Well, before I got started mining I would have said that *any* memory errors would be too much, but it does seem that many like to play things a little closer to the bleeding edge. Still, you should see about a 1 MH/s difference for every 100 MHz change in memclock (from what I've noticed, not something I know for sure), so if dialing back 75 MHz doesn't reduce hashrate then that suggests the extra clock rate was only wasting power, at best, and maybe causing memory errors leading to stale/rejected shares and too many of those will get you locked out of some pools.

Meh, dual mining increases the power drain of each card considerably, and all to mine a shitcoin like Sia or Pascal or Decred. So your electricity bill is higher and your cards run hotter; a tradeoff I don't find compelling, but I admit the proverbial devil is in the details here.


I tested Claymore again and it is, indeed, faster than Ethminer, even factoring in the devfee. However, it's a rather modest difference, with Claymore delivering 27.0 (not correcting for devfee) vs. 25.4 for Ethminer (on an RX 570). Unfortunately, to generate the devfee Claymore has to disconnect from the pool I am using, connect to his devfee pool, then generate the DAG for Ethereum, because I was mining Ubiq or Music, then mine Ethereum for 36 seconds, then switch back to my pool, generate the DAG for my coin, and finally resume mining for me.

One other thing - pushing memclock too high first results in more bad shares (from memory errors - use HWInfo to check) then leads to outright crashes; you may have just gotten an especially unlucky array of cards in the silicon lottery if they all have a lot of errors (and, really, more than 1 error per polling period is too much, I feel; dial back the OC if that is happening).

Yeah, I'm getting about 305 Sols/s on each of my GTX 1060 3GB - Asus Dual Fan OC Edition (White). I'm not pushing the core/mem clocks too hard, either: 1950/4150 (2075 actual?) reported by MSI AB.

0.5.7 seems to be stable - running non-stop for 5+ days now - and with a very low rejected share rate. The devfee is a little high given the relative performance boost over the competition, but at least it works.

Hmm, I just wrote about my positive experience running Ethminer 0.12.0 compared to Claymore 10.2 in another thread. Claymore *reports* a higher hashrate to me, sure, but I seem to actually earn more using Ethminer... I admit my experience is very limited, however, so I may have to revisit this comparison.

I also just started mining, but am proceeding at a much more moderate pace than you (18 cards already? Ambitious!) but I already went through the same puzzlement with Claymore and finally decided that the program sucks. Ethminer might *appear* to give a lower hashrate, but what it reports and what I actually get mining UBQ or MUSIC (on Pool Sexy) are very close, and there is no devfee for Ethminer.

I don't mind paying a devfee for demonstrably better hashrate, but lying to me about the hashrate and/or submitting stale shares to artificially boost it isn't cool. I'm not saying Claymore is doing either of those things, just that I earn more coin per hour with the same rig and settings running Ethminer 0.12.0 than Claymore 10.2.

Okay, I restarted the miner about 15 minutes ago and difficulty once again climbed up to 100001; I restarted it just now - difficulty started at 2000 on port 3333 - so we'll see (lol - already up to 16000 as I type this).


I can assure you it wasn't my internet connection because I have 3 separate computers mining right now and yours was the only one that kicked off. I wish I had taken a screen shot of what xmr-stak reported as the problem, but I have retries set to a 30 second interval with 3 max and it basically gave up. I've since changed it to 5 retries with 60s between them.

I'm pretty new at this, but I found that the same OC settings for Equihash work well for Neoscrypt, too.

This was with an AMD Phenom II 955 and an Asus M4N75TD mobo on Windows 7 - so, completely different!

Still, pretty brazen to charge a devfee for an alpha-level program. I have the same complaint with Claymore's Cryptonight miner, which lies so bad about hashrate it should be made into a rug... <rimshot!>

 

Thanks for the tuning tip. I haven't really messed with the power limit all that much, but I did just learn how surprisingly inefficient the "private label" PSU in my Cyberpower (a semi-custom brand at Newegg) is when I replaced it with a mere 80+ Bronze model from a local retailer (Best Buy) and power draw went from 400W before to about 240W now... that's just crazy!

Yeah, I know the Nvidia cards are much better at Equihash and Lyra2v2 and I've had the twin 1060s mining ZEN (on luckpool) for the last 5 days or so and am up to a whopping big 0.611 ZEN. The big jump in difficulty the last couple of days has me thinking I'll move over to something that isn't on fire at the moment (like that eternal disappointment, VTC).

I took you up on your offer to check out Dero and threw a little bit of hashpower your way. I have to echo the concern that difficulty ratchets up too high relative to ones hashrate. For example, difficulty starts at 100 on port 3333 but climbs to >100k after 7 minutes. With a single RX 570 (~700 H/s) this results in several minutes between shares. While I understand intellectually that higher difficulty shares are worth more, from an irrational/emotional perspective I'd like to see difficulty set so that my miner gets a share every 30 to 60 seconds.

As for the dero.pool.live pool, I like the auto-refresh and estimated mining profits calculator (esp. since this coin isn't on whattomine, minethecoin, etc.). However, last night around 03:00 GMT the pool seemed to have gotten overloaded to the point xmr-stak gave up on it and I woke up this morning to an idle rig which, let me tell you, is annoying as all get out (it seems that rigs never crash when you are awake and watching them - amirite?).

Wow, what a mess... I was finally able to login to my web wallet and wasted no time transferring all of my BCN to the desktop wallet. I had to go through shitty reCaptcha many times to get to the 2FA code entry, then do even more reCaptchas to enter my 2FA code which, of course, was changing the entire time. Totally broken web wallet which doesn't inspire confidence in the rest of the ecosphere.

Lol, so many versions of so many miners; so little time! Well, 0.5.7 has been chugging away for many hours and my the hashrate reported by the pool matches what dstm says it is, and I am seeing very few rejected shares - maybe 0.1% total?

To the op/dev: I'd really like to see a cumulative run time counter.

Ah, thanks for correcting my misunderstanding - I thought I must have gotten a really rotten deal!

Hashrate of 0.5.7 seems pretty much the same as 0.5.6; not trying 0.5.8 on account of the single connection issue which I don't fully understand, but which sounds bad regardless.

I'm having massive issues trying to access my web wallet, and the login for it is beyond stupid, anyway. You have to enter a username/password and pass the infernal (and totally useless, because hacked) reCaptcha just to then have to go through reCaptcha again to enter a 6 digit Google 2FA code. Why not ditch the reCaptcha which everyone hates and just use a password and 2FA?

Anyway, it seems the devs know there is some issue with accessing the web wallet and one is encouraged to send them an email about it. See the below reddit post for more details:

https://www.reddit.com/r/BytecoinBCN/comments/7mldac/mobileweb_wallet_issue_let_us_know_if_you_have/

v3.0.0 doesn't work for me. It appears to successfully connect to luckpool.org, receive a difficulty value from the server, and then says "Miner died, restarting"; repeat, ad nauseum. This is a Win7 x64 SP1 machine with (2) GTX 1060 3GB cards. DSTM 0.5.6 and 0.5.7 work fine (indeed, 0.5.7 is running now) on the same pool with the same credentials.

At this point I am done screwing around with this train wreck, as I am philosophically opposed to paying for the "privilege" of being a beta tester.

So I mined for 2 hours with Claymore and made about 12 BCN, then I mined for 2 hours with xmr-stak and made about 12 BCN... effective hashrate based on difficulty (which was surprisingly constant that entire time) comes out to around 300 H/s... compared to Claymore reporting 640 (this is after I figured out the -dmem issue) while xmr-stak is especially brazen claiming it is doing 975. What the f'ing f?

Well, whodathunkit, but setting -dmem 0 improved hashrate to 640; still quite a bit lower than what others are reporting, but a lot better than 420.

Well this is depressing... I've seen others report hashrates for the RX 570 in the 800+ range, but I am getting more like 415-425. My RX 570 has Elpida memory and the powersave rom from Anorak with core clock at 1150 and memclock at 1900 (no undervolting). GPU-Z reports 100% GPU load, 24% memory load and GPU-only power draw of 60W (at least that's fair, given the hashrate). My command line currently reads:

NsGpuCNMiner -h 850 -allpools 1 -xpool stratum+tcp://bytecoin.uk:5555 -xwal <BCN address> -xpsw x

Where "BCN address" is my actual address, of course. Claymore is setting -dmem to 1 on its own (I had set it to 1 myself) and was setting -h to 896, but I thought overriding that (with a slightly lower value) might improve things and it did, by a whopping 10 H/s.

I chose BCN to mine because it has a very low difficulty so it would be easy to see how well it is working (I'd rather mine a coin with a less sordid history, all things considered), but if this is any reflection of how ETN or XMR will mine then I don't think I'll bother.

EDIT - looking through the logs I see a lot of AMD adapter not found:

12:15:45:826   44c   ADL: Cannot find any AMD adapters

Which is strange, because it recognizes it as an Ellesmere when it starts up.

Oh, it looks like you didn't understand what I wrote. I meant, "don't bother upgrading to Windows 10" not, "don't bother mining Ethash" but I can see how it could be read the other way so I'll edit my post to make it more clear.