I'm seeing about 1.7% stale shares with Antminer L3+.  Ping time to us, us2, and generic addresses are around 28 ms, 66 ms, and 98 ms, respectively:

ping litecoinpool.org

Pinging litecoinpool.org [88.80.187.187] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 88.80.187.187: bytes=32 time=98ms TTL=48
Reply from 88.80.187.187: bytes=32 time=98ms TTL=48
Reply from 88.80.187.187: bytes=32 time=98ms TTL=48
Reply from 88.80.187.187: bytes=32 time=98ms TTL=48

Ping statistics for 88.80.187.187:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 98ms, Maximum = 98ms, Average = 98ms

ping us2.litecoinpool.org

Pinging us2.litecoinpool.org [104.236.136.96] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 104.236.136.96: bytes=32 time=66ms TTL=43
Reply from 104.236.136.96: bytes=32 time=66ms TTL=43
Reply from 104.236.136.96: bytes=32 time=66ms TTL=43
Reply from 104.236.136.96: bytes=32 time=67ms TTL=43

Ping statistics for 104.236.136.96:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 66ms, Maximum = 67ms, Average = 66ms

ping us.litecoinpool.org

Pinging us.litecoinpool.org [104.236.57.24] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 104.236.57.24: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=47
Reply from 104.236.57.24: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=47
Reply from 104.236.57.24: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=47
Reply from 104.236.57.24: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=47

Ping statistics for 104.236.57.24:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 26ms, Maximum = 28ms, Average = 27ms

I recently upgraded my cable modem and upgraded from CAT 5/6 to CAT 8 cabling and reduced the number of internal switches in the path from the miners to the modem.  So now I'm at a loss as to how to further reduce the stale shares.  Any suggestions?

Is there a way to download the User Hash Rate data that's used to generate the Charts?
Thanks

I briefly tried Hive OS, and it did a nice job of optimizing the frequency and voltage (per chip), but their management software is not very intuitive and they didn't provide much support in figuring out how to make sure the pools get set to what I wanted (they seemed to flip back to a default).  So I dropped out of that and switched to Blissz.  If you look around, you can likely find a copy of it (it's no longer supported, as far as I can tell, and it doesn't collect the dev fee).  There was a dispute about the GPL and not exposing the source code.  Anyway ... it provides access to frequency and voltage per board in an L3+, so I was able to do some optimization on my own.  It's a little cumbersome, but once you've got the info you can set for max hash rate or max efficiency (within reason).  You can find this elsewhere, but key things are MH/sec/W and HW err rate.  I try to keep the latter under about 1%, based upon what I've read.  Then I also use the 24 hour hashrate reported by litecoinpool.org to validate what I see on the Miner Status page. 

The reported watts tracks well with the wattmeters I'm using, so I don't think you need to factor in power supply efficiency.

Worked fine with my S9s

Discord really works much better for support from C-B and others.  Seems like the discussion here is slow.  I really didn't want to get yet another messaging app, but there's a lot more timely information and announcements there, as well as discussion with other users.

So very soon

It's still in beta.  Why would people move their money to here?

Soon sooner ... or soon^2  ?

Are my calcs correct that this is 3.5 days off?  That's quite awhile.

The blog(?) says payouts are bi-weekly.  15 days would exceed that period.  Is this not the case?

Posted by a user in the WBB thread on bitcointalk:

"Fun fact:  WBB has been completely rebranded and swapped.  Anyone still trading/mining WBB is working with a dead coin that is not being developed in any way shape or form."

Yes, but ... soon.

Sooooo soon.  So really soon.

Getting a lot of orphans (LCP and GLD).  Anyone else?

Something is wrong with the way the Net and Pool hash rates are determined.  For example, the home page currently shows GLD with a network hash rate of 54.8.  Awhile ago it was in the low 60s, so somewhere around 50s and 60s.  The pool hash rate says 48.1 and awhile ago was 41.  So in the mid-40s.  If I look at the GLD.Pool website, they are showing mid-30s during this time period.  So between H2C and GLD.Pool, that accounts for 130% of the network hash rate, as quoted on the home page.  Lest you think those rates are wrong, looking at the transactions for mining during this period, it looks like the reward rate is <20% of what it should be, statistically, for the quoted pool hash rate / net hash rate.  If I divide my hash rate by the pool hash rate, my transaction rewards look about right, so it's not the pool hash rate that appears to be wrong.  Coinwarz agrees with this net hash rate, though.  So I'm left wondering what's going on here.

Also looked at AUR.  The net rate is shown as 38 GH/s.  Mining-dutch says it's over 400 GH/s.

So what's the source of these numbers, and why is it so wrong?

LCP is the only one that's had a TXfee of the coins I've mined.  That's why it seemed so odd.  And the note on the front page that said it was added on 24 Apr had no mention of a TX fee.

The fee shows up in the Transactions list, along with everything else.  It's right after the associated Debit_AP.

You mentioned that you were mining MEC.  Did you have any problems with payouts before the wallet change?  Looks like I lost a few hundred.

I just got a Debit_AP for LCP, and there's a TXFee with it.  None of the other coins I've mined have incurred this fee.  There is no mininum listed in the wallet, and this looks like the first debit in LCP since the 11th.  Also just noticed that the debit on the 11th incurred the same fee.  This is not listed anywhere that I can see, especially in the T&C and Getting Started.  Soooooo, why?  Are there others coins that incur a fee?

Per the Megacoin team:
"hash-to-coins is on the wrong chain, all new coins they generated are useless, because we had a hard fork and this pool will not update. i have deleted the links of the old pools from the website."

What happened to the Hash-To-Coins pool?  It's listed on your website, but it's not in the list of pools above.  And transactions listed on H2C don't seem to be showing up in the block explorer (the block heights are mismatched by quite a lot).

Thanks