Page 7 of 17
Re: Bad profit
Posted: Sat May 28, 2016 1:45 pm
by GenTarkin
CritterDog wrote:Steve Sokolowski wrote:GenTarkin wrote:
So, you made 86% pps @ prohashing, 14% less than 100% ltc pps.
What was your reject % on prohash vs litecoinpool?
Now, lets run some quick math:
Lets assume prohashing pulled off paying miners even(100%pps ltc)
Prohashing takes 5% in fees(drops to 95%pps ltc)
If your reject rate is 3-5% like mine has been, then thats another 3-5% loss(drops to 90%)
Add the 3% bonus you get at litecoinpool currently and that equates to another 3% loss at prohashing(drops to 87%)
So....
That 86% is awfully close to the 87% we just guestimated.
Prohashing needs to A: fix their high reject rate(if thats indeed happening) B: continue to work on their multi algo switching - Clevermining manages to always payout more than prohashing(as ive experimented with in the past month or so).
The nice thing about prohashing tho, is the ability to be paid in any coin you want, which saves on service fees when using something like shapeshift.io
I spent some time this morning investigating the rejection rate. The rate of shares that are completely rejected are 0.7%.
Chris is running a query right now to investigate some other possibilities. One possibility is that many shares are being submitted stale, and therefore only the merge mining portion of those shares are being credited. Chris will have more information on that soon.
We ran a query and determined that coin selection can't be the cause of this problem because with the existing coins, only 92% of expected is being earned. Even after we penalized those "low luck" miners (who apparently fixed their systems, because there are no more forfeitures occurring), 8% is not being accounted for. We thought that the "low luck" miners were responsible for the entire difference, but there must be another issue that we have yet to be able to determine.
My reject rate on the A2 is about 0.12 on both pools..I think its around the same on my gblacks but I reset them so cant say for sure
Ah, good idea... I have some gridseed blades I can fire up to see how their reject rate fares is in comparison to the Titan.
I really am not sure about the Titan's work restart delay. I had the asic command scanning individual core activity on the last die in line (as per my previous theory of sequential die flushing & work updating) and the cores on the last die n line stay active except for maybe a 1/10th of a second on a work restart(flush & update). So, unless theres concrete proof of Titan's having horrible work restart delays ... right now its all a myth as per my asic/core work watching method.
Re: Bad profit
Posted: Sat May 28, 2016 1:50 pm
by GenTarkin
Steve Sokolowski wrote:GenTarkin wrote:CritterDog wrote:
Here is the final results. BTW the litecoinpool's payout calculator was crazy close in showing me what to expect to make in a 24 hour period. So at least for me something is still very wrong on prohash. I hope this can get fixed.
Prohash = 1.58 Litecoins
Litecoinpool = 1.82 Litecoins
Difference .24 LTC
So, you made 86% pps @ prohashing, 14% less than 100% ltc pps.
What was your reject % on prohash vs litecoinpool?
Now, lets run some quick math:
Lets assume prohashing pulled off paying miners even(100%pps ltc)
Prohashing takes 5% in fees(drops to 95%pps ltc)
If your reject rate is 3-5% like mine has been, then thats another 3-5% loss(drops to 90%)
Add the 3% bonus you get at litecoinpool currently and that equates to another 3% loss at prohashing(drops to 87%)
So....
That 86% is awfully close to the 87% we just guestimated.
Prohashing needs to A: fix their high reject rate(if thats indeed happening) B: continue to work on their multi algo switching - Clevermining manages to always payout more than prohashing(as ive experimented with in the past month or so).
The nice thing about prohashing tho, is the ability to be paid in any coin you want, which saves on service fees when using something like shapeshift.io
I spent some time this morning investigating the rejection rate. The rate of shares that are completely rejected are 0.7%.
You may be correct about this because if a share is completely rejected by the pool then I think it shows the "both primary & merge mined" reject method. This occurs very infrequently, probably around the .7% you mention.
But, merged mined coins are pretty much worthless and account for very little mining income. Its much more detrimental(has far more weight) when a share gets rejected on the "primary" coin then it is on the merged mined coin. Therefore, its not accurate to make it out to be "actual share rejection ration is only .7%", because in reality, being that the primary coin accounts for 95%(most) of the mining income - the actual rejection ratio f the pool / coins is much higher than that .7%"
What I still dont understand is why reject rates have gone up significantly since the "major upgrade" to the pool software months ago. Prior to that my Titan mined @ 1-2%, now mines between 3-5% reject rate.
Re: Bad profit
Posted: Sat May 28, 2016 3:15 pm
by CritterDog
I am running another test this time with just my A2 since 11pm last night only mining litecoins using the c=litecoin..Will show outcome at 11pm tonight. My mining software so far has zero rejects and the pool shows I am mining at 100 percent efficient
Re: Bad profit
Posted: Sat May 28, 2016 8:26 pm
by Steve Sokolowski
We tried another modification today to reduce work restarts and improve efficiency. The litecoin test should be unaffected, but hopefully other miners will see an improvement.
Re: Bad profit
Posted: Sat May 28, 2016 10:55 pm
by GenTarkin
Well, I fired up my gridseed blades. Those are seeing a 5% reject rate too. So, this definitely is not just because of the "titans slow work restarts" - which as I explained above, I think is a complete myth.
The Titan and these gridseeds are even using different ISP's in different locations. So, its pool related.
Re: Bad profit
Posted: Sat May 28, 2016 11:56 pm
by GenTarkin
GenTarkin wrote:Well, I fired up my gridseed blades. Those are seeing a 5% reject rate too, over course of 6hrs. So, this definitely is not just because of the "titans slow work restarts" - which as I explained above, I think is a complete myth.
The Titan and these gridseeds are even using different ISP's in different locations. So, its pool related.
Re: Bad profit
Posted: Sun May 29, 2016 2:26 am
by CritterDog
GenTarkin wrote:Well, I fired up my gridseed blades. Those are seeing a 5% reject rate too. So, this definitely is not just because of the "titans slow work restarts" - which as I explained above, I think is a complete myth.
The Titan and these gridseeds are even using different ISP's in different locations. So, its pool related.
Yes something is very wrong same thing with me tonight all a sudden very high rejects. What ever was done last made this worse.
Sorry guys I can't mess with this anymore I am going back to litecoinpool until this gets worked out. I will keep monitering this forum. But I have waisted a lot of time messing with this and have got way less coins then if just stayed on litcoinpool. Get it worked out I will be back.. Good luck!
Re: Bad profit
Posted: Sun May 29, 2016 10:13 am
by Steve Sokolowski
We'll keep trying today. Thanks for your patience. I think there must be something wrong with coin selection, and what we tried yesterday made it worse.
I'll continue working with Chris today.
Re: Bad profit
Posted: Sun May 29, 2016 11:27 am
by CritterDog
Steve Sokolowski wrote:We'll keep trying today. Thanks for your patience. I think there must be something wrong with coin selection, and what we tried yesterday made it worse.
I'll continue working with Chris today.
Thanks Steve.. This is a great pool as far as features....Keep us up to date on progress because I will be back when you think you got it.
Re: Bad profit
Posted: Sun May 29, 2016 12:17 pm
by Steve Sokolowski
I think that Chris got it. He had left me a note when he went to sleep, but I didn't receive the note until now.
We checked the found blocks and it seems like hashrate is now being distributed appropriately between networks. It turns out that the formula we were using to compute block times had always been incorrect, for years. Network difficulty is not dependent upon the target block time of the coin, but rather only upon the intended time we want to find blocks at.
It seems that hashrate went up by 20% immediately after deployment. It seems unlikely that people just joined the pool in the past five minutes, so I think that the change made a significant improvement in hashrate. Let us know how this works.