Status as of Monday, December 11, 2017

Good morning!

• The work continues on trying to identify the memory leak. We reduced the problem by resolving multiple situations where references were being held unnecessarily, but there's still more research to do. Since the leak is still occurring but it's not as bad, that suggests that I reduced the size of the leaking objects, but still did not find the cause of the leak. After this is resolved, which might take many days, then I can look into the issues where some miners are reporting disconnections from "live status" displays.
• I determined the cause of the electricity calculations being incorrect, and the resolution is complex, requiring us to track which worker submitted which share. The upside is that once finished, the workers will be able to be sorted by invalid share count, as some miners have requested.
• Chris is continuing to catch up from his backlog. He said goodbye to Novaexchange yesterday, finishing paying out customers in all 160 coins that are no longer offered anywhere, deleting the coins from our server, and liquidating whatever was leftover. His remaining tasks before getting up to date will be linking our Atlassian tools together, then resolving our DKIM E-Mail issue, then resolving the support tickets from October and November that remain in the old system, and then resolving the newer tickets. After he has caught up, he'll then be able to finally add new exchanges to improve profits.
• We're trying to determine whether we should next hire people to fix minor issues, or save to start building the million dollar reserve we will need to offer SHA-256 mining. The million dollars comes from the idea that we need to have three blocks of reserve available to be 99% sure we won't have to shut down due to bankruptcy, and assumes a bitcoin value of $20,000 with the minimum fee for a simple transaction rising from $8 now to $150 in March. Comments?

Hi Steve,

my suggestion is to focus on sha-256 and reserve as this will lead for more profit for us and of course for you. this is bigger step than having new folks join the Team and fix minor issues. as minor is not that important in my opinion.
removing and adding new coins/exchanges is also important, so keep up the good work. we bet on you.
i have one small question: where i can set electricity?:) it is not counting my electricity consumption. currently running two miners only.

thank you and GL

perhaps bring in a partner and then do both? If nicehash gets back online a fair bit of hashing power will go back to them (not me, but I'm just small potatoes anyway. Now is your chance to take over market share. Expanding while stabilizing.. well.. it sounds like you need a bigger team.

Give your user a reason to believe in you and that the system is working and solid, or I don't know if what I'm seeing is real or I'm loosing mining time..... afther that..

first: resolving the "real" disconnections from "live status" displays problem, it is very frustrating if you cant be able to know if you are really mining or not? and we can't access hour back-end everytime to check if miners is live or dead on your pool, and to be honest some time miners disconnects really from the pool not only a problem of visualization on live status panel, I checked it a few times.

In my opinion you can implement all the techno you want but the first thing you have to do is give your user a reason to believe in you!!

PS.: Live worker status is very frustrating and it makes your system less credible for the users

PS2.: Give me a FIVE

Morbiduzz wrote:Give your user a reason to believe in you and that the system is working and solid, or I don't know if what I'm seeing is real or I'm loosing mining time..... afther that..

first: resolving the "real" disconnections from "live status" displays problem, it is very frustrating if you cant be able to know if you are really mining or not? and we can't access hour back-end everytime to check if miners is live or dead on your pool, and to be honest some time miners disconnects really from the pool not only a problem of visualization on live status panel, I checked it a few times.

In my opinion you can implement all the techno you want but the first thing you have to do is give your user a reason to believe in you!!

PS.: Live worker status is very frustrating and it makes your system less credible for the users

PS2.: Give me a FIVE

Right now the focus is on the backend, on making sure that the memory leak is fixed and the system can better recover from errors. I know that we can do that, given enough time.

To be honest, I'm not sure where to go next on that issue with "live worker status." There are random unreproducible network disconnects that happen occasionally from the WAMP server, and I just don't know what we can do to troubleshoot them because they aren't happening due to our code. It would probably set the project back a month to even get an idea of what's happening. One of the reasons we're working on other things first is because perhaps fixing something else will also resolve this issue. Perhaps the customers who are encountering this problem are actually disconnecting due to the memory leaks.

What's a five? You mean a high-five?

Steve Sokolowski wrote:

Morbiduzz wrote:Give your user a reason to believe in you and that the system is working and solid, or I don't know if what I'm seeing is real or I'm loosing mining time..... afther that..

first: resolving the "real" disconnections from "live status" displays problem, it is very frustrating if you cant be able to know if you are really mining or not? and we can't access hour back-end everytime to check if miners is live or dead on your pool, and to be honest some time miners disconnects really from the pool not only a problem of visualization on live status panel, I checked it a few times.

In my opinion you can implement all the techno you want but the first thing you have to do is give your user a reason to believe in you!!

PS.: Live worker status is very frustrating and it makes your system less credible for the users

PS2.: Give me a FIVE

Right now the focus is on the backend, on making sure that the memory leak is fixed and the system can better recover from errors. I know that we can do that, given enough time.

To be honest, I'm not sure where to go next on that issue with "live worker status." There are random unreproducible network disconnects that happen occasionally from the WAMP server, and I just don't know what we can do to troubleshoot them because they aren't happening due to our code. It would probably set the project back a month to even get an idea of what's happening. One of the reasons we're working on other things first is because perhaps fixing something else will also resolve this issue. Perhaps the customers who are encountering this problem are actually disconnecting due to the memory leaks.

What's a five? You mean a high-five?

yes give me your high five

Steve Sokolowski wrote: [*] We're trying to determine whether we should next hire people to fix minor issues, or save to start building the million dollar reserve we will need to offer SHA-256 mining. The million dollars comes from the idea that we need to have three blocks of reserve available to be 99% sure we won't have to shut down due to bankruptcy, and assumes a bitcoin value of $20,000 with the minimum fee for a simple transaction rising from $8 now to $150 in March. Comments?[/list]

Lol @ transaction fees rising to $150 in March. Hyperbole much? You realize Coinbase is implementing Segwit, along with several other major exchanges and wallet services. Lightning Network is wrapping up testing and will be launched shortly. But sure, go ahead and plan for those $150 transaction fees...

On an unrelated note, after the demise of BitConnectCoin PH profitability is tracking pools which mine straight LTC. I know a lot of people are sticking around here out of loyalty or because they don't realize they're paying 5% to mine a LTC pool. If you guys don't either lower the fees or find a way to make mining Scrypt more profitable, you're going to start bleeding users.

Why don't you just offer BCash mining? Need a lot less reserves and you don't have to worry about those pesky fees you hate so much. Seems to align more with your personal beliefs anyway.

centar wrote:

Steve Sokolowski wrote: [*] We're trying to determine whether we should next hire people to fix minor issues, or save to start building the million dollar reserve we will need to offer SHA-256 mining. The million dollars comes from the idea that we need to have three blocks of reserve available to be 99% sure we won't have to shut down due to bankruptcy, and assumes a bitcoin value of $20,000 with the minimum fee for a simple transaction rising from $8 now to $150 in March. Comments?[/list]

Lol @ transaction fees rising to $150 in March. Hyperbole much? You realize Coinbase is implementing Segwit, along with several other major exchanges and wallet services. Lightning Network is wrapping up testing and will be launched shortly. But sure, go ahead and plan for those $150 transaction fees...

On an unrelated note, after the demise of BitConnectCoin PH profitability is tracking pools which mine straight LTC. I know a lot of people are sticking around here out of loyalty or because they don't realize they're paying 5% to mine a LTC pool. If you guys don't either lower the fees or find a way to make mining Scrypt more profitable, you're going to start bleeding users.

For pay-per-share pools, 5% is about average. You might be comparing that to pay-per-last-n-share pools, which can offer lower fees because they don't have any risk of going belly up due to bad luck.

As to increasing payouts, there are exchanges that offer more coins, but Chris is deluged in support tickets right now, some of which have been open for months. As soon as the support tickets are answered, he plans to work to implement those exchanges to increase profitability. Look for that to come after Christmas. We don't know exactly how many coins there are, but there should be a good number of them.

I think I pointed out in another post that we don't plan to compete on price. Instead, we're working on fixing issues with features we offer above the competitors, like dollar payouts, customer service, payouts in any coin, solo mining, and so on. We are going to offer tax documents and we try to provide as much information about our operations as possible. This costs a lot in legal fees.

There simply isn't a way we will ever be able to offer lower fees than anonymous pools in jurisdictions where there is little recourse for customers, as was the case with Nicehash. Miners, of course, will need to make their own decisions about the level of risk they are willing to take.

centar wrote:Why don't you just offer BCash mining? Need a lot less reserves and you don't have to worry about those pesky fees you hate so much. Seems to align more with your personal beliefs anyway.

You mean mine the SHA-256 algo they don't currently offer to mine on this pool?
Check back closer to the summer and see if SHA-256 has been included then.