Ethereum Mining Pool Hub - 0% Fee, pays all kind of mining rewards, supports all miner programs

17810121322

Comments

  • miningpoolhubminingpoolhub Member Posts: 308 ✭✭
    rether said:


    I switched to this (port 20535 and esm 2) and it looks like all my problems have been resolved. Very few/no invalids and the disconnects appear to be gone!

    @rether

    Great!
  • miningpoolhubminingpoolhub Member Posts: 308 ✭✭
    ImAMiner? said:

    Are we having bad luck or are my rewards reduced because you are now accepting all shares (duplicates and low difficulty) ?

    @ImAMiner?

    I believe it's just bad luck.
    Latest update just change the reponse to miner. It doesn't affect counting shares at backend.

    Lucky times will come soon.
  • shutfushutfu Member Posts: 320 ✭✭
    my earnings have gone down since I added another video card, going from 101mhs to 127mhs... I'm averaging .65 a day on MPH with 127mh/s. is there any way I can look at individual details for myself? more than just the graphs section. Something must be terribly wrong on my end or yours.
  • shutfushutfu Member Posts: 320 ✭✭
    rether said:



    I switched to this (port 20535 and esm 2) and it looks like all my problems have been resolved. Very few/no invalids and the disconnects appear to be gone!

    for claymore's miner? also what version are you using
  • workwork Member Posts: 2,084 ✭✭✭✭
    @shutfu there's been a few long/unlucky rounds in the last 36hours, so profit is down a bit. Otherwise, profitability has been quite consistent for the past 7 days.
  • shutfushutfu Member Posts: 320 ✭✭
    on pace to get .8 for the day with ~130mh/s. 3 days of badluck as soon as I upgrade ?
  • ImAMiner?ImAMiner? Member Posts: 208 ✭✭
    @work @miningpoolhub Yes, terrible luck. Between 20-25% off. But this seemed to coincide when mph decided to accept all shares which includes low difficulty and duplicates. Since I don't seem to be sending those types it seems like I am penalized to the benefit of the miner that is sending a lot of duplicate and low difficulty shares, shares that have no chance of solving a block. My effective percentage is reduced. Am I wrong in this thinking? Also wouldn't it be possible for someone to game this system and send tons of low diff shares with a modified miner?

    I think you're taking too much responsibility for the miner with bad shares, it should be up to them to fix their miner problems, not yours or mine. What do you think, maybe you can give us some numbers to clarify this?
  • workwork Member Posts: 2,084 ✭✭✭✭
    @ImAMiner? Stale shares aren't bad shares, and MPH doesn't accept lowdiff/dupe shares, they are still invalid, the stratum server just doesn't bother responding false because of eth-proxy issues.

    You're quite wrong also, there has been no change to average pool luck since recent share acceptance changes. There were a few days of not-so-good luck followed by almost a week of consistent great luck, and now we're on day 3 of meh luck again.

    Luck varies. That's what luck is. @shutfu you probably started during one of the lowest luck periods, yup. Hang in there, I'm sure it will pick up soon.
  • ImAMiner?ImAMiner? Member Posts: 208 ✭✭
    Gotcha thanks @work I know stale shares are not bad but I guess I am confused because of this http://forum.ethereum.org/discussion/comment/41293/#Comment_41293 That's where @miningpoolhub says all shares are accepted including dupe and low diff. Maybe I read it wrong.

    That announcement above was made 5 days ago and that seemed to be when my earnings started dropping. Hopefully just a coincidence and I'm sure it will all work out (I've seen dips like this before).

    I enjoy mining here @miningpoolhub
  • workwork Member Posts: 2,084 ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 2016
    @ImAMiner? ah yes, he meant the stratum server responds with true (ethminer shows ACCEPTED) to everything now, instead of replying with false/populated error (REJECTED). Lowdiff/dupe shares are still considered invalid by the pool, the mining software/proxy just doesn't get the feedback.
  • miningpoolhubminingpoolhub Member Posts: 308 ✭✭
    shutfu said:

    on pace to get .8 for the day with ~130mh/s. 3 days of badluck as soon as I upgrade ?

    @shutfu

    Sorry but this is nature of small pool.
    I don't think it's issue related thing.

    This mini pool goes up and down much. People don't write messages when pool luck is great.
  • miningpoolhubminingpoolhub Member Posts: 308 ✭✭
    @ImAMiner?
    Actually pool response thing has been reverted.
    It doesn't make share counting changes. I just wanted to deal with miner program's bug a bit because some miners reported it.
    Sorry that recent pool block was not good as before. I do my best, but can't guarantee the result.

    @work
    Thank you for responding, answering things in this forum.
    I am really appreciated.


    I hope pool block finding luck come again.
  • workwork Member Posts: 2,084 ✭✭✭✭

    I hope pool block finding luck come again.

    Looks like luck has improved once again over the last 24hrs. Quite a few fast rounds.
  • miningpoolhubminingpoolhub Member Posts: 308 ✭✭
    work said:


    Looks like luck has improved once again over the last 24hrs. Quite a few fast rounds.

    Yeah. Slowly but improving :)
  • shutfushutfu Member Posts: 320 ✭✭
    edited June 2016
    something is still wrong for me. I'm averaging 130mh/s on the pool and my best days are .89 and .95, which is very low. \ My other days are around .8. I'm sure it has to be something on my end, but I have no idea how to figure out what. I'm on pace for .85 today.


    i'm using claymore's miner v. 4.3 in the default mode, should i be using a different -esm option?
  • workwork Member Posts: 2,084 ✭✭✭✭
    @shutfu those numbers sound pretty good to me given current difficulty and uncle rate, pool reporting factor previous discussed in this thread, etc. The few days that were .8 were some unlucky days (and the difficulty was quite high those days as well). Keep in mind the pool has previously had VERY lucky days tho too. I recall a 24hr period where almost every block was below expected.
  • shutfushutfu Member Posts: 320 ✭✭
    @work, the only problem is those are the same or lower than what I was getting when i only had 101 mh/s, six days ago, before I added another 290. So a ~27mh/s boost is resulting in the same or less which is why I am concerned that I have something configured wrong
  • workwork Member Posts: 2,084 ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 2016
    @shutfu difficulty was 2-3 Trillion target lower 6 days ago, mind you. Can't say much about your miner optimization, but if your hashrate on the dashboard looks about right, then things are probably working as they should.
  • miningpoolhubminingpoolhub Member Posts: 308 ✭✭
    Ethereum Mining Pool Hub

    Mining Pool Hub's ethereum 20535 port supports both previous stratum, and new nicehash stratum protocol now.
    Also Ethash auto profit switching port 17020, Ethash multi-algo endpoint 12020 are also compatible.

    us-east1.ethereum.miningpoolhub.com:20535
    europe1.ethereum.miningpoolhub.com:20535
    asia1.ethereum.miningpoolhub.com:20535

    Happy minig.
  • shutfushutfu Member Posts: 320 ✭✭
    @work help me interpret this: here is my dashboard http://i.imgur.com/Sdhp8l5.png claymore says im hashing at 126 mh/s, and my graph confirms this to be around the average http://i.imgur.com/3JWWKgn.png

    what is interesting though is that it seems at 11pm every night, my computer stops hashing? you can see it clearly in the middle, and then on the far left it looks like it did it last night as well. I don't know why it would do this.
  • miningpoolhubminingpoolhub Member Posts: 308 ✭✭
    edited June 2016
    shutfu said:

    @work help me interpret this: here is my dashboard http://i.imgur.com/Sdhp8l5.png claymore says im hashing at 126 mh/s, and my graph confirms this to be around the average http://i.imgur.com/3JWWKgn.png

    what is interesting though is that it seems at 11pm every night, my computer stops hashing? you can see it clearly in the middle, and then on the far left it looks like it did it last night as well. I don't know why it would do this.


    @shutfu
    Far left showing lower hashrate is known bug.
    It's because pool removes old share data and it makes your hashrate look much lower. Everybody experiences similar behaviour on our pool. I will fix this issue. I had to deal with other important things and delayed fixing it. (Anybody complained about it. I thought that it's not that critical)

    Lower hashrate at the middle of the graph seems like affected by pool restart or network connection error from your side.
    (Pool restarted yesterday due to nicehash port support. It took less than 1 minute)


    I have some questions.

    1. Does it happen again and again? Or only one time?
    2. Have you set failover server? Where did you set?
    3. Do you have some logs from your miner at that time?
  • shutfushutfu Member Posts: 320 ✭✭
    yeah i have failover server 1 set to the europe server, the other failovers go to other pools incase neither the US or EU mph servers work. It hasnt happened tonight because im up using my computer since i dont work tomorrow. I will let you know monday if it does it sunday night though. Thanks @miningpoolhub


    I might have logs, will check. Am drunk.
  • PalmzipperPalmzipper GermanyMember Posts: 24 ✭✭
    After reading the shocking interview with the alleged DAO-attacker and the statement of Christoph Jentzsch: https://blog.slock.it/what-the-fork-really-means-6fe573ac31dd#.f01pzjoxf
    about the hardfork without a rollback I´m in for the soft- and hardfork.

    The markets, rumors and tourmoil need to come to rest and last but not least get back to a profitable mining.

    miningpoolhub can you tell me if you plan to implement the soft- and future hardfork?
    If not I´d feel sry to move to a pool who does, although I enjoyed it here.
  • workwork Member Posts: 2,084 ✭✭✭✭
    @Palmzipper I think there is up to 27 days to figure out the answer to that question (period the child DAO funds are locked). Hopefully there will be some consensus long before that.
  • dlehenkydlehenky Member Posts: 2,249 ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 2016
    @work Yes, hopefully long before that! This thing will just fester, with more and more crap "information" going around, until it comes to a conclusion. I realize, since they do have time on their side, they are trying to come up with the optimum plan; I just hope it doesn't take much longer.
  • hektvehektve 3900 Millenia Blvd Orlando, FL, 32839Member Posts: 4
  • miningpoolhubminingpoolhub Member Posts: 308 ✭✭
    shutfu said:

    yeah i have failover server 1 set to the europe server, the other failovers go to other pools incase neither the US or EU mph servers work. It hasnt happened tonight because im up using my computer since i dont work tomorrow. I will let you know monday if it does it sunday night though. Thanks @miningpoolhub


    I might have logs, will check. Am drunk.

    @shutfu

    Thanks. :)
  • miningpoolhubminingpoolhub Member Posts: 308 ✭✭

    After reading the shocking interview with the alleged DAO-attacker and the statement of Christoph Jentzsch: https://blog.slock.it/what-the-fork-really-means-6fe573ac31dd#.f01pzjoxf
    about the hardfork without a rollback I´m in for the soft- and hardfork.

    The markets, rumors and tourmoil need to come to rest and last but not least get back to a profitable mining.

    miningpoolhub can you tell me if you plan to implement the soft- and future hardfork?
    If not I´d feel sry to move to a pool who does, although I enjoyed it here.

    @Palmzipper

    Well, I think pool have to follow soft and hardfork as it seems like the major opinions over the net and close to ideal. The other community people already sent me their opinions that they are in for the soft, hard fork.

    Well, anyway I want to listen to other miners too.

    @work @dlehenky
    What do you think about it? Please leave your opinions too.
  • dlehenkydlehenky Member Posts: 2,249 ✭✭✭✭
    @miningpoolhub I'm all for the soft fork. It's not clear that the hard fork will be necessary, but I think I would back that, as well, if that's how it goes.
  • workwork Member Posts: 2,084 ✭✭✭✭
    I think it probably makes sense to follow the soft-fork route - that is, locking the child DAO funds by considering invalid any block that includes such a transaction with those funds. I also think miners should try to negotiate for a hard-fork specifically to our benefit if we're going to do a fork for the DAO - mostly, let's remove that ice age/difficulty bomb. If miners are going to upgrade to the benefit of the foundation, it's time for the devs to scratch our backs a bit.

    The most logical thing for the foundation to do, IMO, is to resolve this without a blockchain state modification hard-fork. The funds can be retrieved with only a soft-fork, but "exploiting" the child DAO in the same way TheDAO is exploitable.
Sign In or Register to comment.