Topic: [ANN] The First Litecoin PPS Pool (litecoinpool.org) - page 46. (Read 227010 times)

You forgot to add "--scrypt". Without that, you're basically trying to mine bitcoins.

Hi,

I am a newbie and I'm starting to mining Litecoin
I use the program "bfgminer-4.10.0-win32"

And using a bat file to run this command:
bfgminer -S opencl:auto -o stratum+tcp://litecoinpool.org:3333 -u ABC.1 -p 12345 --set-device intensity=9

But nothing I can not mining...
Does anyone know where I'm wrong please?

http://s16.postimg.org/eshevv835/test1.jpg

Come to the #litecoinpool channel on Freenode IRC if you want to take part in the testing. I see from the logs that you joined the channel earlier today, but you only stayed connected for a couple of minutes. The channel is small and people are idling most of the time, so you have to stay much longer than that if you want to get a response.

Can sent me the tests server for Titan miner to checking

I believe that what you wrote is misleading. This pool has always worked fine with miners of any hash rate. In fact, KnC's allegation that some pools are not "up to speed" with newer, faster, mining hardware is a downright lie spread to try to justify the numerous issues that Titans have. There's a simple reason for this: if a pool uses vardiff, a fast miner is no different from a slow miner: because of the difficulty adjustment, both will submit about the same amount of shares in a given time period. I am perfectly aware that Titans seem to behave differently on different pools; what I am saying is that this is KnC's fault, and not the pools' fault.

What is really disconcerting is that two different Titans with the same configuration often behave differently on the same pool. There are Titans on this pool hashing away happily at over 340 MH/s, while some others, like yours, apparently work better at other pools.

Weeks ago I wrote an email to KnC to ask them for more information about these miners, and I did get an initial reply from one of their devs, but sadly when I started posing more technical questions I got no more replies. During that same period, I worked with a Titan owner to try to maximize the compatibility of the pool with these machines, and this collaboration brought very good results.
However, it looks like the newer Titan firmwares (1.10 and later) have different requirements to work optimally. A few users brought this to my attention in the IRC channel yesterday, and we are now testing some new server configuration to try, yet again, to maximize compatibility. This is not easy because, as I've mentioned above, Titans do not seem to be created equal.

Did you get anywhere on fixing the pool to work with the new higher hashrate miners like the titans? I know you think its the titans, but I get 280 to 320mh averages on 2 other pools (thats each, on 6 different titans), so there has to be something on your end. If you look at givemecoin, they have a specific port for the titans that gives me 300 mh all day every day and I know clerver mining has been working with some people on the knc forums to optimize his pool too. Better keep up on the new tech or ya might get left behind my friend.

With that said, your pool does pay out the best and all my slower miners hash great there. I really wish that I could use my KNCs there htough, but they hash at around 150mh each vs 300 at the other pools :-(

Sounds like a typical case of hardware errors.
Please send an email to support with a brief description of your setup and a screenshot of your mining software (cgminer/bfgminer/...) after it's been running for at least 10 minutes.

Hi been mining last few days seem to be getting a lot less hashes at the pool than the miners themselves are displaying any ideas please kind of like this pool don't want to move 

Found a block though 

Congrratulations! 
Excellent pool.
 

Congrats pooler! Keep up the good work!

Happy 3rd Birthday, LitecoinPool.org!

https://www.litecoinpool.org/news?id=61

There is no fee.
The nominal PPS fee was superseded by the PPS ratio when merged mining was introduced. You can easily convert between the two, but it makes little sense to talk about a fee when the ratio is greater than 100%, as the corresponding fee is negative. For instance, a PPS ratio of 110% corresponds to a -10% fee.

By the way, I've adjusted the PPS ratio down to 110% because of the recent correction in the ULTC market. Yes, we are still paying more than all other pools I've checked, including profit-switching pools.

What is the current fee on litecoinpool.org?

Just met neilt in the IRC channel, and it turned out the difference was indeed due to hardware errors.

A couple thoughts:

• The A (accepted) and R (rejected) counters in cgminer are expressed in difficulty-1 shares, while the HW count is in hashes, so they are not directly comparable, and not comparable at all if the share difficulty is not fixed.
• If the work utility displayed by cgminer matches the hash rate estimate displayed on the pool, then the problem is on the client side. Since WU is expressed in difficulty-1 shares per minute, you have to multiply by 65536/60 to get the corresponding speed in hashes per second.

(In the above, when I say "difficulty 1" I'm of course referring to the Stratum/scrypt definition of difficulty, not to the traditional one.)

I'm using a Zeus Thunder X3. cgminer reports about 6% errors, which is right where I want to be for my hw, and only about half of the % I am missing.

First, make sure you have read this FAQ entry.
What kind of hardware are you using? Does cgminer report hardware errors (HW)? How long has it been running? A screenshot of cgminer running may be useful (you can send it to support via email if you wish).

Why does your pool always report my MH/s as being 2-3MH lower than what is reported by my miner (cgminer)?

Just want to say thank you Pooler!!! For someone just starting in mining (rather late in the game...) you have made me very happy! I'm just GPU mining at the moment...around 150kH/s....but will be purchasing some ASIC hardware tomorrow and joining the MH/s league!

Plus I just saw that you raised the PPS to 118%! Awesome!! 

Pooler, thanks for the wonderfully detailed description. I've been mining since Nov, 2011 with difficulty 1 pools and never really kept myself informed with how variable difficulty has been implemented and evolved. I managed to get that worker operating at the difficulty I want earlier this morning.

What BFGminer displays conforms to the correct definition of difficulty (which is the one that has always been used for the network hash rate). A difficulty of 1 corresponds to what scrypt miners usually call 65536.
Since share difficulties can be much smaller than 1, BFGminer uses SI prefixes to display them. So, m=10^-3 and u=µ=10^-6.

Le me make an example.
976u = 976 x 10^-6 = 0.000976
That's a difficulty by the good old definition. To get the share difficulty that scrypt miners are used to, you multiply that by 65536, and get 63.96. Keeping in mind that the difficulty displayed by BFGminer is truncated, that probably means 64.

Another example:
15m = 15 x 10^-3 = 0.015
Multiplying by 65536 gives 983.04. Due to the aforementioned truncation, that is of course just an approximation; since powers of two are normally used, the actual difficulty when you see 15m is probably 1024.

If you have issues setting up your miner, I suggest that you write an email to support including your exact configuration.