Is SKUNK algo / coins all okay ? Profit has spiked WAY up.
Also... I am getting crazy amounts of Rejected shares.
Topic: [ANN][POOL] ZERGPOOL.com - Multialgo, autoexchange, 0.5% fee, 250+ coins - page 49. (Read 57740 times)
April 17, 2018, 12:36:01 PM
April 17, 2018, 09:10:32 AM
Waiting for Equihash ...
April 17, 2018, 07:28:58 AM
Quote
Dealing with connection limits on x17, please approach second port(3738) if feasible for you
@Pinpins,
Is it possible to introduce some sound robin in the API?
If so, Auto-Switching Miners will pick the random port provided when calling the API.
I guess this would greatly help you in such case.
MrPlus
April 17, 2018, 06:11:01 AM
Yesterday was a pretty awesome mining result day -- about 50% higher than average for me. Nice 
April 16, 2018, 03:29:38 AM
hi , how can i monitor on 24h how much gathering mBTC ?
Last 24 Hours Balance line not show tooltip
Last 24 Hours Balance line not show tooltip
You could use NPlusMiner with Earnings Tracking logs enabled.
https://github.com/MrPlusGH/NPlusMiner/releases
How to tracking?
Enable Earnings Tracking checkbox on the config page.
Earning Tracking logs
Added the ability to enable earnings tracking log in Config (Default = disabled)
csv files are place in .\Logs as "EarningTracker-.csv"
Could be easily loaded in Excel for tables and charting
Anyone feels like building and Excel template and share with the community ?
April 15, 2018, 11:45:27 PM
I've had a couple problems which were totally my mistake and pinpin has been extremely helpful on discord helping me sort them out. A+ for support
April 15, 2018, 09:08:57 PM
Hi,
Can you show me command line you have been using?
I'm using Sniffdog miner 4.8.4, so I'm not sure what it used. Since this was a while ago, I don't see the history any more. Right now it's mining Phi.
Sor for Phi, it's something like this:
Bin\NVIDIA-TPruvot2.2.4\ccminer.exe -a phi -o stratum+tcp://phi.mine.zergpool.com:8333 -u xxxxxx -p ID=,c=BTC -i 23 --api-remote --api-allow=0/0
I don't know if there was an intensity setting or not for skein or not.
If I catch it happening again I'll take note to send you the syntax.
April 15, 2018, 08:01:57 PM
scrypt on you pool with nicehash don`t work 
Hi,
Did you check it on compatibility? Perhaps it is to do with starting difficulty you can specify d=
I send to you message, please read!
April 15, 2018, 03:30:56 PM
HSR is having a tremendous number of Orphans. Any solution to that ?
April 15, 2018, 12:09:08 PM
Is something wrong with skunk stratum? It took almost 3 minutes to start mining.
Then after a bit, it starts rejecting
Code:
*** ccminer 2.2.4 for nVidia GPUs by tpruvot@github ***
Built with VC++ 2013 and nVidia CUDA SDK 9.0 32-bits
Originally based on Christian Buchner and Christian H. project
Include some kernels from alexis78, djm34, djEzo, tsiv and krnlx.
BTC donation address: 1AJdfCpLWPNoAMDfHF1wD5y8VgKSSTHxPo (tpruvot)
[2018-04-15 00:26:32] Starting on stratum+tcp://skunk.mine.zergpool.com:8433
[2018-04-15 00:26:32] NVAPI GPU monitoring enabled.
[2018-04-15 00:26:32] 3 miner threads started, using 'skunk' algorithm.
[2018-04-15 00:26:33] API open in full access mode to 0/0 on port 4068
[2018-04-15 00:29:22] Stratum difficulty set to 0.1
[2018-04-15 00:29:22] skunk block 322315, diff 72.517
[2018-04-15 00:29:22] GPU #2: Intensity set to 21, 2097152 cuda threads
[2018-04-15 00:29:22] GPU #1: Intensity set to 21, 2097152 cuda threads
[2018-04-15 00:29:22] GPU #0: Intensity set to 21, 2097152 cuda threads
[2018-04-15 00:29:23] GPU #2: EVGA GTX 1080 Ti, 4147.59 kH/s
[2018-04-15 00:29:23] GPU #1: EVGA GTX 1080 Ti, 3588.89 kH/s
[2018-04-15 00:29:23] GPU #0: EVGA GTX 1080 Ti, 3565.94 kH/s
[2018-04-15 00:29:27] GPU #1: EVGA GTX 1080 Ti, 54.78 MH/s
[2018-04-15 00:29:27] GPU #0: EVGA GTX 1080 Ti, 53.79 MH/s
[2018-04-15 00:29:28] GPU #2: EVGA GTX 1080 Ti, 54.79 MH/s
[2018-04-15 00:29:28] accepted: 1/1 (diff 0.118), 96.23 MH/s yes!
[2018-04-15 00:29:30] accepted: 2/2 (diff 0.236), 105.12 MH/s yes!
[2018-04-15 00:29:33] GPU #2: EVGA GTX 1080 Ti, 55.07 MH/s
[2018-04-15 00:29:33] accepted: 3/3 (diff 0.182), 113.65 MH/s yes!
[2018-04-15 00:29:36] GPU #1: EVGA GTX 1080 Ti, 55.49 MH/s
[2018-04-15 00:29:36] accepted: 4/4 (diff 0.107), 118.00 MH/s yes!
Built with VC++ 2013 and nVidia CUDA SDK 9.0 32-bits
Originally based on Christian Buchner and Christian H. project
Include some kernels from alexis78, djm34, djEzo, tsiv and krnlx.
BTC donation address: 1AJdfCpLWPNoAMDfHF1wD5y8VgKSSTHxPo (tpruvot)
[2018-04-15 00:26:32] Starting on stratum+tcp://skunk.mine.zergpool.com:8433
[2018-04-15 00:26:32] NVAPI GPU monitoring enabled.
[2018-04-15 00:26:32] 3 miner threads started, using 'skunk' algorithm.
[2018-04-15 00:26:33] API open in full access mode to 0/0 on port 4068
[2018-04-15 00:29:22] Stratum difficulty set to 0.1
[2018-04-15 00:29:22] skunk block 322315, diff 72.517
[2018-04-15 00:29:22] GPU #2: Intensity set to 21, 2097152 cuda threads
[2018-04-15 00:29:22] GPU #1: Intensity set to 21, 2097152 cuda threads
[2018-04-15 00:29:22] GPU #0: Intensity set to 21, 2097152 cuda threads
[2018-04-15 00:29:23] GPU #2: EVGA GTX 1080 Ti, 4147.59 kH/s
[2018-04-15 00:29:23] GPU #1: EVGA GTX 1080 Ti, 3588.89 kH/s
[2018-04-15 00:29:23] GPU #0: EVGA GTX 1080 Ti, 3565.94 kH/s
[2018-04-15 00:29:27] GPU #1: EVGA GTX 1080 Ti, 54.78 MH/s
[2018-04-15 00:29:27] GPU #0: EVGA GTX 1080 Ti, 53.79 MH/s
[2018-04-15 00:29:28] GPU #2: EVGA GTX 1080 Ti, 54.79 MH/s
[2018-04-15 00:29:28] accepted: 1/1 (diff 0.118), 96.23 MH/s yes!
[2018-04-15 00:29:30] accepted: 2/2 (diff 0.236), 105.12 MH/s yes!
[2018-04-15 00:29:33] GPU #2: EVGA GTX 1080 Ti, 55.07 MH/s
[2018-04-15 00:29:33] accepted: 3/3 (diff 0.182), 113.65 MH/s yes!
[2018-04-15 00:29:36] GPU #1: EVGA GTX 1080 Ti, 55.49 MH/s
[2018-04-15 00:29:36] accepted: 4/4 (diff 0.107), 118.00 MH/s yes!
Then after a bit, it starts rejecting
Code:
[2018-04-15 00:29:43] accepted: 7/8 (diff 0.489), 129.29 MH/s booooo
[2018-04-15 00:29:43] reject reason: Invalid job id
[2018-04-15 00:29:46] GPU #2: EVGA GTX 1080 Ti, 54.48 MH/s
[2018-04-15 00:29:47] accepted: 7/9 (diff 0.129), 133.41 MH/s booooo
[2018-04-15 00:29:47] reject reason: Invalid job id
[2018-04-15 00:29:50] GPU #0: EVGA GTX 1080 Ti, 54.71 MH/s
[2018-04-15 00:29:50] accepted: 7/10 (diff 0.101), 134.61 MH/s booooo
[2018-04-15 00:29:50] reject reason: Invalid job id
[2018-04-15 00:29:52] GPU #1: EVGA GTX 1080 Ti, 55.16 MH/s
[2018-04-15 00:29:52] accepted: 7/11 (diff 0.738), 136.31 MH/s booooo
[2018-04-15 00:29:52] reject reason: Invalid job id
[2018-04-15 00:29:52] accepted: 7/12 (diff 0.215), 137.48 MH/s booooo
[2018-04-15 00:29:52] reject reason: Invalid job id
[2018-04-15 00:29:56] GPU #2: EVGA GTX 1080 Ti, 54.33 MH/s
[2018-04-15 00:29:56] accepted: 7/13 (diff 0.191), 139.92 MH/s booooo
[2018-04-15 00:29:56] reject reason: Invalid job id
[2018-04-15 00:29:57] GPU #1: EVGA GTX 1080 Ti, 54.90 MH/s
[2018-04-15 00:29:58] accepted: 7/14 (diff 0.233), 140.80 MH/s booooo
[2018-04-15 00:29:58] reject reason: Invalid job id
[2018-04-15 00:29:59] accepted: 7/15 (diff 0.183), 142.42 MH/s booooo
[2018-04-15 00:29:59] reject reason: Invalid job id
[2018-04-15 00:29:59] GPU #0: EVGA GTX 1080 Ti, 54.36 MH/s
[2018-04-15 00:29:59] accepted: 7/16 (diff 1.198), 143.27 MH/s booooo
[2018-04-15 00:29:59] reject reason: Invalid job id
[2018-04-15 00:30:05] GPU #2: EVGA GTX 1080 Ti, 54.30 MH/s
[2018-04-15 00:30:05] accepted: 7/17 (diff 0.218), 145.09 MH/s booooo
[2018-04-15 00:30:05] reject reason: Invalid job id
[2018-04-15 00:30:06] accepted: 7/18 (diff 0.118), 145.09 MH/s booooo
[2018-04-15 00:30:06] reject reason: Invalid job id
[2018-04-15 00:30:07] GPU #1: EVGA GTX 1080 Ti, 54.93 MH/s
[2018-04-15 00:30:07] accepted: 7/19 (diff 0.148), 145.78 MH/s booooo
[2018-04-15 00:30:07] reject reason: Invalid job id
[2018-04-15 00:30:09] accepted: 7/20 (diff 0.139), 146.33 MH/s booooo
[2018-04-15 00:30:09] reject reason: Invalid job id
[2018-04-15 00:30:10] GPU #0: EVGA GTX 1080 Ti, 54.20 MH/s
[2018-04-15 00:30:10] accepted: 7/21 (diff 0.403), 146.98 MH/s booooo
[2018-04-15 00:30:10] reject reason: Invalid job id
[2018-04-15 00:30:18] GPU #2: EVGA GTX 1080 Ti, 53.95 MH/s
[2018-04-15 00:30:19] accepted: 7/22 (diff 0.141), 147.64 MH/s booooo
[2018-04-15 00:30:19] reject reason: Invalid job id
[2018-04-15 00:30:25] skunk block 322318, diff 89.956
[2018-04-15 00:29:43] reject reason: Invalid job id
[2018-04-15 00:29:46] GPU #2: EVGA GTX 1080 Ti, 54.48 MH/s
[2018-04-15 00:29:47] accepted: 7/9 (diff 0.129), 133.41 MH/s booooo
[2018-04-15 00:29:47] reject reason: Invalid job id
[2018-04-15 00:29:50] GPU #0: EVGA GTX 1080 Ti, 54.71 MH/s
[2018-04-15 00:29:50] accepted: 7/10 (diff 0.101), 134.61 MH/s booooo
[2018-04-15 00:29:50] reject reason: Invalid job id
[2018-04-15 00:29:52] GPU #1: EVGA GTX 1080 Ti, 55.16 MH/s
[2018-04-15 00:29:52] accepted: 7/11 (diff 0.738), 136.31 MH/s booooo
[2018-04-15 00:29:52] reject reason: Invalid job id
[2018-04-15 00:29:52] accepted: 7/12 (diff 0.215), 137.48 MH/s booooo
[2018-04-15 00:29:52] reject reason: Invalid job id
[2018-04-15 00:29:56] GPU #2: EVGA GTX 1080 Ti, 54.33 MH/s
[2018-04-15 00:29:56] accepted: 7/13 (diff 0.191), 139.92 MH/s booooo
[2018-04-15 00:29:56] reject reason: Invalid job id
[2018-04-15 00:29:57] GPU #1: EVGA GTX 1080 Ti, 54.90 MH/s
[2018-04-15 00:29:58] accepted: 7/14 (diff 0.233), 140.80 MH/s booooo
[2018-04-15 00:29:58] reject reason: Invalid job id
[2018-04-15 00:29:59] accepted: 7/15 (diff 0.183), 142.42 MH/s booooo
[2018-04-15 00:29:59] reject reason: Invalid job id
[2018-04-15 00:29:59] GPU #0: EVGA GTX 1080 Ti, 54.36 MH/s
[2018-04-15 00:29:59] accepted: 7/16 (diff 1.198), 143.27 MH/s booooo
[2018-04-15 00:29:59] reject reason: Invalid job id
[2018-04-15 00:30:05] GPU #2: EVGA GTX 1080 Ti, 54.30 MH/s
[2018-04-15 00:30:05] accepted: 7/17 (diff 0.218), 145.09 MH/s booooo
[2018-04-15 00:30:05] reject reason: Invalid job id
[2018-04-15 00:30:06] accepted: 7/18 (diff 0.118), 145.09 MH/s booooo
[2018-04-15 00:30:06] reject reason: Invalid job id
[2018-04-15 00:30:07] GPU #1: EVGA GTX 1080 Ti, 54.93 MH/s
[2018-04-15 00:30:07] accepted: 7/19 (diff 0.148), 145.78 MH/s booooo
[2018-04-15 00:30:07] reject reason: Invalid job id
[2018-04-15 00:30:09] accepted: 7/20 (diff 0.139), 146.33 MH/s booooo
[2018-04-15 00:30:09] reject reason: Invalid job id
[2018-04-15 00:30:10] GPU #0: EVGA GTX 1080 Ti, 54.20 MH/s
[2018-04-15 00:30:10] accepted: 7/21 (diff 0.403), 146.98 MH/s booooo
[2018-04-15 00:30:10] reject reason: Invalid job id
[2018-04-15 00:30:18] GPU #2: EVGA GTX 1080 Ti, 53.95 MH/s
[2018-04-15 00:30:19] accepted: 7/22 (diff 0.141), 147.64 MH/s booooo
[2018-04-15 00:30:19] reject reason: Invalid job id
[2018-04-15 00:30:25] skunk block 322318, diff 89.956
Hi,
Can you show me command line you have been using?
April 15, 2018, 12:07:14 PM
scrypt on you pool with nicehash don`t work
Hi,
Did you check it on compatibility? Perhaps it is to do with starting difficulty you can specify d=
April 15, 2018, 12:31:41 AM
Is something wrong with skunk stratum? It took almost 3 minutes to start mining.
Then after a bit, it starts rejecting
Code:
*** ccminer 2.2.4 for nVidia GPUs by tpruvot@github ***
Built with VC++ 2013 and nVidia CUDA SDK 9.0 32-bits
Originally based on Christian Buchner and Christian H. project
Include some kernels from alexis78, djm34, djEzo, tsiv and krnlx.
BTC donation address: 1AJdfCpLWPNoAMDfHF1wD5y8VgKSSTHxPo (tpruvot)
[2018-04-15 00:26:32] Starting on stratum+tcp://skunk.mine.zergpool.com:8433
[2018-04-15 00:26:32] NVAPI GPU monitoring enabled.
[2018-04-15 00:26:32] 3 miner threads started, using 'skunk' algorithm.
[2018-04-15 00:26:33] API open in full access mode to 0/0 on port 4068
[2018-04-15 00:29:22] Stratum difficulty set to 0.1
[2018-04-15 00:29:22] skunk block 322315, diff 72.517
[2018-04-15 00:29:22] GPU #2: Intensity set to 21, 2097152 cuda threads
[2018-04-15 00:29:22] GPU #1: Intensity set to 21, 2097152 cuda threads
[2018-04-15 00:29:22] GPU #0: Intensity set to 21, 2097152 cuda threads
[2018-04-15 00:29:23] GPU #2: EVGA GTX 1080 Ti, 4147.59 kH/s
[2018-04-15 00:29:23] GPU #1: EVGA GTX 1080 Ti, 3588.89 kH/s
[2018-04-15 00:29:23] GPU #0: EVGA GTX 1080 Ti, 3565.94 kH/s
[2018-04-15 00:29:27] GPU #1: EVGA GTX 1080 Ti, 54.78 MH/s
[2018-04-15 00:29:27] GPU #0: EVGA GTX 1080 Ti, 53.79 MH/s
[2018-04-15 00:29:28] GPU #2: EVGA GTX 1080 Ti, 54.79 MH/s
[2018-04-15 00:29:28] accepted: 1/1 (diff 0.118), 96.23 MH/s yes!
[2018-04-15 00:29:30] accepted: 2/2 (diff 0.236), 105.12 MH/s yes!
[2018-04-15 00:29:33] GPU #2: EVGA GTX 1080 Ti, 55.07 MH/s
[2018-04-15 00:29:33] accepted: 3/3 (diff 0.182), 113.65 MH/s yes!
[2018-04-15 00:29:36] GPU #1: EVGA GTX 1080 Ti, 55.49 MH/s
[2018-04-15 00:29:36] accepted: 4/4 (diff 0.107), 118.00 MH/s yes!
Then after a bit, it starts rejecting
Code:
[2018-04-15 00:29:43] accepted: 7/8 (diff 0.489), 129.29 MH/s booooo
[2018-04-15 00:29:43] reject reason: Invalid job id
[2018-04-15 00:29:46] GPU #2: EVGA GTX 1080 Ti, 54.48 MH/s
[2018-04-15 00:29:47] accepted: 7/9 (diff 0.129), 133.41 MH/s booooo
[2018-04-15 00:29:47] reject reason: Invalid job id
[2018-04-15 00:29:50] GPU #0: EVGA GTX 1080 Ti, 54.71 MH/s
[2018-04-15 00:29:50] accepted: 7/10 (diff 0.101), 134.61 MH/s booooo
[2018-04-15 00:29:50] reject reason: Invalid job id
[2018-04-15 00:29:52] GPU #1: EVGA GTX 1080 Ti, 55.16 MH/s
[2018-04-15 00:29:52] accepted: 7/11 (diff 0.738), 136.31 MH/s booooo
[2018-04-15 00:29:52] reject reason: Invalid job id
[2018-04-15 00:29:52] accepted: 7/12 (diff 0.215), 137.48 MH/s booooo
[2018-04-15 00:29:52] reject reason: Invalid job id
[2018-04-15 00:29:56] GPU #2: EVGA GTX 1080 Ti, 54.33 MH/s
[2018-04-15 00:29:56] accepted: 7/13 (diff 0.191), 139.92 MH/s booooo
[2018-04-15 00:29:56] reject reason: Invalid job id
[2018-04-15 00:29:57] GPU #1: EVGA GTX 1080 Ti, 54.90 MH/s
[2018-04-15 00:29:58] accepted: 7/14 (diff 0.233), 140.80 MH/s booooo
[2018-04-15 00:29:58] reject reason: Invalid job id
[2018-04-15 00:29:59] accepted: 7/15 (diff 0.183), 142.42 MH/s booooo
[2018-04-15 00:29:59] reject reason: Invalid job id
[2018-04-15 00:29:59] GPU #0: EVGA GTX 1080 Ti, 54.36 MH/s
[2018-04-15 00:29:59] accepted: 7/16 (diff 1.198), 143.27 MH/s booooo
[2018-04-15 00:29:59] reject reason: Invalid job id
[2018-04-15 00:30:05] GPU #2: EVGA GTX 1080 Ti, 54.30 MH/s
[2018-04-15 00:30:05] accepted: 7/17 (diff 0.218), 145.09 MH/s booooo
[2018-04-15 00:30:05] reject reason: Invalid job id
[2018-04-15 00:30:06] accepted: 7/18 (diff 0.118), 145.09 MH/s booooo
[2018-04-15 00:30:06] reject reason: Invalid job id
[2018-04-15 00:30:07] GPU #1: EVGA GTX 1080 Ti, 54.93 MH/s
[2018-04-15 00:30:07] accepted: 7/19 (diff 0.148), 145.78 MH/s booooo
[2018-04-15 00:30:07] reject reason: Invalid job id
[2018-04-15 00:30:09] accepted: 7/20 (diff 0.139), 146.33 MH/s booooo
[2018-04-15 00:30:09] reject reason: Invalid job id
[2018-04-15 00:30:10] GPU #0: EVGA GTX 1080 Ti, 54.20 MH/s
[2018-04-15 00:30:10] accepted: 7/21 (diff 0.403), 146.98 MH/s booooo
[2018-04-15 00:30:10] reject reason: Invalid job id
[2018-04-15 00:30:18] GPU #2: EVGA GTX 1080 Ti, 53.95 MH/s
[2018-04-15 00:30:19] accepted: 7/22 (diff 0.141), 147.64 MH/s booooo
[2018-04-15 00:30:19] reject reason: Invalid job id
[2018-04-15 00:30:25] skunk block 322318, diff 89.956
April 14, 2018, 08:38:30 PM
how come my hashrate in zergpool's UI is always higher than in my AwesomeMiner's? For a 1080ti you should be getting 65mhs right but in zergpool sometimes it shows twice that? Is that accurate that I'm hashing 120mhs for 1 card?
April 14, 2018, 12:35:15 PM
hi , how can i monitor on 24h how much gathering mBTC ?
Last 24 Hours Balance line not show tooltip
Last 24 Hours Balance line not show tooltip
You could use NPlusMiner with Earnings Tracking logs enabled.
https://github.com/MrPlusGH/NPlusMiner/releases
April 13, 2018, 01:51:25 PM
status API (actual_24h) reports and actual payouts do have some serious mismatches .. anyone else experiencing this and is there some issue on the pool? (mainly mining on x16r/s). there are 3x/day almost zero payouts in a period of ~4hrs. Not sure if this is expected on zergpool or there is some issue with auto-exchange?
looks like: 4hrs almost no balance change followed by 4 hrs steady balance rise, then again 4 hrs no balance change. not sure if this matches up with the mismatch between reported vs real earnings ( but looks like )
looks like: 4hrs almost no balance change followed by 4 hrs steady balance rise, then again 4 hrs no balance change. not sure if this matches up with the mismatch between reported vs real earnings ( but looks like )
April 13, 2018, 01:12:51 PM
UPDATE.
1. VERGE clearnet version was installed to reduce amount of orphans blocks found. It is safe to mine with less orphans now.
Hopefully it will improve accuracy as well!
1. VERGE clearnet version was installed to reduce amount of orphans blocks found. It is safe to mine with less orphans now.
Hopefully it will improve accuracy as well!
Does it mean that orphan rate is not included in profit prediction? This would explain a lot, as suggested before.
Hope clearnet helps, because these orphans are anoying. However, I thought that ist due to relatively low hashrate in comparison to whole network, am I wrong?
I think wrong estimates were caused by worsen connectivity via darknet, hence orphans, hence lower end result. Now have fixed it, see it is much better already for last blocks in x17 Verge.
The issue is not fixed at all. There are 10 Orphan blocks on zergpool for the past 10 hours and each block is found every 45 minutes and this means a loss of 10% caused by orphan blocks and because of the terrible "DARKNET" network you are using.
April 13, 2018, 12:05:02 PM
scrypt on you pool with nicehash don`t work
April 13, 2018, 02:07:38 AM
luck factor decrease when time frame increase that's just law of large number. That does not mean you can predict but you can nevertheless compare two different pool during the same period
April 12, 2018, 07:11:28 PM
luck factor never changes. probability changes with the amount of hashrate on a pool - you can assume but not predict. btc value changes. you can assume but not predict .. there are just lots of unpredictable factors.
April 12, 2018, 03:05:52 PM
Pool Estimates are made by looking at past results. That will differ, because block finding is luck. So if you found 20 blocks the past 24h, that desn not necessarily mean, you will find 20 blocks in the next 24h - still you made an assumption that it will be so if the hashrate/diff stays the same (which is never the case). At least, that's how I understand it.
Now, AM seems to compare the estimates to actual payouts. So what they actually compare is how "correct" the pool estimate was. Which again - involves luck and time because they have to wait for maturing at least. The only real information you can get out of this is how CONISTENT that percentage is. So if over a period of - say - >1 week, a pool gets measured at 70% you can assume, that it will be wrong always. If a pool gets measured 70% for just a day it may mean nothing at all.
and beside that, in the past years, the estimates were ALWAYS too high. Always. Every Pool, NH as well. Because those estimates are highly volatile and can never reach a 100% accuracy, which is completely fine, as long as they keep comparable and not being manipulated
If you are on pool A mining but pool B has the luck to find a block - it would've been better to be on pool B. But you wasn't. That's the game.
If someone is interested, I do permanent measurements on earnings and zergpool for example has a 10% rate everyday at 18:00-19:00h GMT, those payouts arrive later on, not sure why this is, but all I care is 24h profit and yes, the estimates don't match. But they never do and never did, at no pool, I've measured lots of them. NH (not a pool but still) has the most accurate so far, which is easy, because they don't need to make any assumptions at all, they have realtime data
Now, AM seems to compare the estimates to actual payouts. So what they actually compare is how "correct" the pool estimate was. Which again - involves luck and time because they have to wait for maturing at least. The only real information you can get out of this is how CONISTENT that percentage is. So if over a period of - say - >1 week, a pool gets measured at 70% you can assume, that it will be wrong always. If a pool gets measured 70% for just a day it may mean nothing at all.
and beside that, in the past years, the estimates were ALWAYS too high. Always. Every Pool, NH as well. Because those estimates are highly volatile and can never reach a 100% accuracy, which is completely fine, as long as they keep comparable and not being manipulated
If you are on pool A mining but pool B has the luck to find a block - it would've been better to be on pool B. But you wasn't. That's the game.
If someone is interested, I do permanent measurements on earnings and zergpool for example has a 10% rate everyday at 18:00-19:00h GMT, those payouts arrive later on, not sure why this is, but all I care is 24h profit and yes, the estimates don't match. But they never do and never did, at no pool, I've measured lots of them. NH (not a pool but still) has the most accurate so far, which is easy, because they don't need to make any assumptions at all, they have realtime data
The luck factor is important especially if pool hash rate is low, but as you mine longer the luck factor should decreased.
One way to figure things is to mine simultaneously different pools (sharing your hashrate equally between them indeed).
For instance I'm mining LUX simultaneously with zergpool and bsod : so far bsod is giving 30% more earning than zergpool but considering BSOD finding blocks more often I have to wait to see if the difference in earning persists.
Jump to: