Quote from: jedimstr on April 02, 2014, 02:22:04 AM

Please re-read PW's explanation of the difference between the way the previous stratum implementation and new stratum implementation works: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=433634.msg5762701#msg5762701

I have no need to re-read something that I already understand.

Quote from: jedimstr on April 02, 2014, 02:22:04 AM

The pool was being overly forgiving in giving credit to shares that were actually stale after a coin switch. This means miners were being paid for shares that did NOT have corresponding profit for the pool to pay us with.

What? no... that's not what it meant. Miners were getting paid for shares the same across the board - every share was considered equal unless it was 2 blocks behind.

Quote from: jedimstr on April 02, 2014, 02:22:04 AM

How was this fair again?

Your argument on low-diff coins and relative rejects between the two has absolutely nothing to do with what I was saying.

It has everything to do with what you were saying. The new system creates disparity in the prospective value of a given share depending on the coin that is being mined. Miners will see say 20% reject rates with TAG, but 2% with litecoin/dogecoin. That means tag shares would be worth on average 20% less then litecoin shares.

Quote from: comeonalready on April 02, 2014, 02:33:38 AM

phzi, we all know the real reason you think the old system was more preferable. It was because you purposefully overtuned your miners to submit as many shares as possible, regardless of whether they were valid, in order to claim more shares for yourself. You have already brazenly admitted to gaming the old more lenient system and essentially cheating fellow miners out of some of their rightful profits.

The "real reason" is exactly what I posted above. Do you realize that tuning miners to 1100 xI only provided ~ 2-3% hashrate benefit? PoolWaffle has acknowledged that his original estimates of 7 and 10% gain from 'over tuning' was an over estimate. I never 'gamed' the old system - I mined exactly how anyone with half a brain did. That same "tuning" settings are ideal for Litecoin mining, btw. In fact, they are basically ideal for anything other then a fast switching pool with inconsistent reject rates.

Quote from: poolwaffle on March 19, 2014, 10:10:31 AM

As for phzi, certainly didn't mean to call anyone out on the miner tweaking, just noticed it was happening, and wanted to fully explain what was going to happen with the new software (and why). I honestly expected a bit higher than 2-3% overall (expected 5-7% and thus more complaining on the forum), but 2-3% seems to be taken really well. From his perspective, everything he did made sense.[...]

Quote from: comeonalready on March 19, 2014, 01:19:00 AM

So that would mean you were one of the miners who were taking up to 10% more of your fair share of profits from the pool, however unknowingly. For the others who had their equipment tuned correctly for mining almost anywhere else than wafflepool, they were receiving up to 10% less of profits directly due to their efforts, depending upon the ratio of efficient to inefficient miners in the pool. The actual percentages depend upon whether wafflepool was actually a pool of fools, and only poolwaffle knows that as he is the only one with access to the relevant statistics.

No - you're misreading obviously. Again, it was a 2-3% benefit in hashrate by tuning and ignoring workunit turnaround time. Those that had their equipment 'tuned correctly' were the people like me, btw - and PoolWaffle did post a few stats, and I have seen a few others outside of this forum thread...

Quote from: comeonalready on March 19, 2014, 01:19:00 AM

Clearly the new system is much fairer to the more ethical members of the pool, as payouts are distributed according to how may valid shares are submitted to the pool.

Still no idea how you come to that conclusion. Payouts were previously distributed proportional to hashrate, now they are distributed proportional to hashrate and coin switcher luck - the previous system has less variances, was more consistent, and therefore more fair.