I've been mining here for the last few days, but now I discovered I used my LTC address instead of my BTC address, so I didn't receive any pay outs. Is there a way I can still receive it, or do I just have to take my loss?
(My LTC address is Lhkqt64zX6E8SESssmELcSvynpCQgjD4zn and my BTC address is 1MQDYPuwQ7M9hbwitnwwLPHW7UzHQowQAT)
Topic: [ANN][AUTO-SWITCH] Profit-switch auto-exchange pool: CleverMining.com - page 279. (Read 554387 times)
February 15, 2014, 05:15:18 AM
February 15, 2014, 01:47:52 AM
We are changing coins a little more aggressively since yesterday, but I'm monitoring pool-wide rejected ratio and it got up only slightly (less than 1% more than before the change).
You should setup your miners to submit stale shares.
When you find a share just at the same time when we switched coins, you should submit it anyway, because it might be solving a block for the old coin (and even if it doesn't solve it, it will be accepted as a valid share). The pool will recognize it correctly and use it for the previous coin, even if the current work is for the next one.
This is even more important now when we change coins more aggressively. We switch coins more often now and if your miner discards work that it solved because of coin change, it isn't good. It should submit it because it might be a solving block share.
Setting your miners to submit stale shares will increase rejected ratio reported by the pool (because you will also submit stale shares when we didn't switch coins, but when a new block for a coin came, and that share will be invalid and rejected), but it will also increase profitability and it's the right thing to do in a coin-switching pool.
You should setup your miners to submit stale shares.
When you find a share just at the same time when we switched coins, you should submit it anyway, because it might be solving a block for the old coin (and even if it doesn't solve it, it will be accepted as a valid share). The pool will recognize it correctly and use it for the previous coin, even if the current work is for the next one.
This is even more important now when we change coins more aggressively. We switch coins more often now and if your miner discards work that it solved because of coin change, it isn't good. It should submit it because it might be a solving block share.
Setting your miners to submit stale shares will increase rejected ratio reported by the pool (because you will also submit stale shares when we didn't switch coins, but when a new block for a coin came, and that share will be invalid and rejected), but it will also increase profitability and it's the right thing to do in a coin-switching pool.
Hmm, I'll have to figure out how to do this is GUIMiner-Scrypt. Or finally break down and switch to CGMiner /sigh
February 15, 2014, 01:39:28 AM
We are changing coins a little more aggressively since yesterday, but I'm monitoring pool-wide rejected ratio and it got up only slightly (less than 1% more than before the change).
You should setup your miners to submit stale shares.
When you find a share just at the same time when we switched coins, you should submit it anyway, because it might be solving a block for the old coin (and even if it doesn't solve it, it will be accepted as a valid share). The pool will recognize it correctly and use it for the previous coin, even if the current work is for the next one.
This is even more important now when we change coins more aggressively. We switch coins more often now and if your miner discards work that it solved because of coin change, it isn't good. It should submit it because it might be a solving block share.
Setting your miners to submit stale shares will increase rejected ratio reported by the pool (because you will also submit stale shares when we didn't switch coins, but when a new block for a coin came, and that share will be invalid and rejected), but it will also increase profitability and it's the right thing to do in a coin-switching pool.
You should setup your miners to submit stale shares.
When you find a share just at the same time when we switched coins, you should submit it anyway, because it might be solving a block for the old coin (and even if it doesn't solve it, it will be accepted as a valid share). The pool will recognize it correctly and use it for the previous coin, even if the current work is for the next one.
This is even more important now when we change coins more aggressively. We switch coins more often now and if your miner discards work that it solved because of coin change, it isn't good. It should submit it because it might be a solving block share.
Setting your miners to submit stale shares will increase rejected ratio reported by the pool (because you will also submit stale shares when we didn't switch coins, but when a new block for a coin came, and that share will be invalid and rejected), but it will also increase profitability and it's the right thing to do in a coin-switching pool.
February 14, 2014, 10:55:34 PM
My reject rate has been staying around 11%-14% today. According to my miners, I have some odd numbers - 268 Accepted - 489 Stale. Is this normal for whatever we are mining? I have never seen them get this many stale coins since I have been mining. I've restarted them several times through out the day trying to get this to go down. Any ideas are welcome - I run 4 R9 290's, 2 5870's and 1 6970. The all seem to have this issue.
Fore example 6970 @ 430kh/s has 473 accepted and 1370 stale. This is the only card I haven't restarted since about noon today - So 10 hours or so and that's its numbers.
Fore example 6970 @ 430kh/s has 473 accepted and 1370 stale. This is the only card I haven't restarted since about noon today - So 10 hours or so and that's its numbers.
February 14, 2014, 08:17:46 PM
Hi, today i restarted my miner and my reject ratios turned from around 3-5% to around 20% would you happen to know whats wrong?
February 14, 2014, 07:46:49 PM
Terk, some suggestions:
1. Add an option to auto-exchange to litecoins too, pls !
you could change the password to choose between BTC and LTC:
-p btc -> will auto-exchange to BTCs
-p ltc -> will auto-exchange to LTCs
2. Add an option to mine SHA256 coins for the ASIC people ( PPC, TRC, ASC, UNO, XJO, ZET, etc... )
Don't forget to implement here also the BTC/LTC auto-exchange.
3. You need more mirrors in europe, asia, USA, etc... to reduce ping and rejects.
thx for good job you're doing.
1. Add an option to auto-exchange to litecoins too, pls !
you could change the password to choose between BTC and LTC:
-p btc -> will auto-exchange to BTCs
-p ltc -> will auto-exchange to LTCs
2. Add an option to mine SHA256 coins for the ASIC people ( PPC, TRC, ASC, UNO, XJO, ZET, etc... )
Don't forget to implement here also the BTC/LTC auto-exchange.
3. You need more mirrors in europe, asia, USA, etc... to reduce ping and rejects.
thx for good job you're doing.
February 14, 2014, 07:37:19 PM
Comparing directly to wafflepool's displayed BTC/MH rates isn't exactly fair, since wafflepool will consistently accept more of your submitted shares, therefore bringing their total displayed hashrate up slightly (and therefore displayed BTC/MH down). In my side by side tests, neither pool stood out for profitability, but wafflepool's transparency won me over. My testing also showed BTC/MH on waffle to be 5-10% higher on average then projected, compared to a few percent lower then projected on clever.
February 14, 2014, 06:56:13 PM
Cryptsy deposits mostly went through, unexchanged balance is lowered and payouts were sent.
Underlying stratum server which I built the pool on was really crappy in storing shares in database and I rewrote this part. Vardiff was relying on this and I need to write my own vardiff engine if I want vardiff enabled. This is not difficult but I have more urgent tasks right now. I will lower difficulty to 256 as soon as I deploy a new server for the pool. I will work on vardiff next week. It will be either vardiff or selecting your own difficulty by using a password like “diff-256”. I haven't decided yet. The second option would be quicker to develop, but I don't want people hammering the pool with shares sent every five seconds just because they like when their cgminer output is scrolling faster.
Underlying stratum server which I built the pool on was really crappy in storing shares in database and I rewrote this part. Vardiff was relying on this and I need to write my own vardiff engine if I want vardiff enabled. This is not difficult but I have more urgent tasks right now. I will lower difficulty to 256 as soon as I deploy a new server for the pool. I will work on vardiff next week. It will be either vardiff or selecting your own difficulty by using a password like “diff-256”. I haven't decided yet. The second option would be quicker to develop, but I don't want people hammering the pool with shares sent every five seconds just because they like when their cgminer output is scrolling faster.
Any new schedule for changing diff to 256?
February 14, 2014, 06:41:24 PM
hi, do this pool has any pool fee?
It has a small fee which has not been disclosed. All profit averages on the site include fees, so that is the actual amount you will earn.
I actually announced a fixed 2% fee couple of days ago. I might go back to progressive fee idea once I have time to work on it. I need to update the website to reflect recent changes.
February 14, 2014, 06:04:53 PM
hi, do this pool has any pool fee?
It has a small fee which has not been disclosed. All profit averages on the site include fees, so that is the actual amount you will earn.
February 14, 2014, 05:45:09 PM
hi, do this pool has any pool fee?
February 14, 2014, 01:39:11 PM
Selling asap is not always the best choice, so manual trading should be kept as an option.
For example, a coin may be going up in price but profitability may be going down instead, because of difficulty or block reward.
Personally, I think manual trades are what makes middlecoin what it is.
Sorry if I often name MC but it's the de-facto benchmark for btc multipools and I'd really like to have an option to them, this be clevermining would be fine :-)
For example, a coin may be going up in price but profitability may be going down instead, because of difficulty or block reward.
Personally, I think manual trades are what makes middlecoin what it is.
Sorry if I often name MC but it's the de-facto benchmark for btc multipools and I'd really like to have an option to them, this be clevermining would be fine :-)
While that may be true, there is also the possibility that the coin drops in value. Auto trading almost promises the current value, so the system can switch to that coin. Keeping the coins delays payouts, and has a probability of Terk having to pay using his own money.
My guess is that in the long run, best profitability would come from selling the currently most profitable alt (what you are mining at the time) for btc as close to as soon as you mine it as possible (taking into account appropriate batching to minimize fees) - UNLESS there is a long enough, unavoidable delay in being able to transfer and execute those sales. "Long enough" in this case being relative to the exchange rate volatility. In that case, if the delay is unavoidably long, then using some judgement (say in the case of a sudden, rapid and unexplained drop in value of alts you just mined and haven't yet exchanged) would probably yield better results than a slow, automatic system.
February 14, 2014, 12:39:18 PM
Selling asap is not always the best choice, so manual trading should be kept as an option.
For example, a coin may be going up in price but profitability may be going down instead, because of difficulty or block reward.
Personally, I think manual trades are what makes middlecoin what it is.
Sorry if I often name MC but it's the de-facto benchmark for btc multipools and I'd really like to have an option to them, this be clevermining would be fine :-)
For example, a coin may be going up in price but profitability may be going down instead, because of difficulty or block reward.
Personally, I think manual trades are what makes middlecoin what it is.
Sorry if I often name MC but it's the de-facto benchmark for btc multipools and I'd really like to have an option to them, this be clevermining would be fine :-)
While that may be true, there is also the possibility that the coin drops in value. Auto trading almost promises the current value, so the system can switch to that coin. Keeping the coins delays payouts, and has a probability of Terk having to pay using his own money.
February 14, 2014, 10:49:05 AM
Selling asap is not always the best choice, so manual trading should be kept as an option.
For example, a coin may be going up in price but profitability may be going down instead, because of difficulty or block reward.
Personally, I think manual trades are what makes middlecoin what it is.
Sorry if I often name MC but it's the de-facto benchmark for btc multipools and I'd really like to have an option to them, this be clevermining would be fine :-)
For example, a coin may be going up in price but profitability may be going down instead, because of difficulty or block reward.
Personally, I think manual trades are what makes middlecoin what it is.
Sorry if I often name MC but it's the de-facto benchmark for btc multipools and I'd really like to have an option to them, this be clevermining would be fine :-)
February 14, 2014, 10:48:10 AM
If you're asking why your last payout was 2 days ago, it's because you don't have enough payable balance for a daily payout, which is minimum 0.01 BTC. There is also a weekly payout for all balances above 0.001 and it runs on Sundays.
Noticed last sunday, that I got a 0.00x payout, but I was mining, there was no need for that payout, as it would be 0.01 later.
Perhaps something you need to look into? (or?)
Oh, I am not going to try to predict wether particular user will continue mining for long enough to have 0.01 BTC balance tomorrow or not. And then read complaints of users who expected to be paid 0.004 BTC but were not.
The 0.001+ BTC payout is scheduled 2 minutes after 0.01+ BTC payout, so anyone who had at least 0.01 BTC is already paid and the 0.001+ BTC payout includes only users who didn't earn 0.01 BTC during the entire week (since previous 0.001+ BTC payout). I don't think there's need to optimize it further.
February 14, 2014, 10:42:01 AM
Speaking of unexchanged...
Besides getting the pool running smoothly and having the best algorithm for mining the right coin at a given time, I imagine that the mechanics of actually exchanging alts for btc's is going to be the biggest variable in profitability. The exchange rates are so volatile, I imagine that efficiency of getting the mined alts to an exchange and trading them for btc while they are still "hot" has to be a huge issue.
Is there any way to maximize efficiency in this area that you are not already taking advantage of, @Terk? Using multiple exchanges, automating transfers and sales of alts? Or is there no way to automate this stuff and it just has to be done by hand?
Besides getting the pool running smoothly and having the best algorithm for mining the right coin at a given time, I imagine that the mechanics of actually exchanging alts for btc's is going to be the biggest variable in profitability. The exchange rates are so volatile, I imagine that efficiency of getting the mined alts to an exchange and trading them for btc while they are still "hot" has to be a huge issue.
Is there any way to maximize efficiency in this area that you are not already taking advantage of, @Terk? Using multiple exchanges, automating transfers and sales of alts? Or is there no way to automate this stuff and it just has to be done by hand?
Some things always have to be done by hand but I am automating anything that is possible to automate. I have one more thing that is semi-automated and I want it to be fully automated and I'm going to work on it tonight. There is no way I could run this pool without automating as much as possible.
February 14, 2014, 10:37:28 AM
@Terk, you have by far the best looking site out of all the auto-exchanging multipools out there, yet somehow these other pools are gaining hashrate far more rapidly than yours, which is unfortunate.
Now instead of it being the need to master some dark arts to get your hashrate up, I feel you should think about reconsidering your strategy and offer full transparency on the coins you're mining and the fees you're charging.
Your initial strategy of keeping things secret but still managing to keep miners based on the look and feel of your site clearly isn't working, people in the crypto community have been scammed in every corner they turn to and need full transparency and trust when it comes to where they point their precious miners, I feel you should respect that and if you want any chance of becoming the biggest multipool start rethinking your strategy.
Just my 2c, I hate seeing other new multipools overtake yours because I really love your site.
TL;DR change your strategy and become fully transparent otherwise all your hard work will be for nothing.
Now instead of it being the need to master some dark arts to get your hashrate up, I feel you should think about reconsidering your strategy and offer full transparency on the coins you're mining and the fees you're charging.
Your initial strategy of keeping things secret but still managing to keep miners based on the look and feel of your site clearly isn't working, people in the crypto community have been scammed in every corner they turn to and need full transparency and trust when it comes to where they point their precious miners, I feel you should respect that and if you want any chance of becoming the biggest multipool start rethinking your strategy.
Just my 2c, I hate seeing other new multipools overtake yours because I really love your site.
TL;DR change your strategy and become fully transparent otherwise all your hard work will be for nothing.
FWIW, just as an alternate opinion on this issue, I don't require any of this kind of transparency at all to point my hashes at clevermining. I also don't need a well-designed website. I have hashed at middlecoin and at wafflepool and their pedestrian websites don't put me off at all. I do not care what coin the pool is mining at any given time. I really only care about maximizing my profit and I don't need @Terk to tell me how he is doing that as long as he is actually doing it. I also don't care what his fees are. If his fees are literally 5 times higher than the fees at middlecoin or wafflepool, but I am still banking more coin to my wallet, then I am happy to pay those fees. In my reality, there is no such thing as "fair" fees. If @Terk figures out how to get me more coins for my hashrate than I can get elsewhere, then he can charge me whatever he wants to put more coins in my wallet than I can get elsewhere.
The only transparency that I need is as follows:
1. The indisputable and irreversible BTC deposits into my wallet should match up with the claimed stats on the website
2. Nobody else who is mining at the pool should be reporting discrepancies in what they are actually being paid
For me, the reason that I am currently hashing at clevermining is that from the care of design of his website and from his responsiveness in this thread, I believe that @Terk is putting in a good-faith effort to create a more profitable pool and based on the quality of his work that I have seen so far, I think it is possible/probable that he may be better at it than others. But I will switch to another pool as soon as I don't believe that anymore.
So far, for me the results are still inconclusive. On the plus side the reported history of profitability looks to me a bit better than middlecoin and a fair bit better than wafflepool, though I don't think there is enough history yet for that to be conclusive. My own experience is that my daily earnings at clevermining have been roughly on par with my daily earnings at middlecoin - within the statistical noise that mining is. But that is also not conclusive to me because I haven't mined long enough at either pool to get past the statistical noise.
I'm not saying that you are not correct for yourself and others requiring the kind of transparency that you are asking for in order for clevermining to gain more hashers. You might be totally right about that. I'm just saying that that is not true for me. Given the ease of pointing one's miner at another pool at a moment's notice, I just utterly fail to see how @Terk could possibly be taking advantage or scamming anyone. As long as the payouts are hitting miner's wallets, I just don't see any space available for ripping anyone off. And obviously the moment the payouts are not happening, or are not competitive, it will be completely obvious to everyone and there will instantly be no more clevermining.
At absolute BEST, @Terk might be able to walk away with one day's take before everyone left. My guess is not even that. And given what he has obviously invested in sweat so far, my judgement is that he has much more financial incentive to make the results as competitive as possible and pull in his percentage for the long haul.
That's my 2c.
+1
February 14, 2014, 10:27:05 AM
If you're asking why your last payout was 2 days ago, it's because you don't have enough payable balance for a daily payout, which is minimum 0.01 BTC. There is also a weekly payout for all balances above 0.001 and it runs on Sundays.
Noticed last sunday, that I got a 0.00x payout, but I was mining, there was no need for that payout, as it would be 0.01 later.
Perhaps something you need to look into? (or?)
February 14, 2014, 10:20:48 AM
I stopped mining on the 10 th, when my unexchanged was ~4 times what ready for payout was.
Now 4 days later it looks like this:
Pity as I realy like your design and all.
Till that's resolved I'm at middlecoin.
Now 4 days later it looks like this:
Pity as I realy like your design and all.
Till that's resolved I'm at middlecoin.
There was a major blockchain fork in one of the coins that we were mining. Several mined blocks were orphaned and the stats were automatically updated to reflect this. This is why there are statuses like immature and unexchanged - because value of these coins can change or even amount of these coins can change (in case of a fork). Only payable balance is a solid, final number. All auto-exchange pools work this way.
Because of this fork, Cryptsy halted all deposits for this coin and we were waiting almost five days for our deposits from this time to be credited. We are still missing one deposit worth ~0.67 BTC and I have a ticket opened at Cryptsy with this issue. I expect them to solve it today as there are no current problems with this coin. Most likely these are the coins that you have in your unexchanged balance, if you say that you haven't been mining since Feb 10th.
If you're asking why your last payout was 2 days ago, it's because you don't have enough payable balance for a daily payout, which is minimum 0.01 BTC. There is also a weekly payout for all balances above 0.001 and it runs on Sundays.
February 14, 2014, 10:17:26 AM
Speaking of unexchanged...
Besides getting the pool running smoothly and having the best algorithm for mining the right coin at a given time, I imagine that the mechanics of actually exchanging alts for btc's is going to be the biggest variable in profitability. The exchange rates are so volatile, I imagine that efficiency of getting the mined alts to an exchange and trading them for btc while they are still "hot" has to be a huge issue.
Is there any way to maximize efficiency in this area that you are not already taking advantage of, @Terk? Using multiple exchanges, automating transfers and sales of alts? Or is there no way to automate this stuff and it just has to be done by hand?
Besides getting the pool running smoothly and having the best algorithm for mining the right coin at a given time, I imagine that the mechanics of actually exchanging alts for btc's is going to be the biggest variable in profitability. The exchange rates are so volatile, I imagine that efficiency of getting the mined alts to an exchange and trading them for btc while they are still "hot" has to be a huge issue.
Is there any way to maximize efficiency in this area that you are not already taking advantage of, @Terk? Using multiple exchanges, automating transfers and sales of alts? Or is there no way to automate this stuff and it just has to be done by hand?
Jump to: