Latest posts of: zhulick

Show Posts
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 »

Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN] Signatum - New Algorithm - Fair Launch - No Premine - Cryptopia

on: August 15, 2017, 01:52:50 AM

Quote from: GeePeeU on August 15, 2017, 01:46:35 AM Quote from: zhulick on August 15, 2017, 01:34:25 AM what i learned so far: 1. the devs have a preview of marketplace where you can see a cute pussy for sale 2. apparently, bittrex has some guy's sister's pussy for sale, while another guy's dad's pussy is only worth 2 doge... i't been an "interesting" read the last page or so this is slowly devolving into a full fledged circus. What's the ratio for "Some guy's sister's pussy" to "another Guy's dad's pussy" on bittrex? I smell a chance to make some flips given I can get enough doge to buy guy's sisters pussy and convert into some guy's dad's pussy. ah, good old pussy arbitrage... if played right, could be profitable and just a bit smelly

Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN] Signatum - New Algorithm - Fair Launch - No Premine - Cryptopia

on: August 15, 2017, 01:34:25 AM

what i learned so far: 1. the devs have a preview of marketplace where you can see a cute pussy for sale 2. apparently, bittrex has some guy's sister's pussy for sale, while another guy's dad's pussy is only worth 2 doge... i't been an "interesting" read the last page or so this is slowly devolving into a full fledged circus.

Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN] Signatum - New Algorithm - Fair Launch - No Premine - Cryptopia

on: August 14, 2017, 11:07:41 PM

coin seems to be bouncing back despite the confusion and the drama... good sign

Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN] Signatum - New Algorithm - Fair Launch - No Premine - Cryptopia

on: August 14, 2017, 09:15:25 PM

so, in the last 24 hours with 10x1070's at 60%pl, each mining just a tad over 29mh and using the cwi miner/pool combo - i mined a grand total of just over 394 coins, or 39.4 coins per gpu. pool luck was at 98%. i don't have any more gpu's to point at other pools for comparison, but this does compare pretty well with what whattomine calculator says i should've mined in that period - 37.5 coins per gpu (with 0.7% pool fee included and, of course, theoretical 100% luck). i'm curious to see how this compares to other miner/pool combos the last day or so. anyone doing better/worse ?

Alternate cryptocurrencies / Mining (Altcoins) / Re: ### A ChainWorks Industries (CWI) Project - CWIgm | Simple Powerful Stable

on: August 14, 2017, 08:55:05 PM

another 24 hours in... all good CPU:2.14% ChainWorks Industries beta - Version 0.9.8 [16:44:35] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Algo:Skunk \| Port: 2000 \| NetDiff: 20424.8 \| Block: 38123 \| -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coin:signatum \| POW: 1250 \| Estimated coins/day: 265.714 \| -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Solved: 1 \| Diff: 0.97 \| Shares: 11014 \| Rej: 0.399612% \| Speed: 175.88 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.EVGA GTX 1070 : Shares: 1805.7 \| Rej: 9.6 \| Speed: 29.18MH/s\| 1.EVGA GTX 1070 : Shares: 1901.99 \| Rej: 10.22 \| Speed: 29.28MH/s 2.EVGA GTX 1070 : Shares: 1866.49 \| Rej: 7.48 \| Speed: 29.37MH/s\| 3.EVGA GTX 1070 : Shares: 1765.87 \| Rej: 4.03 \| Speed: 29.05MH/s\| 4.EVGA GTX 1070 : Shares: 1810.98 \| Rej: 5.31 \| Speed: 29.49MH/s\| 5.EVGA GTX 1070 : Shares: 1863.02 \| Rej: 7.55 \| Speed: 29.57MH/s\| -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.EVGA GTX 1070 : T:55C \| F:59% \| P:106W \| I: 24.0 \| Core:1894Mhz \| 1.EVGA GTX 1070 : T:56C \| F:59% \| P:107W \| I: 24.0 \| Core:1909Mhz \| 2.EVGA GTX 1070 : T:49C \| F:49% \| P:105W \| I: 24.0 \| Core:1920Mhz \| 3.EVGA GTX 1070 : T:55C \| F:57% \| P:105W \| I: 24.0 \| Core:1892Mhz \| 4.EVGA GTX 1070 : T:52C \| F:53% \| P:108W \| I: 24.0 \| Core:1922Mhz \| 5.EVGA GTX 1070 : T:52C \| F:53% \| P:108W \| I: 24.0 \| Core:1940Mhz \| -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [16:42:16]Share: 6c3d4913 \| [12:54:38][GPU3]:Job not found (=stale [16:42:36]Share: 677a9722 \| ) [16:42:48]Share: bbfbf54c \| [13:01:07][GPU0]:Invalid nonce [16:43:05]Mean netDiff: 16478.7 \| [13:26:48][GPU0]:Invalid nonce [16:43:20]Mean netDiff: 16543.6 \| [14:23:01][GPU2]:Invalid nonce [16:43:28]Share: 38f3780c \| [14:32:14][GPU2]:Invalid nonce [16:43:35]Mean netDiff: 16644 \| [15:47:46][GPU1]:Job not found (=stale [16:44:33]Share: f63458bc \| ) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- i had this x6, plus 2 x1's and 1 x2 running on the miner/pool combo for the last 24 hours. so total of 10 x1070 gpu's. i mined a total of just over 394 coins, or about 39.4 coins per gpu. i don't have anything mining in other pools, so nothing to directly compare it to, but looking at whattomine calculator i should've mined 37.5 coins per gpu with a 0.7% pool fee included. pool shows that luck during this run was at about 98 percent. i'm curious to see how this compares to other miner/pool combos, so i'll ask in the coin's main thread. so far, though, i'm very happy with these results

Alternate cryptocurrencies / Mining (Altcoins) / Re: Any word on amd vega hash rates?

on: August 14, 2017, 04:19:50 PM

http://cryptomining-blog.com/9000-quick-look-at-amds-radeon-rx-vega-64-for-crypto-mining/ so far the results are not "stellar"... edit: this quote in particular is telling: Probably the most important performance that people what to know about is the hashrate for mining Ethereum (ETH) and other crypto coins based on the Ethash algorithm. Unfortunately the out of the box performance from Radeon RX VEGA 64 using the latest Claymore Dual Eth miner that comes with official support for Vega is just around 31-32 MHS. We’ve seen claims of much higher performance being theoretically possible, but we are yet to confirm if it is and if these claims are actually real or just speculation. The not so great thing is that this hashrate is achieved with pretty high power consumption and the higher the temperature of the GPU goes, the lower the performance drops and it is really easy for the air cooler VEGA 64 to get hot. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- it's like the good old 290x - hot and hungry.

Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN] SIGNATUM CLASSIC OFFICIAL LAUNCH !!! SKUNK HASH ALGO 1,000,000 BLOCKS POW

on: August 14, 2017, 01:28:48 PM

i still don't get why sigt took off to begin with. it offers nothing over the much more mature coins that are out there, and the world needed sigt like i needed a second asshole... but somehow, fueled by pure hype, it took off anyway. i am not even sure how many multiples of assholes this coin brings to an equation.......

Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN] Signatum - New Algorithm - Fair Launch - No Premine - Cryptopia

on: August 14, 2017, 01:21:40 PM

Quote from: xixou on August 14, 2017, 12:30:05 PM Quote from: Jody2k on August 14, 2017, 11:49:44 AM Quote from: Gongolo on August 14, 2017, 11:36:48 AM Well, this is my results with new ccminer 2.2: - @suprnova: lower hashrate. - @yiimp: correct hashrate. - @pool.mn: correct hashrate. Maybe something wrong @suprnova? I don't know last time i used yiimp they stole about 30% of my shares, its reported as a scampool Hows your experience with it lately? yiimp: correct hashrate and not stealing. accusing a pool of stealing is kind of a big deal, and it's a type of an accusation that shouldn't be thrown around lightly. especially since suprnova has been around for ages, and is one of the biggest/best pools out there at the moment and has been for years now. pools that steal, don't tend to last this long the one and only true way to compare pools is not by the hashrate your miner shows on their dashboard, but by how much your miners make at the end of the day. if yiimp and pool.mn consistently bring in more for the same hashpower, then they're better. it's that simple.

Alternate cryptocurrencies / Mining (Altcoins) / Re: ### A ChainWorks Industries (CWI) Project - CWIgm | Simple Powerful Stable

on: August 13, 2017, 06:23:14 PM

x6 rig still running strong... lost track of how many hours. timer on the miner says 31+ hours connected, but that's connected, not uptime. that number was reset when the stratum was restarted yesterday. the rig has been on much longer than that. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CPU:0.47% ChainWorks Industries beta - Version 0.9.8 [13:43:46] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Algo:Skunk \| Port: 2000 \| NetDiff: 25775.4 \| Block: 36587 \| -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coin:signatum \| POW: 1250 \| Estimated coins/day: 208.527 \| -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Solved: 0 \| Diff: 1.24 \| Shares: 7201.34 \| Rej: 0.476656% \| Speed: 175.89 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.EVGA GTX 1070 : Shares: 1179.31 \| Rej: 8.63 \| Speed: 29.17MH/s\| 1.EVGA GTX 1070 : Shares: 1216 \| Rej: 6.34 \| Speed: 29.25MH/s\| 2.EVGA GTX 1070 : Shares: 1246.42 \| Rej: 7.48 \| Speed: 29.38MH/s\| 3.EVGA GTX 1070 : Shares: 1133.75 \| Rej: 3.06 \| Speed: 28.99MH/s\| 4.EVGA GTX 1070 : Shares: 1183.82 \| Rej: 5.31 \| Speed: 29.52MH/s\| 5.EVGA GTX 1070 : Shares: 1242.04 \| Rej: 3.67 \| Speed: 29.58MH/s\| -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.EVGA GTX 1070 : T:56C \| F:59% \| P:108W \| I: 24.0 \| Core:1911Mhz \| 1.EVGA GTX 1070 : T:57C \| F:60% \| P:106W \| I: 24.0 \| Core:1910Mhz \| 2.EVGA GTX 1070 : T:50C \| F:50% \| P:106W \| I: 24.0 \| Core:1915Mhz \| 3.EVGA GTX 1070 : T:56C \| F:59% \| P:107W \| I: 24.0 \| Core:1892Mhz \| 4.EVGA GTX 1070 : T:52C \| F:53% \| P:106W \| I: 24.0 \| Core:1926Mhz \| 5.EVGA GTX 1070 : T:53C \| F:55% \| P:107W \| I: 24.0 \| Core:1928Mhz \| -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [13:42:49]Mean netDiff: 20588.7 \| [05:43:25][GPU1]:Job not found (=stale [13:42:50]Share: 731073ab \| ) [13:43:09]Mean netDiff: 20924 \| [06:18:32][GPU5]:Invalid nonce [13:43:14]Share: e506d387 \| [06:48:45][GPU4]:Job not found (=stale [13:43:16]Share: c5c65036 \| ) [13:43:18]Share: f8a636ba \| [10:35:23][GPU0]:Invalid nonce [13:43:28]Share: 689d1a76 \| [10:42:12][GPU2]:Invalid nonce [13:43:39]Mean netDiff: 21210.4 \| [12:18:14][GPU4]:Invalid nonce -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- everything looks good yesterday i pulled my smaller rigs (2 x1's and 1 x2 for a total of 4) out and pointed them at suprnova using the kmlx miner. in the last 24 hours my 4 gpu's pointed there earned me 110 and change coins. suprnova reports 92.5 percent luck for the day. in the same 24 hours my 6xgpu rig pointed here earned 224 and change coins. pool reports luck of 107.5 percent. so, i earned 110/4=27.5 coins per gpu on suprnova, and 224/6=37.3 coins per gpu here. now, this is by faaaaar not a "scientific" test in any way. the x6 gpu rig is inherently much more efficient then an armada of small rigs, and i would've probably done better with it per gpu on suprnova vs smaller rigs. so again - not science here, just an observation using the equipment i happen to have on hand. as "unscientific" as they are, these results are encouraging. there is a big difference percentage wise between 27.5 and 37.3. and this is despite the fact that suprnova had almost a 14 percent advantage in luck (92.5 vs 107.5). my second x6gpu rig (an identical clone of the first) should be up and running by end of the week, so it would be interesting to do this again with the "twin" rigs and have all variables be equal. but for now, especially considering that this is a beta miner running on a pool that could really use some tweaking, the results are pretty impressive again, not a scientific test in any way, so draw your own conclusions...

Alternate cryptocurrencies / Mining (Altcoins) / Re: ### A ChainWorks Industries (CWI) Project - CWIgm | Simple Powerful Stable

on: August 13, 2017, 03:18:56 PM

Quote from: pr0ximus on August 13, 2017, 02:49:27 PM Is it only me or are there no rewards for the last one+ hour? diff :317.44 and a constant 120+ MH/s but no coins? pool had a bad run of luck... took like an hour and 50 minutes to find the last block. this will happen. usually (and hopefully) rarely, but it will happen once in a while in any pool, especially a small pool. small pool = large variance.

Alternate cryptocurrencies / Mining (Altcoins) / Re: ### A ChainWorks Industries (CWI) Project - CWIgm | Simple Powerful Stable

on: August 12, 2017, 07:30:36 PM

Quote from: chrysophylax on August 12, 2017, 05:34:09 PM Quote from: zhulick on August 12, 2017, 05:04:03 PM VC++ 2013 and CUDA 8.0 x64 382.05 CPU:1.64% ChainWorks Industries beta - Version 0.9.8 [12:30:16] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Algo:Skunk \| Port: 2000 \| NetDiff: 21076.7 \| Block: 35136 \| -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coin:signatum \| POW: 1250 \| Estimated coins/day: 269.506 \| -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Solved: 0 \| Diff: 1.24 \| Shares: 3519.78 \| Rej: 0.588878% \| Speed: 175.84 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.EVGA GTX 1070 : Shares: 589.07 \| Rej: 4.91 \| Speed: 29.13MH/s\| 1.EVGA GTX 1070 : Shares: 620.8 \| Rej: 3.86 \| Speed: 29.31MH/s\| 2.EVGA GTX 1070 : Shares: 618.98 \| Rej: 5 \| Speed: 29.45MH/s\| 3.EVGA GTX 1070 : Shares: 543.51 \| Rej: 1.82 \| Speed: 29.07MH/s\| 4.EVGA GTX 1070 : Shares: 592.34 \| Rej: 2.83 \| Speed: 29.44MH/s\| 5.EVGA GTX 1070 : Shares: 555.08 \| Rej: 2.43 \| Speed: 29.61MH/s\| -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.EVGA GTX 1070 : T:55C \| F:57% \| P:106W \| I: 24.0 \| Core:1899Mhz \| 1.EVGA GTX 1070 : T:56C \| F:59% \| P:106W \| I: 24.0 \| Core:1919Mhz \| 2.EVGA GTX 1070 : T:48C \| F:49% \| P:106W \| I: 24.0 \| Core:1927Mhz \| 3.EVGA GTX 1070 : T:55C \| F:57% \| P:106W \| I: 24.0 \| Core:1894Mhz \| 4.EVGA GTX 1070 : T:52C \| F:53% \| P:107W \| I: 24.0 \| Core:1919Mhz \| 5.EVGA GTX 1070 : T:52C \| F:53% \| P:107W \| I: 24.0 \| Core:1931Mhz \| -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [12:27:12]Share: 6c57a501 \| [10:31:06][GPU0]:Job not found (=stale [12:28:08]Share: 7ee05340 \| ) [12:28:15]Share: b0dc41c4 \| [10:31:09][GPU2]:Job not found (=stale [12:28:31]Share: c0d5ce9c \| ) [12:29:06]Share: b1511593 \| [11:21:43][GPU1]:Job not found (=stale [12:29:36]Share: a6845026 \| ) [12:29:49]Share: 1d6ca931 \| [12:05:50][GPU4]:Job not found (=stale [12:29:52]Share: 3da8d1ab \| ) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x6 rig is running great. i have mine configured for efficiency over speed, so it may not be producing "record breaking" mhs, but i am very happy at the overall temp/wattage/speed balance this miner gives me. this is excellent... that said, my x1 and x2 rigs are still choking on high worker diff, with way too many blocks going by before a share is submitted. _________\ \ \____\ /\| \ \_\ \ Y Y \ __________ \______ / \/\_/ \|__\|\______ /__\|_\| / / \/ \/ \/ / VC++ 2013 and CUDA 8.0 x64 382.05 CPU: 0% ChainWorks Industries beta - Version 0.9.8 [12:40:58] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Algo:Skunk \| Port: 2000 \| NetDiff: 20220.5 \| Block: 35151 \| -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coin:signatum \| POW: 1250 \| Estimated coins/day: 40.8193 \| -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Solved: 0 \| Diff: 1.12 \| Shares: 623.29 \| Rej: 0.52666% \| Speed: 29.79M -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.EVGA GTX 1070 : Shares: 623.29 \| Rej: 3.3 \| Speed: 29.03MH/s\| -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.EVGA GTX 1070 : T:54C \| F:72% \| P:107W \| I: 24.0 \| Core:1950Mhz \| -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [12:34:17]Mean netDiff: 16873.9 \| [06:16:30]Stratum connection interrupt [12:34:47]Mean netDiff: 16969.1 \| ed [12:35:08]Mean netDiff: 17317.2 \| [06:16:32]Failed to connect to stratum [12:35:37]Mean netDiff: 17448.7 \| .chainworksindustries.com port 2000: C [12:36:31]Share: 86e53529 \| onnection refused [12:37:37]Mean netDiff: 17946.4 \| [06:16:32]Retry in 30s [12:37:59]Mean netDiff: 18027.3 \| [06:17:29]Retry in 30s [12:39:57]Mean netDiff: 18349.9 \| [06:19:34]Retry in 30s ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- for now i'm leaving the x6 rig running the miner/pool combo, but pulling my smaller rigs. for me the issue is not the wild hashrate they produce at the pool, or their sharerate etc. the issue is participation. and i think it's the low rate of participation of the smaller rigs that's actually harming the pool's ability to find blocks consistently. at any point the solution, or part of the solution for a block could be on one of the smaller rigs. if they don't participate and submit shares, then the pool never stands a chance to find that block. 2-3 blocks here and there is fine, but 6-7-8 blocks without a share is just too much, especially when the latter seems to be the norm. multiply that by who knows how many other smaller rigs that are experiencing the same thing, and there are a LOT of blocks that the pool just never has a chance to even compete for. i believe that the smaller rigs are actually hurting the pool's performance right now. like i said, my x6 is staying, so i'm not abandoning the project in any way, and as soon as the new version of a miner and/or a pool update that fixes worker diff for smaller rigs is done - i'll be more then glad to bring them back tanx for the thorough insight ... what you are mentioning is a common issue at the moment - where the smaller rigs do choke on high diff shares ... there is a solution i can propose ... but it will mean that EVERYONE has to comply with it ... here is my proposition ... 1 - lower the difficulty of the lodiff port ( 2000 ) to an acceptable level where small rigs can mine easily without interruption ... this means that ALL smaller machines will be required to enter the --lodiff parameter ... this will allow shares to be distributed fairly and equally among the smaller rigs - no matter how many are on the port ... 2 - lower the difficulty of the hidiff port ( 6000 ) to start at a lower rate - but increase enough to cater for the larger machines and farms alike ... this means that ALL larger machines will be required to REMOVE the --lodiff parameter ... this will allow shares of higher difficulty to be freely shared among all the larger rigs - and still be able to submit enough shares to the pool so ALL miner have a better opportunity to solve a block ... if this proposal is acceptable - i can have it sorted very quickly ... this will include the denarius pool ( tribus ) for those mining on the dnr pool as well ... but i must reiterate - ALL miners must adhere to the correct port for their systems ... if a large miner slams the lodiff port and floods the stratum - we will implement a much more aggressive blocking system for the ip that do that ... this will be in effect for ALL miners mining at our pool - not just CWIgm miners ... let me know your thoughts - and any better ideas ... tanx ... #crysx it may work, but you would have a hard time pulling it off. relying on a user to follow directions is always a disaster waiting to happen i have a different solution, especially since you control the entire environment from miner to stratum - a custom diff multiplier for the miner. right now the 1080ti is the fastest card out. it hashes at about 50 mh and the sweetspot for that card is ,let's say, about a diff of 128, with 64 on the low end for fast blocks, and 256 on the high end for slower blocks. use that card as the "default" or a value of 1. 1070 hashes at about 60 percent of the speed of 1080ti (1), so it's multiplier will be 0.6. not sure what the 1060 hashes, but you get where i'm going with this - it would be whatever a ratio of it's speed/1080ti. the miner knows a which gpu's are in there, and how many. you could get fancy and make a per-model table to be really precise, or just take the easy way out and go by hashrate - which the miner also, obviously, reports. if the default of 1 is 50mh, and the miner produces 80 mh, the multiplier is 1.6. Again, i'm not sure what the 1060 hashes, but let's say it's 15. an x6 1060 rig would report a hashrate of 90. 90/50 is multiplier of 1.8 etc, etc. etc. this way you can have your diff logic walk the stratum through the range of diff of 64-256 only, and adjust on the fly when you have fast blocks. each miner will calculate it's own multiplier based on which type and number and type of gpu's it's seeing ("fancy mode") or hashrate and adjust it's own difficulty accordingly with the stratum. i'm guessing that if you just change the difficulty on a miner, without adjusting the same on the stratum per worker, the miner will not submit valid shares. so you'll need to either implement this multiplier on the stratum per worker, or better yet - do it on a miner itself and just have the miner pass that info to the stratum. if each miner is a worker, it would be an ideal way to pass the exact performance of a rig to the stratum. this would also be really helpful if one of the cards on a multi gpu rig goes down, or throttles and miner hashrate goes down - the multiplier could adjust accordingly. so let's say i have a x2 rig with 1 1080ti and 1 1070 or 80mh. the pool starts me off at diff of 128 (sweetspot for 1080ti or value of 1), my miner does the math and figures out that my multiplier is 1.6, multiplies the 128 by 1.6 and tells the stratum - set diff for this worker at 128*1.6=204.8. then a few minutes/hours later, the pool detects that the blocks are flying by and dumps the pool diff to 64. my miner does the math again, divides 204.8 by 2, and tells the stratum to set the worker at 102.4. pool goes to 256, my miner does the math etc. etc. etc. usually it's the stratum that tells the miner to adjust worker diff and you could do this on the stratum side, but since you control both ........ i think, if doable, this would solve this particular problem permanently. and you could implement this type of a system across any algo you want - just figure out what you want the default to be.

Alternate cryptocurrencies / Mining (Altcoins) / Re: ### A ChainWorks Industries (CWI) Project - CWIgm | Simple Powerful Stable

on: August 12, 2017, 05:04:03 PM

VC++ 2013 and CUDA 8.0 x64 382.05 CPU:1.64% ChainWorks Industries beta - Version 0.9.8 [12:30:16] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Algo:Skunk \| Port: 2000 \| NetDiff: 21076.7 \| Block: 35136 \| -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coin:signatum \| POW: 1250 \| Estimated coins/day: 269.506 \| -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Solved: 0 \| Diff: 1.24 \| Shares: 3519.78 \| Rej: 0.588878% \| Speed: 175.84 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.EVGA GTX 1070 : Shares: 589.07 \| Rej: 4.91 \| Speed: 29.13MH/s\| 1.EVGA GTX 1070 : Shares: 620.8 \| Rej: 3.86 \| Speed: 29.31MH/s\| 2.EVGA GTX 1070 : Shares: 618.98 \| Rej: 5 \| Speed: 29.45MH/s\| 3.EVGA GTX 1070 : Shares: 543.51 \| Rej: 1.82 \| Speed: 29.07MH/s\| 4.EVGA GTX 1070 : Shares: 592.34 \| Rej: 2.83 \| Speed: 29.44MH/s\| 5.EVGA GTX 1070 : Shares: 555.08 \| Rej: 2.43 \| Speed: 29.61MH/s\| -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.EVGA GTX 1070 : T:55C \| F:57% \| P:106W \| I: 24.0 \| Core:1899Mhz \| 1.EVGA GTX 1070 : T:56C \| F:59% \| P:106W \| I: 24.0 \| Core:1919Mhz \| 2.EVGA GTX 1070 : T:48C \| F:49% \| P:106W \| I: 24.0 \| Core:1927Mhz \| 3.EVGA GTX 1070 : T:55C \| F:57% \| P:106W \| I: 24.0 \| Core:1894Mhz \| 4.EVGA GTX 1070 : T:52C \| F:53% \| P:107W \| I: 24.0 \| Core:1919Mhz \| 5.EVGA GTX 1070 : T:52C \| F:53% \| P:107W \| I: 24.0 \| Core:1931Mhz \| -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [12:27:12]Share: 6c57a501 \| [10:31:06][GPU0]:Job not found (=stale [12:28:08]Share: 7ee05340 \| ) [12:28:15]Share: b0dc41c4 \| [10:31:09][GPU2]:Job not found (=stale [12:28:31]Share: c0d5ce9c \| ) [12:29:06]Share: b1511593 \| [11:21:43][GPU1]:Job not found (=stale [12:29:36]Share: a6845026 \| ) [12:29:49]Share: 1d6ca931 \| [12:05:50][GPU4]:Job not found (=stale [12:29:52]Share: 3da8d1ab \| ) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x6 rig is running great. i have mine configured for efficiency over speed, so it may not be producing "record breaking" mhs, but i am very happy at the overall temp/wattage/speed balance this miner gives me. this is excellent... that said, my x1 and x2 rigs are still choking on high worker diff, with way too many blocks going by before a share is submitted. _________\ \ \____\ /\| \ \_\ \ Y Y \ __________ \______ / \/\_/ \|__\|\______ /__\|_\| / / \/ \/ \/ / VC++ 2013 and CUDA 8.0 x64 382.05 CPU: 0% ChainWorks Industries beta - Version 0.9.8 [12:40:58] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Algo:Skunk \| Port: 2000 \| NetDiff: 20220.5 \| Block: 35151 \| -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coin:signatum \| POW: 1250 \| Estimated coins/day: 40.8193 \| -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Solved: 0 \| Diff: 1.12 \| Shares: 623.29 \| Rej: 0.52666% \| Speed: 29.79M -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.EVGA GTX 1070 : Shares: 623.29 \| Rej: 3.3 \| Speed: 29.03MH/s\| -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.EVGA GTX 1070 : T:54C \| F:72% \| P:107W \| I: 24.0 \| Core:1950Mhz \| -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [12:34:17]Mean netDiff: 16873.9 \| [06:16:30]Stratum connection interrupt [12:34:47]Mean netDiff: 16969.1 \| ed [12:35:08]Mean netDiff: 17317.2 \| [06:16:32]Failed to connect to stratum [12:35:37]Mean netDiff: 17448.7 \| .chainworksindustries.com port 2000: C [12:36:31]Share: 86e53529 \| onnection refused [12:37:37]Mean netDiff: 17946.4 \| [06:16:32]Retry in 30s [12:37:59]Mean netDiff: 18027.3 \| [06:17:29]Retry in 30s [12:39:57]Mean netDiff: 18349.9 \| [06:19:34]Retry in 30s ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- for now i'm leaving the x6 rig running the miner/pool combo, but pulling my smaller rigs. for me the issue is not the wild hashrate they produce at the pool, or their sharerate etc. the issue is participation. and i think it's the low rate of participation of the smaller rigs that's actually harming the pool's ability to find blocks consistently. at any point the solution, or part of the solution for a block could be on one of the smaller rigs. if they don't participate and submit shares, then the pool never stands a chance to find that block. 2-3 blocks here and there is fine, but 6-7-8 blocks without a share is just too much, especially when the latter seems to be the norm. multiply that by who knows how many other smaller rigs that are experiencing the same thing, and there are a LOT of blocks that the pool just never has a chance to even compete for. i believe that the smaller rigs are actually hurting the pool's performance right now. like i said, my x6 is staying, so i'm not abandoning the project in any way, and as soon as the new version of a miner and/or a pool update that fixes worker diff for smaller rigs is done - i'll be more then glad to bring them back

Alternate cryptocurrencies / Mining (Altcoins) / Re: I may have been dosed with malware

on: August 12, 2017, 03:53:01 PM

if i created a "pay for play" miner for which i charged a hefty fee ( hefty for a small miner), and then suddenly i saw my miner being shared for free all over the place - i too would create a rumor that the shared miner contains malware not saying that's what happened, just saying that's what i would do. if you tried a couple of up to date av's and everything is coming back clean, then chances are you're clean. if this is a machine you do your banking on, then it may pay to be extra paranoid and wipe/format/start over just in case. but that's being extra paranoid.

Alternate cryptocurrencies / Mining (Altcoins) / Re: ### A ChainWorks Industries (CWI) Project - CWIgm | Simple Powerful Stable

on: August 11, 2017, 07:58:44 PM

Quote from: chrysophylax on August 11, 2017, 07:05:05 PM Quote from: abudfv2008 on August 11, 2017, 06:58:41 PM Quote from: chrysophylax on August 11, 2017, 06:25:00 PM Quote from: abudfv2008 on August 11, 2017, 08:59:57 AM Quote from: cradge on August 11, 2017, 08:42:53 AM @crys can you let us set the difficulty manually? while you try to fix you're automatic difficulty algorith. Totally agree! The automatic algorithm doesn't work at all. Every Rig get 409.6diff on pool (1.6 in the miner) in 15-30 minutes. While one has 61080 and another only 21080. P.S. Right now something weird is shown on the pool all numbers are divided by 10. agreed ... but without writing more code into the stratum - this cannot happen just yet ... but this would be a good addition - and IS on the todo list for us ... there is just no way to do it right now ... we will keep trying to tame this aggression - until it is fine with the diff levels ... #crysx I think the quickest way to "solve" the problem is to lower maximum diff to 1 for lodiff port. At least it will help fot 2GPU or 3GPU rigs at the moment. actually ... great idea ... this means that the bigger farms will be slamming the connection - BUT - the CWI-Stratum is custom built to handle a LOT of hammering ... ok ... 1 is a little too low - so 1.24 ( if my calculations are right ) seems to be a fair figure for small and large on the lodiff port ... get ready for a stratum interruption ... 25 seconds - here we go ... #crysx i experimented a lot with ccminer on nova and yiimp with trying to find a sweetspot for my 1070 gpus. so far this is what i've come up with. hope this helps you dial in the pool. they like a worker diff to be a +32 number. 32, 64, 96, 128 etc, etc, etc. they seem to mine just a bit better, and submit shares that are just a bit higher with this pattern of diff, vs random numbers like 40.8, or 490.6 etc. they also seem to hit that "home run" just a bit more often. for example, a single 1070 mining at diff of 64 will submit something like five or six low diff shares like 0.6 or 0.4 etc, but then bam - 12 or 26. that "home run" share just seemed to pop up much more often with a +32 number. not a scientific fact, just something i noticed. so 0.125 is 32, 0.25 is 64, 1 is 256 etc etc. i found that 64 (0.25) was a good long term sweetspot per 1070 (0.375 or 96 did well too). i would love to see how it would perform if it could adjust to the speed/difficulty of the network, so it could be at 0.125 (32) on low diff fast moving blocks, and top out at 0.5 (128) on the slower moving high diff ones, but you can't set a range in ccminer, so i picked the middle of the road value of 0.25 and stuck with it. i think that 0.125 to 0.5 per gpu (x6 for a 6 card rig) is a very good range for 1070's. anything lower and they thrash too much, and anything higher and they start to choke up. again, not a scientific fact, just an observation, and an observation on a different miner and different pools, so not even sure how valid it would be here. just trying to help.

Alternate cryptocurrencies / Mining (Altcoins) / Re: Can´t find the sweet spot with my GPU - Help wanted: evga 1070 SC Black edition

on: August 11, 2017, 11:59:13 AM

i have the 1070ftw and ftw2's evga. same brand, same chipset, but different models from yours. for zec, i run them at +125/+500/60tdp. they all run around 450sol or so. yours should do roughly the same speeds. make sure you set your fan profile curve manually, since the gpu only measures heat at the clock and not the vrm. leaving it at default makes the vrm run a bit too hot, causing the gpu to underperform/crash etc.

Alternate cryptocurrencies / Mining (Altcoins) / Re: ### A ChainWorks Industries (CWI) Project - CWIgm | Simple Powerful Stable

on: August 11, 2017, 11:33:07 AM

Quote from: tpd09 on August 11, 2017, 11:29:35 AM Quote from: Xdragon on August 11, 2017, 10:31:47 AM Quote from: tpd09 on August 11, 2017, 07:34:51 AM @chrysophylax is there a command that allows automated restart of the miner? something like ZEC miner with "--r 6000" ? I have the same issue with diff - with 7 1080tis You got as much coins as you should, pool is doing fine. So many newbies here, don't know basics of mining - sad. Your problem is GPU #4, it has about 30% reject rate, so it is working with 70% speed... well thanks for your feedback. I guess you were a newbie once or you were a pro from the get go? pay no mind to the tone... people will always be a bit snarky/rude. but do pay attention to the message. he may've found a more diplomatic way to put it, but he is not wrong - that reject rate for that one card is crazy high.

Alternate cryptocurrencies / Mining (Altcoins) / Re: ### A ChainWorks Industries (CWI) Project - CWIgm | Simple Powerful Stable

on: August 11, 2017, 11:27:51 AM

Quote from: abudfv2008 on August 11, 2017, 11:26:04 AM Quote from: zhulick on August 11, 2017, 11:05:25 AM Quote from: abudfv2008 on August 11, 2017, 10:39:40 AM I think some diff_set algo started to work. Now 2 small rigs received 256diff, not 409.6 as a big one. looks like stratum was restarted again. same thing happened yesterday. stratum was restarted and all the worker diff went back to normal, but after it ran for a while the diff climbed again. last night i had a 6xgpu rig and 1xgpu rig all running at the same diff of 409, which is just insanely high for a single or 2x gpu rigs. i'm guessing that it's this runaway high diff that was at least partially responsible for that terrible run of luck the pool had last night. Still 256diff on small rig and 409 on big one. Better be 150 on small, but better than 409. Manual setting would be great. agreed... manual setting would instantly fix this problem.

Alternate cryptocurrencies / Mining (Altcoins) / Re: ### A ChainWorks Industries (CWI) Project - CWIgm | Simple Powerful Stable

on: August 11, 2017, 11:05:25 AM

Quote from: abudfv2008 on August 11, 2017, 10:39:40 AM I think some diff_set algo started to work. Now 2 small rigs received 256diff, not 409.6 as a big one. looks like stratum was restarted again. same thing happened yesterday. stratum was restarted and all the worker diff went back to normal, but after it ran for a while the diff climbed again. last night i had a 6xgpu rig and 1xgpu rig all running at the same diff of 409, which is just insanely high for a single or 2x gpu rigs. i'm guessing that it's this runaway high diff that was at least partially responsible for that terrible run of luck the pool had last night.

Alternate cryptocurrencies / Mining (Altcoins) / Re: ### A ChainWorks Industries (CWI) Project - CWIgm | Simple Powerful Stable

on: August 10, 2017, 06:01:57 PM

i've tried the usual -p d=x (eg, -p d=0.25 for 64 at the pool) to manually set the worker diff, but that didn't work. is there another command that would accomplish the same thing, or is it not one of the settings that i can't control from my side at this moment ? i checked the help file, didn't see anything that would do it.

Alternate cryptocurrencies / Mining (Altcoins) / Re: ### A ChainWorks Industries (CWI) Project - CWIgm | Simple Powerful Stable

on: August 10, 2017, 02:55:14 PM

pool is back... i guess something got fixed/updated/restarted etc. middle of the unluckiest run on a block yet.

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 »