Topic: [ANN] The First Litecoin PPS Pool (litecoinpool.org) - page 38. (Read 228559 times)

Multiple proxies, or proxy and no proxy seems like the ticket.  I was thinking of running a proxy for slushpool in addition to the one for litecoinpool.  Taking my old Gridseed G-blade off the proxy and connecting it direct at least shows my cpuminers in the Litecoinpool dashboard and they get work accepted:
Yes, I know it's generally a bad idea except I've only got 1 asic and about 6 computers.   A Raspberry Pi 3 on all 4 cores is about 1/1000 the speed of a Gridseed G-Blade, and runs on about 7 watts.  I'm tempted to try to do the GPU assembly language to get their GPUs online to as a 5th thread.  These little ARM machines impress me.  And a core on a quad core phone is about the same as one of a Raspberry Pi's cores, but it eats battery fast.  I've also installed cpuminer under the Debian on my phone, not much difference in performance from Pocket Miner.  The alternative is spending more money on dedicated hardware (ASIC) that can't be used for anything else.  An ASIC can't be reprogrammed to a different algorithm, cpus and gpus can.  SHA256 is built into some of the CPUs http://infocenter.arm.com/help/index.jsp?topic=/com.arm.doc.ddi0514g/way1395175472464.html not that I've managed to make use of it.

Wait a minute.  Pooler, the same Pooler that has a cpuminer on github?  https://github.com/pooler/cpuminer  Apparently.
from the AUTHORS file inside the tarball.

I don't run them just to do hashing, I mostly don't shut them off.  Or I'll run cpuminer on one core while I'm doing other stuff.  I've mostly used one of my Raspberry Pi 3s for the past several months.  It's what I'm using right now to write this.  Less power than my Gekko 2pac probably.

From a technical point of view, it isn't.  If you mean more in general, then of course Segwit and LN are going to affect the markets, which most probably explains what happened in April, with the price going from $4 to $25.  This is bringing a lot of new attention to Litecoin, which means more miners are entering the game, which in turn may well lead to a significant increase in difficulty.  As always, there are many factors to consider and anything could happen, so different people will make different predictions of future profitability.

Using a different account wouldn't help. If you really need different share difficulties then you have to use at least one Stratum proxy for every desired difficulty; or connect workers directly, of course. This is a limitation of the Stratum protocol itself (each connection can only set one difficulty at a time), so there's not much that can be done about it.


Sorry but it is my duty to point out that mining on commodity hardware such as CPUs and GPUs is a bad idea. And mining on a phone is an exceptionally bad idea. Saying that it is unprofitable would be a euphemism; even assuming free electricity (and there is no such thing) and that the network difficulty is not going to rise, it would take a phone years just to make 0.01 LTC.

Can anyone explain how segwit is going to affect mining returns?

Uh-huh, I was just jumping on with a similar complaint.  It's like the pool doesn't recognize that different workers may need different difficulty values.  I was cpu mining on here with about 6 computers for a week or so and it all worked fairly well.  Then I bought a used asic rig and noticed my computers were suddenly getting a low acceptance rate.  I am using a stratum proxy, I don't know if that matters.  I have 7 distinct workers and the system was keeping them straight.  Is there a syntax for requesting a difficulty on command lines?  I'm mostly using cpuminer plus a couple phones, cgminer on the asic.

Yes, ok, I see "If desired, the default adaptive mechanism can be overridden by appending “,d=N” to the worker's password", I'll try that.   Well, no, a couple sentences later it says "if you connect multiple workers via a proxy they will all share the same difficulty " so I guess that won't work.  So I need to put the asic on a different account?  Or not through the proxy?  I'm using the Android app "Pocket Miner" on a couple phones, I can't change much about how that connects.  One is a rooted phone, I could edit a config file if there is one.

Too soon to be sure but I don't see anything accepted in the proxy log output anymore since I took the asic off it.  I just restarted the proxy and saw "Setting new difficulty: 1024" in the output of that.  I normally see 256 in the asic cgminer.  OK, there's 128, then 16.  Now I'm starting to see work from the cpuminers accepted at diff 4.  Now I see hash rates on the "my account" page for the cpuminers again too instead of zeros.  The phone hash rate even showed up once it found a share.  All seems well.  Maybe I could group machines by speed on different instances of the proxy?  Later.

I am having a small issue with your pool. (litecoinpool.org) I have a worker running on an app from the windows store and its running fine. but when I try to run bfg miner so I can use my cpu and gpu to get extra hash out of them, I get  [2017-04-26 11:06:49] Stratum from pool 0 detected new block
 [2017-04-26 11:07:13] Stratum from pool 0 detected new block
 [2017-04-26 11:09:28] Rejected 011f4890 OCL 0  Diff 228/16 (target-miss)

can you help me out with the set up?





I am running a FX 8530 with 32 gb ram, and a RX480 gpu.
And I know its not profitable to mine on cpu and gpu, but this is an education project for me...

Thanks!

Super....
Now you have to point your significant portion of Litecoin's Hashrate which equals to 30GH of the 2,561 GH/s around 1% instead of 1.40 MH and you are set. Best luck with your pool.

haha well thats exactly what I just did...got fed up with all the games pools have been playing www.arisechickun.com

And yea took me a few hours to set that up...obviously it uses the stock UNOMP interface and most of its code...I just modified the stratum side and fixed some segwit stuff. Unfortunately I have been super busy with otherstuff so don't have much time to play around with pool stuff.

A long time ago someone (or may be it was you i can not even remeber ) told me that it will took you a week to patch and setup your own (solo) pool. Considering the fact  that you have significant portion of Litecoin's Hashrate i am wandering how many years have to pass before you setup your own pool
You can always consider the option to join my pool with SIGWIT. Besides, doing so with such significant portion of Litecoin's Hashrate you will have less variance in payments and you will get 99.5% of each LTC block + 95.0% of each DOGE block. The beauty of it is that your rewards are generated directly at your address..Any way this is just an option

I totally understand that one may attach a sentimental value to the meaning of the particular blocks they find. From a mathematical point of view, however, I am convinced that our system is perfectly sound and fair.
Even when thinking about the 6048th block, consider that your argument would also apply to those miners who do not wish to signal. In fact, simple math shows that the probability that one of them finds said block and the block does signal is much higher than the probability that you find it and it does not signal!
In short, both factions could well reason that the system favors the other party. But this is the result of looking at only one side of the equation. The truth is that the unwanted effects balance out, and nobody is favored.

Sure your points are valid, and in the grand scheme of things it does not really matter. Its mostly due to the fact that I have 30GH worth of resources I can redirect to this cause (which is a significant portion of Litecoin's Hashrate), and I want to make sure that my efforts are not wasted. For example yes 8064 blocks is alot, but when it comes down to the few % needed for this it could very well be that the 6048th block happens to be the one I find on your pool, that you already calculated should not support segwit. Of course this is extreme, but well within the realm of possibility with the current system. Thats what I consider "not fair."

Anyway the whole fiasco today with f2pool just again proves that there is too much power and decision making in control by pools, I applauded your efforts for at least attempting to be one of the very few pools that stays out of politics and leaves it to the users.

Agreed. Ive been mining here off and on for years, never had an issue of any kind. GREAT pool! I dont care about the other merge mined coins and prefer that I get them paid out in Litecoins as a bonus on top of regular LTC mining.

Yes, the possibility of paying merged-mined coins directly to miners was discussed before (see here for example). The problem with such a feature is that it would complicate the accounting system and other things considerably. For instance, due to how merged mining works it would be hard to apply a fair PPS system directly to each secondary chain. It would also be rather difficult to allow only part of the pool to be paid in litecoins only, as I think that most miners would still prefer to be paid this way. Personally I must say that I'm pretty happy with the payout system we've been using since 2014. It keeps things simple, manageable, and easy to understand.

hi Pooler,

thank you for the work you do ... pretty good pool for all simple and functional data .... I would like to ask you a question ... maybe stupid, on the first page you wrote that the other coins have integrated all in LTC ... I know when you create LTC also create doge,  but we do not see why convert them all into ltc automatically? have you ever thought of making two separate wallet for those who would like to have even the Doge?

thank you

You say that this is not fair because the variance is not the same as it would be in a solo mining situation. Drawing this conclusion actually requires you to make assumptions about the algorithm used by the pool to decide when (not) to signal, but for the sake of simplicity let's suppose that you are right, and that our system does result in lower variance for all its users. If anything, I would say that such a system increases fairness, as luck becomes less of a factor. But let's say that you disagree, and that your idea of fairness requires higher variance. Now, consider what would happen if this pool started signaling with 100% of its blocks, as you suggest: the users who do not want to signal would simply move to a non-signaling pool such as LTC1BTC, and the effective variance of their contribution would be even lower. For the remaining 99% of the pool, on the other hand, variance would remain practically the same.

There is also another important element to consider here, which has not been mentioned yet: the 75% goal needs to be reached over an 8064-block period. That is a lot of blocks, which significantly lessens the impact of variance.


I think you're confusing percentages of pool hash rate with percentages relative to the whole network. The pool miners voting "No" have about 2.5 GH/s, and that's less than 0.1% of the network's hash rate. The 75% threshold that would trigger a SegWit lock-in is currently about 6% away in terms of blocks mined since Batpool started signaling, and 6% of the network means about 170 GH/s. That is, the gap that needs to be filled is 68 times as large as the fraction of pool users who are voting "No".

Not a slam below...but.....

Not sure you saw it in the above post but pooler says 98.8% are for seg witness for LTC on litecoinpool ..using his method of voting.....so it is hardly an issue imho

Thats really not fair, you guys either need to go 100% segwit, or have it based on who finds the blocks. If I'm directing over 30GH to activate segwit on Litecoin and progress Litecoin as a whole, and one of the blocks I find on your pool don't signal, that goes agains everything I am doing for the Litecoin (and yes I get that is proportional, but with variance it DOES matter). I have found 4 blocks for you guys in the past day. You need to get your pool onboard with 100% segwit, and the 1% that don't want it can switch to antpool. At this point 1% is 25% of what is needed to activate segwit.

I don't think you'll find a single person in this community that would be against you going 100% segwit.

The signaling ratio of the whole pool is proportional to the hashing power of the users voting "Yes" (or abstaining). Right now, this figure is around 98.8%, as about 1.2% of the hashing power of the pool belongs to users who have voted "No".
For technical reasons we cannot currently provide a guarantee that the blocks any given miner finds do or do not signal. In practice, however, this makes no difference, as the contribution towards SegWit activation would be the same.

My understanding is its based on your vote. If you vote "yes" or no vote at all then your hash is in favor of SegWit. If you vote "no" then your hash is voting against it. To my knowledge this is the only pool to allow this option. All other pools are 100% for or against without allowing the miner to choose - other than choosing a different pool with your same opinion.

So are the blocks found by miners voting "no" not signaling, or percentage based? Seems like its the former since a few blocks really close together signaled no. (i.e. if I'm pointing a lot of hash power to you and I'm voting "yes" I want to make sure the blocks I find are definitely signaling segwit.