Topic: [POOL][Scrypt][Scrypt-N][X11] Profit switching pool - wafflepool.com - page 281. (Read 465769 times)

sorry if I didn't know that.
know what? forums are for getting knowledge.
did you know that? you seem to have had a similar experience as mine, so you should

/offtopic

1. The reward of each block is known as it is mined, therefore it is not rando reward and we are ideally only mining the high reward blocks.

2. What I suspect happened is that a high reward block was solved just before Wafflepool did, and I believe that currently Wafflepool has their minimum shift time for one coin to 9 minutes - Unfortunately in some cases that means that a dogecoin 800k reward block is found within 30seconds leaving us with 8 mins 30 seconds mining say a 200k reward block, which is obviously not as good.

We've been down this road before, and the last time someone brought it up, it was me making the very same assumption.  But now that I am on the other side, I remember why I don't usually participate in online forums...  Having a productive conversation can be like herding cats!  (For non-native English speakers, that's an idiomatic expression suggesting a fruitless effort spent on a near impossible task.)  As such, I will now bid you all adieu.  poolwaffle, please keep at it and do not let us all down.  I can assure you that your efforts are appreciated..

I will leave you with a quote from someone I once had the pleasure of working with, and for all I know, he might have actually been insulting me...
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."

It's not required though right? I don't need to have it like that, or do I have to have at least something in there, like WALLETADDRESS_Something?

Yes, doge coin is randow reward, untill block 600.001, then its 10.000 each block.

On other pools its the same, sometimes you find a block that is under 100k, and other times you find a 950k

Its like playing diablo 2, and the chance on how close to perfect the unique you find is.

Isn't the block reward of dogecoin random?

Special reward system: Random block rewards

1-100,000: 0-1,000,000 Dogecoin Reward

100,001 — 200,000: 0-500,000 Dogecoin Reward

200,001 — 300,000: 0-250,000 Dogecoin Reward

300,001 — 400,000: 0-125,000 Dogecoin Reward

400,001 — 500,000: 0-62,500 Dogecoin Reward

500,001 - 600,000: 0-31,250 Dogecoin Reward

600,000+ — 10,000 Reward (flat)

Tagcoin should be re-enable, looks like their blockchain problems are fixed and they are profitable right now

I thought perhaps the reward estimate might have been off at the time, but I've been following the recent estimates posted on the stats page and the subsequent generation rewards in the block chain and they indeed do track properly.  I then considered the possibility that we very quickly found the next block after the one deemed to be profitable -- before being able to switch to another coin, but there was a 66 second gap between the two blocks being found, so why didn't we switch to another coin?  What happened?  At 193,881 doge reward, the profitability for that block would have fallen below even that of litecoin, which always has sufficient exchange volume, so how is it that we were still allocating our resources to doge under those circumstances?

I was a bit curious about this as well. Why wouldn't we (or anyone) just mine the most rewarding block...or just discard less profitable ones?

The last dogecoin block we found was indeed very small -- only 193,881 of a possible 1,000,000.

dogecoin   2014-02-04 03:44:24   8b67e7e8199c7faf046648f3cb7eed7c5b6b5efacd786cc1e39086c25f5777cf   193,881.10278679   valid

But that begs another question...  As it was pointed out earlier, the profitability algorithm knows the doge block reward in advance, so how did it ever determine that mining a block with such a low reward was the most profitable option at the time?

I'll try that. Thanks.

What the hell it went down even more after it got confirmed. Where are the coins going?

Depending upon your mining rig(s), you will likely find that your rejection rate is much lower here too.  poolwaffle, the pool operator, does have a few current issues to work out, but he is very responsive and attentive to concerns, and is currently in the process of adding new endpoints and some more robustness to the self monitoring and recovery processes for the pool.  I am hopeful he will succeed in eliminating the source of the hiccups that we've had recently, and on the positive side, he has not attempted to cloak them or anything else from view.

Poolwaffle, one thing that really seems to be bothering miners over at muddlepool is that each of the endpoints there are producing different profits from one another, suggesting that they are all operating independently and not feeding share data into a central database for equitable distribution.  Can you tell us if your new endpoint strategy differs from their approach?

I would email poolwaffle or PM him here or on Reddit. Not sure, but maybe there's something he can do for you.


You can use anything for the password. But you can also use different workers by using your bitcoin address followed by an underscore followed by a workername. This way each worker can have a different vardiff.

It's not just wallet address with any password?

Well, the API was just released a couple of days ago, and it's a temporary API that may change quite a bit yet, but we do have wafflestats at http://waffles.wilschrader.com though this is better for desktop than mobile. I've never actually tried it on my phone, I might just do that and see how it looks.

I suspect other apps similar to what's available for middlecoin will pop up soon.

I switched to this pool 24 hours ago and just realized I had my all my worker usernames in the wrong format, using a period instead of underscore. As a result, my BTC earned didn't go up at all even though I could see my hashrate . Is there any way I can get the BTC credited to my account?

I've been on middlecoin for the past couple days, but I switched over to you to check you out.

One thing I'll miss from middlecoin is the simple android app that I put my BTC address into, and it would poll the site and display my stats. There's 2, one called Middlecoin and Middlecoin Monitor (the better and faster of the 2).

I don't know what is involved in putting an app like this together, but you may want to make something like that, or maybe start with a mobile sized page that I could have up on my phone that I could just hit refresh on.

I have high hopes for this pool, I think you are the best chance for good competition for middlecoin... his fees are outrageous. Also, I was just looking at my stats all night tonight, and I went from $19 to $15 with no payout, so I'm not sure what's going on there, but I wonder if there's a shady reason why he's so secretive about what's going on behind the scenes with his setup.

I have a unconfirmed doge balance of about 400. Something is wrong. Either we found too small of block or payouts are wrong. With the small pool hash and large doge blocks it should be thousands

I really like the types of test you've performed.  Though I'm not certain you've completely isolated the effects of variable conditions upon your results, as each rig was given its own unique stream of data to process, so the test inputs were not identical.   And without doing a whole bunch of math I don't particularly care to do, that approximately 4/10's of a percent improvement may very well be within the margin of error for the test conditions.  There are also factors such as gpu asic quality and other little things that may ultimately mean that your nine identically configured rigs are not truly identical.  But the real problem is that no one (as far as I know) has yet released a pool server emulator that can stream identical test data sets to separate mining rigs in order to obtain results of greater precision.  But the bottom line here is that even if you did not get it exactly right, you're really damn close, and what very little is left to tweak may not really be worth the effort, especially if it means taking your rigs off the live network in order to run tests for some statistically relevant period of time, and then even if you did, invariably some pieces of hardware are bound to fail eventually, and then you would have to revalidate your findings with additional testing all over again.

Anyway, the only reason I originally chimed in was because the advice given was a simple "lower is better" generalization, when in fact there are many more variables in play.