[ANN] The First Litecoin PPS Pool (litecoinpool.org)

[B470]

Hey all,

Shown up to the game super late. Everyone is using ASIC, running at light speed.

I was wondering has anyone that uses a pc, considered VCPU? 1core could safely fit 8 processors. I have an i3 so I'm going to test this out until my unit arrives.

To the pool operator, thanks! I love your pool, and wish more where as transparent and efficient as litecoinpool.

[1714061575]

1714061575

[1714061575]

1714061575

[1714061575]

1714061575

[1714061575]

1714061575

[1714061575]

1714061575

[toptek]

Hey all,

Shown up to the game super late. Everyone is using ASIC, running at light speed.

I was wondering has anyone that uses a pc, considered VCPU? 1core could safely fit 8 processors. I have an i3 so I'm going to test this out until my unit arrives.

To the pool operator, thanks! I love your pool, and wish more where as transparent and efficient as litecoinpool.

you can but it might be a waste, id go for XMR or monero coin with that set up right now that coin goes for 20 bucks a coin and is mainly a cpu mining coin but as all ways your welcome to try that out on this pool. I'm not the  pool operator.....

[crypticj]

Hey all,

Shown up to the game super late. Everyone is using ASIC, running at light speed.

I was wondering has anyone that uses a pc, considered VCPU? 1core could safely fit 8 processors. I have an i3 so I'm going to test this out until my unit arrives.

To the pool operator, thanks! I love your pool, and wish more where as transparent and efficient as litecoinpool.

VCPU doesn't change the # of actual cores you have. are you referring to VMs VCPU?

[Searing]

Just a heads up...I just dumped another 500mh on your pool. www.litecoinpool.org


my buddy has a hosting deal with a few units left (or for sale)

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1802108.0

may as well do a plug here before they all sell out at $7.33 ltc prices


pre-paid...elec included....rent included.....available NOW Bitmain L3 250mh (pay and its turned on to your address)
I did the year plan...also includes PSU a done deal with the equip purchase complete....

and MOST important imho...if you L3 dies and needs to go back to china or fixed or whatever he will replace the hash till it gets back (he is that big)

I've been using renting with him and known him for more than a year.....been to his house met the family/dog ...saw the colo-hub place etc etc

we talk couple times a week

legit (see my trust rating ask around the forum)

The price is 2550.00 (100 bucks off thru monday) he might have 10 left...same price he was charging at the $4.15 ltc rate of a week or so back!

This means NO other costs...you plug for the L3's 0 electric.....use the calc below......and the L3 is available to ship or be turned on NOW

Do the math yourself using 0.077c kwh and this calc www.litecoinpool.org

I looked on eastshore and april 27th next batch and it was 1759..with shipping about 1800 bucks ...add a $150 psu from them that is 1950 add 50 bucks shipping
of unit that is 2000 usd....wait a month and lose 350 usd more or less at this over 7 buck price (you pay he turns on as soon as it hits) that is 2350

well worth the 200 bucks for the year plan ...just for the hash rate replacement if a bitmain board croaks

ALL my remaining NOW 3800mh will be on there...(and soon the 4 knc titans in basement) will be going there...my elec goes up to 13c kwh from 10c kwh and I can't justify the heat of house anymore


and LESS you think this is a hosting scam he will sell one to you w/o the hosting

anyway fun times in pow scrypt figured I'd toss it out there here is his bitcointalk thread again....give you guys first dibs maybe ....before they are gone


he is also the guy who makes the 4 point titan heatsink bracket replacement (10 bucks) so you can get rid of the klunky knc titan cube heatsink and put indv
small heatsinks on the indv dc/dc's ..again legit....you can use me as esrow if you wish to...

there are also deals for btc and x11 and other equip hosting etc ask him (no btc or x11 machines thou unless you supply to him)

man chump or champ we will see....my bet is over $6 buck LTC this all to work....thus jumped back into the scrypt pow pool

anyway ..just a shout out to the pool folk here.......before they all fly out the door (hosting or sold) ...me I grab'd 3 of them....

look at the thread above going fast

later

Searing

Brad

[jstefanop]

Can you guys switch to 100% segwit support? Ive seen two of your blocks not supporting in the past 24 hours. When we are down to 5% left, every block counts. At this point your either on the train or off it, not point playing politics with 1% hashrate, which could very well make a difference in the next signal period.

I was pointing over 30GH at your pool, but will look elsewhere until I have confirmation that ALL your blocks will signal segwit from here on out.

[pooler]

Can you guys switch to 100% segwit support? Ive seen two of your blocks not supporting in the past 24 hours. When we are down to 5% left, every block counts. At this point your either on the train or off it, not point playing politics with 1% hashrate, which could very well make a difference in the next signal period.

I was pointing over 30GH at your pool, but will look elsewhere until I have confirmation that ALL your blocks will signal segwit from here on out.

You must have missed that last few news items. [1] [2] [3]

We've noticed that there has been some confusion about the meaning and workings of our SegWit support vote, so we think some clarification is in order.

• The idea behind the vote is to give our miners the power to signal as if they were mining solo (only pools and solo miners can actually signal). That is, instead of forcing a decision of them, we gave each of them the right to decide independently. This vote was organized solely for the sake of fairness, and a hypothetical delay in SegWit activation would not benefit the pool or its operators in any way.
• This is not a majority vote; on the contrary, it is fully proportional, as that is the only way to simulate the signaling of independent solo miners. The pool's signaling ratio will change constantly, based on each miner's vote and hash rate. Because of this, a miner voting 'Yes' contributes to SegWit activation exactly as much as if mining solo or at a pool signaling with 100% of their blocks.

TL;DR: 1. We are just respecting our miners' preferences. 2. Moving your miners to another signaling pool changes nothing (unless you explicitly chose to vote 'No' in your settings, of course).

[jstefanop]

Can you guys switch to 100% segwit support? Ive seen two of your blocks not supporting in the past 24 hours. When we are down to 5% left, every block counts. At this point your either on the train or off it, not point playing politics with 1% hashrate, which could very well make a difference in the next signal period.

I was pointing over 30GH at your pool, but will look elsewhere until I have confirmation that ALL your blocks will signal segwit from here on out.

You must have missed that last few news items. [1] [2] [3]

We've noticed that there has been some confusion about the meaning and workings of our SegWit support vote, so we think some clarification is in order.

• The idea behind the vote is to give our miners the power to signal as if they were mining solo (only pools and solo miners can actually signal). That is, instead of forcing a decision of them, we gave each of them the right to decide independently. This vote was organized solely for the sake of fairness, and a hypothetical delay in SegWit activation would not benefit the pool or its operators in any way.
• This is not a majority vote; on the contrary, it is fully proportional, as that is the only way to simulate the signaling of independent solo miners. The pool's signaling ratio will change constantly, based on each miner's vote and hash rate. Because of this, a miner voting 'Yes' contributes to SegWit activation exactly as much as if mining solo or at a pool signaling with 100% of their blocks.

TL;DR: 1. We are just respecting our miners' preferences. 2. Moving your miners to another signaling pool changes nothing (unless you explicitly chose to vote 'No' in your settings, of course).

So are the blocks found by miners voting "no" not signaling, or percentage based? Seems like its the former since a few blocks really close together signaled no. (i.e. if I'm pointing a lot of hash power to you and I'm voting "yes" I want to make sure the blocks I find are definitely signaling segwit.

[AmDD]

Can you guys switch to 100% segwit support? Ive seen two of your blocks not supporting in the past 24 hours. When we are down to 5% left, every block counts. At this point your either on the train or off it, not point playing politics with 1% hashrate, which could very well make a difference in the next signal period.

I was pointing over 30GH at your pool, but will look elsewhere until I have confirmation that ALL your blocks will signal segwit from here on out.

You must have missed that last few news items. [1] [2] [3]

We've noticed that there has been some confusion about the meaning and workings of our SegWit support vote, so we think some clarification is in order.

• The idea behind the vote is to give our miners the power to signal as if they were mining solo (only pools and solo miners can actually signal). That is, instead of forcing a decision of them, we gave each of them the right to decide independently. This vote was organized solely for the sake of fairness, and a hypothetical delay in SegWit activation would not benefit the pool or its operators in any way.
• This is not a majority vote; on the contrary, it is fully proportional, as that is the only way to simulate the signaling of independent solo miners. The pool's signaling ratio will change constantly, based on each miner's vote and hash rate. Because of this, a miner voting 'Yes' contributes to SegWit activation exactly as much as if mining solo or at a pool signaling with 100% of their blocks.

TL;DR: 1. We are just respecting our miners' preferences. 2. Moving your miners to another signaling pool changes nothing (unless you explicitly chose to vote 'No' in your settings, of course).

So are the blocks found by miners voting "no" not signaling, or percentage based? Seems like its the former since a few blocks really close together signaled no. (i.e. if I'm pointing a lot of hash power to you and I'm voting "yes" I want to make sure the blocks I find are definitely signaling segwit.

My understanding is its based on your vote. If you vote "yes" or no vote at all then your hash is in favor of SegWit. If you vote "no" then your hash is voting against it. To my knowledge this is the only pool to allow this option. All other pools are 100% for or against without allowing the miner to choose - other than choosing a different pool with your same opinion.

[pooler]

So are the blocks found by miners voting "no" not signaling, or percentage based? Seems like its the former since a few blocks really close together signaled no. (i.e. if I'm pointing a lot of hash power to you and I'm voting "yes" I want to make sure the blocks I find are definitely signaling segwit.

The signaling ratio of the whole pool is proportional to the hashing power of the users voting "Yes" (or abstaining). Right now, this figure is around 98.8%, as about 1.2% of the hashing power of the pool belongs to users who have voted "No".
For technical reasons we cannot currently provide a guarantee that the blocks any given miner finds do or do not signal. In practice, however, this makes no difference, as the contribution towards SegWit activation would be the same.

[jstefanop]

So are the blocks found by miners voting "no" not signaling, or percentage based? Seems like its the former since a few blocks really close together signaled no. (i.e. if I'm pointing a lot of hash power to you and I'm voting "yes" I want to make sure the blocks I find are definitely signaling segwit.

The signaling ratio of the whole pool is proportional to the hashing power of the users voting "Yes" (or abstaining). Right now, this figure is around 98.8%, as about 1.2% of the hashing power of the pool belongs to users who have voted "No".
For technical reasons we cannot currently provide a guarantee that the blocks any given miner finds do or do not signal. In practice, however, this makes no difference, as the contribution towards SegWit activation would be the same.

Thats really not fair, you guys either need to go 100% segwit, or have it based on who finds the blocks. If I'm directing over 30GH to activate segwit on Litecoin and progress Litecoin as a whole, and one of the blocks I find on your pool don't signal, that goes agains everything I am doing for the Litecoin (and yes I get that is proportional, but with variance it DOES matter). I have found 4 blocks for you guys in the past day. You need to get your pool onboard with 100% segwit, and the 1% that don't want it can switch to antpool. At this point 1% is 25% of what is needed to activate segwit.

I don't think you'll find a single person in this community that would be against you going 100% segwit.

[Searing]

So are the blocks found by miners voting "no" not signaling, or percentage based? Seems like its the former since a few blocks really close together signaled no. (i.e. if I'm pointing a lot of hash power to you and I'm voting "yes" I want to make sure the blocks I find are definitely signaling segwit.

The signaling ratio of the whole pool is proportional to the hashing power of the users voting "Yes" (or abstaining). Right now, this figure is around 98.8%, as about 1.2% of the hashing power of the pool belongs to users who have voted "No".
For technical reasons we cannot currently provide a guarantee that the blocks any given miner finds do or do not signal. In practice, however, this makes no difference, as the contribution towards SegWit activation would be the same.

Thats really not fair, you guys either need to go 100% segwit, or have it based on who finds the blocks. If I'm directing over 30GH to activate segwit on Litecoin and progress Litecoin as a whole, and one of the blocks I find on your pool don't signal, that goes agains everything I am doing for the Litecoin (and yes I get that is proportional, but with variance it DOES matter). I have found 4 blocks for you guys in the past day. You need to get your pool onboard with 100% segwit, and the 1% that don't want it can switch to antpool. At this point 1% is 25% of what is needed to activate segwit.

I don't think you'll find a single person in this community that would be against you going 100% segwit.

Not a slam below...but.....

Not sure you saw it in the above post but pooler says 98.8% are for seg witness for LTC on litecoinpool ..using his method of voting.....so it is hardly an issue imho

[pooler]

Thats really not fair, you guys either need to go 100% segwit, or have it based on who finds the blocks. If I'm directing over 30GH to activate segwit on Litecoin and progress Litecoin as a whole, and one of the blocks I find on your pool don't signal, that goes agains everything I am doing for the Litecoin (and yes I get that is proportional, but with variance it DOES matter). I have found 4 blocks for you guys in the past day. You need to get your pool onboard with 100% segwit, and the 1% that don't want it can switch to antpool.

You say that this is not fair because the variance is not the same as it would be in a solo mining situation. Drawing this conclusion actually requires you to make assumptions about the algorithm used by the pool to decide when (not) to signal, but for the sake of simplicity let's suppose that you are right, and that our system does result in lower variance for all its users. If anything, I would say that such a system increases fairness, as luck becomes less of a factor. But let's say that you disagree, and that your idea of fairness requires higher variance. Now, consider what would happen if this pool started signaling with 100% of its blocks, as you suggest: the users who do not want to signal would simply move to a non-signaling pool such as LTC1BTC, and the effective variance of their contribution would be even lower. For the remaining 99% of the pool, on the other hand, variance would remain practically the same.

There is also another important element to consider here, which has not been mentioned yet: the 75% goal needs to be reached over an 8064-block period. That is a lot of blocks, which significantly lessens the impact of variance.

You need to get your pool onboard with 100% segwit, and the 1% that don't want it can switch to antpool. At this point 1% is 25% of what is needed to activate segwit.

I think you're confusing percentages of pool hash rate with percentages relative to the whole network. The pool miners voting "No" have about 2.5 GH/s, and that's less than 0.1% of the network's hash rate. The 75% threshold that would trigger a SegWit lock-in is currently about 6% away in terms of blocks mined since Batpool started signaling, and 6% of the network means about 170 GH/s. That is, the gap that needs to be filled is 68 times as large as the fraction of pool users who are voting "No".

[lamerhouse]

hi Pooler,

thank you for the work you do ... pretty good pool for all simple and functional data .... I would like to ask you a question ... maybe stupid, on the first page you wrote that the other coins have integrated all in LTC ... I know when you create LTC also create doge,  but we do not see why convert them all into ltc automatically? have you ever thought of making two separate wallet for those who would like to have even the Doge?

thank you

[pooler]

I would like to ask you a question ... maybe stupid, on the first page you wrote that the other coins have integrated all in LTC ... I know when you create LTC also create doge,  but we do not see why convert them all into ltc automatically? have you ever thought of making two separate wallet for those who would like to have even the Doge?

Yes, the possibility of paying merged-mined coins directly to miners was discussed before (see here for example). The problem with such a feature is that it would complicate the accounting system and other things considerably. For instance, due to how merged mining works it would be hard to apply a fair PPS system directly to each secondary chain. It would also be rather difficult to allow only part of the pool to be paid in litecoins only, as I think that most miners would still prefer to be paid this way. Personally I must say that I'm pretty happy with the payout system we've been using since 2014. It keeps things simple, manageable, and easy to understand.

[AmDD]

I would like to ask you a question ... maybe stupid, on the first page you wrote that the other coins have integrated all in LTC ... I know when you create LTC also create doge,  but we do not see why convert them all into ltc automatically? have you ever thought of making two separate wallet for those who would like to have even the Doge?

Personally I must say that I'm pretty happy with the payout system we've been using since 2014. It keeps things simple, manageable, and easy to understand.

Agreed. Ive been mining here off and on for years, never had an issue of any kind. GREAT pool! I dont care about the other merge mined coins and prefer that I get them paid out in Litecoins as a bonus on top of regular LTC mining.

[jstefanop]

Thats really not fair, you guys either need to go 100% segwit, or have it based on who finds the blocks. If I'm directing over 30GH to activate segwit on Litecoin and progress Litecoin as a whole, and one of the blocks I find on your pool don't signal, that goes agains everything I am doing for the Litecoin (and yes I get that is proportional, but with variance it DOES matter). I have found 4 blocks for you guys in the past day. You need to get your pool onboard with 100% segwit, and the 1% that don't want it can switch to antpool.

You say that this is not fair because the variance is not the same as it would be in a solo mining situation. Drawing this conclusion actually requires you to make assumptions about the algorithm used by the pool to decide when (not) to signal, but for the sake of simplicity let's suppose that you are right, and that our system does result in lower variance for all its users. If anything, I would say that such a system increases fairness, as luck becomes less of a factor. But let's say that you disagree, and that your idea of fairness requires higher variance. Now, consider what would happen if this pool started signaling with 100% of its blocks, as you suggest: the users who do not want to signal would simply move to a non-signaling pool such as LTC1BTC, and the effective variance of their contribution would be even lower. For the remaining 99% of the pool, on the other hand, variance would remain practically the same.

There is also another important element to consider here, which has not been mentioned yet: the 75% goal needs to be reached over an 8064-block period. That is a lot of blocks, which significantly lessens the impact of variance.

You need to get your pool onboard with 100% segwit, and the 1% that don't want it can switch to antpool. At this point 1% is 25% of what is needed to activate segwit.

I think you're confusing percentages of pool hash rate with percentages relative to the whole network. The pool miners voting "No" have about 2.5 GH/s, and that's less than 0.1% of the network's hash rate. The 75% threshold that would trigger a SegWit lock-in is currently about 6% away in terms of blocks mined since Batpool started signaling, and 6% of the network means about 170 GH/s. That is, the gap that needs to be filled is 68 times as large as the fraction of pool users who are voting "No".

Sure your points are valid, and in the grand scheme of things it does not really matter. Its mostly due to the fact that I have 30GH worth of resources I can redirect to this cause (which is a significant portion of Litecoin's Hashrate), and I want to make sure that my efforts are not wasted. For example yes 8064 blocks is alot, but when it comes down to the few % needed for this it could very well be that the 6048th block happens to be the one I find on your pool, that you already calculated should not support segwit. Of course this is extreme, but well within the realm of possibility with the current system. Thats what I consider "not fair."

Anyway the whole fiasco today with f2pool just again proves that there is too much power and decision making in control by pools, I applauded your efforts for at least attempting to be one of the very few pools that stays out of politics and leaves it to the users.

[pooler]

Sure your points are valid, and in the grand scheme of things it does not really matter. Its mostly due to the fact that I have 30GH worth of resources I can redirect to this cause (which is a significant portion of Litecoin's Hashrate), and I want to make sure that my efforts are not wasted. For example yes 8064 blocks is alot, but when it comes down to the few % needed for this it could very well be that the 6048th block happens to be the one I find on your pool, that you already calculated should not support segwit. Of course this is extreme, but well within the realm of possibility with the current system. Thats what I consider "not fair."

I totally understand that one may attach a sentimental value to the meaning of the particular blocks they find. From a mathematical point of view, however, I am convinced that our system is perfectly sound and fair.
Even when thinking about the 6048th block, consider that your argument would also apply to those miners who do not wish to signal. In fact, simple math shows that the probability that one of them finds said block and the block does signal is much higher than the probability that you find it and it does not signal!
In short, both factions could well reason that the system favors the other party. But this is the result of looking at only one side of the equation. The truth is that the unwanted effects balance out, and nobody is favored.

[loshia]

Sure your points are valid, and in the grand scheme of things it does not really matter. Its mostly due to the fact that I have 30GH worth of resources I can redirect to this cause (which is a significant portion of Litecoin's Hashrate), .....

A long time ago someone (or may be it was you i can not even remeber ) told me that it will took you a week to patch and setup your own (solo) pool. Considering the fact  that you have significant portion of Litecoin's Hashrate i am wandering how many years have to pass before you setup your own pool
You can always consider the option to join my pool with SIGWIT. Besides, doing so with such significant portion of Litecoin's Hashrate you will have less variance in payments and you will get 99.5% of each LTC block + 95.0% of each DOGE block. The beauty of it is that your rewards are generated directly at your address..Any way this is just an option

[jstefanop]

Sure your points are valid, and in the grand scheme of things it does not really matter. Its mostly due to the fact that I have 30GH worth of resources I can redirect to this cause (which is a significant portion of Litecoin's Hashrate), .....

A long time ago someone (or may be it was you i can not even remeber ) told me that it will took you a week to patch and setup your own (solo) pool. Considering the fact  that you have significant portion of Litecoin's Hashrate i am wandering how many years have to pass before you setup your own pool
You can always consider the option to join my pool with SIGWIT. Besides, doing so with such significant portion of Litecoin's Hashrate you will have less variance in payments and you will get 99.5% of each LTC block + 95.0% of each DOGE block. The beauty of it is that your rewards are generated directly at your address..Any way this is just an option

haha well thats exactly what I just did...got fed up with all the games pools have been playing www.arisechickun.com

And yea took me a few hours to set that up...obviously it uses the stock UNOMP interface and most of its code...I just modified the stratum side and fixed some segwit stuff. Unfortunately I have been super busy with otherstuff so don't have much time to play around with pool stuff.

[loshia]

Sure your points are valid, and in the grand scheme of things it does not really matter. Its mostly due to the fact that I have 30GH worth of resources I can redirect to this cause (which is a significant portion of Litecoin's Hashrate), .....

A long time ago someone (or may be it was you i can not even remeber ) told me that it will took you a week to patch and setup your own (solo) pool. Considering the fact  that you have significant portion of Litecoin's Hashrate i am wandering how many years have to pass before you setup your own pool
You can always consider the option to join my pool with SIGWIT. Besides, doing so with such significant portion of Litecoin's Hashrate you will have less variance in payments and you will get 99.5% of each LTC block + 95.0% of each DOGE block. The beauty of it is that your rewards are generated directly at your address..Any way this is just an option

haha well thats exactly what I just did...got fed up with all the games pools have been playing www.arisechickun.com

And yea took me a few hours to set that up...obviously it uses the stock UNOMP interface and most of its code...I just modified the stratum side and fixed some segwit stuff. Unfortunately I have been super busy with otherstuff so don't have much time to play around with pool stuff.

Super....
Now you have to point your significant portion of Litecoin's Hashrate which equals to 30GH of the 2,561 GH/s around 1% instead of 1.40 MH and you are set. Best luck with your pool.