Topic: Bitparking Merged Mining Pool (100G/s, PPS 2.5% fee, BTC, NMC, I0C, IXC, DVC) - page 5. (Read 7015 times)
December 27, 2011, 10:44:09 AM
Might try this pool out. Only thing it needs is merged mining with Devcoin. (when that is implemented)
December 27, 2011, 10:37:44 AM
Fees for i0coin on the pool have dropped from 10% down to 5%, the same as bitcoin and namecoin, now. I'll monitor how that goes over the next day or two.
Awesome! We should be able to merge mine Ixcoin within the week/year! Do you think you'll add ixcoin to this pool? Or will you setup a new pool for the transition?
December 27, 2011, 05:51:49 AM
Fees for i0coin on the pool have dropped from 10% down to 5%, the same as bitcoin and namecoin, now. I'll monitor how that goes over the next day or two.
December 23, 2011, 07:40:43 AM
I am getting about 15-20% stales using Phoenix miner (Version 1.6.2).
My pool always seem to show higher stales with Phoenix, I'm not sure why. Namebit also saw the same thing with their pool software. The method the merge pool is using to handle longpolls combined with stale shares is a bit inefficient too (related to the merge mining proxy I'm using) - something I plan to improve on. December 22, 2011, 10:39:44 PM
Is this only cgminer related ?
I am getting about 15-20% stales using Phoenix miner (Version 1.6.2). Almost after every "LP: New work pushed" the first share send is rejected. Tried out the new Version (1.7.0) but it drops from 300 MHash down to 200 MHash and does not produce any shares. Read that the new Version seems to be still buggy.
Anyone else having that issue with Phoenix?
So guess i should change my miner, any prefered suggestions ? - Which is most appropriate miner for merged mining ?
I am getting about 15-20% stales using Phoenix miner (Version 1.6.2). Almost after every "LP: New work pushed" the first share send is rejected. Tried out the new Version (1.7.0) but it drops from 300 MHash down to 200 MHash and does not produce any shares. Read that the new Version seems to be still buggy.
Anyone else having that issue with Phoenix?
So guess i should change my miner, any prefered suggestions ? - Which is most appropriate miner for merged mining ?
December 21, 2011, 10:19:19 PM
Thanks! I'm drinking $1 Great Lakes xmas ales, but I hope to setup all my miners tomorrow to point towards your pool tomorrow!!!
December 21, 2011, 09:12:55 PM
The merged mining pool found its first bitcoin block a few blocks ago, and its first namecoin block a few hours ago, so I can confirm that merge mining is working successfully.
December 21, 2011, 12:05:18 PM
If anyone is using old versions of cgminer, please update to the latest version before using a merged mining pool like mmpool. The older versions don't always respond to the longpoll notifications from the pool. This was an optimisation used in cgminer but it breaks with merged mining. Notifications will occur when auxiliary chains have a new block but cgminer will think because the primary chain hasn't changed it can continue mining. You'll get higher numbers of stales with these cgminer versions.
December 21, 2011, 11:19:19 AM
Thanks, DC! Will try this out when I get home!
December 21, 2011, 05:32:44 AM
As mentioned in the main i0coin thread, now that i0coin supports merged mining I've modified my existing pool software to merge mine Bitcoin, Namecoin, i0coin, IXcoin and Devcoin. Payment is 'Pay Per Share' rather than the proportional system used by my other bitparking pools. Details at http://mmpool.bitparking.com.
There may be bugs in the i0coin merged mining implementation or the pool software so there may be a few ups and downs in the pool at this early stage as I stamp them out. Contact me via email (email is on the pool website) if you have questions/problems.
There may be bugs in the i0coin merged mining implementation or the pool software so there may be a few ups and downs in the pool at this early stage as I stamp them out. Contact me via email (email is on the pool website) if you have questions/problems.
Jump to: