Search content
Sort by
Showing 9 of 9 results by vals
The shibes are having an apoplectic fit at the moment.
http://www.reddit.com/r/dogecoin/comments/210ec6/oh_look_a_pool_is_at_almost_50_of_hash_where_is/
http://www.reddit.com/r/dogecoin/comments/210fwh/wafflepool_is_almost_in_position_for_51_attack_on/
If you could reassure them that we don't dump our entire hashrate on a single coin it would help stop misinformation spreading.
http://www.reddit.com/r/dogecoin/comments/210ec6/oh_look_a_pool_is_at_almost_50_of_hash_where_is/
http://www.reddit.com/r/dogecoin/comments/210fwh/wafflepool_is_almost_in_position_for_51_attack_on/
If you could reassure them that we don't dump our entire hashrate on a single coin it would help stop misinformation spreading.
Just an interesting graph on dogecoin since the fork by pminer:
http://i.imgur.com/mXR2976.png
The DLf7 address was a big random block reward abuser before the fork with high volume, now they're mining it a lot less and only very selectively. Not sure who they are..
http://i.imgur.com/mXR2976.png
The DLf7 address was a big random block reward abuser before the fork with high volume, now they're mining it a lot less and only very selectively. Not sure who they are..
Just for the sake of correctness, xintensity was written by ArGee from RGminer, then imported to kalroths fork of cgminer and then to sgminer (see https://github.com/veox/sgminer/commit/7aeae40af22e6108aab8b68a229eea25a639d650). I use sgminer and believe it is the better option.
I see the unconverted has dropped with the dogecoind recompile which is nice. Profitability is also looking great for the day, and we're mining a more even spread of coins. It'll be interesting to see how the other pools do for the sake of comparison. Thanks for the work poolwaffle.
I see the unconverted has dropped with the dogecoind recompile which is nice. Profitability is also looking great for the day, and we're mining a more even spread of coins. It'll be interesting to see how the other pools do for the sake of comparison. Thanks for the work poolwaffle.
So I'm looking into why we have so much unexchanged dogecoin. At first glance, nothing is wrong on our side... Confirmed our sends are getting to the exchange, confirmed our trader is trading them for BTC, and confirmed our scripts are processing the trades correctly. Everything looks fine.
On second glance, our dogecoin balance (locally on our coindaemon) says 0 balance, and on dogechain, says we have a decent amount of unspent coins at our address... Going to check to see if maybe something got confused/missed when we were upgrading the wallet...
On second glance, our dogecoin balance (locally on our coindaemon) says 0 balance, and on dogechain, says we have a decent amount of unspent coins at our address... Going to check to see if maybe something got confused/missed when we were upgrading the wallet...
They've upped the block confirmation time with the new 1.6 fork. It now takes 240 confirmations which is around 4 hours (previously it was around 30 minutes).
Slowly we are becoming worlds largest litecoin mining pool 
PW, i think the last payout is not displayed in the miners table...
Yeap, transaction 1b7fd9ba47c8f7ec3f69019e39d4617a8d66d560fe53b8bfdc636671f4f1353b is showing for some users in the recent payouts table but not for others. The 'total BTC sent' reflects the transaction happened and the BTC is in my account, but no mention of it in the payouts table.
...
As for the share accounting. All shares are put into a common pool. It doesn't matter if you mined doge, or cat, etc. If you submitted a valid share, that share goes into the pool. When a block is found (regardless of block type, and regardless of what you mined), we pull the last X shares, and pay them accordingly. You might never mine a single catcoin share, but you'll still receive payouts from when some part of the pool did (and found a block obviously).
As for the share accounting. All shares are put into a common pool. It doesn't matter if you mined doge, or cat, etc. If you submitted a valid share, that share goes into the pool. When a block is found (regardless of block type, and regardless of what you mined), we pull the last X shares, and pay them accordingly. You might never mine a single catcoin share, but you'll still receive payouts from when some part of the pool did (and found a block obviously).
Ok cool thanks, just clarifying. This makes more sense in how it should be done, but I could understand how easy it could implemented the other way which just seems like a convenient sloppy hack.
Hi poolwaffle,
I've noticed you've just implemented the per worker stats, just to confirm for anyone reading, it's still fine to point multiple rigs at a single BTC address?
I have a question about what you mentioned a few pages back, where you said with the new coin switching algorithm you can direct a smaller fraction (or one of the smaller stratum servers, I wasn't really clear on that) of the overall pool hash rate to a certain smaller coin. Just say for instance your algorithm decides catcoin (or some other smaller coin) is profitable to mine, but your market depth check sees that only a few blocks can be successfully sold at a higher profit. It then sets one of the stratum pools (say EU stratum) to mine catcoin for a few blocks.
The EU clients then get their catcoin shares on their account, it gets confirmed, converted and then sent to them. While the other stratums never actually had a chance to mine the coin due to the shallow market. Is their profitability technically slightly higher than the others? Then in the overall stats page it averages out the profitability from all the different stratums?
Or is there some sort of sharing between the stratums/fractions of the pool hashrate so that even if my actual client isn't set to mine a smaller coin, the slightly increased profit from that coin is spread over the entire pool?
Thanks.
I've noticed you've just implemented the per worker stats, just to confirm for anyone reading, it's still fine to point multiple rigs at a single BTC address?
I have a question about what you mentioned a few pages back, where you said with the new coin switching algorithm you can direct a smaller fraction (or one of the smaller stratum servers, I wasn't really clear on that) of the overall pool hash rate to a certain smaller coin. Just say for instance your algorithm decides catcoin (or some other smaller coin) is profitable to mine, but your market depth check sees that only a few blocks can be successfully sold at a higher profit. It then sets one of the stratum pools (say EU stratum) to mine catcoin for a few blocks.
The EU clients then get their catcoin shares on their account, it gets confirmed, converted and then sent to them. While the other stratums never actually had a chance to mine the coin due to the shallow market. Is their profitability technically slightly higher than the others? Then in the overall stats page it averages out the profitability from all the different stratums?
Or is there some sort of sharing between the stratums/fractions of the pool hashrate so that even if my actual client isn't set to mine a smaller coin, the slightly increased profit from that coin is spread over the entire pool?
Thanks.
Damn that's disappointing.
From home I get 70 ping to sea.wafflepool.com (Melbourne AU), but the ISP we're using where the rigs are located has bad routing it looks like (its going from Melbourne AU, to Sydney AU, to Tokyo JP, to Singapore SG). I'll use it as a backup pool for the moment until I can figure out how to fix it on my end. I'm guessing sfire's ping would be good to it which should reduce lag on the other pools anyways. Thanks!
Edit:
10% should be fine I think. It's price shouldn't fall too much too quickly right now I imagine after the bubble.
Code:
user@moonbaseone:~$ ping uswest.wafflepool.com
PING uswest.wafflepool.com (192.241.211.125) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 192.241.211.125: icmp_req=1 ttl=52 time=199 ms
64 bytes from 192.241.211.125: icmp_req=2 ttl=52 time=205 ms
64 bytes from 192.241.211.125: icmp_req=3 ttl=51 time=198 ms
64 bytes from 192.241.211.125: icmp_req=4 ttl=51 time=208 ms
64 bytes from 192.241.211.125: icmp_req=5 ttl=51 time=198 ms
64 bytes from 192.241.211.125: icmp_req=6 ttl=52 time=270 ms
64 bytes from 192.241.211.125: icmp_req=7 ttl=52 time=197 ms
64 bytes from 192.241.211.125: icmp_req=8 ttl=51 time=205 ms
^C64 bytes from 192.241.211.125: icmp_req=9 ttl=52 time=196 ms
--- uswest.wafflepool.com ping statistics ---
9 packets transmitted, 9 received, 0% packet loss, time 41991ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 196.668/208.878/270.110/22.031 ms
user@moonbaseone:~$ ping sea.wafflepool.com
PING sea.wafflepool.com (128.199.217.67) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 128.199.217.67: icmp_req=1 ttl=43 time=221 ms
64 bytes from 128.199.217.67: icmp_req=2 ttl=43 time=231 ms
64 bytes from 128.199.217.67: icmp_req=3 ttl=43 time=243 ms
64 bytes from 128.199.217.67: icmp_req=4 ttl=43 time=220 ms
64 bytes from 128.199.217.67: icmp_req=5 ttl=43 time=312 ms
64 bytes from 128.199.217.67: icmp_req=6 ttl=43 time=225 ms
64 bytes from 128.199.217.67: icmp_req=7 ttl=43 time=245 ms
^C64 bytes from 128.199.217.67: icmp_req=8 ttl=43 time=222 ms
--- sea.wafflepool.com ping statistics ---
8 packets transmitted, 8 received, 0% packet loss, time 36748ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 220.787/240.355/312.767/28.810 ms
PING uswest.wafflepool.com (192.241.211.125) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 192.241.211.125: icmp_req=1 ttl=52 time=199 ms
64 bytes from 192.241.211.125: icmp_req=2 ttl=52 time=205 ms
64 bytes from 192.241.211.125: icmp_req=3 ttl=51 time=198 ms
64 bytes from 192.241.211.125: icmp_req=4 ttl=51 time=208 ms
64 bytes from 192.241.211.125: icmp_req=5 ttl=51 time=198 ms
64 bytes from 192.241.211.125: icmp_req=6 ttl=52 time=270 ms
64 bytes from 192.241.211.125: icmp_req=7 ttl=52 time=197 ms
64 bytes from 192.241.211.125: icmp_req=8 ttl=51 time=205 ms
^C64 bytes from 192.241.211.125: icmp_req=9 ttl=52 time=196 ms
--- uswest.wafflepool.com ping statistics ---
9 packets transmitted, 9 received, 0% packet loss, time 41991ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 196.668/208.878/270.110/22.031 ms
user@moonbaseone:~$ ping sea.wafflepool.com
PING sea.wafflepool.com (128.199.217.67) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 128.199.217.67: icmp_req=1 ttl=43 time=221 ms
64 bytes from 128.199.217.67: icmp_req=2 ttl=43 time=231 ms
64 bytes from 128.199.217.67: icmp_req=3 ttl=43 time=243 ms
64 bytes from 128.199.217.67: icmp_req=4 ttl=43 time=220 ms
64 bytes from 128.199.217.67: icmp_req=5 ttl=43 time=312 ms
64 bytes from 128.199.217.67: icmp_req=6 ttl=43 time=225 ms
64 bytes from 128.199.217.67: icmp_req=7 ttl=43 time=245 ms
^C64 bytes from 128.199.217.67: icmp_req=8 ttl=43 time=222 ms
--- sea.wafflepool.com ping statistics ---
8 packets transmitted, 8 received, 0% packet loss, time 36748ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 220.787/240.355/312.767/28.810 ms
From home I get 70 ping to sea.wafflepool.com (Melbourne AU), but the ISP we're using where the rigs are located has bad routing it looks like (its going from Melbourne AU, to Sydney AU, to Tokyo JP, to Singapore SG). I'll use it as a backup pool for the moment until I can figure out how to fix it on my end. I'm guessing sfire's ping would be good to it which should reduce lag on the other pools anyways. Thanks!
Edit:
...
The way it would be handled is mining AUR would be enabled if AUR unexchanged balance was less than X% of our total unexchanged. If we picked 10%, and had 30btc (estimated) unexchanged, we would allow mining up to 3btc of AUR before disabling it. As those blocks matured/exchanged, it would open up mining again automatically.
Thoughts?
The way it would be handled is mining AUR would be enabled if AUR unexchanged balance was less than X% of our total unexchanged. If we picked 10%, and had 30btc (estimated) unexchanged, we would allow mining up to 3btc of AUR before disabling it. As those blocks matured/exchanged, it would open up mining again automatically.
Thoughts?
10% should be fine I think. It's price shouldn't fall too much too quickly right now I imagine after the bubble.
People are looking into dogecoin average block rewards:
http://i.imgur.com/Jg0dVEQ.png
The data is a few days old. The number on the left in brackets is the amount of blocks the data was based off. Wafflepool is the third one down the list (DHL9gFwZNDQp7QeRGHKZamgGwkN5EkYkxU), and the other 300k+ averages are most of the other multipools/selective miners (not multipool.us interestingly). You can see the drop off for actual pure doge miner pools. They might look to change dogecoin rewards sometime in the future if the developers have a clue.
Any word on the SEA server yet?
http://i.imgur.com/Jg0dVEQ.png
The data is a few days old. The number on the left in brackets is the amount of blocks the data was based off. Wafflepool is the third one down the list (DHL9gFwZNDQp7QeRGHKZamgGwkN5EkYkxU), and the other 300k+ averages are most of the other multipools/selective miners (not multipool.us interestingly). You can see the drop off for actual pure doge miner pools. They might look to change dogecoin rewards sometime in the future if the developers have a clue.
Any word on the SEA server yet?