HELP: I can't find a normal share, only stale and invalid ones!

[Come-from-Beyond]

Hello.
I'm mining on http://www.litecoinpool.org/
My hash rate is very slow, 0.11 kH/s according to site's statistics. I've not found any normal share at all, only stale and invalid ones. Could anyone tell me why?

Invalid share is a share that was sent AFTER the pool switched to the next Litecoin block, isn't it?
What is a stale share in this case? If it's just a share that was found earlier then shouldn't the pool change the way it gives work to miners?

[1714866003]

1714866003

[1714866003]

1714866003

[1714866003]

1714866003

[1714866003]

1714866003

[Matthew N. Wright]

Ahh I think I know what the problem is. You have your miner set to "litecoin" instead of "bitcoin".

[Come-from-Beyond]

Ahh I think I know what the problem is. You have your miner set to "litecoin" instead of "bitcoin".

Good joke, but i need litecoin. Any other thoughts regarding my problem?

[Gabi]

What miner are you using?

I mine litecoin on that pool http://pool-x.eu and i use the miner you find on the top of the website.

0.11kh/s is very low indeed. What do the miner says?

[Come-from-Beyond]

I'm using JavaScript miner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=53346.0)

[DeathAndTaxes]

Hello.
I'm mining on http://www.litecoinpool.org/
My hash rate is very slow, 0.11 kH/s according to site's statistics. I've not found any normal share at all, only stale and invalid ones. Could anyone tell me why?

Invalid share is a share that was sent AFTER the pool switched to the next Litecoin block, isn't it?
What is a stale share in this case? If it's just a share that was found earlier then shouldn't the pool change the way it gives work to miners?

The issue is your hash rate.  At 0.11/s

Something is wrong your hashrate should be 100x higher.

Invalid share = a hash that was never valid on any valid block header.
stale share = hash after block change that is no longer.

Stales will happen but with your hashrate so incredibly slow you have a good chance that any share you eventually find has long since been stale.

Long Polling should prevent that but don't worry about the stales now.  Your hashrate is borked.  Get that fixed first and then if you still have high stale rate look into troubleshooting long polling.

[DeathAndTaxes]

I'm using JavaScript miner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=53346.0)

Then it likely is an issue w/ the miner.  If it isn't implementing Long Pooling due to the long periods of time between solving a unit of work then the work may already be stale. 

Honestly 110 Hashes per second is beyond worthless.  It might earn you a single penny per month at the 100x the cost in electricity.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Thank you for info. I've found a bug in server code that uses JS-miner. All nonces larger than 0x7FFFFFFF were added to [data] with "-" sign. I suppose that caused invalid shares.

110 hashes per second are not worthless. Multiply this to 10.000 visitors of a website who pay for electricity themselves.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Thank you for info. I've found a bug in server code that uses JS-miner. All nonces larger than 0x7FFFFFFF were added to [data] with "-" sign. I suppose that caused invalid shares.

110 hashes per second are not worthless. Multiply this to 10.000 visitors of a website who pay for electricity themselves.

If you stole 1 penny a month from 10,000 people you could make money too.

[Come-from-Beyond]

I wouldn't say it's stealing. Anyway i'm not going to start one more holy war... 

[Come-from-Beyond]

Invalid share = a hash that was never valid on any valid block header.

I added logging into the miner and got invalid share from the following [data]:


00000001e2ff46827598a18d6ba0402489d62906a0207d6e57c84899d2db0af642649999883d20e 5aa2a9b3cf84da64602ac74a944dcb6d55d7f055b95502f6df0578b3e4ed80a091d0180530000ae 4100000080000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000080020000

Scrypt-hash of

00000001e2ff46827598a18d6ba0402489d62906a0207d6e57c84899d2db0af642649999883d20e 5aa2a9b3cf84da64602ac74a944dcb6d55d7f055b95502f6df0578b3e4ed80a091d0180530000ae 41 (first 160 characters)

is

0x00002FAF.....

which fits the target "0x0000FFFF....."

Could anyone, please, verify Scrypt-hash?