Dooh, I quoted when I shoulda edited.

vinylwasp wrote: The solution to demand is always more resources whether its more hardware or more sites.

Of course a scaleable architecture helps too.

That won't work either as most users will have multiple miners behind a single NAT address per location and doesn't account for hosted miners, and local stratum proxies. Limiting connections won't work either because of the variation in hash power per miner where you could have 1 account with 330 MH...

megaquake wrote:

vinylwasp wrote:No price yet but pre-order here: http://www.innosilicon.com/html/a5-miner/index.html#Buy

3 units cost 4.22 BTC　( or 9999 USD; 254.23 LTC )

Each !

Pause registration. How would this work in practice as a single user can point as many miners as they want at PH under a single account? There's no miner registration process and even if there were how would you account for 1 user that has 10 x A2 Minis@33Mh/s and another that has 10 x L3+@504MH/s ...

No price yet but pre-order here: http://www.innosilicon.com/html/a5-miner/index.html#Buy

Banning NH doesn't make any sense. The NH renters will just mine the same coin on another pool and the profitability on PH will still go down no matter what pool they are on. Profitability is mainly a coin's difficulty and exchange rate so if another pool finds more blocks PH still goes down regard...

Remove both, neither are needed with an A4.
So you connect the A4->Stratum Proxy->SOCKS5->pool, is that correct?
Do you manage the SOCKS5 proxy?

I don't think these people have any purpose at all, and they're actually pretty dumb. Would you: 1. Spend your own money 2. Not be able to get anything in return because you can't steal any money or hack any systems 3. Provide more evidence for us to add to the police reports so that you can live i...

DNS Propogation is incomplete too, though I'm resolving correctly here.

Check it here: https://www.whatsmydns.net/#A/prohashing.com