Damn that's disappointing.
user@moonbaseone:~$ ping uswest.wafflepool.com
PING uswest.wafflepool.com (192.241.211.125) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 192.241.211.125: icmp_req=1 ttl=52 time=199 ms
64 bytes from 192.241.211.125: icmp_req=2 ttl=52 time=205 ms
64 bytes from 192.241.211.125: icmp_req=3 ttl=51 time=198 ms
64 bytes from 192.241.211.125: icmp_req=4 ttl=51 time=208 ms
64 bytes from 192.241.211.125: icmp_req=5 ttl=51 time=198 ms
64 bytes from 192.241.211.125: icmp_req=6 ttl=52 time=270 ms
64 bytes from 192.241.211.125: icmp_req=7 ttl=52 time=197 ms
64 bytes from 192.241.211.125: icmp_req=8 ttl=51 time=205 ms
^C64 bytes from 192.241.211.125: icmp_req=9 ttl=52 time=196 ms
--- uswest.wafflepool.com ping statistics ---
9 packets transmitted, 9 received, 0% packet loss, time 41991ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 196.668/208.878/270.110/22.031 ms
user@moonbaseone:~$ ping sea.wafflepool.com
PING sea.wafflepool.com (128.199.217.67) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 128.199.217.67: icmp_req=1 ttl=43 time=221 ms
64 bytes from 128.199.217.67: icmp_req=2 ttl=43 time=231 ms
64 bytes from 128.199.217.67: icmp_req=3 ttl=43 time=243 ms
64 bytes from 128.199.217.67: icmp_req=4 ttl=43 time=220 ms
64 bytes from 128.199.217.67: icmp_req=5 ttl=43 time=312 ms
64 bytes from 128.199.217.67: icmp_req=6 ttl=43 time=225 ms
64 bytes from 128.199.217.67: icmp_req=7 ttl=43 time=245 ms
^C64 bytes from 128.199.217.67: icmp_req=8 ttl=43 time=222 ms
--- sea.wafflepool.com ping statistics ---
8 packets transmitted, 8 received, 0% packet loss, time 36748ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 220.787/240.355/312.767/28.810 ms
From home I get 70 ping to sea.wafflepool.com (Melbourne AU), but the ISP we're using where the rigs are located has bad routing it looks like (its going from Melbourne AU, to Sydney AU, to Tokyo JP, to Singapore SG). I'll use it as a backup pool for the moment until I can figure out how to fix it on my end. I'm guessing sfire's ping would be good to it which should reduce lag on the other pools anyways. Thanks!
Edit:
...
The way it would be handled is mining AUR would be enabled if AUR unexchanged balance was less than X% of our total unexchanged. If we picked 10%, and had 30btc (estimated) unexchanged, we would allow mining up to 3btc of AUR before disabling it. As those blocks matured/exchanged, it would open up mining again automatically.
Thoughts?
10% should be fine I think. It's price shouldn't fall too much too quickly right now I imagine after the bubble.