Hi,
I am getting "No block source available" on my wallet.
What nodes should I add ?
Regards
11:04:28 ? [ { "addr" : "83.238.176.106:3888", "services" : "00000001", "lastsend" : 1390642152, "lastrecv" : 1390602521, "bytessent" : 65474, "bytesrecv" : 468739, "conntime" : 1390574770, "version" : 70001, "subver" : "/FreeTrade:0.8.6/", "inbound" : false, "startingheight" : 44837, "banscore" : 0, "syncnode" : true }, { "addr" : "116.52.11.27:3888", "services" : "00000001", "lastsend" : 1390642152, "lastrecv" : 1390602521, "bytessent" : 58666, "bytesrecv" : 251051, "conntime" : 1390574795, "version" : 70001, "subver" : "/FreeTrade:0.8.5/", "inbound" : false, "startingheight" : 44837, "banscore" : 0 }, { "addr" : "54.201.166.2:3888", "services" : "00000001", "lastsend" : 1390642152, "lastrecv" : 1390602520, "bytessent" : 51274, "bytesrecv" : 215978, "conntime" : 1390574939, "version" : 70001, "subver" : "/FreeTrade:0.8.6/", "inbound" : false, "startingheight" : 44838, "banscore" : 0 }, { "addr" : "122.226.165.110:3888", "services" : "00000001", "lastsend" : 1390613335, "lastrecv" : 1390602537, "bytessent" : 65929, "bytesrecv" : 144057, "conntime" : 1390574967, "version" : 70001, "subver" : "/FreeTrade:0.8.6/", "inbound" : false, "startingheight" : 44838, "banscore" : 10 }, { "addr" : "218.89.107.110:3888", "services" : "00000001", "lastsend" : 1390642154, "lastrecv" : 1390602486, "bytessent" : 51133, "bytesrecv" : 276922, "conntime" : 1390575007, "version" : 70001, "subver" : "/FreeTrade:0.8.6/", "inbound" : false, "startingheight" : 44838, "banscore" : 10 }, { "addr" : "222.47.26.86:3888", "services" : "00000001", "lastsend" : 1390609734, "lastrecv" : 1390602521, "bytessent" : 39831, "bytesrecv" : 172256, "conntime" : 1390575035, "version" : 70001, "subver" : "/FreeTrade:0.8.5/", "inbound" : false, "startingheight" : 44838, "banscore" : 0 }, { "addr" : "182.39.115.58:3888", "services" : "00000001", "lastsend" : 1390615137, "lastrecv" : 1390602486, "bytessent" : 44248, "bytesrecv" : 241428, "conntime" : 1390575059, "version" : 70001, "subver" : "/FreeTrade:0.8.5/", "inbound" : false, "startingheight" : 44838, "banscore" : 0 }, { "addr" : "116.28.171.65:3888", "services" : "00000001", "lastsend" : 1390629544, "lastrecv" : 1390602529, "bytessent" : 28869, "bytesrecv" : 99106, "conntime" : 1390592475, "version" : 70001, "subver" : "/FreeTrade:0.8.5/", "inbound" : false, "startingheight" : 44899, "banscore" : 0 } ] |
|
|
|
Hi ALL.
I've got some resources on a private cloud. Around of 40x CPU. For now, I've created 2 VM with 20x core each. But my question is: maybe will be a better solution to create, for example, 20 VM with 2x core each? Will this influent in someway on probability to find blocks? Or leave as is, with 20x core on 2 VM?
Luck is a big factor in primecoin mining, why dont you run 10x2cpu instances on one acc and 2x8cpu + 1x4cpu on the other and let us know which one found more blocks. Because I was thinking what here are some math-guys who can explain in term of probability (or so) which way are more efficient  one-two big or a lot of small. Experimentally I will do it by myself(someday), but was hoping for some shortcuts It comes down to how the VMs are implemented on the servers (physical hardware). If you are unsure, best to run single-core instances. |
|
|
|
Hi,
I've been reading this thread looking for some indication of performance but haven't come across nothing useful. I currently own a few machines and have been testing an AMD Athlon 64 X2 @ 2.6GHz, which gets me 0.012 chains/day.
From what I've read some people seem to be able to get much more than that, though I'm unsure if that number is related or not to the current difficulty.
Am I missing something or is current performance on this order of magnitude? I'm using this miner with default parameters, compiled myself.
Guidance is greatly appreciated. Thanks.
Your chains/day is fine. And yes, it is related to the difficulty because now we're looking for chains of 10 prime numbers, whereas previously it was 9. Specifically, chainsperday refers only to the integer (whole number) part of the current difficulty value. It does not reflect the current fractional ('decimal') part of the difficulty value. You can casually say that, you could take the chainsperday value that you are shown, and multiply it by the fractional difficulty part to get rough estimate of how many blocks you might find per day, assuming no variance. But as diff gets higher and higher, the "no variance" thing becomes more and more meaningless as you stare at your computer for weeks wondering why you haven't found a block yet. (The human brain is terrible at statistically interpreting infrequently occurring events over long time scales without bias). The precise calculations are a few pages back, have a look at mikaelh's recent posts. |
|
|
|
My concern is static. Thank you Risk of damage from static depends entirely on: i) How you handle static sensitive devices, ii) Your flooring/footwear, iii) but most importantly the average humidity. Humidity >50% very low risk of static damage (in my opinion) to most modern computer parts Humidity 40-50% some risk Humidity <40% getting precarious now It's not particularly hard to dissipate any static build up on your body to a grounded ("earthed") object like a PSU chassis before you pick up a static sensitive device, since a grounded object is almost always nearby when working on computers/miners. If you are playing with many thousands of $ of hardware then a $10 static wrist strap and some good self discipline using it may go a long way. |
|
|
|
No, there's just not much to say. Primes are flying out of CPUs, that's it. It doesn't get any more exciting. Unless a CPU somewhere mines a dragon. Gotta watch those CPU dragons:: very exciting  |
|
|
|
Excellent application. This is just what I've been looking for. I have it running on a laptop with a Radeon HD 7340 GPU at over 4MH/s. That's not so great, but given the hardware it's not bad. I have another machine I'd like to try it on, but at the moment it doesn't have a GPU worth mentioning. I'd like to see if I can get it running on the CPU on that machine. I'm mining Dogecoins right now and I just want to see what kind of performance I can get out of this machine. In the readme, etc., it does mention Intel CPUs, but either it doesn't work, or something else is wrong. Whenever I try to start it using an older version of CGMiner with cpu support, it tells me that OpenCL.dll is missing. Am I out of my mind? Or am I missing something here?  Just to make sure you know, mining scrypt coins (especially SHA-256) coins on CPU is basically throwing away money to pay for the power to run it. Or did you want to try it for the sake of trying it? I don't believe cgminer supports CPU mining (it may have a long time ago?). Why not try a current CPU coin like XPM or PTS, or even quark (and derivatives). FWIW, gpu/cpu/both mining on a laptop without very carefully monitoring and/or modifying it for the purpose is often a good way to break them. |
|
|
|
[IMG]https://i.imgur.com/ckCu8HP.jpg?1 20x Sapphire R9 290 4x Asus M5A99FX PRO 4x Corsair 750w 4x Corsair 1000w 4x HDD 32Go SSD 4x 4Go 4x CPU Sempron Misc risers Custom wooden rig, match anyone ?  Delivering ~16.6 Mh/s Burning ~6500W (distributed on 4 circuits of 10 amps each) Working on a much better 19" rackable rig, cause this beast can't scale no more. No way I'm going to put a third level on this thing I like how the weight of the GPU are sagging the frame... |
|
|
|
|
You can scan almost ANYTHING on virustotal and get 1-2 hits. Try uploading any popular program.
|
|
|
|
Looks like a Juniper.. seen better days. Mine makes a nice burning smell if the memory is overclocked too much. The slip-off cooler just begs for upgrading: like this huge dell workstation CPU fan.. |
|
|
|
since GPU mining for scrypt coins isn't bitcoin, aren't posts here about it in the wrong place? shouldn't they be posted in the altcoins section? So of course GPU mining is looked down on. it is either unprofitable or being talked about in the wrong place. (Bitcoin Snob here)
I agree that GPUs should be banished from this thread since they are no longer viable for bitcoin mining to make a profit. Glory to ASIC! Sorry to burst your bubble but there are distinct and valid reasons to be using GPU in 2014. Or were you trolling? Some of these rigs people are posting images of cost over $6000, do you really think that they would go to great effort to design and construct these custom systems and not do a few calculations to prove they are viable and profitable? |
|
|
|
I really like the program, but one of the main features I wanted to work seems to be buggy. I've created two sheduled rules, one to increase the intensity of the display GPU on idle, and another to detect when the computer is not idle and lower it. The idle rule works 100% of the time, but the not-idle rule only works very occasionally  The simpler way of doing that is to start the miner with the lower intensity, and use the option on the schedule tab for the higher one when idle, that's how I have it set up without issues.  Seems to be working much better! Thanks! |
|
|
|
I really like the program, but one of the main features I wanted to work seems to be buggy. I've created two sheduled rules, one to increase the intensity of the display GPU on idle, and another to detect when the computer is not idle and lower it. The idle rule works 100% of the time, but the not-idle rule only works very occasionally |
|
|
|
|
Countries with 230/240 V @ 50 Hz mains typically accommodate 2400 watts per wall outlet (10 A).
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm mining a lot of coins in pools. A little off topic but is there any other scientifically useful coin than primecoin?
None released that I'm aware of. |
|
|
|
Hello,
Sorry. I know these questions have got to be asked quite numerous times already, but after quick search I wasn't able to find clear answers.
I solomined with my 2500k for a few weeks back in early december 2013 (or something like that) when the difficulty was below 10. Client is v0.1.2.0xpm-hp11-unk-beta
getmininginfo gave a good number for PPS etc. However I never got any XPM to my wallet.
- Is there something I could possibly have done wrong or did I just have a very very bad luck?
- Was all my work in vain?
Assuming that you checked it was mining: CPU was at 100% load, and getting some results from getmininginfo (eg. it gave you a chainsperday value other than 0), then no, you did nothing wrong. Even back in those days it would've still taken you many days or even weeks to find a block. You should consider pool mining (especially now >10 diff) if you do not like waiting so long for a payout. Before reaching 10 diff I had a i5 laptop (modified for better cooling) mine for over 40 days without finding a block. Its was roughly half as fast as yours. So its not unlikely that you could mine for up to a month without finding a block: more if you are unlucky. And that was before 10 diff... |
|
|
|
|
247.5 kh/s 246-247 kH/s
Asus 7790 with CUII cooler (dual fan, with heatpipes)
7790's have dynamically regulated power output, which limits your maximum overclock, probably to protect VRMs. I couldn't get it to ever exceed 79 watts as reported in GPU-Z, not even for a moment. At stock it reports 73-75 watts @ 100 % load. You have to underclock these cards to a specific region & ratio of frequencies to get the most efficient mining (most KH/s for the least watts possible).
Using msi afterburner and GPU-z, cg miner 3.3.0
48 deg C temperature after 30 minutes, in 30 deg C ambient room.
Power limit: +20% (I am not sure this actually does anything, it may be ignored by the card)
Core: 830 MHz
RAM: 1500 MHz
Fan: 100%
"intensity" : "18", revised to 17 because of extremely high rejects (25+%), setting to 17 solves it with nil change to kH/s
"vectors" : "1",
"worksize" : "128",
"kernel" : "scrypt",
"lookup-gap" : "2",
"thread-concurrency" : "8000",
"shaders" : "896",
GPU-Z reports power consumption varying between 54 and 55 watts.
Wattmeter measurements:
Full system while mining (two cards installed): 220 watts
Full system while mining (one card installed): 147 watts
Full system while idle: 85
So at least the cards are using less than their TDP (85 watts).
|
|
|
|
am i going to return to them as a miner? hell no. Why not join GHash and help risk destroying bitcoin us attain global domination. This is not a serious suggestion. |
|
|
|
Hey guys I'm trying to solomine xpm for the first time. And after I launch qt I've got my CPU running at 100% BUT getmininginfo shows primespersec is 0. My CPU - Core i7 2600K overclocked. How can I ensure that I'm mining?
{
"blocks" : 353416,
"chainspermin" : 0,
"chainsperday" : 0.00000000,
"currentblocksize" : 1906,
"currentblocktx" : 4,
"difficulty" : 10.32599312,
"errors" : "",
"generate" : true,
"genproclimit" : 7,
"primespersec" : 0,
"pooledtx" : 4,
"sieveextensions" : 9,
"sievepercentage" : 10,
"sievesize" : 1000000,
"testnet" : false
}
Solved
You can use genproclimit 8 and set the priority to low. You can do this via shortcut path or by batch file. There is no need to leave a dedicated free thread. |
|
|
|
|
The detailed calculations are in the primecoin high performance thread.
However its starting to get to the point where it might just be easier to download one of the pool miners, let it run for a few days, and just see what you get.
You'll either like the result or not. Unless you have cheap or free power you may not even reach break even against electricity costs. The profit margins on CPU mining are slim.
|
|
|
|
Can I use vanitygen to find someone else's private key from their bitcoin address?
Can an example? either here or in PM. In theory: No. The software will not allow you to specific a pattern so specific/long. Yes, I tried it: for lulz. Why don't you download the program, tell it to look for a pattern eg. 10 characters long. Then make it 11, then 12... and so on while observing the time estimate to find a match... you will see what I mean quite quickly. Now, keep in mind that bitcoin addresses are usually 33-34 characters long. In practice: Also no. It would take an impossibly long time. We're talking longer than the time the universe will likely exist for. If you know a loophole around that, please let us know. We should also stipulate a rule that to mention "quantum computers" you must at least have a masters/PhD in a relevant field. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
