I looked into this and it was decided to discontinue the coin due to low-quality daemon software.

The scrypt blocks are returning an error about an "EIASAddress," but searching the Internet for the term didn't reveal any documentation as to what that is or how to create transactions to resolve it.  More concerning, however, is that the daemon will return this error when scrypt blocks are submitted, but not when blocks for any other algorithm are submitted.  It silently succeeds for those algorithms, still submits the block to the network, the other nodes reject it, and the daemon wasted over $100.

This lack of testing on the part of the developers is unacceptable.  Real people's livelihoods are at stake here, and that was someone's salary for the day.

Prohashing (https://prohashing.com) recently added Smileycoin for mining and payouts.

I wanted to report that Prohashing (https://prohashing.com/) now offers Nekonium for mining.  Nekonium can also be earned by mining other ethash coins, or by using ASICs for other algorithms to take payouts in Nekonium.

We're pleased to announce the a Strayacoin block explorer is now available at https://prohashing.com/explorer/Strayacoin!

You can also mine Strayacoins at Prohashing, or mine a different algorithm and receive Strayacoins for payouts!

This is a situation that bothers me constantly and there isn't a good answer to this problem.  The issue is that there is so much confusing language out there that it's impossible to understand what people mean by profitability.

For example, there is the BTC.com pool that you mentioned that advertises "105% with no fee."  It's not true that there's no fee.  If the pool earns more than 5% above bitcoin earnings, which was possible at the time of this post due to coin switching and merge mining, then that extra profit is kept by the pool.  In October 2019, it was possible to earn 10% above bitcoin, for a 5% profit.

There are other pools that use PPLNS, which is a fine mining scheme but upon which you can't directly compare profitability.  With PPLNS, luck could cause a pool to earn more than another pool, and there are some pools that say that their PPLNS pool earned 120% when that was entirely due to luck and will likely revert to the mean in the future.

Then there are pools that say they have "no fee" but don't mention merge mining and take all the merge-mining block rewards for themselves, which adds up to a huge profit for the pool.

The only way you can compare pools is to see what their actual expected payouts are.  At Prohashing (https://prohashing.com), we post live expected payouts so customers know what they earn.  But since most other pools don't post their live expected payouts, you can't subscribe to their feeds and directly compare.  There used to be a site, Poolpicker.eu, which did post feeds from pools, but they were daily averages and they did not standardize the timezone for which the feeds were reported, so everyone's "day" was different and the averages were not comparable.

Last year I ran a comparison to Antpool and found that we were earning 2% more despite our fees being higher than theirs.  I tried to get the word out there and think that we gained about two customers as a result of that campaign. 

That's why we gave up on competing on price.  We didn't raise the fees, and may or may not make more money than Antpool now, but your post confirms that it's not possible to compare pools based upon profitability.  Pick a pool that has the features you like, and check to make sure its profitability is reasonable so that you're not being ripped off.  Other things like stability and honesty are far more important to earning money. 

A single ten-minute blip in connectivity over an entire week is equal to a 1% fee difference.  If you mine for 100 days and the pool goes bankrupt on the last day, that's a 1% fee difference.  Trying to figure out the absolute best payouts at one time isn't only impossible, it's not even the most important factor in mining.

I'm pleased to announce the addition of five new payout coins:

• Crypto.com Chain (CRO)
• Chainlink (LINK)
• iExec RLC (RLC)
• Veruscoin (VRSC)
• Multi-collateral DAI (DAI)

All of these coins are available immediately for payout.

Additionally, the synchronization issues we were having with TRON have been resolved, thanks to help from TRON's lead developers.  The daemon is now fully synchronized and has remained that way for several hours, and all TRON payouts have been corrected.

You can request a coin to be added by creating a support ticket at https://support.prohashing.com/.  The only requirement is that it be listed at at least one exchange that has a private API and which accepts US customers.  You can see the list of exchanges that we already have in the "Live coin status" page on the site.  While we try to keep an eye on other forums, new tickets are sent to us immediately and can be assigned to the person most qualified to resolve the issue.

We have performed tests on SHA-256 and scrypt and have determined in all test cases that Prohashing yielded higher profitability than the comparable pool.  For example, SHA-256 profitability was about 104% of what Antpool was paying, even after fees from both pools.  Unfortunately, I don't have a Lyra2REv2 ASIC to test.

At Nicehash, we found that scrypt mining was paying 98.2% of Prohashing's earnings.

We are Prohashing are mining at x1 because that is the only multiplier compatible with our mining software without code changes, and I suspect that's the reason most other pools are using x1 as well.  We would love to mine at a higher multiplier, but the client has what we consider a bug - it returns the same difficulty target in getblocktemplate regardless of the multiplier; the difficulty should increase by the multiplier.  Therefore, if we use another multiplier, we pay too much to customers.  For example, with an x16 multiplier, the block reward increases by 16 but the difficulty doesn't increase, and we end up incorrectly paying 16x per share to miners. 

If the client just increased the reported the difficulty by the multiplier, then it would be compatible with all existing pool software, including ours, and we could easily increase our multiplier.  Otherwise, we would have to modify our pool software to support BitcoinV and deal with all the potential bugs that may introduce.  I think the community of miners could be greatly expanded if that single change was made to the client.  We have contacted the developer requesting this change, and he has said that what we consider a bug is actually a feature and that will not be changing this behavior.  We disagree. 

I downloaded the go client, but I am not finding any peers.  Can someone post a known good peer so that I can get connected?  Thanks!

My node is enode://a3e4a082acab5efd104593e6e949f5873cc904e7de41ae872ece063b00e32cca052fb475e34d99bbf7a0a838948bf2b119468616917b7718ff4bdf156e9d38fd@50.225.198.67:6491

Are there any remaining nodes hosting this coin?  The client has no connections by default.

I'm trying to debug our pool by mining testnet blocks, but I can't find any testnet nodes to get the bitcoingold client working.  Does anyone know of any working testnet nodes that I can connect to?

Thanks for the reply. I picked those just because they were recent, but our database has an additional 934 transactions that I can't find in the explorer.  I don't want to post them all publicly but I can send you more examples via PM.  We were mining blocks and selling them at Bleutrade at the time, so I know we were on the correct chain.  Those 939 transactions were all sent to different people but not Bleutrade.  I find it unlikely that all those transactions were invalid for over two years.  I feel like I would have noticed that sooner (or someone would have complained that they never received the money we sent them).  I will note that we have replaced our wallets multiple times over the years, so those transactions did not originate from our current wallet, but that shouldn't affect whether they are valid.  When calling gettransaction, would the client return "not found" for transactions that did not originate from the current wallet?  We do have txindex=1.

Here's a small subset of the transactions I don't see on the chain.  The client just returns "Invalid or non-wallet transaction id"

Date (EDT)                        Destination address                                      Amount      Txid
1-May-17   2:34:19 AM   RN3EcJ8PB6Ci9qjPnTUM1yPELd8AodPdnP      106925.4563   9dabdff91b362317bce149642f2a7988d4e1b650e4af12b51a71f756127def08
1-May-17   2:34:20 AM   RYLyovgbxorkmVRzFNXWzt8PKLN9N4fURP      131172.6599   2280e1ff0de1dfea388618c1afcebffc22a9c9ff85c876b8e449205db3db1924
1-May-17   2:34:21 AM   RBP4LUpAj39xb7T5JEK2ML4hMRfnLJ7uw3      252226      967a2dc8594f78d16a6adcf7068554744df24a11cb7b70d0a3974c22da2f3648
1-May-17   2:34:22 AM   RDtBg3WmPzqcjjGiT3AoCmicfpPE4qgcFu       447397.3222   72476fbc6e623a1aa214926d5b356996ddc0b75d15a3e294d2fe56946bf725d1
1-May-17   2:34:23 AM   RLpxahx4hUNd1xVgARNwuUn6DWYVGatQ2w   781039.3804   8e9d66b4d4299fd1f5c24e5767a6ed8b45c7662cb832768c8270b5c974651d40

I appreciate any insight you can provide

I'm having an issue with old NYC transactions.  I've been looking back in our pool's transaction history, and none of our transactions before October 2017 are found in the client.  I'm sure they were valid at the time, but now when I call 'gettransaction' in the client, only the transactions since October 2017 return as valid; the older ones are not found.  I've tried in the block explorer have the same results.  Why would old transactions not show up?  Is this a different chain than the one that was on Bleutrade least year? 

You can't compile this coin from source because there is no main.cpp or main.h.  Unless I'm looking at the wrong repository.  Can someone confirm?

Is this node still online?  I set up our client to use only that node, and we can't connect to it (0 peers).

I've been trying to sync the goldblock daemon (compiled from source on Debian 8 ), but after it finishes downloading a few thousand blocks, calling any command on the daemon results in the following error:


Can I get suggestions on how to fix it?  Thanks in advance.

Yeah, I have the same problem.  Even after adding C-CEX's nodes, it won't get past 999 blocks.

An update on our rollout of scrypt segwit https://forums.prohashing.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&p=5214