Read-only forum archive. PROHASHING has closed. Posting, registration, and account access are unavailable. Preserved from the April 3, 2026 server backup.
pilottage wrote: TAX the RICHS heavily... PAY the poor FATLY or your dead POOL will die out of loosing the most clever small miners REDUCE difficulty... its the low diff BLOCS that merge well with others....<100MHS 1% <200MHS 2% <300MHS 3% <400MHS 4% >500MHS 5% <600MHS 6% <700MHS 7% <800MHS 8% <900MHS 9% <1GHS 10% <2GHS 11% <3GHS 12% <4GHs 13% <5GHS 14% 6GHS 15% 7GHS 16% 8GHS 17% 9GHS 18% 10GHS 19% 20GHS 20%...... I bet with this scheme EVERYONE will earn more.... including the owners that is for sure....
As a decent size hash I have always supported less lucky hash in non profit switching pools. I always found more blocks and coin than I was paid out and the difference was much more than just the pool fees.
There have been a bunch of ideas thrown around that are just ideas to treat symptoms as they appear to affect the user themselves while they do not understand that they themselves may be a huge contributor to the problem
The current system limitations are not Hashrate even if that is the easy visual guide where we think we see a problem. The system limitation is share processing.
The system limitation is share processing! So let me illustrate. If I run one of my 500 MHs L3+ on PH and its current difficulty is 524288 and it is submitting 222 shares over 120 minutes, so about 1.85 shares per minute. If I run a 20 MHs Zues Thunder X6 at a difficulty of 512 when it was allowable I would be submitting about 3,600 shares in 120 minutes or about 30 per minute. So based on share processing system resources 12 L3+s combined use less of the pools capacity than 1 20 MHs Zues miner at a difficulty of 512!
Sorry so long should have went with a forum post. If you REALLY want a FAIR fee structure it should be based on number of shares submitted and that would correlate to the usage of the system resources.
If you gained anything from my comments hopefully it is to run your equipment at the highest possible difficulty to allow 1 or 2 shares submitted per minute. Or if the pool is working correctly let the pool determine the optimal difficulty. Rant over.
I am wondering if we have figured out a way to handle 100x more shares or whatever why would any of this other stuff matter at the moment. Listen I will just straight up put it out there and it may not be popular, I need to be able to use the NH->PH thing I need a static diff, I also have my miners pointed here, I can afford 50 L3s or anymore hardware so I use the other option. Yes I am sure I was some of the cause my graphs didn’t indicate any issues when my stuff was running cause I am sensible about it at the most I was sending 20Gh maybe for periods of time, I could handle a smaller fee increase but as I see it I was making the pool 150~200 a day on top of what I was making some days better than others. I know everyone doesnt get to experience this and all I can say is I wasn’t until I put in the work, wrote programs learned to code better interfaced stuff . I am glad to talk about this issue
says anything over .023 should pay out but normally that is if you have that at midnight and then sometime in morning, I am not sure I got a ltc payout either last night some times it takes a bit longer than expected
@GregoryGHarding: def agree. raising pool fees seems like a very complex way to solve a simple problem. lets display avg profitability only. get rid of the spikes in hash