Yes, thanks to eennaam’s two avalons joining us 
I really appreciate that!
To whomever joined this pool about 20 minutes ago:
Something is broken with your setup, your miner keeps connecting and disconnecting every 3 seconds. About 400 connection attempts so far.
What kind of mining software is that? Can you please fix it?
[quote=“TheSeven, post:62, topic:71”]To whomever joined this pool about 20 minutes ago:
Something is broken with your setup, your miner keeps connecting and disconnecting every 3 seconds. About 400 connection attempts so far.
What kind of mining software is that? Can you please fix it?[/quote]
And the very same user also managed to crash the pool server with some bad input data now.
The crash has been fixed, and some auto-restart code has been added in case something similar happens somewhere else, but I’d really like to know which mining software was that…
Sorry for the long downtime :’(
Let me see if I have got this straight: Every payout method must discover its own blocks; i.e. ESMPPS(520) blocks do not fund payouts to ESMPPS(12) miners, same with PPLNS(520) & PPLNS(12).
Yes, otherwise I’d have to distribute the block rewards across reward models somehow. For that I’d have to use some kind “master reward model”, which would typically be proportional (prone to taking unfair advntage by doing “reward model hopping”) or PPLNS (which is effectively very similar to not sharing blocks at all). Neither of those really help.
If you have a good idea how to change this without opening up attack vectors or screwing some people over, please feel free to discuss those here.
But isn’t that what “pooled mining” is? I thought pools shared block rewards with all miners, not just those mining on the chosen model.
What is the point of the two confirmation variations (520/12) anyway? Why can’t they share block income?
Now that you have those ~70GH ASICs on board, life is peachy, huh? It is if you’re mining the ESMPPS[520] model, right?
They started out mining on PPLNS[520], but then suddenly they switched to the method preferred by the pool operator. How very convenient.
Their sudden arrival laid bare some of this pool’s flaws.
Five of the other eight miners (six before I stopped) are mining on the ESMPPS[12] model with much lower hashrates. You might as well tell them that they are now volunteers, because as it stands, they’ll never be paid anything.
They are effectively competing against the pool in a very uphill battle, instead of working collectively with everyone in the pool. Under the circumstances, they are probably better off solo mining.
When one miner holds 95% of the pool’s hashpower, and the blocks they find are only shared with a very small portion of that pool, then everyone else mining in said pool is fucked.
I’m pretty much resigned to the idea that I’ve been wasting my time, and will never see any of the 331.525155 PPC I have earned, considering how incredibly lopsided this pool became overnight.
Why not suggest to your ASIC friend that they rotate that massive hashpower among all the payout methods; at least for a little while to get all methods receiving income?
Sure, they can do whatever they want with their hardware, but it would be a kind gesture to those of us who had already been mining for some time on just the good faith of some kind of payout someday.
They’ll make a killing on whatever method they mine in this pool with ~70GH.
But isn’t that what “pooled mining” is? I thought pools shared block rewards with all miners, not just those mining on the chosen model.
What is the point of the two confirmation variations (520/12) anyway? Why can’t they share block income?[/quote]
The confirmation variants could possibly share blocks, but that would make things even more confusing, because the different types of reward models can’t.
Right now things are fairly simple: The different reward models just act like independent pools.
[quote=“camel, post:66, topic:71”]Now that you have those ~70GH ASICs on board, life is peachy, huh? It is if you’re mining the ESMPPS[520] model, right?
They started out mining on PPLNS[520], but then suddenly they switched to the method preferred by the pool operator. How very convenient.[/quote]
First of all, the “recommended” reward model is ESMPPS(12), not ESMPPS(520). The ASICs got attracted by the latter because it has the lowest fees.
Which flaws?
Why would they never be paid anything? That’s just nonsense.
It might take longer for them to get paid for exactly one reason: because you left.
Why would solo mining be “easier” than mining in a little pool with 7 other people (as you said above)? That just doesn’t make any sense.
Why? You just aren’t benefiting from the ASIC joining the pool, but you don’t have any direct disadvantages because of it either.
Technically the ASIC isn’t holding 95% of the pool that you are in, but of another pool. Your sub-pool isn’t affected by that.
As I said above, you’ll get them just about as soon as you would have got them if the ASIC wouldn’t have joined. Well, unless you leave, in which case it might take longer, because your sub-pool is now even slower.
[quote=“camel, post:66, topic:71”]Why not suggest to your ASIC friend that they rotate that massive hashpower among all the payout methods; at least for a little while to get all methods receiving income?
Sure, they can do whatever they want with their hardware, but it would be a kind gesture to those of us who had already been mining for some time on just the good faith of some kind of payout someday.
They’ll make a killing on whatever method they mine in this pool with ~70GH.[/quote]
Actually he has already rotated between PPLNS and ESMPPS, just not with the high fee variants of those models.
Nevertheless, I’m currently planning to rework some aspects of this, and probably drop the 12 confirmation reward models altogether in favor of an “unconfirmed payout with additional fee” feature like D7 has it.
Lowest fees? Yeah, that’s definitely the reason.
So, that’s my fault?
[quote=“TheSeven, post:67, topic:71”]Why? You just aren’t benefiting from the ASIC joining the pool, but you don’t have any direct disadvantages because of it either.
Technically the ASIC isn’t holding 95% of the pool that you are in, but of another pool. Your sub-pool isn’t affected by that.[/quote]
This pretty much says it all right here. I thought I was actually mining in TheSeven’s PPC Pool this whole time. Silly me. :
Once again, my bad. Sorry about that, “sub-pool”. :-[
BULLSHIT. What rotation? It’s been ESMPPS[520] 24/7 since you asked them to stop mining the PPLNS[520] model shortly after joining.
BULLSHIT. What rotation? It’s been ESMPPS[520] 24/7 since you asked them to stop mining the PPLNS[520] model shortly after joining.[/quote]
I never asked him to go for any specific reward model. Why would I have any incentive to ask anyone to mine in a reward model that causes me to earn less fees?
Previously he mined in the PPLNS(520) reward model, where absolutely nobody else is, so the other miners were not benefiting from it at all. Now he’s mining in the ESMPPS(520) model were the majority of miners was and is mining, so most miners now benefit from it. Where’s the problem with that?
Once the pool gets big enough and all reward models have stable hashrates, this will be a non-issue.
Right now I’m wondering if I can mitigate the effects somehow, but I just can’t think of a way that wouldn’t open up any vulnerabilities. If you know one, feel free to suggest it, instead of just leaving your rants here.
The very first time I connected to your pool, it was under the PPLNS[520] model, and was only for a very short time. I received my earnings for that recently, as the block found very early on by The ASICs must have confirmed. I do thank you for that.
If the same eventually happens with what I have so far (which is quite a bit more) in the ESMPPS[12] model, then I’m happy.
Look, I would rather mine here if I am mining PPCs, and would be willing to mine under the ESMPPS[520] going forward, since that is the way things currently are. Why not just offer ESMPPS[520] as the only option?
I figured the trade-off for paying a higher fee was getting a payout after only 12 confirmations of any block found under ESMPPS, versus waiting for 520 confirmations and paying a smaller fee.
[quote=“TheSeven, post:69, topic:71”]Once the pool gets big enough and all reward models have stable hashrates, this will be a non-issue.
Right now I’m wondering if I can mitigate the effects somehow, but I just can’t think of a way that wouldn’t open up any vulnerabilities. If you know one, feel free to suggest it, instead of just leaving your rants here.[/quote]
Hypothetically, it would be simple within cgminer to setup one of the two ASICs on a six-hour rotation on the four sub-pools (excluding PPS in this example), using their one payout address, but the four models as each rotation’s password. They would still find blocks like crazy, wouldn’t they? Would that create any vulnerabilities or exploitation? The difference in your fees is negligible. The other ASIC could mine like crazy on whatever.
That is completely up to the users, and nothing that I have direct control about.
The pool can only influence that in a very limited fashion by providing incentives (such as lower fees etc.)
If you would be owning an ASIC, would you “waste” part of your profit by doing such a thing? I very strongly doubt it.
Hi. I started with your pool. How long does the 520 confirmations usually take? A few days?
Thanks.
Just curious here, I was seeing payouts every few days (5/28, 5/25, 5/21), but have not seen one since 5/28. I’m the miner ending in ‘vR’. Is there something wrong? I didn’t change anything here (except get a bigger GPU). 
Hm, something is getting mixed up here…
You joined my pool on 5/27, so most of the payments were before that. In fact none of those payments are coming from my pool, you must have specified that address somewhere else as well.
You’re currently mining on the ESMPPS(12) reward model, which hasn’t even found a single block yet, and thus hasn’t produced any payments so far. This is partially due to a rather low hashrate (only 1-3GH/s total during the last couple of days), and partially due to rather bad luck. Variance is screwing it over right now, but that should turn back to normal at some point.
Your payout can increase retroactively. Once a block is found, you will get a payment from the pool, even if you have stopped mining in the meantime. Assuming you’d stop now, your estimated long-term payout would be around 100 PPC. If you continue, it will be more.
I know that there is popular demand for sharing blocks between the different reward models to avoid this kind of payout delay if not many people are mining. (If the pool would have a lot more miners, things would be much better anyway.) However nobody has been able to show me a method on how to implement this, that wouldn’t either be even more complex to undestand than what we currently have, or open up attack vectors that would screw over most of the pool’s users in the end result. Right now, the different reward models are basically independent sub-pools, which seems to be the only way to implement it that is really safe.
What happened to all the mining power? Did I scare everyone off? Does everyone leave when immediate profitability is better in btc or?
Pretty much that. I was surprised that people didn’t jump out much earlier, it was around 95% profitability for days.
But now, at only ~90%, people jumped out. Wait for difficulty to drop a bit and they’ll be back all of a sudden.
We’re kinda lucky that ppcoin tolerates this kind of behavior rather well, unlike FTC/CNC where transaction confirmations almost stalled for several days because of this.
It seems to me that the profitability stats only matter if you are cashing out as soon as you mine it. I don’t, if I am going to sell I try to sell on a price spike or when the price is higher. So the profitability charts are not so important.
The thing is that you can get more ppcoins by mining BTC and then buying PPC with it (ideally during a price low).
Is there a way to view mining status on android? The stats on the website dont work.
The stats, except for the hashrate graph, work in Google Chrome on android, not sure about the older built-in browser though.
It should be fairly easy to build a dedicated mobile website or even monitoring app for the pool though. If someone is interested, feel free to contact me to discuss the pool’s API.