Balthazar (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3108
Merit: 1359
|
|
June 09, 2013, 04:40:54 PM |
|
Up again. Unfortunately, DDoS protection costs enough to decrease project profitability index to <1 values. We need to think about our future strategy.
|
|
|
|
pink
|
|
June 09, 2013, 05:50:32 PM |
|
There is no automatic payout planned currently. You can process manual payout in any time without limits and fees.
Balthazar, a couple of days ago you wrote me this... and I notice now that all the rules are changed. I think that the changes should be displayed on the account and the site should also ask to accept the new terms. So a miner can chose if leaving or keep mining with the new rules. I have found your action quite unilateral...
|
|
|
|
soulmann
|
|
June 09, 2013, 05:53:11 PM |
|
Hi Balthazar
I have the Payment at 19:49:08, is it because of DDOS?
Usually it is at 19:00:01 17:00:01 16:00:01 15:00:01
Thank you
|
|
|
|
Balthazar (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3108
Merit: 1359
|
|
June 09, 2013, 06:17:23 PM |
|
Hi Balthazar
I have the Payment at 19:49:08, is it because of DDOS?
Usually it is at 19:00:01 17:00:01 16:00:01 15:00:01
Thank you
It was the manual payment.
|
|
|
|
Balthazar (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3108
Merit: 1359
|
|
June 09, 2013, 06:23:21 PM Last edit: June 09, 2013, 06:33:30 PM by Balthazar |
|
I have found your action quite unilateral...
You are correct with this. But unfortunately, sometimes there is no another option. New payouts stack isn't ready yet, I've planned to add announce later. Anyway, index page updated.
|
|
|
|
soulmann
|
|
June 09, 2013, 06:36:34 PM |
|
Hi Balthazar
I have the Payment at 19:49:08, is it because of DDOS?
Usually it is at 19:00:01 17:00:01 16:00:01 15:00:01
Thank you
It was the manual payment. Shares are accepted. But I see manual payments at 22:11:46, 22:10:57. Do you recommend to use backup pool?
|
|
|
|
Balthazar (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3108
Merit: 1359
|
|
June 09, 2013, 06:42:45 PM |
|
Shares are accepted. But I see manual payments at 22:11:46, 22:10:57.
I've started payment script manually at this time, to check reindex operation effect. It doesn't affects your mining results. Do you recommend to use backup pool?
It's always recommended to setup backup pool(s). Even if everything is fine on your main pool.
|
|
|
|
billionaire
|
|
June 09, 2013, 06:57:36 PM |
|
My rewards for the previous hour of work is showing as 0.00413076, when I have 3.7mh on your pool. I was hashing the entire time today, even when your site was down all of miners still accepted shares. my average hourly rewards have been around .25 is everything okay on the rewards payout on your pool?
|
|
|
|
Balthazar (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3108
Merit: 1359
|
|
June 09, 2013, 07:07:08 PM |
|
My rewards for the previous hour of work is showing as 0.00413076, when I have 3.7mh on your pool. I was hashing the entire time today, even when your site was down all of miners still accepted shares. my average hourly rewards have been around .25 is everything okay on the rewards payout on your pool?
DDoS caused the problem with statistics update at this time. I have shares log and work will be recalculated.
|
|
|
|
pink
|
|
June 09, 2013, 07:17:58 PM |
|
My rewards for the previous hour of work is showing as 0.00413076, when I have 3.7mh on your pool. I was hashing the entire time today, even when your site was down all of miners still accepted shares. my average hourly rewards have been around .25 is everything okay on the rewards payout on your pool?
Seem something like this happens to me, too :\
|
|
|
|
Balthazar (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3108
Merit: 1359
|
|
June 09, 2013, 07:19:59 PM Last edit: June 09, 2013, 07:42:56 PM by Balthazar |
|
Don't worry. Everything that you sent is logged twice.
|
|
|
|
skyhigh2004
|
|
June 10, 2013, 12:06:36 AM |
|
I noticed today that my miners were getting much higher difficulty shares than normal. My 3 x 7950 rig usually gets around 200-300 difficulty on this pool and I just checked it now and I am getting shares in the 800 for difficulty. I know my rig is probably not finishing shares as the difficulty is too high before the block gets solved. Any reason for this increase in difficulty?
|
BTC:157BZV5z5dEdEoE5KSr5D7CQGXamLpsZ7n LTC:LYCf5PnQpXCCmpR4ka3mR8DFDe5hKhTdfc MEC:MAgTT8QdhVCkgHTkUoKvs4w1TQvv3NU99v DGC:D8Ubh9oYTpSe1HEBptY8wf6ZrPpj7bhkV5 FTC:6hb1VsGzkej4kSsssGA4FMnkCoVp7PLi8D PXC:PqQwQKJoYxGSVrKtVfDa5aaJVL9Yevhb2b
|
|
|
soundasleep
|
|
June 10, 2013, 12:09:04 AM |
|
A few days ago I added support to keep track of your LTCMine.ru mining wallet balances to CryptFolio ( thread). This helps you keep track of mining pool balances over time, and generates reports (such as your overall USD net worth). I also added in a new feature to keep track of your mining hash rates as well (still being tested).
|
|
|
|
Balthazar (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3108
Merit: 1359
|
|
June 10, 2013, 01:32:39 AM Last edit: June 10, 2013, 01:58:12 AM by Balthazar |
|
I know my rig is probably not finishing shares as the difficulty is too high before the block gets solved.
It seems that you are not quite well understood how it works. There is no "too high" or "too low" difficulty, and share can't be "finished". diff-1: hash < 0x0000ffff000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000, one PoW hash per 65535 avg. diff-256: hash < 0x000000ffff0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000, one PoW hash per 16776960 avg. Your OpenCL kernel searches the diff-1 hashes and then miner tries to test it with requested target (diff-256 in our example). If it matches the PoW condition, miner sends this result to pool, otherwise it tries another found hash. I.e. the share target it's just a filter for results of work which you are already done. Input/output data and the work amount per time interval always will be the same. With diff-256, for example, you will send 1/256 of diff-1 hashes which you are found. If you want to take a closer look on this process, try to start cgminer in debug mode The only side effects of higher difficulty are - lower speed calculation precision;
- slightly higher variance, but it doesn't matter with PPS.
Any reason for this increase in difficulty?
An attempt to decrease DB load/traffic usage and make average rejects ratio lower. Minimum diff will be decreased to 96-128 when new server will be available.
|
|
|
|
skyhigh2004
|
|
June 10, 2013, 02:38:59 AM |
|
I know my rig is probably not finishing shares as the difficulty is too high before the block gets solved.
It seems that you are not quite well understood how it works. There is no "too high" or "too low" difficulty, and share can't be "finished". diff-1: hash < 0x0000ffff000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000, one PoW hash per 65535 avg. diff-256: hash < 0x000000ffff0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000, one PoW hash per 16776960 avg. Your OpenCL kernel searches the diff-1 hashes and then miner tries to test it with requested target (diff-256 in our example). If it matches the PoW condition, miner sends this result to pool, otherwise it tries another found hash. I.e. the share target it's just a filter for results of work which you are already done. Input/output data and the work amount per time interval always will be the same. With diff-256, for example, you will send 1/256 of diff-1 hashes which you are found. If you want to take a closer look on this process, try to start cgminer in debug mode The only side effects of higher difficulty are - lower speed calculation precision;
- slightly higher variance, but it doesn't matter with PPS.
Any reason for this increase in difficulty?
An attempt to decrease DB load/traffic usage and make average rejects ratio lower. Minimum diff will be decreased to 96-128 when new server will be available. Thanks for the detailed explanation. That will set my mind at ease.
|
BTC:157BZV5z5dEdEoE5KSr5D7CQGXamLpsZ7n LTC:LYCf5PnQpXCCmpR4ka3mR8DFDe5hKhTdfc MEC:MAgTT8QdhVCkgHTkUoKvs4w1TQvv3NU99v DGC:D8Ubh9oYTpSe1HEBptY8wf6ZrPpj7bhkV5 FTC:6hb1VsGzkej4kSsssGA4FMnkCoVp7PLi8D PXC:PqQwQKJoYxGSVrKtVfDa5aaJVL9Yevhb2b
|
|
|
Balthazar (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3108
Merit: 1359
|
|
June 10, 2013, 07:23:18 AM |
|
No problem
|
|
|
|
Azure
|
|
June 10, 2013, 12:22:38 PM |
|
Just logged onto this thread after quite a while. I had noticed today my rewards showing very erratic numbers (some too low and some too high), even though my hashing rate was constant, and my overall daily expected reward total is lower than expected today; but the explanations I've seen here seem to have answered my question(s) I had regarding this. You're still going to recalculate them then? Thanks Balthazar.
Azure
|
|
|
|
Balthazar (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3108
Merit: 1359
|
|
June 10, 2013, 12:33:38 PM |
|
Azure Could you send me PM with your payments log?
|
|
|
|
Azure
|
|
June 10, 2013, 12:50:46 PM |
|
Azure Could you send me PM with your payments log?
Done, thanks, Azure
|
|
|
|
BBN
Member
Offline
Activity: 77
Merit: 10
|
|
June 10, 2013, 05:42:18 PM |
|
Is this correct : --scan-time 30 --expiry 30 --queue 0
Thanks
EDIT: When I put the line as extra flags in Guiminer Scrypt Alpha the workers wont connect to the pool
Try this: -Q 0 -s 30 -E 30 Thanks mate, the stales are just below 2% with the settings..still quite high
|
|
|
|
|