Only on the 3rd place??? >:( I have to add 2 additional miners 
BTW I was wondering is the pool currently proportional? IE I mean are the shares/values on a per block basis or are they carrier through like PPLNS? In my opinion PPLNS is more fair to everyone especially with short rounds for example just because you didnt generate a crappy 6 share in a 250 share block doesnt mean you havent been helping a lot in previous rounds. Essentially it helps to even out the randomness and make it more fair for everyone contributing and not just those who happen to get lucky. I prefer a 24 hour based PPLNS where the number of time between rounds is 24 hours. Though personally my favourite payout system is Double Geometric AKA DGM. It would be cool to see you implement something like that for your pool, would help it stand out not just from Ypool but also for the future if any other pools come about.
Hi,
Thx for this great pool, with no mail and no account 
Just a quick question.
I can mine from 2 different servers, should I use the same -pooluser=[xpm-payout-address] or 2 differents?
usage:
primeminer -pooluser=[xpm-payout-address] -poolpassword=0 -poolip=beeeeer.org -poolport=9912 -genproclimit=[threads-to-use]
[quote=“theprofileth, post:62, topic:342”]BTW I was wondering is the pool currently proportional? IE I mean are the shares/values on a per block basis or are they carrier through like PPLNS? In my opinion PPLNS is more fair to everyone especially with short rounds for example just because you didnt generate a crappy 6 share in a 250 share block doesnt mean you havent been helping a lot in previous rounds. Essentially it helps to even out the randomness and make it more fair for everyone contributing and not just those who happen to get lucky. I prefer a 24 hour based PPLNS where the number of time between rounds is 24 hours. Though personally my favourite payout system is Double Geometric AKA DGM. It would be cool to see you implement something like that for your pool, would help it stand out not just from Ypool but also for the future if any other pools come about.[/quote]Now everything is working well and the payment too.
Except connecting to the server, the server rejects the connection constantly. You need a different server.
[quote=“linkou, post:63, topic:342”]Hi,
Thx for this great pool, with no mail and no account
Just a quick question.
I can mine from 2 different servers, should I use the same -pooluser=[xpm-payout-address] or 2 differents?
usage:
primeminer -pooluser=[xpm-payout-address] -poolpassword=0 -poolip=beeeeer.org -poolport=9912 -genproclimit=[threads-to-use][/quote]You may use same wallet.
[…]
Except connecting to the server, the server rejects the connection constantly. You need a different server.[/quote]
like i said earlier, it seems to be a problem of the miner / mining machine, not the server. some of the the clients produce <1% rejects, while other ~10% (check the share details for the blocks). first i thought this is a windows problem, but it looks like some linux system suffer from this too. i will look into the client code the next days and hopefully fix this / find a workaround. stability & payouts are the main focus at the moment.
i checked some of my debug logs and it looks like 2 clients (2 out of ~30) connect to port 9912 properly, but are not connecting to port 9999 (long poll feature), thus they will have problems with rejected shares (aka “no response from server” aka “empty reply”).
@linkou:
you can use the same xpm address for seperate miners.
@theprofileth:
atm it’s on a per-block-basis. i will add this to the todo list.
@grekk:
you can check your current payout-balance in every payout (the “next” field gives you a cumulative value for all your shares (from the last payout to the current payout)).
- xolokram
[quote=“xolokram, post:66, topic:342”]atm it’s on a per-block-basis. i will add this to the todo list.
- xolokram[/quote] ;D
Does that mean you are considering doing DGM!
Also when do you plan to release this to the masses IE put it on the bitcointalk alt coin forum?
i have to go through the dirty details first, before i decide on that issue. but it sounds good.
this can be helpful <- reminder to myself
i dont really like the bitcointalk alt coin forum, too much “wine”, trolls & unthankful bashing — but i’m aware of the promotional potential of btctalk
- xolokram
ps. it’s actually already on the btctalk alt coin forum, somebody already released a (small) announcement there (without my “permission” / knowledge)
pps. i still think, that a slow growing userbase would be more vital
I don’t agree with prizes of any kind from the pool. Satoshi Dice is about prizes for lucky boys, pools should be just the opposite: to minimize lucky as much as possible, to distribute earnings uniformly on a work contribution basis. The more is luck rewarded by a pool, the more it will be close to solo mining. If someone wants to be rewarded for being lucky he should do solo mining (or S. Dice).
+1
I think a profitability calculator would be great. I’m mining src right now since I know exactly how much it’ll net me per day.
I’d rather mine xpm on gpu at your pool but it isn’t possible atm. Anyone got numbers for a single i7 Sandy?
With the same basis of thought, perhaps it is so not bad to give the same share value for chains of any length, in order to promote many small processors instead to promoting the big ones. I mean, the people who have huge computing power does not need a pool, so, the smaller the CPU the better should be going to a pool. But if the pool rewards more to the more lucky (again) it will be the same as rewarding more the big systems against the small systems.
[quote=“AlexMc, post:58, topic:342”]Taking that into consideration share value should look something like this:
0.01 per 6-chain
0.1 per 7-chain
1 per 8 chain
10 per 9-chain
etc.[/quote]
That is not good for the pool, the target of the pool must be to minimize variance for everybody, but a distribution of reward proportional to the inverse of probability of lenght will minimize variance of the bigger ones, letting more variance to the smaller ones.
I understand that a uniform distribution has the problem of promoting miners and tunning parameters to search just for small chains, and not searching for chains bigger than the difficulty (the only ones which are valid for block creation). So I propose to value shares proportional to its lenght. That is:
4 per 4-chain
5 per 5-chain
6 per 6-chain
7 per 7-chain
8 per 8 chain
9 per 9-chain
etc.
That will be enough for the miner and the developer to try to improve sieving and prime testing to find bigger chains. It is the opposite approach to yPool, who has disappointed most of the smaller contributors with its new sharing scheme. Now yPool is only worth for the more powerful computing systems, is it what you want?
Having problems with rejects, ~20% on most blocks. Tried restarting miner but I can’t watch 7 machine screens 24/7. Is there anything else we can try to lower them?
For example, in the current block:
{
"0": 119,
"6": 541,
"7": 51,
"8": 6,
"-6": 2
}
even though none of miners are ‘disconnected’ (I watched them to see that they are all occasionally submitting shares).
(Unrelated: what is with some of the anti-robot questions when trying to post? “Who wrote the book 1984 (first and last name required)” what kind of question is that? Should I google it? :o)
Pool is down?
Pool is down!
something in the backend crashed,
/edit1: ok, back online, i have to find the cause now…
I got like 100% rejects for like the last couple blocks because of something (I think a disconnect)
Restarting obviously fixed the issue, but can someone please fix the reconnect issue with the miner as I don’t like wasting time sending in worthless data and wasting pool resources.
Because they are probably using the higher decimal count internally for precision but you will be payed out the normal decimal amount.
I have a problem with the compilation miner in two machines
1st
rm -f libmemenv.a
ar -rs libmemenv.a helpers/memenv/memenv.o
ar: creating libmemenv.a
make[1]: Leaving directory `/root/primecoin-hp/src/leveldb'
root@prosh:~/primecoin-hp/src# top
when i try to start compiling the second time … get
g++: internal compiler error: Killed (program cc1plus)
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See <file:///usr/share/doc/gcc-4.6/README.Bugs> for instructions.
make: *** [obj/main.o] Error 4
make: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
g++: internal compiler error: Killed (program cc1plus)
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See <file:///usr/share/doc/gcc-4.6/README.Bugs> for instructions.
make: *** [obj/net.o] Error 4
2nd
g++: internal compiler error: Killed (program cc1plus)
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See <file:///usr/share/doc/gcc-4.6/README.Bugs> for instructions.
make: *** [obj/main.o] Error 4
make: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
how to fix?
Thanks
I like this, there’s been a couple good suggestion on the last page, big +1 to the ones mentioning share value equal to chain lenght and the one that mentioned last blocks found in a 24hs period.
That should be enough to determine profitability easily.
Now we need more miners here.
12 threads here just joined 
server down again