Doc,
I have one client machine that runs constantly between 125-135ghs and another machine that runs between 4-5ghs yet I never see anything above 125ghs combined through the web site. I usually see 110-115 and sometimes in the 90s. Is there any explanation for this or am I missing something?
Thanks,
Bill
Topic: [1050 TH] BitMinter.com [1% PPLNS,Pays TxFees +MergedMining,Stratum,GBT,vardiff] - page 107. (Read 837175 times)
December 17, 2013, 12:29:21 AM
December 16, 2013, 07:52:47 AM
Manual cash is out coming soon.
December 16, 2013, 04:25:16 AM
I have .004 in my BTC balance, and 0 in NMC. How can I request a manual payout of the balance as I don't see myself using bitminter in the foreseeable future right now.
Manual cash is out coming soon.
December 15, 2013, 08:37:55 PM
I have .004 in my BTC balance, and 0 in NMC. How can I request a manual payout of the balance as I don't see myself using bitminter in the foreseeable future right now.
December 14, 2013, 08:19:17 PM
Would you consider adding a decimal point and the comma number_format() ?
So as of now WTFATF has a rate of 22762... what I'm asking is to change the display so it might look like this: 22,762.8
So as of now WTFATF has a rate of 22762... what I'm asking is to change the display so it might look like this: 22,762.8
Yeah, or maybe display TH/s or GH/s depending on your speed, like with Bitminter client.
I mean using WFATF again, from what your talkin about if I'm guessing right would either be:
22.76 TH/s or 762 GH/s.
I kinda like the way it is now displaying the whole number, with the exception to my suggestion of adding the comma and single decimal point so it would be 22,762.8... assumin his decimal point would be an 8.
Edit: Actually, thinking more on your idea would be kind of neat... would keep images the same size they are now, the text in the image would need to change accordingly though.
Since right now it's hardcoded to Ghps.
So if your at or above 1,000 it would be Thps, hell, just for shits n giggles you could even factore in Phps.
December 14, 2013, 05:32:26 PM
Is it me or is Bitminter getting more stale blocks than other pools?
It's because other pools don't show stale blocks, only orphaned blocks.
Would you consider adding a decimal point and the comma number_format() ?
So as of now WTFATF has a rate of 22762... what I'm asking is to change the display so it might look like this: 22,762.8
So as of now WTFATF has a rate of 22762... what I'm asking is to change the display so it might look like this: 22,762.8
Yeah, or maybe display TH/s or GH/s depending on your speed, like with Bitminter client.
December 14, 2013, 05:16:39 PM
This is someone elses image.
Would you consider adding a decimal point and the comma number_format() ?
So as of now WTFATF has a rate of 22762... what I'm asking is to change the display so it might look like this: 22,762.8
Only thing would be needing to widen the images about 10 - 15px or so.
Would you consider adding a decimal point and the comma number_format() ?
So as of now WTFATF has a rate of 22762... what I'm asking is to change the display so it might look like this: 22,762.8
Only thing would be needing to widen the images about 10 - 15px or so.
December 14, 2013, 04:49:50 PM
Is it me or is Bitminter getting more stale blocks than other pools? Lately about 2-4% of all blocks found on Bitminter are stales. I checked Eligius and I see no stales at all there in the past couple of weeks. Maybe I should switch pools but I like Bitminter more and its payout system. 
December 14, 2013, 10:13:54 AM
Mine seems to be going up, not down. I'm showing 1.86% now. Up from 1.24% about an hour ago.
December 14, 2013, 08:57:52 AM
Could someone explain why I'm seeing around 1.24% rejected proofs of work on the live stats page? What causes this and what can I do to reduce this number?
The reject ratio is always high just after we find a block. It starts at 100% rejects the instant after the block is found, but quickly drops after that.
December 14, 2013, 08:53:25 AM
Could someone explain why I'm seeing around 1.24% rejected proofs of work on the live stats page? What causes this and what can I do to reduce this number?
Thanks,
Bill
Thanks,
Bill
December 13, 2013, 09:35:49 PM
Doc Haribo, has anyone else mentioned about some Bitminter blocks found on Blockchain not crediting/showing up on Stats page over the last few days? I noticed several yesterday and just now noticed https://blockchain.info/block-index/447319/0000000000000004905185711720b267a133d5b2ed9b0e0e0d35ca1e5e4f429b {274733 (Main Chain)}didn't show up or credit but like 5 minutes later block 274737 was found and showed up just fine.
What's going on here as these are all showing up as being found by "Bitminter" on Blockchain but only some are showing up on the Bitminter Stats. Hopefully just something simple i'm overlooking. Thanks.
What's going on here as these are all showing up as being found by "Bitminter" on Blockchain but only some are showing up on the Bitminter Stats. Hopefully just something simple i'm overlooking. Thanks.
This has been touched on a few times earlier in the thread.
Long story short:
Thanks alot for the Info, I appreciate it. Hard to read through 271 pages so the short and concise answer is divine
December 13, 2013, 07:10:38 PM
Doc Haribo, has anyone else mentioned about some Bitminter blocks found on Blockchain not crediting/showing up on Stats page over the last few days? I noticed several yesterday and just now noticed https://blockchain.info/block-index/447319/0000000000000004905185711720b267a133d5b2ed9b0e0e0d35ca1e5e4f429b {274733 (Main Chain)}didn't show up or credit but like 5 minutes later block 274737 was found and showed up just fine.
What's going on here as these are all showing up as being found by "Bitminter" on Blockchain but only some are showing up on the Bitminter Stats. Hopefully just something simple i'm overlooking. Thanks.
What's going on here as these are all showing up as being found by "Bitminter" on Blockchain but only some are showing up on the Bitminter Stats. Hopefully just something simple i'm overlooking. Thanks.
This has been touched on a few times earlier in the thread.
Long story short:
December 13, 2013, 06:15:51 PM
Doc Haribo, has anyone else mentioned about some Bitminter blocks found on Blockchain not crediting/showing up on Stats page over the last few days? I noticed several yesterday and just now noticed https://blockchain.info/block-index/447319/0000000000000004905185711720b267a133d5b2ed9b0e0e0d35ca1e5e4f429b {274733 (Main Chain)}didn't show up or credit but like 5 minutes later block 274737 was found and showed up just fine.
What's going on here as these are all showing up as being found by "Bitminter" on Blockchain but only some are showing up on the Bitminter Stats. Hopefully just something simple i'm overlooking. Thanks.
What's going on here as these are all showing up as being found by "Bitminter" on Blockchain but only some are showing up on the Bitminter Stats. Hopefully just something simple i'm overlooking. Thanks.
December 13, 2013, 03:50:24 PM
Doc, have you considered adding pps?
No time right now. Just trying to keep things running smooth at the moment.
Can anyone comment on what the addition of PPS would do to other miners who stay on PPLNS? From my understanding, I tend to prefer PPLNS - it seems more sustainable and less risk to the pool. I'm not quite sure I understand how pools work when both payout systems are present as an option.
PPS, pay per share. For people who don't mine constantly, and for a few hours at a time it is better.
PPS: Fair pay for say 12hr a day miners
PPLNS: Fair pay for always plugged in and running miners
Here's the thing though, how would adding PPS affect PPLNS ?
Shouldn't, right now there is only one pool that offers both pps & pplns. It would be nice to see another one too.
You would choose whether you want pplns or pps, at least that is how it is on the other pool.
December 13, 2013, 03:46:59 PM
Doc, have you considered adding pps?
No time right now. Just trying to keep things running smooth at the moment.
Can anyone comment on what the addition of PPS would do to other miners who stay on PPLNS? From my understanding, I tend to prefer PPLNS - it seems more sustainable and less risk to the pool. I'm not quite sure I understand how pools work when both payout systems are present as an option.
PPS, pay per share. For people who don't mine constantly, and for a few hours at a time it is better.
PPS: Fair pay for say 12hr a day miners
PPLNS: Fair pay for always plugged in and running miners
Here's the thing though, how would adding PPS affect PPLNS ?
Shouldn't, right now there is only one pool that offers both pps & pplns. It would be nice to see another one too.
December 13, 2013, 03:44:45 PM
Doc, have you considered adding pps?
No time right now. Just trying to keep things running smooth at the moment.
Can anyone comment on what the addition of PPS would do to other miners who stay on PPLNS? From my understanding, I tend to prefer PPLNS - it seems more sustainable and less risk to the pool. I'm not quite sure I understand how pools work when both payout systems are present as an option.
PPS, pay per share. For people who don't mine constantly, and for a few hours at a time it is better.
PPS: Fair pay for say 12hr a day miners
PPLNS: Fair pay for always plugged in and running miners
Here's the thing though, how would adding PPS affect PPLNS ?
Shouldn't, right now there is only one pool that offers both pps & pplns. It would be nice to see another one too.
December 13, 2013, 03:40:18 PM
Doc, have you considered adding pps?
No time right now. Just trying to keep things running smooth at the moment.
Can anyone comment on what the addition of PPS would do to other miners who stay on PPLNS? From my understanding, I tend to prefer PPLNS - it seems more sustainable and less risk to the pool. I'm not quite sure I understand how pools work when both payout systems are present as an option.
PPS, pay per share. For people who don't mine constantly, and for a few hours at a time it is better.
PPS: Fair pay for say 12hr a day miners
PPLNS: Fair pay for always plugged in and running miners
Here's the thing though, how would adding PPS affect PPLNS ?
December 13, 2013, 03:18:38 PM
Doc, have you considered adding pps?
No time right now. Just trying to keep things running smooth at the moment.
Can anyone comment on what the addition of PPS would do to other miners who stay on PPLNS? From my understanding, I tend to prefer PPLNS - it seems more sustainable and less risk to the pool. I'm not quite sure I understand how pools work when both payout systems are present as an option.
PPS, pay per share. For people who don't mine constantly, and for a few hours at a time it is better.
December 13, 2013, 02:59:27 PM
Doc, have you considered adding pps?
No time right now. Just trying to keep things running smooth at the moment.
Can anyone comment on what the addition of PPS would do to other miners who stay on PPLNS? From my understanding, I tend to prefer PPLNS - it seems more sustainable and less risk to the pool. I'm not quite sure I understand how pools work when both payout systems are present as an option.
Jump to: