Nothing is stopping you guys from setting up your own EU coin switching pool.
Don't be stupid, be realistic.
Topic: [ANN][AUTO-SWITCH] Profit-switch auto-exchange pool: CleverMining.com - page 259. (Read 554387 times)
February 20, 2014, 12:58:12 PM
Don't be stupid, be realistic.
February 20, 2014, 12:23:36 PM
you people don't get it.... the rejects are relative to the profitability of the coin mined.
therefore if the coin mined has a higher profitability than litecoin AFTER the rejects are taken into account then we are mining that coin.
what's so hard to understand? As long as we are more profitable than litecoin or dogecoin by itself then where's the problem?
If your looking to compare this site with other switch mining pools such as wafflepool then do your research, Terk has given figures many times that seem to always be on top of all other pools.
therefore if the coin mined has a higher profitability than litecoin AFTER the rejects are taken into account then we are mining that coin.
what's so hard to understand? As long as we are more profitable than litecoin or dogecoin by itself then where's the problem?
If your looking to compare this site with other switch mining pools such as wafflepool then do your research, Terk has given figures many times that seem to always be on top of all other pools.
Add to that, you don't have to spend time transferring micro-amounts of micro-coins to exchanges and stressing over getting a good price on them. Also spending hours and hours of research/setup time to choose which coins to mine, when, and for how long. Throwing a couple of Mh/sec towards a high-profit but very fast coin is also very inefficient. By using the combined power of a pool increases the profit potential of mining them.
All this is done for you.
February 20, 2014, 12:18:08 PM
Been mining for 12 hours now, will update.
February 20, 2014, 11:48:40 AM
you people don't get it.... the rejects are relative to the profitability of the coin mined.
therefore if the coin mined has a higher profitability than litecoin AFTER the rejects are taken into account then we are mining that coin.
what's so hard to understand? As long as we are more profitable than litecoin or dogecoin by itself then where's the problem?
If your looking to compare this site with other switch mining pools such as wafflepool then do your research, Terk has given figures many times that seem to always be on top of all other pools.
therefore if the coin mined has a higher profitability than litecoin AFTER the rejects are taken into account then we are mining that coin.
what's so hard to understand? As long as we are more profitable than litecoin or dogecoin by itself then where's the problem?
If your looking to compare this site with other switch mining pools such as wafflepool then do your research, Terk has given figures many times that seem to always be on top of all other pools.
Don't bother buddy. Easier to just troll the tards rather than explain it. I'm getting ~7.5% rejects, and that is completely normal for a profit switching coin. I've done worse for longer periods of time on middlecoin in regards to rejects.
February 20, 2014, 11:37:18 AM
I'm seeing a lot of this in cgminer for the clevermining pool: "Rejected untracked stratum share from Pool 1"
February 20, 2014, 11:36:52 AM
you people don't get it.... the rejects are relative to the profitability of the coin mined.
therefore if the coin mined has a higher profitability than litecoin AFTER the rejects are taken into account then we are mining that coin.
what's so hard to understand? As long as we are more profitable than litecoin or dogecoin by itself then where's the problem?
If your looking to compare this site with other switch mining pools such as wafflepool then do your research, Terk has given figures many times that seem to always be on top of all other pools.
therefore if the coin mined has a higher profitability than litecoin AFTER the rejects are taken into account then we are mining that coin.
what's so hard to understand? As long as we are more profitable than litecoin or dogecoin by itself then where's the problem?
If your looking to compare this site with other switch mining pools such as wafflepool then do your research, Terk has given figures many times that seem to always be on top of all other pools.
February 20, 2014, 11:22:57 AM
Im in Toronto, Canada, and I'm getting a 10% reject rate. I'm not complaining, but thats 10% less profits, and it would be nice, but not necessary to get fixed. Lots of other people are having problems like this also.
February 20, 2014, 10:37:19 AM
so, reading the thread some are getting a lot of rejects while some are sub 10 %, I'm always around 15 %+, spiking to 20-25 % at time, any way I can reduce this? Reducing the intensity would reduce the kh/s anyways so would that even matter?
I'm from the EU with a ping of 44 ms to the server
I'm from the EU with a ping of 44 ms to the server
February 20, 2014, 10:33:13 AM
Just because you have a low reject, doesn't mean everyone in the EU needs to chill. being in the UK we have a relatively good connection to the rest of the world.
http://maps.level3.com/default/#.UwYJkfl_vbA
I think you missed the point i was trying to make, I was trying to say that once the current server is up and running as it should do then Terk will look at implementing an EU server, at the moment he's trying to make sure the current setup/software can handle things the way they should otherwise there is no point adding another server to a bugged code as this could cause further complications.
Its already on the to do list so consistantly adding these +1 posts is not going to add a lot of value to the thread, But this is the internet and people are just impatient i guess and want things yesterday before things are fully fixed.
Sorry, i did misread. i rather he got the software just right too. he said it would be alot easier to deploy other nodes after that. the improvements made in the last 24-48 hrs speak for themselves.
February 20, 2014, 10:26:30 AM
Nothing is stopping you guys from setting up your own EU coin switching pool.
February 20, 2014, 10:26:15 AM
Quote
[18:06:05] New block detected on network before pool notification
Shouldn't the pool notify about block change? maybe that would reduce the rejected ratio a lot more.
Plus, my sgminer is using my failback pool A LOT, really A LOT. Maybe an EU server? (please??)
Yeah, we need EUropean server!
+1
+1
+1
February 20, 2014, 10:10:42 AM
Just because you have a low reject, doesn't mean everyone in the EU needs to chill. being in the UK we have a relatively good connection to the rest of the world.
http://maps.level3.com/default/#.UwYJkfl_vbA
I think you missed the point i was trying to make, I was trying to say that once the current server is up and running as it should do then Terk will look at implementing an EU server, at the moment he's trying to make sure the current setup/software can handle things the way they should otherwise there is no point adding another server to a bugged code as this could cause further complications.
Its already on the to do list so consistantly adding these +1 posts is not going to add a lot of value to the thread, But this is the internet and people are just impatient i guess and want things yesterday before things are fully fixed.
February 20, 2014, 10:01:21 AM
Quote
[18:06:05] New block detected on network before pool notification
Shouldn't the pool notify about block change? maybe that would reduce the rejected ratio a lot more.
Plus, my sgminer is using my failback pool A LOT, really A LOT. Maybe an EU server? (please??)
Yeah, we need EUropean server!
+1
+1
+1
February 20, 2014, 09:58:32 AM
to the people calling for an EU server, chill your beans, im in the uk and only have 4.6 % reject for last 24 hours, having a server in the EU is not going to make a hell of a diffrence especially while there are still technical adjustements being made.
I would much have a stable / fully working code before getting a locall sourced server to provide bad / not tweaked code. Plus Terk has already said its on the to do list so consistantly saying +1 is not going to help at all in this matter except provide further stress to Terk which can lead to mistakes being made.
I would like to take this opertunity to thank Terk for his efforts and rapid responses when issues have arrisen and taking the time and effort to make this pool great and hopefully things will get better.
I would much have a stable / fully working code before getting a locall sourced server to provide bad / not tweaked code. Plus Terk has already said its on the to do list so consistantly saying +1 is not going to help at all in this matter except provide further stress to Terk which can lead to mistakes being made.
I would like to take this opertunity to thank Terk for his efforts and rapid responses when issues have arrisen and taking the time and effort to make this pool great and hopefully things will get better.
Just because you have a low reject, doesn't mean everyone in the EU needs to chill. being in the UK we have a relatively good connection to the rest of the world.
http://maps.level3.com/default/#.UwYJkfl_vbA
February 20, 2014, 09:30:54 AM
to the people calling for an EU server, chill your beans, im in the uk and only have 4.6 % reject for last 24 hours, having a server in the EU is not going to make a hell of a diffrence especially while there are still technical adjustements being made.
But I am in russia, and EU is much better for me than US.
February 20, 2014, 09:22:35 AM
You may want to to limit the users. It seems the higher the MH/s go the less profit there is to be had. People will just move on to the next pool once it reaches a breaking point.
but is it down to the new amount of users or the fact there was the server move and i think there may have been a software patch as well?
February 20, 2014, 09:15:33 AM
You may want to to limit the users. It seems the higher the MH/s go the less profit there is to be had. People will just move on to the next pool once it reaches a breaking point.
February 20, 2014, 09:10:28 AM
Terk, any chance that vardiff may come back to help reduce variance for us micro-miners?
February 20, 2014, 09:07:58 AM
Must have changed with the server upgrade, i dont think terk wanted it pingable.
as im not at home and stuck in work still not able to give you my ping, sorry.
as im not at home and stuck in work still not able to give you my ping, sorry.
February 20, 2014, 09:03:02 AM
AS the server is not pingable as stated then i wouldnt know im afraid.
?? of course its pingable.
i'm in the south of England
PING us.clevermining.com (54.200.13.55): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 54.200.13.55: seq=0 ttl=47 time=176.951 ms
64 bytes from 54.200.13.55: seq=1 ttl=47 time=171.402 ms
64 bytes from 54.200.13.55: seq=2 ttl=47 time=174.863 ms
64 bytes from 54.200.13.55: seq=3 ttl=47 time=171.175 ms
PING eu.wafflepool.com (95.85.28.31) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from eu.coins (95.85.28.31): icmp_req=1 ttl=51 time=21.9 ms
64 bytes from eu.coins (95.85.28.31): icmp_req=2 ttl=51 time=16.4 ms
64 bytes from eu.coins (95.85.28.31): icmp_req=3 ttl=51 time=15.4 ms
64 bytes from eu.coins (95.85.28.31): icmp_req=4 ttl=51 time=17.6 ms
PING middlecoin.com (54.194.173.83) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from ec2-54-194-173-83.eu-west-1.compute.amazonaws.com (54.194.173.83): icmp_req=1 ttl=53 time=30.4 ms
64 bytes from ec2-54-194-173-83.eu-west-1.compute.amazonaws.com (54.194.173.83): icmp_req=2 ttl=53 time=29.9 ms
64 bytes from ec2-54-194-173-83.eu-west-1.compute.amazonaws.com (54.194.173.83): icmp_req=3 ttl=53 time=28.7 ms
64 bytes from ec2-54-194-173-83.eu-west-1.compute.amazonaws.com (54.194.173.83): icmp_req=4 ttl=53 time=27.5 ms
Jump to: