Quote from: TheStuhlman on March 19, 2014, 04:03:37 PM

Quote from: xwebnetwork on March 19, 2014, 03:50:18 PM

Quote from: TheStuhlman on March 19, 2014, 03:34:07 PM

Quote from: azerbaidjan on March 19, 2014, 02:56:41 PM

Bumface, is this normal that after more than 1 month bagholding in my wallet my stake is still 0 instead of what appeared over last month?

Also, no news about nitro2 pool and NITRO has got 1600-1700 miners by now, as well as 75% or more of the total hashrate.

Something does not compute here.

Another big pool is having problems in the last two days, so I delayed Nitro2 till they resolve their issues, releasing Nitro2 now will be counterproductive, we do not want to take miners from other pools, we are trying to spread the hash, not pile up more miners on Nitro.
If you guys do not mind I'd rather wait 2 more days for this after which we will release Nitro2 that should give everyone proper time to prepare.
Also some other pools are doing quite well marketing right now, so do not want to jump in quick on their growth. Our idea behind Nitro2 is to
move some of our miners from pool A to pool B and not get a rush from new miners. The latest increase in miners on Nitro is not caused by us.
It should be resolved soon.

What if you open Nitro 2 with closed registrations at first, balance things out, and then open registrations? Trying to create balance with influx could become a difficult task.

How would that work? miners need to signup to the new pool to be able to move? We can not auto create accounts for people. Most of the info we have for them is encrypted. And even if we could, the person moving is the one who has the option to create his account or not, we have no such right.

I was unaware of the trouble involved of porting over user data. I simply figured you could provide invites to select miners on Nitro1 (to circumvent the closed public registrations), have them move over, and then allow public registration.