Quote from: webbson on February 27, 2014, 08:31:54 PM

Quote from: coinGeek on February 27, 2014, 05:33:00 PM

Quote from: webbson on February 27, 2014, 05:06:56 PM

That's because I did a manual override because of it was diffing to much and there was a payout for 0.001-0.01 balances (50 BTC) as well, but I'll redo my calculation since it's seems a little bit off, and I'll rewrite my BTC/MHs calculator work better after I've had dinner.

On the other hand I noticed that if you take the BTC/MHs for the top miners on the pool number 1,2,5 get ~0.006 BTC/MHs whereas number 3 and 4 got ~0.017 BTC/MHs. This is really strange to me. I also did a calculation on the SUM(bitcoinBalance) of all miners balances vs the totalBalance and there is a 20 BTC diff right there.

Sorry, I missed your point about the payout yesterday including a clean up below .01.

I'd say poolpicker should just be about the payout number. After all, those funds weren't paid out two days ago, and that lowered the numbers for MC. You didn't adjust for that.

My vote is to let poolpicker be a horse race between pools just based on simple numbers. Some pools have more variation but it should average out.

Changed back the payout for middlecoin now, changed the algoritm slightly so I now use both accepted and rejected MHs speed instead of just accepted. Now I'll just let it run.

Cool. I like your site so I'm glade you're working to keep it accurate.

You're right that total hashrate needs to include rejects. Do the numbers for the other sites include that?

<>