|
Hello,
I am using Nicehash and I am getting lots of dead orders because "Difficulty is too low".
I looked around and didn't see that I could use the "d=" parm in the password, can I?
|
|
|
|
Hello, I have an API question, In the marketsummaries the bid and ask look like the last buy and sell, not the current bid and ask, is that correct? While the prices.json has buy and sell which look to be the current bid and ask. Should it be that way? https://c-cex.com/t/api_pub.html?a=getmarketsummaries EGGS-BTC "Bid" : 0.00000004, "Ask" : 0.00099999 https://c-cex.com/t/prices.json eggs-btc "buy":0.000005,"sell":0.00059921 |
|
|
|
|
Hi,
Any chance of getting Block Time (Secs.) and Algorithm in the API coin list?
|
|
|
|
Here is a list of currently supported ETHEREUM target-pools for placing NiceHash hashing power purchase orders: HITCHPOOL: Stratum hostname: eu1.hitchpool.org or us1.hitchpool.org Stratum port: 3334 Username: HITCHPOOL-USERNAME.WORKER-NAME Password: WORKER-PASSWORD COINOTRON: Stratum hostname: coinotron.com Stratum port: 3344 Username: COINOTRON-USERNAME.WORKER-NAME Password: WORKER-PASSWORD MININGPOOLHUB: Stratum hostname: hub.miningpoolhub.com Stratum port: 20534 Username: MININGPOOLHUB-USERNAME.WORKER-NAME Password: WORKER-PASSWORD This now concludes our first three Ethereum pools bounty, however all other pools are of course very much welcome to add support for NiceHash. If you are a SELLER/PROVIDER on NiceHash: do not forget that until Genoil adds support for NiceHash in his fork, you would have to use our Genoil ethminer improved fork. Thanks and keep on hashing! Best regards, NiceHash team. I am working against MININGPOOLHUB, thanks! |
|
|
|
Yeah. Definitely something wrong with the SIB algo.
As you can see, Ive been on the algo for many many hours alone; and the hashrate on my miner has been pretty steady at just under 1.2Mh. My share % is all out of whack. And given how long I have been hashing, I should have definitely surpassed the pile of previous shares previous to me connecting yesterday.
also, here's a copy and paste of the block I found 29 min before typing this: 27% share rate? When im hashing at 1.1Mh? And with 3 miners connected presently as i type this now..... Something is definitely not right... For the amount of time spent on this algo today, It should not be this low.
Sib (sib) 4.005197 SIB 27.6051% 0.176629 29m ago Immature ( 8 )
Out of 29.019 SIB from the two blocks I found, I was only credited 7.65236....
Hopefully all of this helps find the issue.
I have one similar but, I like mine much better!! EDIT: Just to put your mind at ease, I did not get paid 300% share rate for anything. All paid rates where inline with what I would expect.  |
|
|
|
No worries. I actually already use 3 different versions of ccminer and altered the batch as necessary. I just based mine off your initial construction and wanted to thank you  Before I was going to batch everything I was planning on breaking out the very old Borland Turbo C 3.5 and coding up my own controller. I used to love playing with the CGA/EGA graphics library it had when I went through high school. We were the first grade school in California to have IBM PC's, then the first to offer a computer repair class, then the first to have a state certified C++ class. I actually got a state certification for passing. I was always taking the simple programs we were supposed to code and turning them into graphical masterpieces. Such as the old rook traveling through every space on the board in the least amount of moves challenge. I made a chessboard graphically and everything. Mind you we were on 386 and 486 machines. For our final we had to make an app with a class function and implement it as an object for the program to use and manipulate. I had just found out about _int13 graphics... so I wrote a "LightCycle" class and made a tron arcade game remake. It was interesting overall to use Mode13 because the simple things we take for granted like plotting a circle; it quite a different concept when you code it: Y=w±sqrt(r²+(x-h)²) For symmetry: W == H == R but you can mess with them to change the circle's properties. Its more convoluted in code form for sure.... But I even stumped many of my math teachers on graphing a circle back then =) If anyone has a DOS and Mode13 capable retro pc around with a VGA card; I can give you the link to a modified copy of my tron app which is a Nibbles remake. I suggest a 486DX2-66 or DX4-100. Anything faster and it can be..... well, you ll find out. Be sure to not modify the file at all, and that it is named correctly or it will know. http://nomadpaintball.tripod.com/nibbles.zipBorland!! WOW!!! that is back in the day for sure! |
|
|
|
I'm running vista and it gives a higher hashrate.  So you are the one still running Vista!! lol!!! I would think that a clean/bare install of Window 8.1 and/or Window 7 would run faster than Vista. Vista had core modifications that were abandoned, due to stability, in favor of a new approach in Windows 7. Stable as a rock. On cuda mining nvidia mining it does do a higher hashrate on memory type coins. I should add that to btc 81 pro if it would take it. Shocking!! I am glad it works for you. I had that computer hashing with 2 750ti's for 2 years now and that little thing has been good to me.  Something about windows as we went from vista to 7 to 8.1 then 10... that the hashrates went down for memory type coins. I remember doing scrypt jane and it was hashing at about 10% higher hash then my windows 8.1. I think someone said that it was related to windows allocating memory. Awesome, I wonder if Windows Server would be faster, it is built more for hard core processing than desktop versions? |
|
|
|
I'm running vista and it gives a higher hashrate. So you are the one still running Vista!! lol!!! I would think that a clean/bare install of Window 8.1 and/or Window 7 would run faster than Vista. Vista had core modifications that were abandoned, due to stability, in favor of a new approach in Windows 7. Stable as a rock. On cuda mining nvidia mining it does do a higher hashrate on memory type coins. I should add that to btc 81 pro if it would take it. Shocking!! I am glad it works for you. |
|
|
|
I'm running vista and it gives a higher hashrate. So you are the one still running Vista!! lol!!! I would think that a clean/bare install of Window 8.1 and/or Window 7 would run faster than Vista. Vista had core modifications that were abandoned, due to stability, in favor of a new approach in Windows 7. |
|
|
|
|
I have noticed a change to automatic order cancelling since the 6/1 update.
It seems to be more aggressive and maybe cancelling things it would not have before.
I need to look at my results in more detail before I can be sure.
Anyone else see this?
|
|
|
|
OK. The batch has been cleaned up, and im glad to report that a dos variable doesn't have a max value like the olden days..... So.... Its all streamlined, and a lot easier to manage/modify. The algo names show as the window titles to easier see what algo is working. No longer needing to bring it to the front. Need to edit profitability? no longer do you have to update all the scripts. And tuning intensity is a breeze. If you use your machine like I do, you will be able to just wait for the offending algo to be present, then make a change the batch intensity and close just the miner app, and it will restart automatically with the batch file changes updated. @echo off
SETLOCAL EnableExtensions
SET ADDY=1PHSDYvVp6HpqtuUPocK41DrdeHbbezaeP
:start
SET PASS=p690gtx980-1,c=BTC,x11=8.2,x13=6.8,qubit=12.5,x15=5.6,lyra2v2=9.6,neoscrypt=0.378,decred=1.7,blakecoin=1.4,c11=8.8,quark=11.5,groestl=24.5,blake2s=1.2,x14=7.0,x17=5.2,stats
cls
start "X13" /min ccminer176.exe -r 0 -a x13 -i 17.5 -o stratum+tcp://mine.zpool.ca:3633 -u %ADDY% -p %PASS%,d=0.004
start "X11" /min ccminer176.exe -r 0 -a x11 -i 17.5 -o stratum+tcp://mine.zpool.ca:3533 -u %ADDY% -p %PASS%,d=0.002
start "QUBIT" /min ccminer176.exe -r 0 -a qubit -i 17.2 -o stratum+tcp://mine.zpool.ca:4733 -u %ADDY% -p %PASS%,d=0.004
start "X15" /min ccminer176.exe -r 0 -a x15 -i 17.5 -o stratum+tcp://mine.zpool.ca:3733 -u %ADDY% -p %PASS%,d=0.01
start "LYRA2RE2" /min ccminer176.exe -r 0 -a lyra2v2 -i 17.2 -o stratum+tcp://mine.zpool.ca:4533 -u %ADDY% -p %PASS%,d=1
start "NEOSCRYPT"/min ccminer176.exe -r 0 -a neoscrypt -i 20 -o stratum+tcp://mine.zpool.ca:4233 -u %ADDY% -p %PASS%
start "DECRED" /min ccminer176.exe -r 0 -a decred -i 23 -o stratum+tcp://mine.zpool.ca:5744 -u %ADDY% -p %PASS%,d=0.5
start "BLAKECOIN" /min ccminer176.exe -r 0 -a blakecoin -o stratum+tcp://mine.zpool.ca:5743 -u %ADDY% -p %PASS%
start "C11" /min ccminer176.exe -r 0 -a c11 -i 19.5 -o stratum+tcp://mine.zpool.ca:3573 -u %ADDY% -p %PASS%
start "QUARK" /min ccminer176.exe -r 0 -a quark -i 17.5 -o stratum+tcp://mine.zpool.ca:4033 -u %ADDY% -p %PASS%
start "GROESTL" /min ccminer176.exe -r 0 -a groestl -o stratum+tcp://mine.zpool.ca:5333 -u %ADDY% -p %PASS%
start "BLAKE2S" /min ccminer176.exe -r 0 -a blake2s -o stratum+tcp://mine.zpool.ca:5766 -u %ADDY% -p %PASS%,d=0.4
start "X14" /min ccminer176.exe -r 0 -a x14 -o stratum+tcp://mine.zpool.ca:3933 -u %ADDY% -p %PASS%
start "X17" /min ccminer176.exe -r 0 -a x17 -o stratum+tcp://mine.zpool.ca:3737 -u %ADDY% -p %PASS%
:wait1
set EXE=ccminer176.exe
FOR /F %%x IN ('tasklist /NH /FI "IMAGENAME eq %EXE%"') DO IF %%x == %EXE% goto FOUND
goto FIN1
:FOUND
echo %EXE% still running.
goto wait1
:FIN1
goto start |
|
|
|
I've found another problem, this time a little more serious.
Miners are disappearing.
Twice now I've noticed a miner missing from the list, The miner is ok without any interrruptions and has
been mining for several hours but it doesn't show up in the list and it's hash isn't counted in the sum.
If I stop the miner and restart it, it immediately pops up on the list and starts registering hash.
The second time it occurred mining lyra2v2, I don't recall the first.
I have also seen this behavior but not for the last few days. The individual miners do not show up but, in my case, the summary shows 0 miners but a hashrate existed for the algo. Edit: and I was getting valid shares and being paid for the hashes |
|
|
|
Maybe its the change to GH/day for sha256?
You mean the change from**  Their site still says its based off a price/Th/Day. Which is roughly around 3.3BTC/Ph/Day recently as far as pool profitability. But even so; I am requesting (as per their instructions) 2.8 BTC/Th. Which is insanely expensive. I switched it up from 0.0028 which was the old value that worked months ago. (2.8mBTC/Th/day was a good base minimum for when pool profitability was dipping below 0.0000021 per Gh.) So even if I switch it to p=5000, it still shows pool up and stratum connects giving me low value work. I am almost done with NH. The main reason I like them is the "in-between-clients time" is managed quite well. Oops, yes the change from. Not that impressed with NH. Poor deal for miners, renters can't make a profit easily. And they charge both parties 3%. I started to use it as a back up pool before hp went offline, since the returns there were even worse towards the end. I have been able to make coin on both the buy and sell side of NH. Not enough to live on, but some. Though I do have some assistance, doing it manually was not worth the effort. I agree they have a sweet deal - 6% of the activity looks pretty sweet!! Since the change on 6/1/16 to PH for SHA, which I don't think is 100% baked yet, profitability has suffered and I have yet to determine why.  |
|
|
|
and crackfoo; those red bars are dead pool indicators.
AND/OR when the connection between NH and pool has issues for one reason or another. I have seen this also happen when the d= setting is not quite right, and when using vardiff on a few algos |
|
|
|
See; the extra rewards line; it is credited hashrate; thus not counting towards my hashrate. I may have found a small loophole in their system that works to our benefit.
Pretty sure that Extra Rewards are paid to the hash selling not us, the buyer, no different than stale shares. Again Pretty sure all of the items below Delta %, in the table, are penalties for us, the buyers. |
|
|
|
From this perspective: a difficulty of 8000, for a hashrate of 5-10Th, is WELL within reason. I have run 16.5K on my S7 with no issues and good hashrates reported at the pool. my machine would just never get the smaller blocks. I am trying to keep diff high so that it doesn't flood stratum with shares unnecessarily. If I try to create an order and the pool settings are wrong; the nicehash fee is forefit..... most people didnt notice that caveat.
Oh yes, lots of caveats with nicehash but, they can be managed with assistance. I agree something in the range you are talking is reasonable, I was just wondering why your delta line is so much redder than mine, hence decreasing your potential. |
|
|
|
yep. I have it at max that nicehash allows.... I remember before zpool stratum would start below min diff nicehash allows and it would never connect... its the same as it was when Ive done rentals in the past before the major stratum issues.
The graph I showed represents about an 8% market loss, I would suspect, based on the amount of red, yours is higher. I do not run at the maximum d= allowed by NH, I use something reasonable. |
|
|
|
had to hard reset my S7 a few min ago. But so far, pretty solid. also, you can see how much nicehash gets rejected by the pool. The extra rewards is what's offsetting it I think. Against my initial assumption I am still just about breaking even; and have generated as much as I have spent thus far. (NH fee included and considered covered first) Hope it helps. Looks like that rental will push on for another day or two...... I may top it off a little if I feel like pushing it further.  I agree it seems to be more stable than it was before. Your delta line seems more red than what I am getting and all of those dead bars seem unusual to me. Are you using a d= password parm?  |
|
|
|
yeah; Ill do that eventually... maybe.... lol
I dont think the few kb of ram is going to hurt much in the end, but eventually ill make that edit =)
Yeah, I was in code review mode, sorry |
|
|
|
Sweet!!! I was also thinking since you are repeating the username and password you could make them variables so they only need to be in there once. Might be easier to maintain. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
