NA

[Frais]

Oh, and Terk finally responded in his thread about his absence.  Let's see what he decides to do now... the true test is about to begin.

My guess is that he at least will test the new NLG Digi blockchain. I'm afraid we will see Gf7wGAwJGDLfoHcNCRLKZqpk2EQU5ixA6c popping up soon in the explorer.

[1714787746]

1714787746

[1714787746]

1714787746

[1714787746]

1714787746

[1714787746]

1714787746

[1714787746]

1714787746

[1714787746]

1714787746

[ny2cafuse]

Oh, and Terk finally responded in his thread about his absence.  Let's see what he decides to do now... the true test is about to begin.

My guess is that he at least will test the new NLG Digi blockchain. I'm afraid we will see Gf7wGAwJGDLfoHcNCRLKZqpk2EQU5ixA6c popping up soon in the explorer.

Luckily though, CM should be competing with gazo for those lower blocks.  They shouldn't run away with the chain again.  "Shouldn't" being the key word.

-Fuse

[c_e_d]

Would this change require a soft fork with wallet updates?

It would require a wallet update.  So we can continue along without the change, and if we need to update the wallet for something else in the future, we can include it.  Or if the devs decide they want to see a smoother blockchain sooner, we could push it on a faster timeline.

But honestly, it's not a necessity, just a suggestion.

-Fuse

Already thought about this, the downside is that it will at the same time limit the effectiveness of the algorithm.
I don't think we should do this now, I see some 25-30 minute blocks, that's the max.. Which I think is fine for now.

According to http://nlgstats.iblogger.org/ we had a max gap of 64 min on Feb 3 which hopefully was an exception.

I wouldn't slow down the reaction of the algo; that would be a step back in my view.

I wonder more about the still low number of blocks per day.
5 days (~2000 blocks) of unlucky blocks in a row?
Right now we have 30 - 35% blocks less than default.
While we are still many blocks ahead of what we should have in total now with 576 blocks per day, this low numbers are raising questions.
Is the general diff to high now? Did the diff algo switch happened at a bad moment where DGW3 was overreacting again?
Why hasn't it leveled out by now with our DIGI algo? (Feb 5 we got a new low with only 370 blocks.)
Do those lower number of blocks play a part in the long block gap times?

Do we need to add an general adjustment code (based on blocks per day) on top of DIGI to bring us back to the expected number of blocks?

[c_e_d]

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).

Thought he said at that time he would keep his reduced hashrate stable at that GH/s rate?
Now he confessed he was keeping it somehow 'balanced' to the other miners hashrate.

[Terk]

Thought he said at that time he would keep his reduced hashrate stable at that GH/s rate?
Now he confessed he was keeping it somehow 'balanced' to the other miners hashrate.

I never said that. I promised to keep hashrate low enough to don't inflate block times into extremely high values. And I did this by readjusting our algorithms especially for NLG.

Dear Guldencoin community, I adjusted our algorithms long time ago to don't cause pain to your users and merchants (to prevent 180-560-minute gaps between block). I recommended you DIGI readjustment algorithm back in September as the best to handle coin-switching pools, but you decided to go with DGW3 instead and only now you're correcting this mistake. I have always been trying to find a way to coexist with altcoins and help any way I can while still doing my job as pool operator.

But if you want us to shut down the pool or stop mining at all, then it's not going to happen. Coin-switch pools exist, and CM is not the only one, and you just need to learn to live in this world. You won't close all coin-switching pools which exist. In fact, you brought more coin-switching pools on yourself by writing in our thread. CM was the only coin-switching pool mining NLG for a very long time. Only after you started writing in our thread - which is also read by other pool operators - the other coin-switching pools discovered NLG and started mining it.

This is the world we are all living in. There are coin-switching pools and you are a very little brother to LTC in the meaning that you use the same mining algorithm but you have only 1.2% of LTC mining power. There will always be big pools or mining farms which will be able to control 50% of your hashrate and there will be many of them. This is the fate of small scrypt coins and you need either to change or to learn to live with it.

I am trying to make your life easier any way I can while still doing my job as coin-switch pool operator (which is important disclaimer). Limiting our hashrate to don't cause multi-hour block gaps is what I understand something which solved the biggest problem for your users and merchants - and also reduced our share in your mining power from 85% in September to ~50%. This is something we did voluntarily after your developers contacted me and informed me about your problem.

But mining 50% of new coins is not really a problem in my understanding. Before you object - I know that you read "mining 50% of coins is bad" repeated hundreds times like a mantra - please read my explanation with understanding. It's not mining 50% of coins what is bad, it's someone being able to mine 50% of coins. And there are dozen of pools or mining farms who have enough hashpower to do this - and all of them are in a position to harm NLG if they wanted. CM is only one of them, but it's the only one visible because it shows its hashrate on your blockchain. But showing it doesn't make CM any bigger threat than the other dozen - it only makes it more visible.

Please let me quote two posts in which I explained this. Please read it entirely and with understanding before you reply, because only then we can have a constructive discussion. Thank you!

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.

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.

[Halofire]

Already thought about this, the downside is that it will at the same time limit the effectiveness of the algorithm.
I don't think we should do this now, I see some 25-30 minute blocks, that's the max.. Which I think is fine for now.

I agree about being fine for now.

As far as the effectiveness goes, we would still be pretty effective with the change, and it could be argued that we would actually be a bit more effective.  Again, it all comes back to finding that sweet spot in the difficulty.  We're there with most of the blocks, so the change would just help us stay in that range.

Again though, I'm happy with what we have going right now.

Oh, and Terk finally responded in his thread about his absence.  Let's see what he decides to do now... the true test is about to begin.

-Fuse

Fuse, why not explore your DIGI code changes on a simulator?

[Halofire]

So what this whole Terk/CM thing has told me is we should make our own MP, NLG style. If we can't beat them, join them. Same attitude Terk has: "If it's not CM, it will be others." At least this will help counteract any damage done and opens the door for anyone to mine. Has this been suggested before? I'm sorry if it has.

Addition: The non-NLG coins that we'd be mining should be inclined to do the same and create their own MP, so every coin would feed off every coin, completing a circle. What this ends up doing is shifting money around and really won't damage any coin if things line up accordingly.

[ny2cafuse]

I've responded to Terk's above posts in his thread before he came here peddling his crap.  Just wait until he tells you that you should thank him for what he did to help NLG.

Terk, you didn't do anything "for us", you did it to us.  You didn't help us.  You caused the initial issues, "fixed" it by causing another issue, and then went AWOL while your pool raped our chain for 5 months.  Don't come here expecting the community to bow down to you and kiss your feet like you're some sort of hashpower god.

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.

I said it in your thread, and I'll say it here.  You want to discuss what CM can do for me?  CM can kiss my ass.

-Fuse

[ny2cafuse]

I'm done arguing with CM.  Terk honestly thinks he's doing us a favor with what he's done in the last 5 months: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=448649.msg10373148#msg10373148.  He's fucking delusional.

I've spoken my mind, and said my peace.  I'm done.

-Fuse

[Jero]

I'm done arguing with CM.  Terk honestly thinks he's doing us a favor with what he's done in the last 5 months: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=448649.msg10373148#msg10373148.  He's fucking delusional.

I've spoken my mind, and said my peace.  I'm done.

-Fuse

I read all the posts and sometimes tried to get attention, we never got a response for, indeed, months.
Enough is enough, just let's rest the case.


We learned from this and will benefit. We took action and will do so in future if neccesary.

All noses in the same direction - just put all our energy in Guldencoin from now!

[Bluestreet]

I'm done arguing with CM.  Terk honestly thinks he's doing us a favor with what he's done in the last 5 months: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=448649.msg10373148#msg10373148.  He's fucking delusional.

I've spoken my mind, and said my peace.  I'm done.

-Fuse

Jump pools thinking they doing us a favor by hurting the dedicated miners who mine NLG and actually care about the coin. Now I have heard everything...

Jump Pool Owner: " Let me do you guys a favour by sniping all the easy blocks and getting 10 times more profit and exploiting the miners who keep the blockchain running smooth"

On a positive note this did prove that Guldencoin has a very solid base and community because this type of abuse would of killed off a lot of other coins or forced them to go POS.

[markanth]

Please let me quote two posts in which I explained this. Please read it entirely and with understanding before you reply, because only then we can have a constructive discussion. Thank you!

Terk,

I've read all the text you provided as reference and I appreciate you coming into the NLG thread to speak your side of things in a calm collected manner.  You are obviously a well educated person and you write very well.  Unfortunately that is where my appreciation ends.  I'm new to cryptocurrency, but you don't have to know much the see Clevermining and other jumping multipools are ripping off dedicated miners of altcoins by only mining low difficulty blocks.  In all the texts you referenced not once did I see a rationale for why you only mine low difficulty blocks.  The motivation is obvious, to make the most profit.  But at whose expense?  That doesn't seem to bother you morally.

This is all kind of abstract so I'll try to make a real-life analogy.. it's definitely not perfect but the best I could come up with at 2:30 in the morning.  Imagine instead of a dedicated NLG miner I am a coal miner.  Every morning I wake up and put in an honest day's work.  And at the end of the day, I get my fair share of the reward that is split between all the other dedicated workers at the site.  As I'm walking home, you come by, show me you are 200x more powerful than me, and take half my earnings.  Then you tell me "see those big guys over there.. you don't want them messing with you.. they are really rough, maybe they'd break your leg and would put you out of commission for a few days.. and they'd probably take all your reward..   now me.. I'm a good guy.. I only take 50% and don't mess up your legs.. and! I can protect you!.. so you become good friends with me, and I'll take care of you."  So you're essentially what?  the crypto-mafia?  Is this wall street 2.0?

multipool/jump pools add zero value to the development of cryptocurrencies.  If fact they are worse than that.. they are a detriment.   Instead of a community of people coming together to put their heart and soul into developing their coin with innovative new features and new applications, they are spending their resources trying to figure out how to protect their coin from mining pools like yours.  Don't you get it?  As you jump in and mine all the low dif blocks, the smaller dedicated miners are left to solve the hard blocks who eventually give up and try to find a new project they can work on.  I'm sure you get it.  You probably try and get those discouraged miners to come join you, telling them they'll make more BTC with you.  To be honest, I don't even understand why you have a topic on this forum, you seem to be operating in the exact opposite direction as Satoshi intended with bitcoin's distributed architecture.  I'm just thankful you weren't around when BTC was just establishing real-world value.. I bet you'd be salivating over that 2-week lock in difficulty.    

I usually sign "respectfully" when I am addressing someone directly but I honestly can't do it in this case.  The respect instead will go to those miners who mine dedicated to the coin they believe in, especially while getting ripped off by multi-pools.  Whatever their motivation, at least they are doing it the fair way.  Lang leve de Guldencoin!  --Mark

[Wildwest]

From what I can see, is it only Litecoin and Dogecoin that have higher hash rates then us for pure scrypt coins? I think Via has higher too but only because they have 24 second block times.

[sven22]

Pffff the ignorance..

[johndec2]

From what I can see, is it only Litecoin and Dogecoin that have higher hash rates then us for pure scrypt coins? I think Via has higher too but only because they have 24 second block times.

Doge is merged mined now, so you can't count them.

[neutraLTC]

I'm confident in Guldencoin and the Guldencoin team and community, they are dedicated to making this a success.

[Terk]

This is all kind of abstract so I'll try to make a real-life analogy.. it's definitely not perfect but the best I could come up with at 2:30 in the morning.  Imagine instead of a dedicated NLG miner I am a coal miner.  Every morning I wake up and put in an honest day's work.  And at the end of the day, I get my fair share of the reward that is split between all the other dedicated workers at the site.  As I'm walking home, you come by, show me you are 200x more powerful than me, and take half my earnings.  Then you tell me "see those big guys over there.. you don't want them messing with you.. they are really rough, maybe they'd break your leg and would put you out of commission for a few days.. and they'd probably take all your reward..   now me.. I'm a good guy.. I only take 50% and don't mess up your legs.. and! I can protect you!.. so you become good friends with me, and I'll take care of you."  So you're essentially what?  the crypto-mafia?  Is this wall street 2.0?

This analogy is all wrong. Nobody rips you of any coins which you mined, and if somebody does, it isn't us. Let me straighten your analogy.

You're this honest and hardworking miner who gets up every morning and takes his shovel to dig some coal. You enjoy this hard work with your friends and you are happy to make a profit from it. Now here comes someone else who is equipped with heavier gear and can mine the coal easier and they start mining alongside with you. You swing your shovel and you are angry that someone with a digger have it easier than you with a shovel. You would like everyone to have just shovels and be one happy shovely family. But this is XXI century and this is not going to happen.

I won't discuss with your opinions wether coin-switch pools are good or not, because everyone can have their own opinion. But there's a huge demand for coin-switch pools and much more people are mining with them than are mining NLG, so this isn't only just one crazy Terk who had some crazy idea. You won't change this. People demand this and this is why profit-based pools exist. These pools still provide service to coins by mining transactions and securing the network. You would simply like to be the one who does this and profit from it and would like to deny this opportunity to other people. Nobody likes competition I guess.

If I were greedy, I would squeeze NLG as much as possible. I could create much much higher and crazier difficulty swings by jumping on and off our full hashrate and I would mine extremely low difficulty blocks with average profitability of 150% LTC, leaving you to mine extremely high difficulty blocks with average 50% profitability. And I would mine 85% of all blocks. This is what using digger vs shovel could look like (and this is how it looked like in September before you pointed me this problem and before I adjusted our algorithms to make it easier for you). I don't do this. Instead I limit our hashpower to don't swing your difficulty that much and we mine blocks with average profitability of ~110%, leaving you to mine blocks with average profitability of ~90%. This is the best what I can do when using digger vs. shovels. Will using diggers will always be more easy and more profitable than shovels? Yes, of course. But I can leave you some space and make my mining only 20% more profitable than yours or I can squeeze your coin and make my mining 300% more profitable than yours. I chose to decrease our profits to give you some space, but you also need to understand and accept that miners with more than shovels exist in this world.

[veertje]

Why not leave mining NLG, Terk?

[Mesterlovesz74]

This is all kind of abstract so I'll try to make a real-life analogy.. it's definitely not perfect but the best I could come up with at 2:30 in the morning.  Imagine instead of a dedicated NLG miner I am a coal miner.  Every morning I wake up and put in an honest day's work.  And at the end of the day, I get my fair share of the reward that is split between all the other dedicated workers at the site.  As I'm walking home, you come by, show me you are 200x more powerful than me, and take half my earnings.  Then you tell me "see those big guys over there.. you don't want them messing with you.. they are really rough, maybe they'd break your leg and would put you out of commission for a few days.. and they'd probably take all your reward..   now me.. I'm a good guy.. I only take 50% and don't mess up your legs.. and! I can protect you!.. so you become good friends with me, and I'll take care of you."  So you're essentially what?  the crypto-mafia?  Is this wall street 2.0?

This analogy is all wrong. Nobody rips you of any coins which you mined, and if somebody does, it isn't us. Let me straighten your analogy.

You're this honest and hardworking miner who gets up every morning and takes his shovel to dig some coal. You enjoy this hard work with your friends and you are happy to make a profit from it. Now here comes someone else who is equipped with heavier gear and can mine the coal easier and they start mining alongside with you. You swing your shovel and you are angry that someone with a digger have it easier than you with a shovel. You would like everyone to have just shovels and be one happy shovely family. But this is XXI century and this is not going to happen.

I won't discuss with your opinions wether coin-switch pools are good or not, because everyone can have their own opinion. But there's a huge demand for coin-switch pools and much more people are mining with them than are mining NLG, so this isn't only just one crazy Terk who had some crazy idea. You won't change this. People demand this and this is why profit-based pools exist. These pools still provide service to coins by mining transactions and securing the network. You would simply like to be the one who does this and profit from it and would like to deny this opportunity to other people. Nobody likes competition I guess.

If I were greedy, I would squeeze NLG as much as possible. I could create much much higher and crazier difficulty swings by jumping on and off our full hashrate and I would mine extremely low difficulty blocks with average profitability of 150% LTC, leaving you to mine extremely high difficulty blocks with average 50% profitability. And I would mine 85% of all blocks. This is what using digger vs shovel could look like (and this is how it looked like in September before you pointed me this problem and before I adjusted our algorithms to make it easier for you). I don't do this. Instead I limit our hashpower to don't swing your difficulty that much and we mine blocks with average profitability of ~110%, leaving you to mine blocks with average profitability of ~90%. This is the best what I can do when using digger vs. shovels. Will using diggers will always be more easy and more profitable than shovels? Yes, of course. But I can leave you some space and make my mining only 20% more profitable than yours or I can squeeze your coin and make my mining 300% more profitable than yours. I chose to decrease our profits to give you some space, but you also need to understand and accept that miners with more than shovels exist in this world.

My opinion is that coin-switching pools killed the profitable mining! Clevermining or any other coin-switching pool is not profitable at all, they won't even cover electricity! That is one of my problem with those pools, the other is more simplier than that, if a huge pool get into mining a coin, it will lowering the profit coming from the coin to the level of litecoin and Bitcoin, which is not worth to mine to an honest person who pay electricity bill. So till the point when any coin-switching pool find a new coin that coin can be 2-3-5 times more profitable then Litecoin or Bitcoin mining, after that a strange thing happens, profitability decreasing to the level of Litecoin or Bitcoin level or 2-5% above.
This observation come from my own experience, I mined new altcoins from day 1, 1st minute and I offen made 100x more profit in the first day then later, or maybe the first week was ok as well. Then it went to coinwarz or other shit sites which discovered the coin and ruined it entirely.

So, if you are talking about raping a coin, that is what a coin-switching pool is doing every time when they switch to a coin, they not harming the community or the miners, they harming the coin itself!! And this is a huge problem.

I wonder if someone can come up with a blockchain which prevent building an API for coin-switching pools around it. That could make a big difference in this game of mining. If some algorithm just could hide the low difficulty from the multipools and people can just blindly mining a coin. That could make a difference.

[Terk]

Why not leave mining NLG, Terk?

You would like me to close the pool which is not going to happen. If we left all altcoins the pool would end up mining only Litecoin and stopped being coin-switching pool. This is not what we do. We mine all coins which are profitable. If we leave one coin then our profitability will drop below other coin-switching pools which will still be mining it and our users simply go there. Nothing will change for you. It's miners who choose where to mine and if they choose profit-switching pool then it means they demand to mine different coins, not just Litecoin - and we fill this demand.

What I can do is to try to coexist with dedicated miners and make our profits only moderately higher than theirs, instead of squeezing them and making our profits three times higher than theirs. I want to coexist and leave you some space. If you don't want to coexist then we have nothing to talk about. I get that you don't like competition but you need to grow up.