@nemare You're mining with 6.x TB, so can expect to earn around 1 Burst/TB/DAY - so 6 day. Over 6 months, that would be around 1,100 Burst. So you're right on where you should be. You however, also got lucky and were able to mine 5 blocks. So in this case, your have been better off solo mining over that period, however you might not get another block for another 2 years.
You're earning what you should be, but in your case not what you could have over the period, but as I said it could be two more years before you get another one - in which case you'll have still earned the expected average.
@hlbcal I have nothing to do with Hpool.
My Burst pool http://moverspool.ml has a one year DL limit.
I merely made the post above to let people know they can make more profit with the same plots.
Granted you will need an ok large plot to have reasonable amount of deadlines bellow one day to mine btchd.
Yep, it’s ok and laptop will work better because of lesser load. But mining profitability may be lesser as well, because your hardware may be off when the new block is created. However, if you want to give your devices some rest, consider cloud mining. It doesn’t require computing power at all because you use rented remote hardware which works 24/7. Cloud sites also offering significant discounts unlike rigs for hardware miners, just check this example: http://ccgminingcode.com/ . If you can calculate expenses and volatility, then cloud mining may be a good alternative to traditional one.
@rds said in Which will produce more revenue??:
If you could rent, for $1, any one of these miners, which would you choose and why?
1000TB of plots. The scan time is 500 seconds.
1$ / 100 TB is what timeframe ?
At the moment, a rental of 1 PB for 10$ per day would be (barely) profitable.
Operating 1PB for 10$/day is impossible.
Option 10 will have a higher revenue than all others.
You will find the best deadline buried in these plotfiles after you scanned the whole volume.
The probability to find the best deadline that is buried in this stack within 500seconds is 1.
For 240 seconds it is 0.48 , so the "excess" volume of 520 TB is helping, just not with a factor of 1.
For a more accurate factor, you'd need to analyze the historical block time distribution as it is not symmetrical (more "fast" than "slow" blocks). Anyone fluent in R ?
personally I have gained a 15% increase in round time speed with poc2 with poc2 miner than poc1 with poc1 miner. from 43 - 47 seconds poc1 to 32 - 41 poc2 the speeds are slightly variable. Blago miner 12 seconds slower than Jminer. Capacity 68TB. My CPU is 4 core AMD @ 4.1 Ghz my GPU is AMD R7 360 someday I shall get myself something with more cores. Planning more capacity too.
if you decide to plot on Western Digital I recommend turn off write cache in device manager it really speeds up plotting (especially turboplotter) I have WD blues and reds they all increase writing speeds from 60- 90mb/s to 80-120mb/s but Seagate's only benefit as internal not external.