• Idk if it's all in my head or not, but since this last update, I'm finding and submitting ALOT more downloads. Before it was like 1 or 2 every 5-10 lines.


  • admin

    @bkewlbro Difficulty is way down at the moment, so you'll find more DL's within your limit.

  • Its because you havent changed the target deadline in config yet 🙂

  • Wow POC1 was really hacked bad if the Diff dropped that much. Might be some miners out there who haven't switched over too but we went from 500K to 70K. Just watching the average now.

  • admin

    @cryptonick Network size will grow again over the next weeks ... i think it is more likely, that a big number of miners was not prepared, and just ignored/missed the upcomming changes. e.g. if you had a setup, that was optimized to handle as much plots as possible, you can not simply switch to new software, as poc1->poc2 conversion requires more computing power and maybe memory etc. I expect majority of plots are still poc1.
    I expect network size to constantly grow back to old size within a month or something in that range. I would consider that someone was using poc1 flaws, if this does not happen. But not right now.

  • Best case scenario is that difficulty settles at between 200000 and 250000, as those exploiting the flaws would most likely have done it big. Worst case is that it shoots back up to 500000+ in a couple of weeks.

    Can't see major players missing an important milestone and not being prepared for it, but time will tell and difficulty will reveal all

  • admin

    @bluebook Always remember that the value of a coin is related to the difficulty mining it. So i wouldn't be too happy, if it turns out that the real capacity was lower than expected. But surely it is even worse for the value of a coin if it has flaws. Very interesting times ...

  • @luxe I agree, but settling at 200000 to 250000 would be a fair starting point, and then increasing gradually as more capacity is added would help maintain the price at a steady sustainable level for a while and reduce the risk of a bubble forming

  • There is another issue, I have only 12TB and before more or less maintained the effective capacity between 11 and 12 and now it seems that costs go from 9 if I have 12 TB lose almost a quarter, imagine those who are in the same situation than me but with more capacity

  • admin

    @energy not sure, are you talking about what your pool tells you? that has nothing to do with network size, maybe you just need to adjust your targetDeadline ?

  • @luxe Yes, I thought that the capacity of pool influences the capacity of the network.
    Well I think I have 80000000 in targetDeadline I do not know what data would be right now since it always worked well

  • admin

    @energy sure the capacity of the pool influences the network, but the capacity the pool calculates from your submitted deadlines just affect your shares. for now maybe just wait another 24h, maybe it re-adjusts ... else check 'Quick Info' tab/section on your pool page. Not sure about other mining software, in jminer you can just set 'dynamicTargetDeadline=true' to auto apply the pool formula.

  • @luxe I'm using miner blago but I do not see that I have any option for that.

    What happens if I have a targetDeadline in the configuration greater or less than what the pool asks for?

  • admin

    @energy good question, i have no idea 🙂 somehow the pool calculates your 'effective capacity' by the deadlines you commit ... why a special calculated target deadline should hellp with that ... i do not know.

    Edit: from a miner perspective ... i just deliver what they want ... and do not ask why 🙂

  • admin

    @energy If you're on a PoCC style pool, go to the pool page, then Quick Info tab. Enter your plot total size into the calc and it'll give you a target deadline to add to the miner config. The pools pay based on effective capacity, which is estimated on the deadlines you submit. Having deadlines well in excess of the recommended deadline skew your estimated capacity quite badly.

  • @energy the target DL is the worst possible DL that you will submit to the pool if you find one... So if you have a targetDeadline of 1000000, that is the value of the worst DL you will submit to the pool...

    Now imagine that you have a targetDeadline much higher than what the pool accepts... targetDeadline of 1.000.000 and pool only accepts DL's of 500.000 or lower, when you submit a DL of 750.000 the pool get's your DL, discard it automatically because it's higher than the max DL of the pool but still use that DL to calculate your average, so your average lower itself more than if you didn't had actually sent any DL in that block... This is why is wise to have the targetDeadline well configured, not needed but wise if the pool has a low targetDL...

  • admin

    @gpedro The pool will actually tell the miner the highest DL it accepts, none of the current miners will send a DL that exceeds that. The targetDeadline is to put in an even more restrictive DL limit. Even if the pool accepts a 1 year DL, that's never going to win, so lets be kind to the pool and not send an DL that exceeds (for example) 7 days (still never going to win, but less stress on the pool).

  • @haitch Oh ok... Blago Miner already does that by default? I wasn't aware...
    That is exactly what @luxe said that happens with 'dynamicTargetDeadline=true' in jminer, if I got it right...

  • admin

    @gpedro I believe the jMiner dynamicDeadline performs the PoCC calculation for you and uses it as the target DL.

  • @haitch @gpedro I know that and I understand what I mean is that before with poc1 it worked well and now or change the configuration of the pool or poc2 is more strict with this, since I have not changed the configuration