Status as of Tuesday, September 5, 2017

Discussion of development releases of Prohashing.
Post Reply
User avatar
Steve Sokolowski
Posts: 3912
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2014 3:27 pm
Location: State College, PA

Status as of Tuesday, September 5, 2017

Post by Steve Sokolowski » Tue Sep 05, 2017 8:33 am

A few comments for today:
  • The code to reduce data usage upon disconnect was deployed yesterday and again reduced bandwidth for live data. This was the second success after we had done the same for connects as well.
  • Chris was able to make a discovery last night about coin assignment. It turns out that part or all of the 100% CPU spikes might be caused by what happens when a coin like litecoin or bitconnectcoin gets a new block that we didn't find, and every person in the pool is reevaluated for a new assignment. During this time, disconnects from WAMP and other services occur because the server can't respond in time. The next step is to profile that time period and determine if most of the time is spent sending data to miners or if most of the time is spent in coin assignment itself.
  • We are aware that some users are experiencing low efficiencies. The issue is caused by how the coin assignment algorithm was made less exact as a temporary measure a few months ago. Once the system is parallelized, then we can devote more CPU power to coin assignment and send fewer work restarts to miners, improving efficiency.
  • Some users are reporting that they are earning less than previous days, but since there isn't extra profit left over, it's unclear what the cause of the problem is. Undoubtedly, there are a few people who misunderstand how mining works and that one should generally expect to earn less over time. However, we also know of a few issues with share insertion that theoretically could use bad pricing data in some instances. We won't have the manpower to investigate these until Thursday because we are prioritizing the CPU usage issue, which is a definite problem we now have a concrete path forward on.
  • I updated the FAQ about the decision process with the latest information this morning.
mickeekung
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 am

Re: Status as of Tuesday, September 5, 2017

Post by mickeekung » Tue Sep 05, 2017 10:01 am

Congratulations Steve. I will look forward to Prohashing for low share stale and more compatible to Nicehash someday. :)
Wanna see some exciting and interesting cloud mining contract which is different to Hashflare or Genesis Mining? Here is the site I trust.

Image

https://www.eobot.com/new.aspx?referid=8945

https://www.cryptomining.farm/signup/?referrer=59E0E92B882D
SpacedCowboy
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2017 10:19 am

Re: Status as of Tuesday, September 5, 2017

Post by SpacedCowboy » Tue Sep 05, 2017 10:15 am

In two days, returns dropped 20% [consistently averaging about $650/day, then $600, then $500, then $500, on track for $500 today] - it's *possible* that's a difficulty-related drop, but it seems an awfully steep drop.

Up until now, I've been giving prohashing.com a gain factor of 160% on the calculator at http://ltcwisdom.net/ ... I think I'm going to have to drop that down to 130% to more-accurately reflect what I'm seeing.

Damn. I just checked, and mining LTC directly at litecoinpool.org would net $437 or so (at a return of 102%), so actually I ought to make prohashing.com's gain factor 116% ...

[edit: done. In fairness, I also recalculated nicehash's return (also previously 160%), which has dropped to 130%]
User avatar
Jalapan
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 11:32 am
Location: North Pole, Scandinavia

Re: Status as of Tuesday, September 5, 2017

Post by Jalapan » Tue Sep 05, 2017 5:04 pm

SpacedCowboy wrote:In two days, returns dropped 20% [consistently averaging about $650/day, then $600, then $500, then $500, on track for $500 today] - it's *possible* that's a difficulty-related drop, but it seems an awfully steep drop.

Up until now, I've been giving prohashing.com a gain factor of 160% on the calculator at http://ltcwisdom.net/ ... I think I'm going to have to drop that down to 130% to more-accurately reflect what I'm seeing.

Damn. I just checked, and mining LTC directly at litecoinpool.org would net $437 or so (at a return of 102%), so actually I ought to make prohashing.com's gain factor 116% ...

[edit: done. In fairness, I also recalculated nicehash's return (also previously 160%), which has dropped to 130%]
the calcuations on ltswisdom if you take a month back or some days back is not working, it will still list the current day..check it out
SpacedCowboy
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2017 10:19 am

Re: Status as of Tuesday, September 5, 2017

Post by SpacedCowboy » Tue Sep 05, 2017 5:27 pm

Yep - I didn't think to make it back-date the start! I'll check on it as soon as I have a chance - still getting over the power-cut (40 hours it took, to fix the power...)
TTo314
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2017 3:14 pm

Re: Status as of Tuesday, September 5, 2017

Post by TTo314 » Wed Sep 06, 2017 5:30 am

mickeekung wrote:Congratulations Steve. I will look forward to Prohashing for low share stale and more compatible to Nicehash someday. :)
As a suggestion, I would change the 'h' parameter to be the exact diff from you want to leave. Example:

h = 1000: Instructs the mining server that this worker should never be assigned a block that has a network difficulty of less than 1000 (share difficulty of 65536000). Possibly increases the miner's work restart penalty to compensate other miners for the profit your miners are costing the pool, if other miners can not be assigned to more profitable coins instead.

if h= 1000 is equals 65536000 better h=6553600. In the test that I did h=1 set de difficulty to 16384. I did not understand why

Maybe I did not understand the operation of parameter 'h'.

Image
Image
Image
mickeekung
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 am

Re: Status as of Tuesday, September 5, 2017

Post by mickeekung » Wed Sep 06, 2017 9:26 am

TTo314 wrote:
mickeekung wrote:Congratulations Steve. I will look forward to Prohashing for low share stale and more compatible to Nicehash someday. :)
As a suggestion, I would change the 'h' parameter to be the exact diff from you want to leave. Example:

h = 1000: Instructs the mining server that this worker should never be assigned a block that has a network difficulty of less than 1000 (share difficulty of 65536000). Possibly increases the miner's work restart penalty to compensate other miners for the profit your miners are costing the pool, if other miners can not be assigned to more profitable coins instead.

if h= 1000 is equals 65536000 better h=6553600. In the test that I did h=1 set de difficulty to 16384. I did not understand why

Maybe I did not understand the operation of parameter 'h'.

Image
Image
Image
You can try this as the password for Scrypt to mine on PH. However, in this time, you'll get a huge of negative delta and extremely high share stale.

d=32767 g=off h=1000
Wanna see some exciting and interesting cloud mining contract which is different to Hashflare or Genesis Mining? Here is the site I trust.

Image

https://www.eobot.com/new.aspx?referid=8945

https://www.cryptomining.farm/signup/?referrer=59E0E92B882D
TTo314
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2017 3:14 pm

Re: Status as of Tuesday, September 5, 2017

Post by TTo314 » Wed Sep 06, 2017 9:46 am

mickeekung wrote:
TTo314 wrote:
mickeekung wrote:Congratulations Steve. I will look forward to Prohashing for low share stale and more compatible to Nicehash someday. :)
As a suggestion, I would change the 'h' parameter to be the exact diff from you want to leave. Example:

h = 1000: Instructs the mining server that this worker should never be assigned a block that has a network difficulty of less than 1000 (share difficulty of 65536000). Possibly increases the miner's work restart penalty to compensate other miners for the profit your miners are costing the pool, if other miners can not be assigned to more profitable coins instead.

if h= 1000 is equals 65536000 better h=6553600. In the test that I did h=1 set de difficulty to 16384. I did not understand why

Maybe I did not understand the operation of parameter 'h'.

Image
Image
Image
You can try this as the password for Scrypt to mine on PH. However, in this time, you'll get a huge of negative delta and extremely high share stale.

d=32767 g=off h=1000
With only d=32768 i'll get nice delta -5%. But with h=X order is dead because the diffculty minimun dont chage, is 16384.
Post Reply