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

[ghur]

if i have multiple rigs and want to see individual stats do i use "btc_rig1"

or somethihng along the lines of that?? or if i do that will it cant it as a differnt address

Use multiple addresses to get individual stats per miner

[1714862575]

1714862575

[1714862575]

1714862575

[1714862575]

1714862575

[1714862575]

1714862575

[rsx19]

if i have multiple rigs and want to see individual stats do i use "btc_rig1"

or somethihng along the lines of that?? or if i do that will it cant it as a differnt address

Use multiple addresses to get individual stats per miner

hrrm i dont want to get paid out every week lol i only have 1.4mh

[Hatch]

Thank you Phzi,

That was another well written and thorough reply. As I mentioned before, I have read through everything and do have a decent understanding of the effect of the low-diff and/or fast block times, but I am specifically bringing this up in context with the feedback I "seem" to get in comparison with the other pools... Is Terk that much better at finding "fast" coins to mine than the others? Maybe so...

Yet another person that doesn't really know how to read the reject rate. Seriously, guys, soemone needs to put this in the OP and on the site FAQ. Otherwise people freak out and write long posts for nothing.

Hatch, are you reading the rejects rate from the hashrate line or the uppermost line in SGminer? If you'd check out the hashrate line, you'd see that the real reject rate is under 1% after 2-3 days of uptime.

Actually Xeno, I am comparing all of the stats I can find, from below the "Last Hour Hashrate" and the "Realtime Hashrate Stats (10-minute intervals)" graphics, as well as the individual GPU lines AND dividing my rejected by the accepted numbers in that top line. I am primarily focusing on the prior and the latter, and again mentioning this in the light of performance stats with other multi's...

Maybe I am underestimating the effects of the fast coins, but again, why does it seem worse here? And in fact if I am (along with the multitude of others that seem to be bothered by the same) blowing it out of proportion, is there not something we can do to convey this to the users? Perception is more often mistaken for reality than not and will determine whether folks give CM a fair shake or not. Terk said that he would like to get more "hashpower", yet seems to be quite willing to lose that hashpower belonging to the "less informed" because of the way the reject rate at CM is perceived by them and me. The fix could be as simple as another graphic that would appear with the rest of the rejected stats on the website when we ARE mining something faster than normal that explains the temporary phenomena and tells them not to worry about a higher than normal reject rate at this particular time...

There is a problem here in the way that "I" and obviously others perceive the reject rates (real or imagined), and therefore the overall effectiveness of this service. A problem which I believe does have a damping effect on the growth of an otherwise outstanding service... Now I know that in the overall scheme of things, my little 10Mhs doesn't really matter all that much, but yesterday when I wrote that I was pretty much ready to take that 10MHs to CM's closest competitor, even though I do not like their service overall nearly as much as I do Terks. All I am suggesting is that the issue is addressed either by code that improves the actual reject rates if possible, or by website design improvements that address the perception of their being a problem...

Thanks again for the replies!

Cya in the mines!

[OhAnonymousMe]

When you do the auto-exchange, do you use the most profitable exchange rate on various exchanges or do you just use one exchange for everything?

[Xenocyde]

There is a problem here in the way that that I the way "I" and obviously others perceive the reject rates (real or imagined), and therefore the overall effectiveness of this service. A problem which I believe does have a damping effect on the growth of an otherwise outstanding service... Now I know that in the overall scheme of things, my little 10Mhs doesn't really matter all that much, but yesterday when I wrote that I was pretty much ready to take that 10MHs to CM's closest competitor, even though I do not like their service overall, nearly as much as I do Terks. All I am suggesting is that the issue is addressed either by code that improves the actual reject rates if possible, or by website design improvements that address the perception of their being a problem...

I agree that the rejects problem drives some people away from this pool and the problem is not clearly pointed out in the OP and on the site. Every time I see somebody freaking out about high rejects rate, I urge Terk or whoever can update the OP or site to inform everybody about thisproblem, but still no move. Somebody said that the fake rejects issue is known and was presented by the lead programmer of cgminer and everybody knows about it. Well, that's far fatched... clearly many don't know.  

There is however a place on the site that displays the real rejects rate and that is under the hashrate wheel - graphs are bugged so no use looking at them.

[Brewins]

Very clean website.
Looking very professional. Will definitely consider using this pool if ever in need of an auto switching profit pool!

[rsx19]

started mining about 8 hours ago and on cgminer it shows a 98% reject rate and about 15% on the website

what do?

[phzi]

started mining about 8 hours ago and on cgminer it shows a 98% reject rate and about 15% on the website

what do?

Ignore the untracked stratum shares in cgminer - they aren't actual rejects.  The rate on the website is correct, as well as the per-device reject rates in cgminer (NOT A: vs R: at the top for all cards).

[imall4btc]

I also started mining at CM around 6-7 hours ago, and I get a rejection rate of 25% as reported in cgminer and  2.5% as stated on the website.

Any help on correcting this issue??

Thanks

[byt411]

I also started mining at CM around 6-7 hours ago, and I get a rejection rate of 25% as reported in cgminer and  2.5% as stated on the website.

Any help on correcting this issue??

Thanks

The rejects on Cgminer are what we call "Fake Rejects", they are caused by a communication problem between the miner and the pool.
"Fake rejects" appear as "Untracked Stratum Share on pool 0".

[imall4btc]

I also started mining at CM around 6-7 hours ago, and I get a rejection rate of 25% as reported in cgminer and  2.5% as stated on the website.

Any help on correcting this issue??

Thanks

The rejects on Cgminer are what we call "Fake Rejects", they are caused by a communication problem between the miner and the pool.
"Fake rejects" appear as "Untracked Stratum Share on pool 0".

Hmmmm, okay. Thanks for the information.

So I should consider the rejection rate displayed at the website as the correct one?

[byt411]

I also started mining at CM around 6-7 hours ago, and I get a rejection rate of 25% as reported in cgminer and  2.5% as stated on the website.

Any help on correcting this issue??

Thanks

The rejects on Cgminer are what we call "Fake Rejects", they are caused by a communication problem between the miner and the pool.
"Fake rejects" appear as "Untracked Stratum Share on pool 0".

Hmmmm, okay. Thanks for the information.

So I should consider the rejection rate displayed at the website as the correct one?

Instead of looking at the R:xxx shares at the top, look at the ones per device. That is the correct one.

[imall4btc]

I also started mining at CM around 6-7 hours ago, and I get a rejection rate of 25% as reported in cgminer and  2.5% as stated on the website.

Any help on correcting this issue??

Thanks

The rejects on Cgminer are what we call "Fake Rejects", they are caused by a communication problem between the miner and the pool.
"Fake rejects" appear as "Untracked Stratum Share on pool 0".

Hmmmm, okay. Thanks for the information.

So I should consider the rejection rate displayed at the website as the correct one?

Instead of looking at the R:xxx shares at the top, look at the ones per device. That is the correct one.

Okay, then I think all is fine. My Current A: 292864 R: 3072 .

Thanks for your input, byt411 .

[Terk]

I updated the OP with some notice about fake rejects issue. Please let me know if it's OK and if it will be understandable by new users (or help me write a better text). I'm 100% into tech issues and ongoing maintenance at this moment and I know that I'm not in my best copywriting form today . I'm not sure if what I wrote will clear new users confusions or not. Thanks!

[byt411]

I updated the OP with some notice about fake rejects issue. Please let me know if it's OK and if it will be understandable by new users (or help me write a better text). I'm 100% into tech issues and ongoing maintenance at this moment and I know that I'm not in my best copywriting form today . I'm not sure if what I wrote will clear new users confusions or not. Thanks!

That's good, but you really should add that on-site. Like as a banner, next to the servers.

[Terk]

Also, these are pool-wide rejects averages in the last week.

Code:

2014-05-01: 2.58%
2014-05-02: 3.20%
2014-05-03: 3.89%
2014-05-04: 3.73%
2014-05-05: 4.03%
2014-05-06: 3.73%
2014-05-07: 2.92%

I really don't think that they're higher than at other coin-switch pools. Our rejects average when mining LTC was 0.98% during last week which is also comparable to straight LTC pools.

We sometimes mine coins which have 10% or even 15% rejects ratio and that's why our rejects averages will always be higher than straight LTC mining. But we mine these coins only if profitability difference will make up for rejects difference. For example, a coin with 125% profitability and 10% rejects will give us 125% * 90% = 112.5% net profitability. A coin with 110% profitability and 2% rejects ratio will give us 110% * 98% = 107.8% net profitability. As much as everyone would prefer to see 2% rejects instead of 10% rejects, I bet he would even more prefer to get more profits.

If we temporarily have rejects spike, it only means that we are mining something what's worth throwing 10% of our hashpower into the toilet, because the remaining 90% will earn more than 100% would earn when mining some other coin.

[imall4btc]

Also, these are pool-wide rejects averages in the last week.

Code:

2014-05-01: 2.58%
2014-05-02: 3.20%
2014-05-03: 3.89%
2014-05-04: 3.73%
2014-05-05: 4.03%
2014-05-06: 3.73%
2014-05-07: 2.92%

I really don't think that they're higher than at other coin-switch pools. Our rejects average when mining LTC was 0.98% during last week which is also comparable to straight LTC pools.

We sometimes mine coins which have 10% or even 15% rejects ratio and that's why our rejects averages will always be higher than straight LTC mining. But we mine these coins only if profitability difference will make up for rejects difference. For example, a coin with 125% profitability and 10% rejects will give us 125% * 90% = 112.5% net profitability. A coin with 110% profitability and 2% rejects ratio will give us 110% * 98% = 107.8% net profitability. As much as everyone would prefer to see 2% rejects instead of 10% rejects, I bet he would even more prefer to get more profits.

If we temporarily have rejects spike, it only means that we are mining something what's worth throwing 10% of our hashpower into the toilet, because the remaining 90% will earn more than 100% would earn when mining some other coin.

All understood now, Terk. Thanks for your service and hats off to your hard work you put in running CM!!

[Xenocyde]

I updated the OP with some notice about fake rejects issue. Please let me know if it's OK and if it will be understandable by new users (or help me write a better text). I'm 100% into tech issues and ongoing maintenance at this moment and I know that I'm not in my best copywriting form today . I'm not sure if what I wrote will clear new users confusions or not. Thanks!

That's good, but you really should add that on-site. Like as a banner, next to the servers.

Finally, all my remarks weren't in vain! Thanks for that Terk. Site needs a notice as well.

[edonkey]

if i have multiple rigs and want to see individual stats do i use "btc_rig1"

or somethihng along the lines of that?? or if i do that will it cant it as a differnt address

Use multiple addresses to get individual stats per miner

hrrm i dont want to get paid out every week lol i only have 1.4mh

I agree. The ability to specify a worker name but collect mining revenue at the same address would be very nice.

Other multi pools, like WP have this feature. In fact, given that CM and WP profitability is so close over time, I prefer to stay with WP mostly because they have this feature (as well as an API and wealth of stats).

If CM added some of these features, I'd have less reason to stay with WP. Just sayin...

[_javi_]

The ability to check per rig/worker stats would be awesome.