Topic: mmpool.org - 1.5% fee DGM/PPS - tx fees/vardiff/merge mine/tor - page 89. (Read 361844 times)
We should have another 12.4(TH/s) next week and we're willing to send up to 25% of that to mmpool possibly. We already have ~1.7(TH/s) on there.
Added another S3 to the pool. Adding more miners as they come in.
it's tomorrow
fire those miners up people, i want my block-ade drink soon enough 
Let's fuck this block
Just received my antminers today. Doing some testing so only 1 is pointed here right now.. Will point the rest here in a week or so.
its today 
here blockie, here! This direction, can you hear me
The fee here is not the problem. I have benchmarked ghash.io against btcguild and eligius with equal hash rate over a period of several months. BTCGuild came out on top, and at the time it had a 3% fee and the other two were 0% fee. If there is one thing that will bring ghash users over it is more frequent blocks. Keep in mind that most people mining there are also using cex.io, and these are mostly people who think that 0.005 BTC and > 20% fees is a good price for 1GH/s. Not the brightest people.
So we have a chicken and egg problem here, but I think the only way the fee could be safely removed is if the PPS split is removed and DGM is taken off the sliding reward schedule similar to the way EclipseMC runs theirs, where every block is paid 25 BTC + fees regardless of how long or short the block is. A donation mechanism would then have to be used to recover the costs of running the pool. Then finally after all that work we'd probably still get no one from ghash.io moving over.
So we have a chicken and egg problem here, but I think the only way the fee could be safely removed is if the PPS split is removed and DGM is taken off the sliding reward schedule similar to the way EclipseMC runs theirs, where every block is paid 25 BTC + fees regardless of how long or short the block is. A donation mechanism would then have to be used to recover the costs of running the pool. Then finally after all that work we'd probably still get no one from ghash.io moving over.
I am not sure where you got most of your info, but your very incorrect. cex.io had a public statement where they said that 25% of the hashrate they have is their own. That means 75% of the hashrate is by miners just are pointing there local miners at the pool and not with cex.io.
As for a 0 fee, I am not saying a 0 fee will make us more money over the long term tho I think it will, having a 0 fee encourages miners to switch as they see our pool says no fee then they switch.
If you believe that only 25% of ghash is cex then more power to you. You might be the only one who believes that.
The fee here is not the problem. I have benchmarked ghash.io against btcguild and eligius with equal hash rate over a period of several months. BTCGuild came out on top, and at the time it had a 3% fee and the other two were 0% fee. If there is one thing that will bring ghash users over it is more frequent blocks. Keep in mind that most people mining there are also using cex.io, and these are mostly people who think that 0.005 BTC and > 20% fees is a good price for 1GH/s. Not the brightest people.
So we have a chicken and egg problem here, but I think the only way the fee could be safely removed is if the PPS split is removed and DGM is taken off the sliding reward schedule similar to the way EclipseMC runs theirs, where every block is paid 25 BTC + fees regardless of how long or short the block is. A donation mechanism would then have to be used to recover the costs of running the pool. Then finally after all that work we'd probably still get no one from ghash.io moving over.
So we have a chicken and egg problem here, but I think the only way the fee could be safely removed is if the PPS split is removed and DGM is taken off the sliding reward schedule similar to the way EclipseMC runs theirs, where every block is paid 25 BTC + fees regardless of how long or short the block is. A donation mechanism would then have to be used to recover the costs of running the pool. Then finally after all that work we'd probably still get no one from ghash.io moving over.
I am not sure where you got most of your info, but your very incorrect. cex.io had a public statement where they said that 25% of the hashrate they have is their own. That means 75% of the hashrate is by miners just are pointing there local miners at the pool and not with cex.io.
As for a 0 fee, I am not saying a 0 fee will make us more money over the long term tho I think it will, having a 0 fee encourages miners to switch as they see our pool says no fee then they switch.
I had to sell my equipment so I'm mining with 1 ghs
it's your turn to crack the next block
The fee here is not the problem. I have benchmarked ghash.io against btcguild and eligius with equal hash rate over a period of several months. BTCGuild came out on top, and at the time it had a 3% fee and the other two were 0% fee. If there is one thing that will bring ghash users over it is more frequent blocks. Keep in mind that most people mining there are also using cex.io, and these are mostly people who think that 0.005 BTC and > 20% fees is a good price for 1GH/s. Not the brightest people.
So we have a chicken and egg problem here, but I think the only way the fee could be safely removed is if the PPS split is removed and DGM is taken off the sliding reward schedule similar to the way EclipseMC runs theirs, where every block is paid 25 BTC + fees regardless of how long or short the block is. A donation mechanism would then have to be used to recover the costs of running the pool. Then finally after all that work we'd probably still get no one from ghash.io moving over.
So we have a chicken and egg problem here, but I think the only way the fee could be safely removed is if the PPS split is removed and DGM is taken off the sliding reward schedule similar to the way EclipseMC runs theirs, where every block is paid 25 BTC + fees regardless of how long or short the block is. A donation mechanism would then have to be used to recover the costs of running the pool. Then finally after all that work we'd probably still get no one from ghash.io moving over.
Yes luck has a huge factor indeed. I am a bit worried about mmpool, the admin, I have seen him in IRC in a while and I have emailed him with no response.
Email again. As far as I know I've caught up on all pool related emails so it may have slipped through the cracks.Other mergeable coins I know of are huntercoin, coiledcoin and gesitgeld. Huntercoin is very resource intensive and was causing pool stability issues when I last tested it. I can look at patching the coin to make it less intensive but I'm not sure it's worth it. Is the coin on exchanges?
coiledcoin and geistgeld are not on exchanges to my knowledge. Groupcoin has taught me that adding non-exchange coins is not really worthwhile. It's more of a support headache. I'm open to adding these if there is some use of the coin that I'm unaware of.
Well i would still look at huntercoin as it does have an exchange.
As for coiledcoin and geistgeld, they both seem dead and/or not on an exchange so no point in merge mining them. Also is there any status on maybe removing the fee to encourage ghash.io miners to switch to our pool? If we can get to 500th we would have a decent pool with semi constant payouts going.
I had to sell my equipment so I'm mining with 1 ghs
My kittens are waiting for next block to happen on mmpool so they would get something to eat=)
Yes luck has a huge factor indeed. I am a bit worried about mmpool, the admin, I have seen him in IRC in a while and I have emailed him with no response.
Email again. As far as I know I've caught up on all pool related emails so it may have slipped through the cracks.Other mergeable coins I know of are huntercoin, coiledcoin and gesitgeld. Huntercoin is very resource intensive and was causing pool stability issues when I last tested it. I can look at patching the coin to make it less intensive but I'm not sure it's worth it. Is the coin on exchanges?
coiledcoin and geistgeld are not on exchanges to my knowledge. Groupcoin has taught me that adding non-exchange coins is not really worthwhile. It's more of a support headache. I'm open to adding these if there is some use of the coin that I'm unaware of.
huntercoin is a total pain in the arse.. the nature of the wallet means it'd need a chunk taken out of the code to run lighter, which would probably give you more headaches than needed. mmpool is fine, i don't see any need for any extra stuff. more blocks would do me
Yes luck has a huge factor indeed. I am a bit worried about mmpool, the admin, I have seen him in IRC in a while and I have emailed him with no response.
Email again. As far as I know I've caught up on all pool related emails so it may have slipped through the cracks.Other mergeable coins I know of are huntercoin, coiledcoin and gesitgeld. Huntercoin is very resource intensive and was causing pool stability issues when I last tested it. I can look at patching the coin to make it less intensive but I'm not sure it's worth it. Is the coin on exchanges?
coiledcoin and geistgeld are not on exchanges to my knowledge. Groupcoin has taught me that adding non-exchange coins is not really worthwhile. It's more of a support headache. I'm open to adding these if there is some use of the coin that I'm unaware of.
I once read that cdf-stats would be needed to keep track on pools reliability. Dont know if other pools have that. In a small pool luck is one of major elements so it can affect stat greatly. In a pool this size cdf can be very misleading as luck varies so much. I think they would have implemented that if seen relevant as pool otherwise seems ok.
I would also like to see cdf stats.
I would also like to see cdf stats.
Yes luck has a huge factor indeed. I am a bit worried about mmpool, the admin, I have seen him in IRC in a while and I have emailed him with no response.
He just posted https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7786037
I once read that cdf-stats would be needed to keep track on pools reliability. Dont know if other pools have that. In a small pool luck is one of major elements so it can affect stat greatly. In a pool this size cdf can be very misleading as luck varies so much. I think they would have implemented that if seen relevant as pool otherwise seems ok.
I would also like to see cdf stats.
I would also like to see cdf stats.
Yes luck has a huge factor indeed. I am a bit worried about mmpool, the admin, I have seen him in IRC in a while and I have emailed him with no response.
I once read that cdf-stats would be needed to keep track on pools reliability. Dont know if other pools have that. In a small pool luck is one of major elements so it can affect stat greatly. In a pool this size cdf can be very misleading as luck varies so much. I think they would have implemented that if seen relevant as pool otherwise seems ok.
I would also like to see cdf stats.
I would also like to see cdf stats.
Jump to: