A lot of you people have terribly ungrateful attitudes.  In his place, I'd ignore you too.  Ask, don't demand.  And if you really hate it here, just leave.  You won't be missed.

Any chance we can get more than ten entries in the Recent Payouts table -- preferably a multiple of four, or in the future a multiple of however many separate algorithm payments are processed?  Currently, of the ten payment lines listed on my page, eight are zero value payments, and the earliest day listed contains only two zero value payments, while the algorithm that contributed to the actual payment for that day is missing completely.  Thanks.

Yeah, how dare they hold onto your USD$2 and not send it out fifty cents at a time?!  Don't they know you have expenses to pay?!

And since you can't earn interest on the money they hold, that amounts to almost two cents a year that they're screwing you out of!!  We should all go mine elsewhere instead!!!

People are yelling, screaming, crying, and whining because either they feel entitled to something that they are not, or they employed flawed ROI calculations when originally making their decisions to purchase mining hardware -- most likely by assuming a fixed fiat value of daily earning potential at acquisition and erroneously applying it as a constant in their break even and profitability calculations (or failing to account for the possibility of its rapid decline).  And rather than blame themselves for being in trouble on their investments, they want someone else --anyone else, to blame for their poor current situation.  If westhash never came into existence, they would be blaming some other demon right now.  [It has been mildly amusing though, so by all means please keep it up.]

I posted that message to the nicehash forum over a month ago (not yesterday!), and your having removed that surrounding context does indeed make that last sentence sound kinda stupid.  Nicehash devised that stratum protocol extension, with this glaring flaw, and it was so easy to get right too.  All they needed to do to make it fully compatible with other pools without having to worry whether it was enabled or disabled by default in the client was to initiate the transaction from the server side -- by sending a "mining.subscribe_extranonce" message (or something like it) to the client and have it handled in within the parse_method function of a compatible cgminer/sgminer and ignored by all the rest -- instead of sending a subscribe.extranonce message before a mining.authorize message to all other unexpecting pools.

And no, it is never too late to change something that is clearly broken.  The problem is a custom stratum protocol extension implemented by nicehash, for nicehash, and negatively effecting so many miners on other pools, including many who have no idea what is happening or how to disable it, thereby causing them to assume that there is something wrong with many other pools, when it is in fact their mining software at fault.  At the very least, it should be disabled by default!

Thanks.  You might want to recheck the output of that new api command though.  There seem to be quotation marks missing from around some of the values types that are surrounded by quotation marks elsewhere in the output.  Of course, I don't know what your original intentions were, but it does not look to be consistently implemented.
 

Any chance you can give us a stats_api?algo=all option to retrieve rate tables for all algorithms in only one call?

I'm in no mood to discuss this with you, as you seem to be missing and/or ignoring what I consider to be obvious.  So you can believe whatever it is that you choose to believe.  
 
If something like this is implemented though, all engaged miners will lose a large portion of their profitability edge, and only pool operators and distracted miners will benefit.  
 

Why bother pinning calculations to absolute currency values at all if they are guaranteed to be inaccurate as soon as the next market trade goes through?  (And you even realized that by the time you finished writing your post!)

All an alternative algorithm miner would need to pass to the pool server is its own unique calculated efficiency factor, relative to Scrypt10.

The blissfully ignorant will ignore it and the pool server can use its own assumed algorithmic efficiency factors, exactly as it is doing now.
(0.50 for Scrypt11, 4.00 for X11, 3.00 for X13, etc.)

Others who are more aware of their miner's alternate algorithmic hash rate ratios can override those assumed values with more accurate ones.
(e.g. 0.48 for Scrypt11, 3.90 for X11, 2.90 for X13, etc.)

And those who understand the concept of hash rate production costs can scale the efficiency factor value appropriately.
(e.g. 0.48 for Scrypt11, 5.20 for X11, 3.87 for X13, etc.)

Miners will probably have to configure unique worker names (which would need to remain consistent across all the algorithms configured for each mining rig).

The pool server will probably have to cache each worker's efficiency factor for each algorithm for an appropriate amount of time, as each mining rig can have a different set of algorithmic efficiency factors, and the efficiency factor for each algorithm would arrive individually on separate sockets (if specified via password parameter, as has been typical so far).
 
Or you could just automate pool selection on the client side as I have been doing for quite some time, and will probably continue doing long after anything like this is implemented.  But it would be nice to have something to fall back on when your web sites are under attack and the relevant information on them (or via api) is temporarily unavailable.
 

My price is 0 BTC.  For whatever perverse reason, at this point I prefer to see them spin their wheels addressing these very same issues over and over and over and over again.  I am amused by how people with such a good idea for a service could make a series of incredibly poor decisions.  They voluntarily chose to handicap themselves for nearly nothing!  Does no one else find this as interesting as I do?

I will not chime in on this topic again -- if the rest of you can keep your comments to yourself -- which I greatly doubt you can.  For what it's worth, I do hope you all surprise me though.

PS. Want to know the secret of how 1 BTC is not worth getting out of bed?  Make good decisions when presented with opportunities in life!

If you want to live in the past, fine.  When I offered you the proper solution for only 0.25BTC:
 


By the way, it took the person you hired weeks to do the work you said would only take a day, and it's still not done correctly!

All over 0.25BTC.  Nothing.  A pittance.  A poor decision made out of being too stubborn to even consider the potential future effects upon the profitability of nicehash and the satisfaction level of miners providing their hashpower.  For without the miners, nicehash has nothing to sell.  And some of them are not happy!  Most probably just pointed their hashpower elsewhere without bothering to voice their issues here.

I will repeat.  Everyone pointing their miners at nicehash should keep a very close watch over them to ensure that they are not unexpectedly going idle.  If you don't want to take the risk that they will go idle, then you should run your usual profitability calculations and choose for yourself whether you should be mining somewhere else instead.

This is because nicehash never addressed the true cause of the original "idle bug", but only applied a hacky fix to eliminate one of its symptoms.  I had offered them the real solution to the problem quite some time ago but they declined.  And I would bet this this problem is happening to many more of their miners, but you're just one who noticed it and decided to stay and investigate rather than simply taking your hashpower elsewhere.

Everyone pointing their miners at nicehash should keep a very close watch on them to ensure that they are not unexpectedly going idle.
 

You guys really mucked up the implementation of the extranonce subscription extension.  Of all the ways you could have done it, you chose the only option with the potential to create enabled mining clients that are incompatible with other pools by default.  You had full control of your stratum server implementation, and full access to nearly all client miner implementations, but little or no access to oftentimes proprietary stratum implementations at other pools, so the fact that you decided to initiate extranonce subscription messages from the mining client side, demonstrates either your incompetence or ignorance as to how to extend an already well established protocol without introducing negative consequences elsewhere, or callous disregard for the effects upon miners and the other pool operators who are affected by your protocol extension.

Given the circumstances, you should be initiating the extranonce subscription from the stratum server side, at which point an enabled mining client can respond in the appropriate fashion, and an earlier version ignore the message as you can easily verify that most mining clients do.  But as it stands now, you have created a situation where extranonce subscription enabled mining clients are sending unexpected messages to stratum servers at other pools potentially causing unknown consequences there.  Or was sabotaging your competitors part of the original plan?

That is because neither phzi nor ebandi implemented a proper idle bug fix. They addressed the symptom but not the cause. Also, ebandi is missing an important piece of a fully backwards compatible extranonce subscription implementation.  Currently, it is unstable universally (i.e. works fine at nicehash but will break unexpectedly at other pools).  I know why that is happening too, but keep working on it though.  You'll get there eventually.

If that were really true, then you would have given your hacky patch away freely four days ago when you had it, but instead you made a point to tell everyone you that had it but refused to share as it was giving you an advantage -- in essence gloating and holding it out over everyone.  And you are only making this statement now to save face in what you have since likely realized was a poor decision to disclose, and now begging for tips for doing so.  Say what you want about me, but I am direct in my approach.  You are transparent in your attempts to manipulate, but I would bet that you don't even know you're even doing it.
 


And by the way, yours is not a comprehensive fix, as I nearly certain that you already know as you called it hacky.  As you were so concerned earlier about how changing extranonce1 requires the briefest interruption in mining to reconnect stratum, how do you feel that your patch requires some mining downtime too, however minimal, though longer than former extranonce1 issue?

suchmoon, I don't know who you are yet.  But do you really want someone like me looking into it?  Think about that before answering and act accordingly.


And I only asked for 0.25 BTC, so obviously money has nothing to do with it.  That would not even buy a decent dinner out where I live.  This is purely about principle.

I felt sorry for you, and naturally I wanted to help someone less fortunate as I thought it cost me nothing to do so.  But it turns out you're right after all.  To educate you is to diminish my advantage over you.  I won't make that mistake again.

Clearly you are an internet parrot -- and one who will attempt to abruptly change the subject in order to help deflect attention from the fact that he did not properly understand the definition of blackmail after erroneously accusing me of such.

That's right...  He will not forget what a fool you were to give it up for nothing.

I offered a comprehensive fix to him for less than what nicehash lost in potential incremental revenue over the last three days and he was too stubborn to make an intelligent business decision, so he too is a fool for not having accepted the deal.  And by insulting him right now, I am implanting in him the urge to send a token payment to you for having providing a workaround, simply to 'punish' me for being a capitalist -- which he is himself!  You're welcome.


And what exactly happened between then and now?  If you had this hacky fix, then why did you not provide it to nicehash earlier?  

Why change your mind now?  Did you fall deeper into depression, needing more attention from strangers to help bring you out of it?

Why would you even need a fix since all you do is stare at your miners all day anyway?

What happens in a few days when you are feeling depressed again?  Will you repeat the cycle?

Your solution is partially effective but you are foolish to just give it away.  The hired developer will earn a profit from using your hack (1 BTC), and you will get nothing (0 BTC).  Not one person here is mining for free regardless of what they claim, and each will eventually stop mining when they deem it unprofitable as cryptocoins have no intrinsic value whatsoever.

When nicehash grows to 20GH/s, they will be using your work to earn approximately 5 BTC in fees daily, meanwhile you have earned nothing from being smarter than them.  But is giving it to them for free really that smart in retrospect?  I think not.

You had usable workaround, you had an advantage as a miner, you had leverage over nicehash, and you gave it all away for nothing, presumably because you have some sort of desperate need for approval by strangers on the internet -- some of whom will appease you by telling you how great you are, but only because you just handed out your profits to them.  I'll give you my btc address and if you send me some btc, I'll tell you that you're great too.