Hi Cracfoo,
Nist5 connection refusing for 15 minutes by now:
"Stratum connection failed: Failed to connect to mine.zpool.ca port 3833: Connection refused"

Looks like your settings are too aggressive, try if you can run the algorithm stable by lowering overclock and power settings.
Once you can run lyra2re2 stable delete Stats\[file for alexis78 lyra2re2]

You can remove lyra2re2 from the algorithm list while you work on figuring out the issue.
You can also check if running d=1 will run correctly, this would be a good test to see if your power supply is running short.

Need help from someone who understands windows scripts better:
My machine has problems with one algorithm when pool asks for stats, I can see that in the logs. If I manually run that algorithm by itself without stats i.e. with  "-p ID=NemosMiner-v2.1,c=BTC" it works stable for a long time.

$workerName, currency and ,stats is concatenated to form the below in the commandline somewhere in the scripts but I could not locate any such usage of workername or currecny or a literal stats.
-p ID=NemosMiner-v2.1,c=BTC,stats

I am running recent download of 2.2. code. NemosMiner-v2.1.ps has a call to Start-Subprocess with the Aruguments. That is defined in Include.ps1.
individual miner fils seem to construct what goes into -p with this:
"-p $($Pools.(Get-Algorithm($_)).Pass)" but I cant see how that is made from combining $workername, c=$Currency and ,stats.

"Insert Quote
Again for several hours the sigt pool hashrate is 50-100Mh/s. My H/s was reported as 0.67Mh while it is 200."

On sigt I see quite odd numbers reported but the payments are coming along without issue is my summary if I reconcile the below:

* The pool luck is 10-50x better than normal for several hours
* Blocks are actually found
* Pool total hash and reported hash for my worker are extra low
* Overall daily earnings are reasonable for me despite weird hash stats past 3-4 hours.

chainworks reports latency. Check if it is going up and down when you have poor poolside hash.
Mine was doubling frequently when I had poor results.
Statistics->graph on pool's gui looks reasonably healthy today.
This can be your internet provider is my best guess, I could not fully rootcause it when mine degraded out of the blue.

I have caught moments when my latency goes up from 150-160ms range to over 300ms, that may be enough to explain dips in my poolside numbers. I believe there is some kind of new problem with my internet, for the month before it poolside rate was quite steady.
restarts/reboots etc had not generally made a difference though past 2 days is somewhere in the middle.

[You just read marketing for cwi miner having the rare feature of showing live latency to pool ]

Thanks for hard work. So far consistent poolside has rate has been the most hard core benefit for me.

It did take a dip monday, this is the pool's own graph for my hashrate for same machine, nothing changing on my side but past 3 days has been 50-60% of my good steady long term trend you can see in graph. This is from http://pool.chainworksindustries.com/sigt/index.php?page=statistics&action=graphs
I am seeing a clear trend 9/11 onwards compared to relatively steady rate beginning of month:
https://imgur.com/a/4z5qB

Past 5 hours my poolside hash rate for sigt is 60% of what it has historically been, when I look at the statistics graph there is  clear change.
 There is no errors or change on the miner machine. Anyone else seeing this? It does not drop to zero for me.

This has given me the most stable results so far, especially if I compare final hash rate on pool side ... the one under statistics->graph shows you what your pool side average is visually, while any pool will have momentary numbers go up and down.

Every miner with every particular card has a different maximum, same miner different algorithms will also have a different limit for overclocking.

You look for that limit, than back off some to give it breathing room. By example:
When I was testing the limits with CWI I saw the same failure mode 2-3 times around +125 core -1000 memory 88% power, -i 26.5 with my cards (works for a few minutes, I believe when the cards warm up it starts failing). I get "invalid nonce" in a loop, estimated coins goes into millions

With the +121 core -1000 memory 88% power, -i 26.5 I was stable for a few hours.
I notched down to -i 26 +120 core for some breathing room and have not had problems with my 1080 ti cards within past day.

My results were about 6% better than palgin 1.1 on 1080 tis, similar to other 1080ti numbers here. That was also about 5% better than the klxr (spelling?) source code based x86 compile I made myself.
I have not had to tweak anything to make it go, and it never had a crash/pause/confusion/questionable result. Pool side numbers make more sense than other pools, I pay attention to those. High quality stable experience .

to answer question above:
This line in local text output of miner shows it correctly picks up the 1250/block reward after halving.
Coin:signatum   | POW: 1250  | Estimated coins/day: 210.961
This miner side per day estimate that follows looks about right for me after running overnight, compared to actual earnings, it ramped up within the first hour, dont get put off with low numbers in the first few minutes.
One can not judge this too quickly when blocks take 30-80 minutes.
The server side gui has an estimate that is a bit diffrent, all mpos guis seem to have some similar estimate possibly same code. These are hardly ever accurate, especially hard on a coin where difficulty is moving up and down very fast, network has is all over the place and the past day included a halving,

I compiled my own.
VS 2017 community does not work.
VS 2013 community works.
I reinstalled cuda 8.0 after vs2013, it would not work if cuda is installed before, in my case after vs2017. It looks for whitelisted VS versions.

Debug build was default and broken for me (was too old compute model wise I believe given it kept running out of memory), choosing "release" "win32" from main window's drop down worked.

I get very close numbers , ~0.5% more than palgin with 1080 tis the way I run them. For me it was not worth the effort for the minor result improvement, I do prefer to use a binary I know is clean.

Can cuda 7.5 coexist with 8.0 installation? I can attempt that also.