Topic: [ANN][AUTO-SWITCH] Profit-switch auto-exchange pool: CleverMining.com - page 102. (Read 554380 times)

Hmmmm, okay. Thanks for the information.

So I should consider the rejection rate displayed at the website as the correct one?

The rejects on Cgminer are what we call "Fake Rejects", they are caused by a communication problem between the miner and the pool.
"Fake rejects" appear as "Untracked Stratum Share on pool 0".

I also started mining at CM around 6-7 hours ago, and I get a rejection rate of 25% as reported in cgminer and  2.5% as stated on the website.

Any help on correcting this issue??

Thanks

Ignore the untracked stratum shares in cgminer - they aren't actual rejects.  The rate on the website is correct, as well as the per-device reject rates in cgminer (NOT A: vs R: at the top for all cards).

started mining about 8 hours ago and on cgminer it shows a 98% reject rate and about 15% on the website

what do?

Very clean website.
Looking very professional. Will definitely consider using this pool if ever in need of an auto switching profit pool!

I agree that the rejects problem drives some people away from this pool and the problem is not clearly pointed out in the OP and on the site. Every time I see somebody freaking out about high rejects rate, I urge Terk or whoever can update the OP or site to inform everybody about thisproblem, but still no move. Somebody said that the fake rejects issue is known and was presented by the lead programmer of cgminer and everybody knows about it. Well, that's far fatched... clearly many don't know.  

There is however a place on the site that displays the real rejects rate and that is under the hashrate wheel - graphs are bugged so no use looking at them.

When you do the auto-exchange, do you use the most profitable exchange rate on various exchanges or do you just use one exchange for everything?

Thank you Phzi,

That was another well written and thorough reply. As I mentioned before, I have read through everything and do have a decent understanding of the effect of the low-diff and/or fast block times, but I am specifically bringing this up in context with the feedback I "seem" to get in comparison with the other pools... Is Terk that much better at finding "fast" coins to mine than the others? Maybe so...



Actually Xeno, I am comparing all of the stats I can find, from below the "Last Hour Hashrate" and the "Realtime Hashrate Stats (10-minute intervals)" graphics, as well as the individual GPU lines AND dividing my rejected by the accepted numbers in that top line. I am primarily focusing on the prior and the latter, and again mentioning this in the light of performance stats with other multi's...

Maybe I am underestimating the effects of the fast coins, but again, why does it seem worse here? And in fact if I am (along with the multitude of others that seem to be bothered by the same) blowing it out of proportion, is there not something we can do to convey this to the users? Perception is more often mistaken for reality than not and will determine whether folks give CM a fair shake or not. Terk said that he would like to get more "hashpower", yet seems to be quite willing to lose that hashpower belonging to the "less informed" because of the way the reject rate at CM is perceived by them and me. The fix could be as simple as another graphic that would appear with the rest of the rejected stats on the website when we ARE mining something faster than normal that explains the temporary phenomena and tells them not to worry about a higher than normal reject rate at this particular time...

There is a problem here in the way that "I" and obviously others perceive the reject rates (real or imagined), and therefore the overall effectiveness of this service. A problem which I believe does have a damping effect on the growth of an otherwise outstanding service... Now I know that in the overall scheme of things, my little 10Mhs doesn't really matter all that much, but yesterday when I wrote that I was pretty much ready to take that 10MHs to CM's closest competitor, even though I do not like their service overall nearly as much as I do Terks. All I am suggesting is that the issue is addressed either by code that improves the actual reject rates if possible, or by website design improvements that address the perception of their being a problem...

Thanks again for the replies!

Cya in the mines!

hrrm i dont want to get paid out every week lol i only have 1.4mh

Use multiple addresses to get individual stats per miner

if i have multiple rigs and want to see individual stats do i use "btc_rig1"

or somethihng along the lines of that?? or if i do that will it cant it as a differnt address

Yet another person that doesn't really know how to read the reject rate. Seriously, guys, soemone needs to put this in the OP and on the site FAQ. Otherwise people freak out and write long posts for nothing.

Hatch, are you reading the rejects rate from the hashrate line or the uppermost line in SGminer? If you'd check out the hashrate line, you'd see that the real reject rate is under 1% after 2-3 days of uptime.

I don't think I mentioned anything about GPUs, but I'm sure that the inaccuracy in Gridseed hashrate calculation can account for the difference you were seeing. You think that doesn't explain it - ok, let's leave it at that.


You didn't think I would make claims without actually having tested and understood the concept, did you? :-)

There you go - pool, diff, A:, R:

WafflePool 512 941568 17408
CleverMining 512 968704 22016
Middlecoin 1024 952144 16384
ScryptGuild 128 953600 4480
CoinShift VARDIFF 960448 10240
TradeMyBit VARDIFF 933632 7872
Hashco.ws VARDIFF 943440 20944
DogeP2P VARDIFF 958411 10220

Uptime approximately 12 hours 20 minutes. Four 5-chip Gridseeds for each pool. Scryptguild claims to be VARDIFF, but it never switched away from 128. TMB is low because it actually disconnects on coin switch, most other pools have figured out switching without disconnecting.

That is pretty much how 95% of alt coins are already. However, miners no longer have to take the risk of a coin failing when mining. They can get VTC still.

Yes, 50 cents is little money... but it adds up. When miners are merge mining 50 coins, that would be theoretically 25 USD and so on. PLX is a pre-mined coin that really doesn't offer much with innovation and community. Soon devs, with innovative ideas, will be able to release a coin that rewards miners in VTC. At least then they can still cover their electricity(depending where you live).

With the massive buy orders totaling around .001 BTC?  Yay... you can sell 50 cents worth of PLX...

I highly doubt these merge-mined coins will be worth mining anytime soon.  I mean really, most altcoins have effectively 0 utility; merge-mined coins have even less unless they implement an interesting non-currency use like namecoin did.

PLX is already on an exchange where I am dumping it lol. Like I said, this is only a few days old so wait for coin devs to make more coins. This will be the next wave of mining for GPU miners. ^_^

http://www.clevermining.com/
?

where is site?

Total work should end up statistically the same.  Your sample period is much too short (as you said) to mean anything.

Also, work restarts shouldn't result in any lost work or lost working time.

And what do you plan to do with your Monocle and Parallax lol?  It's great that you can merge-mine stuff, but you can't sell it for BTC (at least not yet), so it's not really relevant to multi-pools.  There are merge-mined scrypt coins too, but nobody mines them because it's pointless.  (This said, I am stashing some Monocle away to see what happens).