Bad profit

CritterDog wrote:

Steve Sokolowski wrote:

GenTarkin wrote:
So, you made 86% pps @ prohashing, 14% less than 100% ltc pps.
What was your reject % on prohash vs litecoinpool?
Now, lets run some quick math:
Lets assume prohashing pulled off paying miners even(100%pps ltc)
Prohashing takes 5% in fees(drops to 95%pps ltc)
If your reject rate is 3-5% like mine has been, then thats another 3-5% loss(drops to 90%)
Add the 3% bonus you get at litecoinpool currently and that equates to another 3% loss at prohashing(drops to 87%)
So....
That 86% is awfully close to the 87% we just guestimated.
Prohashing needs to A: fix their high reject rate(if thats indeed happening) B: continue to work on their multi algo switching - Clevermining manages to always payout more than prohashing(as ive experimented with in the past month or so).
The nice thing about prohashing tho, is the ability to be paid in any coin you want, which saves on service fees when using something like shapeshift.io

I spent some time this morning investigating the rejection rate. The rate of shares that are completely rejected are 0.7%.

Chris is running a query right now to investigate some other possibilities. One possibility is that many shares are being submitted stale, and therefore only the merge mining portion of those shares are being credited. Chris will have more information on that soon.

We ran a query and determined that coin selection can't be the cause of this problem because with the existing coins, only 92% of expected is being earned. Even after we penalized those "low luck" miners (who apparently fixed their systems, because there are no more forfeitures occurring), 8% is not being accounted for. We thought that the "low luck" miners were responsible for the entire difference, but there must be another issue that we have yet to be able to determine.

My reject rate on the A2 is about 0.12 on both pools..I think its around the same on my gblacks but I reset them so cant say for sure

Steve Sokolowski wrote:

GenTarkin wrote:

CritterDog wrote:

Here is the final results. BTW the litecoinpool's payout calculator was crazy close in showing me what to expect to make in a 24 hour period. So at least for me something is still very wrong on prohash. I hope this can get fixed.

Prohash = 1.58 Litecoins
Litecoinpool = 1.82 Litecoins

Difference .24 LTC

So, you made 86% pps @ prohashing, 14% less than 100% ltc pps.
What was your reject % on prohash vs litecoinpool?
Now, lets run some quick math:
Lets assume prohashing pulled off paying miners even(100%pps ltc)
Prohashing takes 5% in fees(drops to 95%pps ltc)
If your reject rate is 3-5% like mine has been, then thats another 3-5% loss(drops to 90%)
Add the 3% bonus you get at litecoinpool currently and that equates to another 3% loss at prohashing(drops to 87%)
So....
That 86% is awfully close to the 87% we just guestimated.
Prohashing needs to A: fix their high reject rate(if thats indeed happening) B: continue to work on their multi algo switching - Clevermining manages to always payout more than prohashing(as ive experimented with in the past month or so).
The nice thing about prohashing tho, is the ability to be paid in any coin you want, which saves on service fees when using something like shapeshift.io

I spent some time this morning investigating the rejection rate. The rate of shares that are completely rejected are 0.7%.

GenTarkin wrote:Well, I fired up my gridseed blades. Those are seeing a 5% reject rate too, over course of 6hrs. So, this definitely is not just because of the "titans slow work restarts" - which as I explained above, I think is a complete myth.
The Titan and these gridseeds are even using different ISP's in different locations. So, its pool related.

GenTarkin wrote:Well, I fired up my gridseed blades. Those are seeing a 5% reject rate too. So, this definitely is not just because of the "titans slow work restarts" - which as I explained above, I think is a complete myth.
The Titan and these gridseeds are even using different ISP's in different locations. So, its pool related.

Steve Sokolowski wrote:We'll keep trying today. Thanks for your patience. I think there must be something wrong with coin selection, and what we tried yesterday made it worse.

I'll continue working with Chris today.