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

[jasdace]

Sorry for speaking again about %s
In sgminer I discovered a slight difference in the amount of rejected shares. See the screenshot: at the top we have 117760/776208 = 15% rejection ratio.
While there are only 0.8 - 2.3% at the GPU overview. Can someone explain the numbers please?
Compared with the displayed hashrate at CM it looks as 15% are lost in space  

I've seen this from some other users. I can't see your username here to check what is your hashrate reported by the pool, but I guess it's all right.

cgminer/sgminer seems to have some problems with recognising some of pool responses. It's related to messages about “rejected untracked stratum shares”, which were not actually rejected. What you see in your GPU data is correct and probably the same numbers will be displayed on the website.

The top-line number in cgminer/sgminer gets confused by these untracked shares and these numbers are totally wrong. As you can see they don't match what it's displayed just couple of lines below.

Great answer.  This is exactly correct.  Trust your GPU numbers.

[zneww]

Sorry for speaking again about %s
In sgminer I discovered a slight difference in the amount of rejected shares. See the screenshot: at the top we have 117760/776208 = 15% rejection ratio.
While there are only 0.8 - 2.3% at the GPU overview. Can someone explain the numbers please?
Compared with the displayed hashrate at CM it looks as 15% are lost in space  

I've seen this from some other users. I can't see your username here to check what is your hashrate reported by the pool, but I guess it's all right.

cgminer/sgminer seems to have some problems with recognising some of pool responses. It's related to messages about “rejected untracked stratum shares”, which were not actually rejected. What you see in your GPU data is correct and probably the same numbers will be displayed on the website.

The top-line number in cgminer/sgminer gets confused by these untracked shares and these numbers are totally wrong. As you can see they don't match what it's displayed just couple of lines below.

Terk is correct, I talked with Kalroth on IRC and this is what he told me. My numbers are correct on the site so I wouldn't worry. If my number we're not right on the site, it would say I have over 30% rejected, in reality I am about 0.1% rejected

[igroock]

I still have 0.03108981 BTC on my account that has yet to be paid out...Its been 3 days since I mined CM. Terk?

BTC Address 14BoKmeYWwmBBWMWiuc7zeQw6puR7maK2R

Of which 0.00789555 is ready for payout and the rest is unexchanged or immature. Payouts are for 0.01 BTC (or 0.001 BTC on Sundays). I need to import some manual trades so there's a small backlog in unexchanged balances currently.

So this goes back to my question a few pages ago when I asked about the new payout structure. Will there still be a delay in exchanged balances that you have mentioned when you implement a single payout? I realize certain coins take times to mature and etc, but those balances shouldnt be stuck in unpaid for more than 3 days.

[haggis]

Sorry for speaking again about %s
In sgminer I discovered a slight difference in the amount of rejected shares. See the screenshot: at the top we have 117760/776208 = 15% rejection ratio.
While there are only 0.8 - 2.3% at the GPU overview. Can someone explain the numbers please?
Compared with the displayed hashrate at CM it looks as 15% are lost in space  

I've seen this from some other users. I can't see your username here to check what is your hashrate reported by the pool, but I guess it's all right.

cgminer/sgminer seems to have some problems with recognising some of pool responses. It's related to messages about “rejected untracked stratum shares”, which were not actually rejected. What you see in your GPU data is correct and probably the same numbers will be displayed on the website.

The top-line number in cgminer/sgminer gets confused by these untracked shares and these numbers are totally wrong. As you can see they don't match what it's displayed just couple of lines below.

Thanks for your quick answer! Now I have the idea
The site shows now 3% rejections at 2.1MHs, which seems to be OK for a WU of 2280. Just need to get it higher somehow.

[dency45]

Sorry for speaking again about %s
In sgminer I discovered a slight difference in the amount of rejected shares. See the screenshot: at the top we have 117760/776208 = 15% rejection ratio.
While there are only 0.8 - 2.3% at the GPU overview. Can someone explain the numbers please?
Compared with the displayed hashrate at CM it looks as 15% are lost in space  

http://s24.postimg.org/n7tqqvrbp/reject_rate.png

I've seen this from some other users. I can't see your username here to check what is your hashrate reported by the pool, but I guess it's all right.

cgminer/sgminer seems to have some problems with recognising some of pool responses. It's related to messages about “rejected untracked stratum shares”, which were not actually rejected. What you see in your GPU data is correct and probably the same numbers will be displayed on the website.

The top-line number in cgminer/sgminer gets confused by these untracked shares and these numbers are totally wrong. As you can see they don't match what it's displayed just couple of lines below.

Most of my reject % came from rejected untracked stratum shares but my payout is aligned with the pool's btc / day. Thanks for the info, now I know it is not actually rejected.

[Criminal]

I think Clevermining is a great service, and I mine here over the others because Terk really seems to give a shit.

Another big QFT

Keep up the good fight Terk may the Hash be with you.

[AgS4]

Been mining for about 2 weeks now and am totally impressed.  about a day ago though hash rate displayed seems to be way off from CGminer.  as you can see, my reject percentage shouldn't account for a 400kh/s difference between the chart on the site and my WU.  in the bottom graph showing -10, -20,-30, etc it's showing hashrate above 1.7.  is there a bug in that chart or am i really only getting credit for 1.2? did something change in the last few days?

https://i.imgur.com/Wt6Tl3m.png

[Jynger]

Sorry for speaking again about %s
In sgminer I discovered a slight difference in the amount of rejected shares. See the screenshot: at the top we have 117760/776208 = 15% rejection ratio.
While there are only 0.8 - 2.3% at the GPU overview. Can someone explain the numbers please?
Compared with the displayed hashrate at CM it looks as 15% are lost in space  

http://s24.postimg.org/n7tqqvrbp/reject_rate.png

I've seen this from some other users. I can't see your username here to check what is your hashrate reported by the pool, but I guess it's all right.

cgminer/sgminer seems to have some problems with recognising some of pool responses. It's related to messages about “rejected untracked stratum shares”, which were not actually rejected. What you see in your GPU data is correct and probably the same numbers will be displayed on the website.

The top-line number in cgminer/sgminer gets confused by these untracked shares and these numbers are totally wrong. As you can see they don't match what it's displayed just couple of lines below.

Most of my reject % came from rejected untracked stratum shares but my payout is aligned with the pool's btc / day. Thanks for the info, now I know it is not actually rejected.

adjusting queue expiry and scantime have fixed reject % that came from rejected untracked stratum for some users. set your queue to 1, scantime to bigger number and expiry as 2*scantime.

[Dishes]

Been mining for about 2 weeks now and am totally impressed.  about a day ago though hash rate displayed seems to be way off from CGminer.  as you can see, my reject percentage shouldn't account for a 400kh/s difference between the chart on the site and my WU.  in the bottom graph showing -10, -20,-30, etc it's showing hashrate above 1.7.  is there a bug in that chart or am i really only getting credit for 1.2? did something change in the last few days?

https://i.imgur.com/Wt6Tl3m.png

Looks like you have --no submit stale set to true. Turn that off. Your missing out on shares. As for your accepted 24h, you may have had disconnects/failovers throughout the day.

[divxrullz]

too low profitability means that we need a new coins ?

[phzi]

too low profitability means that we need a new coins ?

There are no new profitable altcoins right now. LTC is becoming more and more worth mining now.

[Kj1]

too low profitability means that we need a new coins ?

There are no new profitable altcoins right now. LTC is becoming more and more worth mining now.

I assume its due to the profitability switching pools such as this one.
the moment some alt is more profitable then LTC, lots of pools hop onto that one and immediately sell the mining revenue for btc thus price lowers. 

I think auto switching pools is killing alts as we knew it.  And for btc thats quite a good thing - not a lot of alts bring something new or innovative to the table...

[ghur]

I think auto switching pools is killing alts as we knew it.  And for btc thats quite a good thing - not a lot of alts bring something new or innovative to the table...

It's a free market. If altcoins can't survive multipools they won't survive either way.
A coin isn't healthy if its survival relies on miners holding instead of selling.

[Kj1]

actually, wouldnt it be an idea to jump to alts with lower difficulty/profitability?
- some alt drops below LTC profitablity => other pools jump away
- diff & price is then dropped => start mining & holding
- once the diff is low enough the profitability rises (if price stays almost the same)
- Alt becomes profitable => sell and jump to next pool

[divxrullz]

too low profitability means that we need a new coins ?

There are no new profitable altcoins right now. LTC is becoming more and more worth mining now.

I cant agree with you. Just take a look on coinwarz.com - there is a 10 altcoins with profitability over 100% than LTC
For example - GDC have 256.93 %
http://www.coinwarz.com/miningprofitability/litecoin

[ghur]

too low profitability means that we need a new coins ?

There are no new profitable altcoins right now. LTC is becoming more and more worth mining now.

I cant agree with you. Just take a look on coinwarz.com - there is a 10 altcoins with profitability over 100% than LTC
For example - GDC have 256.93 %
http://www.coinwarz.com/miningprofitability/litecoin

The keyword was 'new'.

[divxrullz]

too low profitability means that we need a new coins ?

There are no new profitable altcoins right now. LTC is becoming more and more worth mining now.

I cant agree with you. Just take a look on coinwarz.com - there is a 10 altcoins with profitability over 100% than LTC
For example - GDC have 256.93 %
http://www.coinwarz.com/miningprofitability/litecoin

The keyword was 'new'.

ah, forgive me
Meaning "new" for clevermining pool

[nlsupernova]

yeay. where on 106% profitability again lolz..

but really, if you look at coinwarz price column, there are only 5 or 6 coins that have had an upwards line in the last week. so alts have been tanking like crazy.

might be a good time to buy some alts with your btc and profit a little from the rising market that will come some time soon.
just the question of wich coins to pick....

[Mymine]

Question: right now I'm mining with my GPU's on CM, but is it possible to mine on CM with, for instance, these:

 GRIDSEED BITCOIN & LITECOIN ASIC
http://www.bitcoinminerz.com/Products/Bitcoin-miners/gridseed-asic

As I understand you can't mine any coin with those gridseeds, and since we don't know which coins Terk mines for us ....

[lagur]

I'm interested to try this out but need to know how accurate could I get from the current: 0.01066 BTC/day per MH/s ?