Quote from: phzi on May 29, 2014, 07:54:38 AM

Quote from: ericlfg on May 29, 2014, 01:40:42 AM

<-- noob. I've read that scypt-n produces lower hashes, but wanted to make sure I'm drinking the right koolaid.

What we call "scrypt" is actually scrypt(N=1024,R=1,P=1). Nscrypt (more correctly, adaptive-n-scrypt) means that N gets larger based on a certain schedule (e.g. at block X, n increases). Currently, all relevant nscrypt coins are at N = 2048 = 2^11. EXECoin and Vertcoin (in example), will increase to scrypt(N=4096,R=1,P=1) at a certain block, and N will double again (or considering N=2^n, n will increase by 1) at another specific block.

This means that 'nscrypt' (scrypt(N=2048)) takes twice as much memory as 'scrypt', and therefore the hashing speed is reduced by ~50%.

This is exactly correct. You should expect to get ~50% hashrate you got with Scrypt (and ideally 200%+ profit on those hashes - making things roughly even as a base).

Quote from: kdfspam on May 29, 2014, 10:04:38 AM

Looking forward to X11

Soon as Scrypt-N is working fully, it should be reasonably trivial to add X11 (it's the next on the list), the only major change is in calculating hashrates (very different difficulty bases).

Quote from: Pacepa on May 29, 2014, 10:19:32 AM

just started testing...all I get is Rejects:

(Trying not to sound like a dick), this is why I was aiming for people who have mined Scrypt-N before on other pools to test first. It sounds like a misconfigured miner (probably using Scrypt instead of Scrypt-N?), but we don't have any docs on how to setup a new miner at this time, I'd prefer to get it working 100%, and then I can get some docs/FAQs/startup guides out for others to start jumping in

Quote from: vladman on May 29, 2014, 11:10:51 AM

I'm VERY interested in trying the new algorithms, but have never mined anything other than "vanilla" scrypt so far.

The main thing I'm unclear about Waffle's implementation (and here comes the newb question) is do I just have to enable this on the Beta page, and perhaps reconfigure my config.conf file, OR do I have to, in order to be able to mine scrypt-n (and any other additional future algorithms, X11, etc), switch to a different mining software? I'm currently using BAMT 1.5, which uses sgminer 4.0.0. I know it's a bit out of date, but I haven't had great experience trying to change/upgrade things in the past, so I left it, once I got it stable on current configuration.

One other thing, if I click enable on the Beta page (which I haven't done yet), and later want to go back (disable effectively), can I do this?

Thanks, very excited about this new development, awesome work as always Waffle!

The button on the page to "enable" Scrypt-N is just an attempt to make people read that blob of text and understand that things might break. Otherwise I get a shitload of emails like "OMG EVERYTHING BROKED! FIXPLS". The actual code for it is live across the board (just a tiny dropdown in the header to switch which algo you're looking at for stats), that "Enable" button just sets it visible for a while (session - a few hours normally). You're free to enable it and never use it, or enable it, try it, and go back to normal Scrypt.

Quote from: Jynger on May 29, 2014, 12:48:49 PM

Correct if I'm wrong, but 1 GPU MH/s Scrypt-N = 0.5 MH/s Scrypt?
And currently BTC / 1MH Scrypt-N 0.00532591 vs. BTC / 1MH Scrypt 0.00267616 would be actually 0.00266296 vs. 0.00267616 on the same RIG, mining Scrypt is more profitable?

That is roughly correct (GPUs will have differences that makes it 55% for some GPUs, 45% for others, etc). There's also no guarantee that Scrypt-N (or X11) is more profitable than Scrypt, its just another algorithm, with the same sorts of changes in market, difficulty, coins, etc. I'd caution you that the current numbers for Scrypt-N on WP are not terribly accurate in terms of performance. You're comparing a reasonably large Scrypt pool (lower daily variance on average) to an extremely small Scrypt-N pool (huge variance daily). That should change as we get more miners, more coins, etc

Quote from: edonkey on May 29, 2014, 01:51:45 PM

Quote from: poolwaffle on May 29, 2014, 04:03:56 AM

Yep, someone else emailed with the same thing, and I see it on their account. I'm looking into it and hope to have it fixed in the morning. My guess is its just something a bit off with stats and caching.

OK. Thanks for looking into this.

In case it helps, I'll PM you my BTC address.

Thanks, I'll check it out. I made some tweaks this morning (were some problems with caching values as you switched algorithms). It fixed the stats page for the other guy who was having the problems, so ideally it should be fixed on yours as well, but I'll double-check