It's not fully integrated yet. It's not even in the algo list in ccminer.cpp.

I have one of those. They are great but now the battery dies just seconds after I unplug it. I don't care though.

The difficulty already quadrupled in the last 3 days. It will go down (profitability-wise) like Sia - which is now very close to wasting electricity.

As said above. I just want to emphasize to get a wattmeter. It's basically a must for miners.

You're a dumbass. There are no buy walls.

0.11 BTC to go back to 403 satoshis or
0.46 BTC to go back to 168 sats.

Weak pump.

Stop with the spam

I guess it's possible the two coins use the same address generating algorithm. So an address+privatekey pair might work on both chains.
If that's the case, if you have an EVG address you could use the same address on the XNG network.

I mean the EVG wallet wouldn't let you send funds to a non-EVG wallet anyway.

@Epsylon3

Is there any stat for how lucky your pools has been for LBRY? It seems we have terrible luck finding blocks.

I have no idea.

In any case, it's probably best to limit the maximum bandwidth of each rig in the router so none of them gets to hog the network for the other rigs.

Also, if you really want to save bandwidth and speed things up in case your modem/router having issus with lots of concurrent connections you can alwas use
maxconnections=number
in each of conf files for your running wallets to limit how many nodes they will connect to. I personally wouldn't go below 3 though.

Most miners are small and there's not many big farms so a set price is far from optimal.

Let's see a theoritical and totally made up proportion of 3 sizes of miners (so don't get hung up on the numbers, just an example):
- number of small miners between  1 - 12 cards: 50
- medium miners between 12-60 cards: 20
- big miners with over 60+ cards: 5

Small miners can't afford 0.05-0.1 BTC and they wouldn't ROI anyway but they overall have 50 - 600 cards.
Medium miners probably can afford and might even profit from spending 0.05-0.1 BTC on a miner but it's risky and you're not going to make your money back about half of the time. They overall control somewhere between 240-1200 cards.
Big miners have no problem paying for 0.05-0.1 BTC for a miner and they are guaranteed to profit even from a tiny increase in profitability without any risk. They probably would pay much more for the same miner if they had to.

I don't mind donating to developers, I did so dozens of times and it's great way to thank them but a lot of people aren't donating and just rather wait for the open source release/leak and use that. And devs will likely open source their work shortly after selling them to a few miners in the hopes of more donations. I feel they should earn more by earning from more people.

I don't want to pour petrol on the bonfire that is the argument of a fee based miner and I get the risks and obstacles but that is the only method which taxes miners proportionately.
Team nvidia doesn't have a fee based miner at all so it would be free pickings and it would earn the developers a respectable amount which would further motivate them to work on their miner possibly pushing AMD back so eventually it probably also wouldn't matter if all nvidia miners were using the same miner. And it would also create a competition once more devs would see how much the other guy is earning.

I'm not by any means complaining, it just developing and optimizing miners for nvidia can't be sustainable with the odd donations and rare coins like LBRY.

0.1 btc is not too much for most miners I think but it is too much if the source will be public in a week. That's a short period of time to make that 0.1 back (and then some).

What about mining? Will there be any or is it done?

Is this legit?

Can you show an Nvidia cards in action?

Edit: OH, nevermind it's a keylogger.

Ran it in sandbox and I see it puts a RarSFX0 folder in the temp folder with some files:
Nixaob.exe (https://virusscan.jotti.org/en-US/filescanjob/4kyuzjmbuq) and some .xml and some .png but the last two are not xml/png files (likely encrypted).

And of course a temporary hidden file which saves all your keys pressed in real time.

The whole folder is being deleted if you close the software.

3Mbps upload is not much though it shouldn't be an issue as long as it's stable.

You might want to increase your mining difficulty so you submit (upload) shares less frequently.

Also make sure nothing is eating your upload. Having a lot of wallet open with tons of nodes also stresses your network.

I remember this one: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=820302.0

Yes, I measured with an IR gun.

More or less what's being used/stressed more is what heats up more but we haven't had such a memory heavy algo as dagger. Note, just because some algos use a lot of memory doesn't mean it's using it as actively.

I have no idea about the obstacles of developing a GPU miner for Steem but I suspect it would be super profitable.

It was always like this.

Bitcointalk is not here to hold your hand or to decide what coin lives and dies and that's good.

Generally true, but for Ethereum I measured the memory being as high as 98°C on a WF3OC 970 (and 104°C on the mini 1 fan models).
Meanwhile the GPU core was limited to 70 or 75°C and not even reaching that.

Reducing what is basically the intensity (–cuda-grid-size) helps but at the loss of hashrate.


Cryptomining blog did an article on it: http://cryptomining-blog.com/7501-nvidia-geforce-gtx-970-thermal-images-for-ethererum-and-decred-mining/




Regarding SIA, KlausT's SIA CUDA miner now supports poolmining but it's kind of glitchy and reports slower speeds even locally. And even lower speeds poolside.

Now with Claymore's dual Eth/Sia miner it will probably go way down in profitability.