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

[hotdk]

Can't you just pay the dogecoin with LTC? Just as same percent of LTC.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean there by "as same percent of LTC", sorry.

Let me point out that Litecoin and Dogecoin still retain independent network difficulties and market prices, and therefore independent mining profitability. In particular, after the introduction of merged mining the difficulty of the Dogecoin network has started rising rapidly, and this has caused the profitability of Dogecoin to sink from about 100% of Litecoin to the ~18% where it is at the time of this writing. I expect this figure to continue to decline as more pools start doing merged mining.

I am sorry for the expresstion.  I mean in one day time if a miner get 1% of the LTC that the pool mined a day, then he can get 1% of the dogecoin that the pool mined a day. Is that correct? At last, I must say thank you for your great work.

[pooler]

I am sorry for the expresstion.  I mean in one day time if a miner get 1% of the LTC that the pool mined a day, then he can get 1% of the dogecoin that the pool mined a day. Is that correct?

Ah, OK, I see what you mean now. Basically you're proposing proportional payouts for Dogecoin. That could work, I suppose, even if it would be subject to the issues of proportional systems. Another way could be to have a separate PPS reward system for Dogecoin.
Either way, things would get substantially more complicated for us, because we would have to implement and maintain two separate accounting systems. Also consider that we have a number of security devices in place which would have to be carefully modified.
Not to mention that the current solution of paying everything in litecoins makes things much easier and nicer for all those miners who are note interested in Dogecoin.
All in all, I'd prefer to keep things as simple and manageable as possible, so I think we're going to stick to this system for the time being. (This may of course be reconsidered in the future.)

[ThomasMuller]

KIS - Keep It Simple!

Just bump that 115 to 125 whenever you can! 

[pooler]

Just bump that 115 to 125 whenever you can!  

I hope I'll be able to, but to be honest I doubt the ratio will ever reach 125% again. The difficulty of the Dogecoin network keeps rising as more and more pools jump on the merged mining train, and you can see for yourself that it touched 10,000 just a few minutes ago.
I want miners to know that I'll do my best to keep the PPS ratio as fair as possible. Since merged mining started, I've been monitoring the relative profitability of Dogecoin with a script I wrote, and I may soon implement something similar within the pool code so that the ratio is updated automatically.

EDIT (Sep 15): Looks like I didn't take into account the possibility of a jump in the price of Dogecoin. Now at 130% PPS!

[ThomasMuller]

Nice, 120% sweet! thanks Pooler keep tweaking that thing! 

[MysteryX]

I used to mine on this pool for a long time and never had a problem. Getting paid as you mine instead of waiting for blocks to confirm is very convenient.

[hotdk]

As I know a lot of miners want to dig dogecoin. But can't find a pool that pay with dogecoin. It is a big market.

[jimk]

Correct me if I am wrong, But as far as I know litecoinpool.org is merged mining with Dogecoin? Dogecoin is not profitable right now anyway. You are better off mining Litecoin then exchange them for Dogecoins. You will get more Doge that way.

[yochdog]

are all merged proceeds converted to LTC for payout? 

[pooler]

are all merged proceeds converted to LTC for payout?  

No conversion is needed, because this is a purely PPS pool. The PPS ratio is is computed taking into account the expected rewards from merged mining. This is effectively the same as having a negative PPS "fee".

The profitability of Dogecoin is currently floating around 25% that of Litecoin. This is why the current PPS ratio is 125%, which means that you get 25% more than with a 0-fee PPS pool that doesn't do merged mining.

[BretRensselaer]

Saint Jude Thaddeus -- Patron Saint of Lost Causeshttp://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/43/67/17/43671766e3499bbfcbabb9c1689e7bfe.jpg

 

[JayEff]

I just wanted to say I've been using this pool for a few weeks and its quite good.  I had a silly problem and the mod was quick to help me out.  Thats #1 in my books. 

[Beaflag VonRathburg]

One of my miners is relatively low powered and becomes disabled by the time the difficulty reaches an acceptable number. I've read the site about setting difficulty and using the workers password. I'm using BFGminer 4.4.0 and it doesn't display the difficulty as the standard 64, 128, 256, etc... Rather, 15m, 3m, 976u, etc... I'm guessing I'm just going to have to play with numbers, but does anyone know how these numbers correlate?

[pooler]

One of my miners is relatively low powered and becomes disabled by the time the difficulty reaches an acceptable number. I've read the site about setting difficulty and using the workers password. I'm using BFGminer 4.4.0 and it doesn't display the difficulty as the standard 64, 128, 256, etc... Rather, 15m, 3m, 976u, etc... I'm guessing I'm just going to have to play with numbers, but does anyone know how these numbers correlate?

What BFGminer displays conforms to the correct definition of difficulty (which is the one that has always been used for the network hash rate). A difficulty of 1 corresponds to what scrypt miners usually call 65536.
Since share difficulties can be much smaller than 1, BFGminer uses SI prefixes to display them. So, m=10^-3 and u=µ=10^-6.

Le me make an example.
976u = 976 x 10^-6 = 0.000976
That's a difficulty by the good old definition. To get the share difficulty that scrypt miners are used to, you multiply that by 65536, and get 63.96. Keeping in mind that the difficulty displayed by BFGminer is truncated, that probably means 64.

Another example:
15m = 15 x 10^-3 = 0.015
Multiplying by 65536 gives 983.04. Due to the aforementioned truncation, that is of course just an approximation; since powers of two are normally used, the actual difficulty when you see 15m is probably 1024.

If you have issues setting up your miner, I suggest that you write an email to support including your exact configuration.

[Beaflag VonRathburg]

Pooler, thanks for the wonderfully detailed description. I've been mining since Nov, 2011 with difficulty 1 pools and never really kept myself informed with how variable difficulty has been implemented and evolved. I managed to get that worker operating at the difficulty I want earlier this morning.

[neilt]

Just want to say thank you Pooler!!! For someone just starting in mining (rather late in the game...) you have made me very happy! I'm just GPU mining at the moment...around 150kH/s....but will be purchasing some ASIC hardware tomorrow and joining the MH/s league!

Plus I just saw that you raised the PPS to 118%! Awesome!! 

[neilt]

Why does your pool always report my MH/s as being 2-3MH lower than what is reported by my miner (cgminer)?

[pooler]

Why does your pool always report my MH/s as being 2-3MH lower than what is reported by my miner (cgminer)?

First, make sure you have read this FAQ entry.
What kind of hardware are you using? Does cgminer report hardware errors (HW)? How long has it been running? A screenshot of cgminer running may be useful (you can send it to support via email if you wish).

[neilt]

I'm using a Zeus Thunder X3. cgminer reports about 6% errors, which is right where I want to be for my hw, and only about half of the % I am missing.

[pooler]

Just met neilt in the IRC channel, and it turned out the difference was indeed due to hardware errors.

A couple thoughts:

• The A (accepted) and R (rejected) counters in cgminer are expressed in difficulty-1 shares, while the HW count is in hashes, so they are not directly comparable, and not comparable at all if the share difficulty is not fixed.
• If the work utility displayed by cgminer matches the hash rate estimate displayed on the pool, then the problem is on the client side. Since WU is expressed in difficulty-1 shares per minute, you have to multiply by 65536/60 to get the corresponding speed in hashes per second.

(In the above, when I say "difficulty 1" I'm of course referring to the Stratum/scrypt definition of difficulty, not to the traditional one.)