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

[jayson001]

In the past 24 hours, my profit is only 0.00729501 BTC with 77.4 MH/s 24-hour Average. Current profit rate is 0.000182 BTC/M, it should be 77*0.000182 = 0.014014BTC. What I actually got is only half. Anyone has the same problem?

Nope.  Mine is exactly as it should be, or very close.

My "profit graph" just tanked by half and the hashrate (which was "suppressed" for a good while) went back to "normal". I guess whatever we were mining the last few days is not profitable anymore at all, so we switched and the next best coin that we're mining now is not that profitable either.

My hashrate also dropped a little bit in the last 24 hours, but the the problems is that the profit is only half of the normal level. It is strange. I will watch for one day to see what's going on?

[1714927346]

1714927346

[1714927346]

1714927346

[1714927346]

1714927346

[LTEX]

Perhaps a case of abscent OP and defunctive Pool?

Last post from OP:

need help on this account
1MpGkc9pnDhfMe6WQNF47pywY3GAfjYJKo.BLUHASHZEUSPOWER

I use append user but this is make me not getting paid can you help me please,

I renamed your username to 1MpGkc9pnDhfMe6WQNF47pywY3GAfjYJKo. Please use it when you will resume mining. CleverMining doesn't support worker addresses (yet).

Last tweet: 17-sep-2014 https://twitter.com/CleverMining

Mind you, these are the only two ways to communicate with CM, so... OP went AWOL!

[sven22]

I wonder which coin they mined I am enjoying this tbh! Sorry for the miners though!

[Newar]

[...]

Last tweet: 17-sep-2014 https://twitter.com/CleverMining

Mind you, these are the only two ways to communicate with CM, so... OP went AWOL!

His user profile shows:
Last Active:    February 05, 2015, 10:43:25 AM

[ny2cafuse]

[...]

Last tweet: 17-sep-2014 https://twitter.com/CleverMining

Mind you, these are the only two ways to communicate with CM, so... OP went AWOL!

His user profile shows:
Last Active:    February 05, 2015, 10:43:25 AM

But when is the last time he said anything in his own pool's thread?

Hate to break it to you, mate, but Terk isn't paying attention to his pool.  I know for a fact that around 4GH of CM mining power has been wasted for the last few days.

Maybe Terk will pay his miners for his lack of attention... if he even admits it, or he even says something after months of silence.

-Fuse

[Newar]

Hate to break it to you, mate, but Terk isn't paying attention to his pool.  I know for a fact that around 4GH of CM mining power has been wasted for the last few days.

Maybe Terk will pay his miners for his lack of attention... if he even admits it, or he even says something after months of silence.

-Fuse

What is there to say? Apart from the Guldencoin crowd whining, there was not much to talk about, apart from what was mentioned today.

In the meanwhile, if you could elaborate a bit more on your facts, that'd be great.

[ny2cafuse]

Hate to break it to you, mate, but Terk isn't paying attention to his pool.  I know for a fact that around 4GH of CM mining power has been wasted for the last few days.

Maybe Terk will pay his miners for his lack of attention... if he even admits it, or he even says something after months of silence.

-Fuse

What is there to say? Apart from the Guldencoin crowd whining, there was not much to talk about, apart from what was mentioned today.

In the meanwhile, if you could elaborate a bit more on your facts, that'd be great.

PM sent.  Up to you what you want to do with the info.

-Fuse

[Newar]

Thanks for the pointer, ny2cafuse.

Looks like Guldencoin changed the algorithm and left CM to mine on the old one. I don't have the time to dive into the specifics of this, but it looks like the last couple of days have gone to waste, at least partially.

Clever gone I see 
Nice spreading of hashes http://nlgstats.iblogger.org/
And Digishield is kicking in right well I think http://guldencointrader.nl/moeilijkheid.php

looks like the difficulty has maintained more stable rate. looking good!

Don't want to spoil the positive spirit but I saw these kind of messages with the DGW change also...

- The signs atm show Clever is still on the old wallet so i hope he's mining for J. Doe
- The latter means the diff would have been more steady with or without Digi
- the fact 30% of the wallets are old DGW AND Clever not on this chain does not make me confident (chains are chosen on work not on proper calculated diffs)
- Digi is more nervous due to the other way of retargetting and due to that the average blocks an hour are way to low, not a big deal but not OK either
- The main reason Digi was a better choice was to equalize the chances for all miners and discourage Clever, not as a final fix keep that in mind

So yes it looks OK but thats about it, if Clever jumps back in we can see if Digi does what we expected it to do.
On the other hand, in the past weeks we got company of another - I guess jump pool - and if Bio and friends  are planning to cut back on hashpower and we don't get Multi hour blocktimes it's a good sign. Till then we have to wait and see...
 
 

thsminer:

I've been running a 1.3.0 guldencoind to keep an eye on the DGW chain..  clever is still mining on it.    i doubt anything malicious.. anyways, block height wise they're pretty much even with us. but for networkhashrate the digi chain is killing it..  17GH DIGI vs 4GH DGW last 100 blocks.  1.3.0 guldencoind queries cut and pastes below.

Code:

[root@dell ~]# guldencoind getbestblockhash
4ab117917969d896e962eac3d231e4a0cd7d6e52350872336927f356a474b0b9
[root@dell ~]# guldencoind getblock 4ab117917969d896e962eac3d231e4a0cd7d6e52350872336927f356a474b0b9
{
    "hash" : "4ab117917969d896e962eac3d231e4a0cd7d6e52350872336927f356a474b0b9",
    "confirmations" : 1,
    "size" : 249,
    "height" : 194492,
    "version" : 2,
    "merkleroot" : "6418cbb4e728bd63cdcb683571b2d420a371cf50e25d05223bd4ad2d3760682e",
    "tx" : [
        "6418cbb4e728bd63cdcb683571b2d420a371cf50e25d05223bd4ad2d3760682e"
    ],
    "time" : 1422847904,
    "nonce" : 15892272,
    "bits" : "1c0116fb",
    "difficulty" : 234.90891779,
    "previousblockhash" : "b7396a43f6a92e2483b29b4de85cda44c69781b0b7bcc5652630ee2abb513a2c"
}
[root@dell ~]# guldencoind gettxout 6418cbb4e728bd63cdcb683571b2d420a371cf50e25d05223bd4ad2d3760682e 0
{
    "bestblock" : "4ab117917969d896e962eac3d231e4a0cd7d6e52350872336927f356a474b0b9",
    "confirmations" : 1,
    "value" : 1000.00000000,
    "scriptPubKey" : {
        "asm" : "OP_DUP OP_HASH160 e96200b2643f6188c66305cd7b3a28923ab0bf0e OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG",
        "hex" : "76a914e96200b2643f6188c66305cd7b3a28923ab0bf0e88ac",
        "reqSigs" : 1,
        "type" : "pubkeyhash",
        "addresses" : [
            "Gf7wGAwJGDLfoHcNCRLKZqpk2EQU5ixA6c"
        ]
    },
    "version" : 1,
    "coinbase" : true
}
[root@dell ~]# guldencoind getmininginfo
{
    "blocks" : 194497,
    "currentblocksize" : 0,
    "currentblocktx" : 0,
    "difficulty" : 324.09852217,
    "errors" : "IMPORTANT: Shut down this wallet and download the new version 1.3.1! Very important and mandatory update!!\nBELANGRIJK: Sluit deze wallet af en download de nieuwe versie 1.3.1! Zeer belangrijke update!",
    "generate" : false,
    "genproclimit" : -1,
    "hashespersec" : 0,
    "networkhashps" : 4783660604,
    "pooledtx" : 0,
    "testnet" : false
}

EDIT: Now should we discuss Digi chain mining at a pace of 400 blocks per day? 

[Terk]

Please don't spread FUD about CleverMining losing any significant amount of hashing on a wrong Guldencoin chain. It's true that I miss the daemon update but it's false that we lost "days of mining". Everyone got their expected payout everyday so you know that it simply could not be true that we lost any significant amount. NLG was automatically disabled as soon as the problem was detected and it was less than one day after the fork. CM was putting only tiny fraction of its hashrate into NLG during that time. I'm really sorry for the missed hashes, but they are limited to a tiny amount.

You can see the exact number on the 30-day stats and I highlighted amounts on a screenshot below.

A total of 0.64695054 BTC of immature and unexchanged balance on Feb 1st and 2nd are invalid NLG (highlighted in red). During these two days we mined 64.49990102 BTC of all coins (highlighted in green). So our loss was 1.003% of our two-day hashrate (or 0.066% of monthly hashrate) or 0.00000397 BTC per 1 MH/s, which is worth $0.00085752 per 1 MH/s at current price or $0.85752 per 1 GH/s - this is how much we lost.

I'm really sorry for this, but I want to ensure you that CM has safeguards in place to limit damages in case something like this happens and this is why NLG was disabled shortly after the problem occurred and our loses were very limited - as you can see above. I will change the wrong NLG blocks in database to zeros, so the 0.64695054 BTC wrong balance will disappear, but the screenshot below will stay for reference.

If anyone would like a refund for this loss, I'm happy to send you it manually on the condition that it exceeds the minimum bitcoin transaction output size (dust value) of 0.00005430 BTC. Please PM me with your address and I will send you 1% of your Feb 1st and Feb 2nd profits, which is 0.00000397 per 1 MH/s.




I'm sorry for not being here on Bitcointalk as often as I used to be. The pool was of course maintained technically all the time - as all our miners know, because they were paid regularly without issues - I just spent less time on forums in the last weeks. This is my fault and I intend to bring CleverMining customer service back to its high standards from before! Please give me one day to read through the last few pages and respond to any questions and then I promise to visit the thread every day just like I have been doing for the last year.

CleverMining is as great and strong as ever. Even though altcoins are not as profitable as they were half year ago and months with 130%+ profits are gone, CM still provides the best profit among all major scrypt pools. Thanks for mining with us!

[ny2cafuse]

Terk, you said you are going to answer some questions that were posted.

I'd just like to know why you went back on your word about working with our community, and instead raped the crap out of our coin for 4-5 months?  We have been here in your thread talking about it.  So even if you just read the posts in your own thread, you would either be in one of two boats.  You saw our questions and anger and just didn't get around to doing anything about it... or obvious apathy in what you do.  Or you read it and said to yourself, "fuck NLG"... or obvious greed despite your word to work with our community.

Or you just didn't read your own thread.

I just want your stance on what has happened in the last 5 months, and why you had no response to any of it.

-Fuse

[Terk]

Terk, you said you are going to answer some questions that were posted.

I'd just like to know why you went back on your word about working with our community, and instead raped the crap out of our coin for 4-5 months?  We have been here in your thread talking about it.  So even if you just read the posts in your own thread, you would either be in one of two boats.  You saw our questions and anger and just didn't get around to doing anything about it... or obvious apathy in what you do.  Or you read it and said to yourself, "fuck NLG"... or obvious greed despite your word to work with our community.

Or you just didn't read your own thread.

I just want your stance on what has happened in the last 5 months, and why you had no response to any of it.

-Fuse

Either I have no idea what you are writing about or you have no idea what you are writing about.

I've been in contact with your developers since October. They contacted me and asked for help, because your faulty difficulty readjustment algorithm at that time couldn't cope with our hashrate and difficulty jumps were causing as long as multi-hour gaps between blocks. I investigated the issue and I significantly limited maximum hashrate which CM was putting into NLG. This reduced most extreme block gaps from 160~520 minutes in September-October to 20-60 minutes starting in late October (with most blocks having short times and these are times for longest blocks in a day). While I agree that 30-minute blocks are not ideal, this was a working compromise between your coin interests and our miners interests.

I want to repeat, because you seem to don't understand or don't appreciate it, that the only reason for lowering times from 160~520-minute blocks to 30-minute blocks was cooperation from my side and my willingness to treat your coin gently. I have no reason to destroy coins because I and my users benefit from thriving altcoins, so I always cooperate with coin developers, within reason, if they contact me. NLG developers who contacted me via PM understood that I cannot leave the coin entirely, because our miners expect CM to mine coins which are profitable at any given moment and because if not CM, then some other pool would mine the low-difficulty blocks - and they appreciated my help.

It's only you who come to this thread and accuse of "raping", while I was nothing but gentle and caring towards your coin. It's also you who is happy and who gloat because of the fact that CM didn't update their daemon and that our users wasted a tiny amount of their hashrate on a wrong chain. And it's you who spread FUD about "losing days worth of mining", clearly with the intent to scare our users, while the losses were at a level of 0.00000397 BTC per 1 MH/s or $0.00085752 per 1 MH/s (total, not per day). This is malicious from your side towards me, towards the pool and towards our miners and the only hostile person which I can see here is you.

One more thing, before CM comes back to mining NLG tonight. Longest block gaps of the day were 160-520 minutes (yes, almost 9 hours) before CM reduced hashrate towards NLG to help this coin. They went down to 20-60 minutes after we started cooperating and they have stayed at this level since then. Fast forward to February. We have NOT been mining NLG for the last four days, and these times ARE still 20-60 minutes (30, 64, 22, 26 minutes in the last four days respectively). Two conclusions:

1) It was CleverMining's help and cooperation which caused reducing 160-520 minutes block times to 20-60 minutes (you're welcome).
2) It is NOT CleverMining's fault that you have 20-60 minutes times between blocks because you still have it the same after CM stopped mining the coin.

Considering the above, I expect you to apologize and stop trolling our thread.

[ny2cafuse]

Either I have no idea what you are writing about or you have no idea what you are writing about.

Then you obviously don't follow your own thread or the threads of the coins you mine.  Here in your thread, we've asked why you continued to consistently mine 50% of the coins everyday, after saying that you would reduce mining power and ease the burden on the coin.  In the NLG thread, we've talked about how we were going to make changes to the coin to prevent your pool's influence for the last 5 months.  I hope that helps you understand what I'm talking about, because I'm crystal clear about what it is.

I've been in contact with your developers since October. They contacted me and asked for help, because your faulty difficulty readjustment algorithm at that time couldn't cope with our hashrate and difficulty jumps were causing as long as multi-hour gaps between blocks. I investigated the issue and I significantly limited maximum hashrate which CM was putting into NLG. This reduced most extreme block gaps from 160~520 minutes in September-October to 20-60 minutes starting in late October (with most blocks having short times and these are times for longest blocks in a day). While I agree that 30-minute blocks are not ideal, this was a working compromise between your coin interests and our miners interests.

I contacted you as well.  I have the PM's if you need a refresher.  Our block gaps were caused by our broken algo, and as a direct result of your pool's influence in that algo.  So you "helped" by reducing the problems you caused.  The block times weren't the concern though.  It was the fact that directly after telling us you would reduce mining power, and dropping down to 20% of the block mining in a given day, you went up to 90% of the blocks in a day, and then back down to around 50% for the last few months.  You're telling me that mining a majority of the blocks in a day and insta-selling them is a compromise?

I want to repeat, because you seem to don't understand or don't appreciate it, that the only reason for lowering times from 160~520-minute blocks to 30-minute blocks was cooperation from my side and my willingness to treat your coin gently. I have no reason to destroy coins because I and my users benefit from thriving altcoins, so I always cooperate with coin developers, within reason, if they contact me. NLG developers who contacted me via PM understood that I cannot leave the coin entirely, because our miners expect CM to mine coins which are profitable at any given moment and because if not CM, then some other pool would mine the low-difficulty blocks - and they appreciated my help.

Oh thank you, oh supreme CM pool op for graciously helping us get rid of 50% of our coins everyday.  It's so kind of you.  You say though that you cooperate within reason.  So is asking that you not take 50% of the blocks in a given day, a common concern in the crypto community regardless of the coin, a unreasonable request?  Help me wrap my head around that, because no, I don't understand that.

Oh and the other pools that could mine the low difficulty blocks... yeah, they could have been any pool.  They could have even been dedicated pools and miners who actually want to see NLG succeed.

It's only you who come to this thread and accuse of "raping", while I was nothing but gentle and caring towards your coin. It's also you who is happy and who gloat because of the fact that CM didn't update their daemon and that our users wasted a tiny amount of their hashrate on a wrong chain. And it's you who spread FUD about "losing days worth of mining", clearly with the intent to scare our users, while the losses were at a level of 0.00000397 BTC per 1 MH/s or $0.00085752 per 1 MH/s (total, not per day). This is malicious from your side towards me, towards the pool and towards our miners and the only hostile person which I can see here is you.

You're delusional if you think your pool was gentle and caring towards our coin.  And the entire community was happy and boasting that you weren't on the chain anymore.  You've been a thorn in our side for 5 months.  Your pool is the primary reason we changed algorithms, and that should tell you something.  Truth of the matter is that you continued to mine NLG on a side fork.  Your failure to identify the issue, or even plan for it, was a nice little bonus to the whole changeover.  I won't apologize for my enthusiasm with that.

One more thing, before CM comes back to mining NLG tonight. Longest block gaps of the day were 160-520 minutes (yes, almost 9 hours) before CM reduced hashrate towards NLG to help this coin. They went down to 20-60 minutes after we started cooperating and they have stayed at this level since then. Fast forward to February. We have NOT been mining NLG for the last four days, and these times ARE still 20-60 minutes (30, 64, 22, 26 minutes in the last four days respectively). Two conclusions:

1) It was CleverMining's help and cooperation which caused reducing 160-520 minutes block times to 20-60 minutes (you're welcome).
2) It is NOT CleverMining's fault that you have 20-60 minutes times between blocks because you still have it the same after CM stopped mining the coin.

Again... delusional.  Yes we still have higher block times, but that wasn't the primary concern here.  Your 50%+ insta-sell everyday was.  We'll get back to better block times with future updates and tweaks.  I'll tell you now that we will continue to mitigate your pool's effect on our coin.  So you can threaten CM mining on the coin with your big bad pool, but the community isn't having it anymore.

Go ahead and mine NLG... we'll be watching the results and planning future updates accordingly.

Considering the above, I expect you to apologize and stop trolling our thread.

Sure... I'll apologize.

I'm sorry you're a power hungry, greedy multi-pool op who doesn't give a shit about anything besides his bottom line.

-Fuse

[thsminer]

amen

[Terk]

I contacted you as well.  I have the PM's if you need a refresher.  Our block gaps were caused by our broken algo, and as a direct result of your pool's influence in that algo.  So you "helped" by reducing the problems you caused.  The block times weren't the concern though.

It was the concern for the other developer who contacted me first with the issue. I addressed this issue and helped to solve this problem.

I have your PM and I answered it immediately. I just checked it. Your concern was also "When CleverMining hops on NLG, we see difficulty swings and periods of no blocks found". I addressed this issue and solved this problem for your community.

It was the fact that directly after telling us you would reduce mining power, and dropping down to 20% of the block mining in a given day, you went up to 90% of the blocks in a day, and then back down to around 50% for the last few months. 

I promised to drop our hashrate to solve inflated block times problem and I did exactly that. Our NLG mining share in September was 85% mined blocks, then 65% in October, then 55% in Nov, 51% in Dec, and 53% in Jan. These numbers are coming from your own mining stats at http://nlgstats.iblogger.org/historical_mining_stats.html. You see, I did what I promised, I decreased our NLG hashrate and I kept that promise and never increased it back again.

So is asking that you not take 50% of the blocks in a given day, a common concern in the crypto community regardless of the coin, a unreasonable request?  Help me wrap my head around that, because no, I don't understand that.

As you write about "50% ... common concern in the crypto community regardless of the coin" I assume you are taking about 51% attack.

Then you probably lack understanding of 50% issue/attack. It really doesn't matter if someone mines 50% blocks or even mines 80% blocks or doesn't mine at all. The coin has the same problem even if someone doesn't mine it at all, but has enough hashpower to mine 51% blocks. Anyone who has enough hashpower can jump into your coin at any time and execute a 51% attack. It doesn't matter if they were mining 51% blocks before the attack or if they didn't mine your coin at all. And with 14 GH/s network hashrate there are at least dozen entities (mining farms and pools) which have enough hashpower to take 51% of your network. An entity which mines 51% but doesn't attack is better than entity that doesn't mine but plan to attack. Your problem isn't with CM. Your problem is with having a coin which uses the same mining algorithm (scrypt) as another coin which has 85x higher network hashrate (Litecoin). I can't help you with that (some coins solved this by switching algorithms to non-scrypt, but that made them even more niche coins, other solved this by implementing AuxPoW and becoming merge-mined coins, other decided that they didn't care that much and accepted the fact of being little brother to LTC). What I can do is to promise that you will never face a 51% attack from CleverMining. This is much more than you get from the other dozen entities which control over 14 GH/s of scrypt mining power. You don't even need to believe me to believe that we won't attack - as we don't hoard NLG, we don't have coins to double-spend and 51% attack is useful only for double spending.

Another issue which you might have is that we sell blocks which we mine. But this is simply a market mechanism and this is our business model. What you would like us to do is to cease operations and close the pool. This is not going to happen. I can cooperate to don't inflate your block gaps to several hours - which would cause inconvenience for users and merchants and would kill the coin in the long term - but I won't let my users down and I don't close the pool. Coin-switching pools are reality and you need to learn to live with that. I've done as much as I could to limit inconvenience caused by CM to your users and I expected only a little bit of friendliness in return (and I got it from other NLG developers).

I'm sorry you're a power hungry, greedy multi-pool op who doesn't give a shit about anything besides his bottom line.

If I were, then I would probably like to show you my "power" - after you started offending me and shitting in my thread - by removing all limits which are limiting amount of hashpower sent to NLG. This wouldn't inflate your block times to 560 minutes as before because of your improved algorithm, but it would inflate them to 120~180 minutes which is high enough to cause painful inconveniences to users and merchants. I won't do this. I am friendly and I won't hurt intentionally entire community because of one of their members.

Truth of the matter is that you continued to mine NLG on a side fork.  Your failure to identify the issue, or even plan for it, was a nice little bonus to the whole changeover.  I won't apologize for my enthusiasm with that.

This only shows how hostile you are, while I have been cooperative and friendly.

Also, by the way of your "whole changeover", I would like to remind you, that I was recommending you DigiShield algorithm when you were brainstorming what to use instead of KGW back in September. I told your developers that coins with DigiShield readjustment behave the best with coin-switching pools and that it will be better for NLG to adapt it. I did this because I wanted to help. I really prefer thriving coins than coins with problems. You went with DGW3 despite my advice and you saw only little improvement (which would be zero improvement if I didn't decrease our hashrate). Now you finally switched to Digi readjustment, which is something I recommended from the start for the good of your coin. This is another example of me being helpful, caring and cooperative. You try to paint me as a villain but the truth is I really did everything I could to help your coin. Perhaps you didn't use my advice on readjustment algorithm out of suspicion that I try to sell you something which was good only for me, but I was recommending something which was good for the coin (and in effect, also good for me, because CleverMining can profit only from healthy coins). I wish you could learn to recognize a friendly pool operator and learn to work together peacefully, because coin-switching pools won't disappear - instead of sending only hate my way despite my efforts to cooperate and help.

This is EOT from my side. You wrote your thing, I wrote mine. There's nothing to add. If you still think there's anything to discuss, please PM me to don't pollute this thread - which is about CleverMining, not about Guldencoin. Please respect this.

[veertje]

I find it not reasonable mining 40%-85% NLG most of the time, Terk. It is just not done. http://nlgstats.iblogger.org/historical_mining_stats.html

Do you know why it was just 50% or lower CM got, only some periods last months? It was because very dedicated people behind NLG had to buy a lot of hashingpower to compete to keep it at 50% or lower for CM.

Some of your miners like raping "shitcoins" they said, but I think most here want a good compromise and support good crypto in general as well.
And NLG is. https://timeline.guldencoin.com/ (scroll and zoom)

I think it is about 5-10% hashrate of the total network of NLG is reasonable for you to mine or look for another coin, because it was more than enough for 5 months. Best leave NLG.

[ny2cafuse]

It was the concern for the other developer who contacted me first with the issue. I addressed this issue and helped to solve this problem.

I have your PM and I answered it immediately. I just checked it. Your concern was also "When CleverMining hops on NLG, we see difficulty swings and periods of no blocks found". I addressed this issue and solved this problem for your community.

Again, thank you so much for your help with taking 50% of our blocks.  It was very generous of you.

I promised to drop our hashrate to solve inflated block times problem and I did exactly that. Our NLG mining share in September was 85% mined blocks, then 65% in October, then 55% in Nov, 51% in Dec, and 53% in Jan. These numbers are coming from your own mining stats at http://nlgstats.iblogger.org/historical_mining_stats.html. You see, I did what I promised, I decreased our NLG hashrate and I kept that promise and never increased it back again.

How close minded are you to think that you were solving our problem?  You didn't solve anything.  You created the original problem, then "fixed" it with another problem.  Did we need to continually ask you to work with us?  Should we have outlined exactly what we needed?  I'm sorry we didn't simplify it enough for you.

As you write about "50% ... common concern in the crypto community regardless of the coin" I assume you are taking about 51% attack.

Then you probably lack understanding of 50% issue/attack. It really doesn't matter if someone mines 50% blocks or even mines 80% blocks or doesn't mine at all. The coin has the same problem even if someone doesn't mine it at all, but has enough hashpower to mine 51% blocks. Anyone who has enough hashpower can jump into your coin at any time and execute a 51% attack. It doesn't matter if they were mining 51% blocks before the attack or if they didn't mine your coin at all. And with 14 GH/s network hashrate there are at least dozen entities (mining farms and pools) which have enough hashpower to take 51% of your network. An entity which mines 51% but doesn't attack is better than entity that doesn't mine but plan to attack. Your problem isn't with CM. Your problem is with having a coin which uses the same mining algorithm (scrypt) as another coin which has 85x higher network hashrate (Litecoin). I can't help you with that (some coins solved this by switching algorithms to non-scrypt, but that made them even more niche coins, other solved this by implementing AuxPoW and becoming merge-mined coins, other decided that they didn't care that much and accepted the fact of being little brother to LTC). What I can do is to promise that you will never face a 51% attack from CleverMining. This is much more than you get from the other dozen entities which control over 14 GH/s of scrypt mining power. You don't even need to believe me to believe that we won't attack - as we don't hoard NLG, we don't have coins to double-spend and 51% attack is useful only for double spending.

No, not 51% attack.  Owning 50%+ of the network, as in centralization of mining.  You should know a lot about that with those silly Clever Hashlets.  Tell me, Terk.  How many blockchains do you control?  I seriously wonder how many there are, and how many you just don't give two shits about.  Hell, I doubt you give a shit about any of them as long as you keep getting paid.  That's why you can walk away from your pool and go silent.  That's why you can pretend that you're going to "work with coins" and then continue to rape the shit of their blockchains.

Another issue which you might have is that we sell blocks which we mine. But this is simply a market mechanism and this is our business model. What you would like us to do is to cease operations and close the pool. This is not going to happen. I can cooperate to don't inflate your block gaps to several hours - which would cause inconvenience for users and merchants and would kill the coin in the long term - but I won't let my users down and I don't close the pool. Coin-switching pools are reality and you need to learn to live with that. I've done as much as I could to limit inconvenience caused by CM to your users and I expected only a little bit of friendliness in return (and I got it from other NLG developers).

Again, thank you so much for working so hard to cooperate with our coin.  You're right... I'm completely wrong for being upset about half of the coins mined daily going to be sold on markets, and not going to users who will actually use the coins.  It's not like we don't around 80 merchants that accept it, and users who use the coin on a daily basis.  No, you're right... it's better that those 50% of the coins went to turning profit for you instead of going to their wallets.  Thanks for showing me the light... I've been wrong about you all along.

If I were, then I would probably like to show you my "power" - after you started offending me and shitting in my thread - by removing all limits which are limiting amount of hashpower sent to NLG. This wouldn't inflate your block times to 560 minutes as before because of your improved algorithm, but it would inflate them to 120~180 minutes which is high enough to cause painful inconveniences to users and merchants. I won't do this. I am friendly and I won't hurt intentionally entire community because of one of their members.

Then stay off of NLG.  There are literally hundreds of other coins.  At this point your return to NLG is just in spite.  And I'm not the only one who wants you off our chain.  We made a decision in response to your pool.  The community wanted you gone.  Your pool was a cancer that we lived with for 5 painful months.  If you want to help us out, as you like to think you are doing, then don't help us out.  Just go find another coin.  One that has no community, and no purpose.  Leave ours alone.

This only shows how hostile you are, while I have been cooperative and friendly.

Also, by the way of your "whole changeover", I would like to remind you, that I was recommending you DigiShield algorithm when you were brainstorming what to use instead of KGW back in September. I told your developers that coins with DigiShield readjustment behave the best with coin-switching pools and that it will be better for NLG to adapt it. I did this because I wanted to help. I really prefer thriving coins than coins with problems. You went with DGW3 despite my advice and you saw only little improvement (which would be zero improvement if I didn't decrease our hashrate). Now you finally switched to Digi readjustment, which is something I recommended from the start for the good of your coin. This is another example of me being helpful, caring and cooperative. You try to paint me as a villain but the truth is I really did everything I could to help your coin. Perhaps you didn't use my advice on readjustment algorithm out of suspicion that I try to sell you something which was good only for me, but I was recommending something which was good for the coin (and in effect, also good for me, because CleverMining can profit only from healthy coins). I wish you could learn to recognize a friendly pool operator and learn to work together peacefully, because coin-switching pools won't disappear - instead of sending only hate my way despite my efforts to cooperate and help.

I already came to the conclusion of DIGI before we knew who you were on the chain.  Your suggestion, at the time, was just another in a long line of suggestions.  Here we go again with the "I only tried to help you" mantra that you have been trying to sell me.  If you were trying to help, where were you in the 5 months of discussing how to mitigate your pool's influence on the coin?  Where were you when people started asking why you had no input on what was going on?

You weren't helping anyone.  You're not a friendly pool op.  The fact that you continue to think that you were helping this whole time is honestly mind-boggling.  If you had any shred of decency and compassion for doing the right thing, you would have done the right thing.  You didn't though.

I'll say this again- you didn't help us.  You caused a problem with our coin, pretended to help "fix" the problem you created, and in turn caused another one.  You didn't help.

This is EOT from my side. You wrote your thing, I wrote mine. There's nothing to add. If you still think there's anything to discuss, please PM me to don't pollute this thread - which is about CleverMining, not about Guldencoin. Please respect this.

Go find another coin to rape for 5 months.  Go "cooperate" with someone else.  If you leave us alone, after 5 months of putting up with your "cooperation", then there is nothing more to discuss.

-Fuse

[Terk]

I find it not reasonable mining 40%-85% NLG most of the time, Terk. It is just not done.

I think it is about 5-10% hashrate of the total network of NLG is reasonable for you to mine

Your problem is not with someone mining 50% coins, but with someone being able to mine 50% coins. The difference between these two is only in perception but don't solve any real problems. Please read my next post for explanation. I hold ourselves from mining 80% of your coins to leave some space for other miners and pools, but please don't ask me to back down to 5%.

Do you know why it was just 50% or lower CM got last month? It was because very dedicated people behind NLG had to buy a lot of hashingpower to compete to keep it at 50% or lower for CM.

No, it was not. It was because I readjusted our algorithms especially for NLG and it started around Oct 20th. Every new 1 GH/s which your dedicated miners added to the network since then, I could match with 3 GH/s more from my side. Instead I matched it with 1 GH/s new from my side to keep the balance (truth be told, it all happened automatically and was managed by algorithms - I didn't look into NLG since October when I readjusted our algorithms).

[Terk]

Again, thank you so much for working so hard to cooperate with our coin.  You're right... I'm completely wrong for being upset about half of the coins mined daily going to be sold on markets, and not going to users who will actually use the coins.  

These coins don't disappear. If the coins are sold on markets, then it means that someone else bought them. So the coins still go to users who will actually use the coins. Nothing changes here.

I already came to the conclusion of DIGI before we knew who you were on the chain.  Your suggestion, at the time, was just another in a long line of suggestions.

If you came to that conclusion at the time you now claim you did, then well, you were not successful in implementing it. I recommended DIGI to another NLG developer in a PM sent on Sep 14th and I recommended it to you personally in a PM sent on Sep 16th. One week later you announced switching to DGW3. Then you finally implemented DIGI with the beginning of Feb, four months later. You can't blame me for you being unable to implement good solutions for four months.

If you were trying to help, where were you in the 5 months of discussing how to mitigate your pool's influence on the coin?

Actually exactly 5 months ago I recommended you the solution which you failed to implement then and finally implemented only 4 days ago.

No, not 51% attack.  Owning 50%+ of the network, as in centralization of mining.

I repeat: There is no difference wether we actually mine 50% or don't mine but control hashpower which is able to dominate your mining network. It's just the fact that somewhere there exists a hashpower which could take over your network - this is the problem. There are dozen of entities with this amount of hashpower, CM being only one of them, and you can't do anything about it. Wether we mine 50% blocks or 0% changes only perception, but doesn't solve the problem. Mining 50% blocks makes only the problem more visible to you. Not mining makes it less visible to you - and that's the only change. Us stopping mining won't change the problem - there still will be dozen of different entities each controlling enough hashpower to dominate your network at any time.

If you find a solution to this - and somehow prevent the other dozen entities to be able to control your network, then I'm ready to discuss what more CM can do for you. Until this happens, I refuse to decrease my users profit only to change your perception of the problem, but don't solve any real problem. Your coin is as much vulnerable with someone mining 50% or not mining but being able to mine. Think of it like 10 people accidentally holding copies of keys to your home. You are vulnerable, because if they decided to, they can go in and out whenever they please (as: attack the coin). 9 of these people are holding their keys in their pockets (are not mining) and you don't see them. 1 of these people have his copy in plain sight (is mining) and it annoys you. You really should be worried that 10 copies of the key exist, not that you can see 1 of them. The thing is that you can't take these keys back and these people cannot give them back even if they wanted. There are dozen of entities with high enough hashpower to dominate your network and they won't disappear. Me hiding my key in a pocket won't solve your problem. And I won't throw my key away (where key being controlling enough amount of hashrate) as it would require shutting the pool down.

So again: I'm helping any way I can while running our pool at the same time. I reduced your max block time 20-fold. I recommended you the best readjustment algorithm four months before you finally decided to use it. But I won't stop mining NLG at all only for you to feel better, because it wouldn't solve any real problem.

Your idea of "cooperation with coin-switch pool" is the pool to stop mining at all. This is not cooperation and this is not going to happen. This is not coexistence. You would like us to stop existing at all. I can agree to solutions which decrease inconvenience to your users a lot (decreasing maximum block times from 580 minutes to 30 minutes) and don't decrease profitability of my users in a significant way, but I won't implement solutions which really don't improve NLG in any way (other than make you feel better) but decrease our users profitability.


I'm finishing discussing with you (and any other member of NLG community) in this thread because it's not the place for it - it's a support and announcement thread for communication between me and pool users. If your goal is to troll, then you can continue posting in this thread, but then I will simply ignore you and you will never hear from me again, let alone have a chance to ask me for something or try to convince me to something. If you really want to discuss something and try to convince me to something, then you already got my attention and show me that I should treat you seriously by stopping cluttering this thread and switching to PM.

[ny2cafuse]

I will continue to address you in public.  You want to hide in PM, and I'd rather let the people who want answers see what you have to say.

These coins don't disappear. If the coins are sold on markets, then it means that someone else bought them. So the coins still go to users who will actually use the coins. Nothing changes here.

The change is that at some point someone decides to buy a miner and use said miner to produce coins rather than buying them.  This is most likely someone who will end up using these coins on a day to day basis, as that is what the coin was created for.  When you're taking 50% of the coins out of the mining equation on any given day, you're taking coins out of miners hands.

If you came to that conclusion at the time you now claim you did, then well, you were not successful in implementing it. I recommended DIGI to another NLG developer in a PM sent on Sep 14th and I recommended it to you personally in a PM sent on Sep 16th. One week later you announced switching to DGW3. Then you finally implemented DIGI with the beginning of Feb, four months later. You can't blame me for you being unable to implement good solutions for four months.

Actually exactly 5 months ago I recommended you the solution which you failed to implement then and finally implemented only 4 days ago.

I'm not a dev.  I'm just a community member.  I, along with many others, made numerous suggestions to the devs of the coin.  It's true that it's not your fault that it took that long to make any changes, but it was your fault that we continued to struggle with your pool's influence on the coin during that time.  Don't sit back and claim innocence.  Your pool, your responsibility.

I repeat: There is no difference wether we actually mine 50% or don't mine but control hashpower which is able to dominate your mining network. It's just the fact that somewhere there exists a hashpower which could take over your network - this is the problem. There are dozen of entities with this amount of hashpower, CM being only one of them, and you can't do anything about it. Wether we mine 50% blocks or 0% changes only perception, but doesn't solve the problem. Mining 50% blocks makes only the problem more visible to you. Not mining makes it less visible to you - and that's the only change. Us stopping mining won't change the problem - there still will be dozen of different entities each controlling enough hashpower to dominate your network at any time.

You're absolutely right.  It's all about perception.  You go absent for long periods of time.  You let your pool rape our coin.  You finally come back here to answer questions.  When asked about the last 5 months, you sit back and tell us we should kiss your feet.  Right now, my only perception of you is you're a greedy narcissist.  I'm sure there are plenty of other people thinking the same thing in the NLG community.

So perception... yeah, let's talk about it.  If you come back to mining NLG, you're sending a clear message to the NLG community that even though the profit made from mining 50% of the NLG a day was a "tiny amount", as pointed out in your first post today, you're going to continue to mine it.  The only message that you're sending with that, that can't be perceived any other way, is "Fuck NLG".

Just leave NLG alone.  Just lets us enjoy not having the cancer that has been your pool run our blockchain into the ground.

If you find a solution to this - and somehow prevent the other dozen entities to be able to control your network, then I'm ready to discuss what more CM can do for you. Until this happens, I refuse to decrease my users profit only to change your perception of the problem, but don't solve any real problem. Your coin is as much vulnerable with someone mining 50% or not mining but being able to mine. Think of it like 10 people accidentally holding copies of keys to your home. You are vulnerable, because if they decided to, they can go in and out whenever they please (as: attack the coin). 9 of these people are holding their keys in their pockets (are not mining) and you don't see them. 1 of these people have his copy in plain sight (is mining) and it annoys you. You really should be worried that 10 copies of the key exist, not that you can see 1 of them. The thing is that you can't take these keys back and these people cannot give them back even if they wanted. There are dozen of entities with high enough hashpower to dominate your network and they won't disappear. Me hiding my key in a pocket won't solve your problem. And I won't throw my key away (where key being controlling enough amount of hashrate) as it would require shutting the pool down.

You're a trip.  "If you find a solution to MPs, let me know so I can adjust my pool to beat it".  LOL... what CM can do for me.  CM can kiss my ass.  That's what it can do for me.  I still don't understand how you can possibly think you're helping anyone in the NLG community.  You are seriously delusional.

So again: I'm helping any way I can while running our pool at the same time. I reduced your max block time 20-fold. I recommended you the best readjustment algorithm four months before you finally decided to use it. But I won't stop mining NLG at all only for you to feel better, because it wouldn't solve any real problem.

Your idea of "cooperation with coin-switch pool" is the pool to stop mining at all. This is not cooperation and this is not going to happen. This is not coexistence. You would like us to stop existing at all. I can agree to solutions which decrease inconvenience to your users a lot (decreasing maximum block times from 580 minutes to 30 minutes) and don't decrease profitability of my users in a significant way, but I won't implement solutions which really don't improve NLG in any way (other than make you feel better) but decrease our users profitability.

No, cooperation would have been you not raping the shit out of our blockchain for 5 months.  It would have been you not ignoring NLG all that time.  10%, 20%... anything besides the 50-90% you took everyday.  If NLG is a "tiny amount" of the profit you make in a day, then it wouldn't be significant decrease in your miner's profits in any given day if you stopped.  At most, you made a 1-2BTC a day mining NLG into the ground.  Spread amoung how many users?  You're seriously telling me that if that's a tiny portion of what you make in a day, you can adjust your mining to 10-20% and still not meet your profit goals by just mining a more profitable coin?

Again, perception... it really just looks like you either don't care about cooperating with anyone, or you're really bad at math.

I'm finishing discussing with you (and any other member of NLG community) in this thread because it's not the place for it - it's a support and announcement thread for communication between me and pool users. If your goal is to troll, then you can continue posting in this thread, but then I will simply ignore you and you will never hear from me again, let alone have a chance to ask me for something or try to convince me to something. If you really want to discuss something and try to convince me to something, then you already got my attention and show me that I should treat you seriously by stopping cluttering this thread and switching to PM.

I see you poked your head into the NLG thread, where people would LOVE to hear you talk about how much we should thank you for all your "cooperation".  I'll see you over there from now on.

-Fuse

[Terk]

This is the part that relates to CM and its profits so I respond to it as it might interest our users. I'm ignoring all the rest as I wrote I will.

So perception... yeah, let's talk about it.  If you come back to mining NLG, you're sending a clear message to the NLG community that even though the profit made from mining 50% of the NLG a day was a "tiny amount", as pointed out in your first post today, you're going to continue to mine it.  The only message that you're sending with that, that can't be perceived any other way, is "Fuck NLG".

If NLG is a "tiny amount" of the profit you make in a day, then it wouldn't be significant decrease in your miner's profits in any given day if you stopped.  At most, you made a 1-2BTC a day mining NLG into the ground.  Spread amoung how many users?  You're seriously telling me that if that's a tiny portion of what you make in a day, you can adjust your mining to 10-20% and still not meet your profit goals by just mining a more profitable coin?

You seem to lack the ability to understand written word. I wrote that we lost only tiny amount by mining on a wrong chain, because coin-health checks jumped in and shortly stopped mining NLG when problems were detected. I did not disclose what average daily profits mining NLG creates for CM.

I promise you that if the amount would be totally insignificant for the pool, I would stop mining NLG, because maintaining coin daemons for 100 different non-profitable coins takes time and is not worth the effort if it doesn't generate enough profits. Altcoins market is very leveled-out these days and we are mining any coin which has even as low as 103% LTC profitability, because these 3% matters these days. It's not like we earn 200% by mining and selling NLG and your users need to spend 200% value to purchase NLG from us instead of mining it. The difference is much lower, more like 3-5%, and users who purchase NLG from us on exchanges don't overpay any significant value.

I reduced our NLG earnings from 103.2% to 103% (I get these numbers from nowhere - they are not real numbers and are just an example) to lower your max block times  from 120-580 minutes range to 20-60 minutes range. This is what I can do. But we cannot abandon any profitable coin and we need to mine NLG to keep our users happy and profitable.

EOT here.