blocks over a 24 hours period, that's 100% of what you brought in.

That 100% is based on the projected ideal LTC profitability.  Even pure LTC pools won't be exactly 100% LTC Profitability all the time due to the same variance you mention.  In a bad luck streak, a pure LTC pool could be getting 65% or in a good luck streak it could be getting 130%. 

[Burnie]

You must be new here.   I post this idea not because it's necessarily 'correct' (Although, it is) but because having that little percentage thing never go below 100% would stop the endless tirade of posts in this thread about "HOW ARE WE UNDERZ 100%!!! TERK IS STEALING" etc etc etc.

Clearly Terk is not stealing, there is more money to be made keeping this pool alive over the long term then there is with any sort of short sighted behavior such as stealing.

My point is that little percentage on the website is supposed to represent what this pool brings in when compared to just mining straight LTC.  Well it seems, regardless of the number of blocks found in a day, if you are mining LTC, then you are mining at 100% of what mining LTC would bring in.  Understand my point?  Because of variance there is no way to ever know what 100% this or 80% that is with crypto... You just go with what you got.  And if what you got is 6 blocks over a 24 hours period, that's 100% of what you brought in.

So you think it would be ok to just make up a number and call it 100% LTC?

So in a given day, 100% LTC on clevermining gives 0.00320 BTC/day,
100% LTC on pool Y gives 0.00400 BTC/day and 100% LTC on pool Z gives 0.00250 BTC/day?

[PCMiner]

I think if we are mining LTC then the profitability should just say 100%, never below.  If you are mining LTC you are getting 100% of what you should be getting with it, just sometimes that's less then you want.  It's still 100%.

No, you are not, and you are bad at maths.

100% LTC = Estimated found blocks in the period with the current pool hashrate. That will never be the case, it will be more or less. If we get less, like 89%, we can't just say it was 100%, since Terk would have to pay the missing 11% from his own pocket.
If we get more, say 138% and we say it was 100%, Terk would be pocketing 38% of the earnings for himself.

Your maths and common sense is terrible.

You must be new here.   I post this idea not because it's necessarily 'correct' (Although, it is) but because having that little percentage thing never go below 100% would stop the endless tirade of posts in this thread about "HOW ARE WE UNDERZ 100%!!! TERK IS STEALING" etc etc etc.

Clearly Terk is not stealing, there is more money to be made keeping this pool alive over the long term then there is with any sort of short sighted behavior such as stealing.

My point is that little percentage on the website is supposed to represent what this pool brings in when compared to just mining straight LTC.  Well it seems, regardless of the number of blocks found in a day, if you are mining LTC, then you are mining at 100% of what mining LTC would bring in.  Understand my point?  Because of variance there is no way to ever know what 100% this or 80% that is with crypto... You just go with what you got.  And if what you got is 6 blocks over a 24 hours period, that's 100% of what you brought in.

That 100% is based on the projected ideal LTC profitability.  Even pure LTC pools won't be exactly 100% LTC Profitability all the time due to the same variance you mention.  In a bad luck streak, a pure LTC pool could be getting 65% or in a good luck streak it could be getting 130%.  

True, and I'm guessing that percentage on the website is based on that.  I guess I was just thinking it would be nice to shut up everyone who doesn't understand variance by nipping that in the bud and leaving it as a minimum of 100%.  Although, I admit some bad choices on mining alt coins could potentially put us genuinely under 100%.   Terk's code now allows the pool to split it's hashrate over multiple coins at once so that opens up a mathematical problem to sort out as well.  

Either way it would be nice if people understood that sometimes the pool is up, sometimes down, you're looking at a minimum of 7 days to understand how it's really doing.  He should remove that hour by hour stat page.

[bilbo333]

I have a general clever mining question.

Can I point two workers to the same address link for clever mining?  Will the two worker's hash rates show up on the stats page?  I am guessing they would be combined.
Thank you.

[ghur]

You must be new here.   I post this idea not because it's necessarily 'correct' (Although, it is) but because having that little percentage thing never go below 100% would stop the endless tirade of posts in this thread about "HOW ARE WE UNDERZ 100%!!! TERK IS STEALING" etc etc etc.

Clearly Terk is not stealing, there is more money to be made keeping this pool alive over the long term then there is with any sort of short sighted behavior such as stealing.

My point is that little percentage on the website is supposed to represent what this pool brings in when compared to just mining straight LTC.  Well it seems, regardless of the number of blocks found in a day, if you are mining LTC, then you are mining at 100% of what mining LTC would bring in.  Understand my point?  Because of variance there is no way to ever know what 100% this or 80% that is with crypto... You just go with what you got.  And if what you got is 6 blocks over a 24 hours period, that's 100% of what you brought in.

So you think it would be ok to just make up a number and call it 100% LTC?

So in a given day, 100% LTC on clevermining gives 0.00320 BTC/day,
100% LTC on pool Y gives 0.00400 BTC/day and 100% LTC on pool Z gives 0.00250 BTC/day?

It's not a made up number. It's a calculated value.
Variance causes the actual result to vary around that value, but if all variables stay the same and the sample size becomes large enough, you will see that the actual result will trend really close to the calculated value.

Think of mining as a lottery and more hashrate gets you more tickets. Having more tickets makes you more likely to win, but unless you have all tickets, you're not guaranteed to win.

[byt411]

You must be new here.   I post this idea not because it's necessarily 'correct' (Although, it is) but because having that little percentage thing never go below 100% would stop the endless tirade of posts in this thread about "HOW ARE WE UNDERZ 100%!!! TERK IS STEALING" etc etc etc.

Clearly Terk is not stealing, there is more money to be made keeping this pool alive over the long term then there is with any sort of short sighted behavior such as stealing.

My point is that little percentage on the website is supposed to represent what this pool brings in when compared to just mining straight LTC.  Well it seems, regardless of the number of blocks found in a day, if you are mining LTC, then you are mining at 100% of what mining LTC would bring in.  Understand my point?  Because of variance there is no way to ever know what 100% this or 80% that is with crypto... You just go with what you got.  And if what you got is 6 blocks over a 24 hours period, that's 100% of what you brought in.

So you think it would be ok to just make up a number and call it 100% LTC?

So in a given day, 100% LTC on clevermining gives 0.00320 BTC/day,
100% LTC on pool Y gives 0.00400 BTC/day and 100% LTC on pool Z gives 0.00250 BTC/day?

It's not a made up number. It's a calculated value.
Variance causes the actual result to vary around that value, but if all variables stay the same and the sample size becomes large enough, you will see that the actual result will trend really close to the calculated value.

Think of mining as a lottery and more hashrate gets you more tickets. Having more tickets makes you more likely to win, but unless you have all tickets, you're not guaranteed to win.

Exactly. If we just say that it was 100%, people will get even more confused if they compare it to straight LTC profitability BTC/MHs/Day. We can't make up that number, because that would be faking stats. Even if the trend is really close to the calculated value, it still won't be exact.
Why should we even change it? I think all Terk needs to change is add a FAQ to include all these explanations.

[suchmoon]

I have a general clever mining question.

Can I point two workers to the same address link for clever mining?  Will the two worker's hash rates show up on the stats page?  I am guessing they would be combined.
Thank you.

You can use the same address and stats would be combined.

[bitlind]

Looking for some input on this, and wanted to post here to see if any of you are also experiencing this issue with CM.

I purchased a few gridseeds and pointed one to CM when standing these up to test and implement.  Rarely do I get any accepted shares on this pool (maybe 2 or 3 every 15 minutes), have many rejected and it is just detecting new blocks over and over without receiving or submitting work.



These are my settings:

cgminer.exe --scrypt -o stratum+tcp://us.clevermining.com:3333 -u btcaddress -p xx --gridseed-options=baud=115200,freq=850,chips=5 --hotplug 30

Basically default.  I am using the cgminer version supplied by GAWMiners on a laptop and used Zadig to install the USB drivers so the miners could be recognized, device manager shows it as a Universal Serial Bus Device STM32 Virtual COM Port.  If I close cgminer and reopen, every time the dual miners are not recognized.  If I have to or need to restart cgminer, I have to close it, unplug the miners from the laptop, wait 15 seconds and plug back in then launch cgminer to detect.  I am not using a USB hub.  Not sure if this info is relevant. 

If I run the miners with WeMineLTC.com, I get all Accepted shares with their var diff, so we are assuming the diff with the multi pools is the problem.  Are we all just SOL when it comes to multi pool mining with these?  I see a lot of posts regarding the dual miners and CM but no resolution as of yet unless I am missing it in my searches.

[alienesb]

I have the happen on occasion but figure it's probably the pool switching coins.

[bitlind]

I have the happen on occasion but figure it's probably the pool switching coins.

I don't think it is just the pool switching coins, this goes on indefinitely and the rejects increase infinitely.  It never just reads "Accepted 34da9094 diff" across the board, it always just detects new block and network diff changes then a new block, diff changes, repeat and rinse with a share accepted here and there.  Like I said, I get 2-3 shares accepted in a 15 minute time period, it doesn't take more than a minute or so for the pool to switch coins.

[PCMiner]

You must be new here.   I post this idea not because it's necessarily 'correct' (Although, it is) but because having that little percentage thing never go below 100% would stop the endless tirade of posts in this thread about "HOW ARE WE UNDERZ 100%!!! TERK IS STEALING" etc etc etc.

Clearly Terk is not stealing, there is more money to be made keeping this pool alive over the long term then there is with any sort of short sighted behavior such as stealing.

My point is that little percentage on the website is supposed to represent what this pool brings in when compared to just mining straight LTC.  Well it seems, regardless of the number of blocks found in a day, if you are mining LTC, then you are mining at 100% of what mining LTC would bring in.  Understand my point?  Because of variance there is no way to ever know what 100% this or 80% that is with crypto... You just go with what you got.  And if what you got is 6 blocks over a 24 hours period, that's 100% of what you brought in.

So you think it would be ok to just make up a number and call it 100% LTC?

So in a given day, 100% LTC on clevermining gives 0.00320 BTC/day,
100% LTC on pool Y gives 0.00400 BTC/day and 100% LTC on pool Z gives 0.00250 BTC/day?

It's not a made up number. It's a calculated value.
Variance causes the actual result to vary around that value, but if all variables stay the same and the sample size becomes large enough, you will see that the actual result will trend really close to the calculated value.

Think of mining as a lottery and more hashrate gets you more tickets. Having more tickets makes you more likely to win, but unless you have all tickets, you're not guaranteed to win.

Exactly. If we just say that it was 100%, people will get even more confused if they compare it to straight LTC profitability BTC/MHs/Day. We can't make up that number, because that would be faking stats. Even if the trend is really close to the calculated value, it still won't be exact.
Why should we even change it? I think all Terk needs to change is add a FAQ to include all these explanations.

Everything you guys are saying is correct, and you all are missing my point.

My point is to change the way the percentage is calculated to represent the SITE's percentage vs just showing what the percentage is compared to the mathematically perfect situation of getting our number of LTC blocks per day when we factor our pools hash rate vs the global hash rate vs the 2.5 minute estimated time per block etc etc...  

While statistically everything you guys are bringing up is correct, all it does is confuse the young un's.    If clevermining is mining LTC, then the pool is averaging it's own 100% return on LTC.  This isn't the global figure you have mentioned in messages above (which is correct, in it's own way), this is the site's percentage.   That's what I'm getting at.  Then the swings in percentage would be based on that return but averaging in the ups or downs of actual alt coins besides LTC.

[Xenocyde]

Looking for some input on this, and wanted to post here to see if any of you are also experiencing this issue with CM.

I purchased a few gridseeds and pointed one to CM when standing these up to test and implement.  Rarely do I get any accepted shares on this pool (maybe 2 or 3 every 15 minutes), have many rejected and it is just detecting new blocks over and over without receiving or submitting work.



These are my settings:

cgminer.exe --scrypt -o stratum+tcp://us.clevermining.com:3333 -u btcaddress -p xx --gridseed-options=baud=115200,freq=850,chips=5 --hotplug 30

Basically default.  I am using the cgminer version supplied by GAWMiners on a laptop and used Zadig to install the USB drivers so the miners could be recognized, device manager shows it as a Universal Serial Bus Device STM32 Virtual COM Port.  If I close cgminer and reopen, every time the dual miners are not recognized.  If I have to or need to restart cgminer, I have to close it, unplug the miners from the laptop, wait 15 seconds and plug back in then launch cgminer to detect.  I am not using a USB hub.  Not sure if this info is relevant.  

If I run the miners with WeMineLTC.com, I get all Accepted shares with their var diff, so we are assuming the diff with the multi pools is the problem.  Are we all just SOL when it comes to multi pool mining with these?  I see a lot of posts regarding the dual miners and CM but no resolution as of yet unless I am missing it in my searches.

I see 30K accepted to 2.5k rejected. Meaning around 7% rejected which is a bit high, but we don't know the time span so the rejected rate could go down to 2% after more uptime. Mind you, rejected untracked shares are not real rejects, only job not found rejects are real. Don't know what to say about the scarce accepted rate though... I don't have gridseeds.