Is there any noticeable difference in power consumption (hash per watt) between the 750 Ti and some of the 900-series cards? I mean measured at the wall figures, not reported TDP% values.
|
|
|
I think the time has come and gone for BURST being worth the electricity you put into it.. If you have a spare box going and free electricity I say go for it.. But for the most part I think you'll be mining at a loss.
That being said I do like the fact that BURST is something new.. so if you have space hard drives laying around.. go for it!
Not really. A typical 3.5" HDD is using 6.5 to 9 watts. For comparison a WD green is using 4.5 watts during heavy use and solid state drives using 0.6-2.8W. Going even with 9W will only cost you $11 a year with $0.14 kWh cost, per HDD. Of course investing into Burst is not advised but if you do have at least a few TB of free space along with a PC running you can put them to use.
|
|
|
Try to run in benchmarkmode
ccminer -a quark -g 5 -i 21.8 --benchmark
-g 5 worked good with 2 cards in the rig but I got to many rejects on the pool.
then you can try to solomine a coin, and see what rates you get.
I wouldn't rely on --benchmark at all. It always had weird issues even back in cudaminer and it almost always shows figures far from actual mining numbers. I always just solomine to a local wallet to test stuff to cut out the variance associated with vardiff and connectivity.
|
|
|
Miners don't care about coins
That's true since you don't need anything other than pointing your hardware at a multipool but if miners did care they would earn much, much more money than they currently do.
|
|
|
On the gigabyte oc 750ti(win32) -g 5 -i 21.8 is showing +250-500Khash in the miner, but on the pool -1Mhash or more because of the rejects/fees.
I'm not sure about the legitimicy of the speed increase. The hashrate reports doesn't factor in the overall time it took to produce the hashes. What I mean is the hashrate reports with the -g parameter are happening individually: ![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fscreenshotuploader.com%2Fi%2F1505%2F4v62d.png&t=665&c=VjiHRnuT_Z3Zlw) I think with the -g parameter a different hashrate calculation method is needed that calculates the true hashrate, based on the actual time it took to produce it from all the threads. The best approach might be a small moving average that reports the hashrate like every 5 seconds or so and not based on when a thread is finished because some threads are faster than others.
|
|
|
Cuda error in func 'skein512_cpu_setBlock_80' at line 957 : invalid device symbol. That usually means the binaries are not compatible with your card's compute version. Probably 3.5 is required for the binaries. Not 100% sure though.
|
|
|
exclusive group of investment minded miners.
I fail to see the point of that or the problem it suppose to solve. I get the point of limited hashrate but crippling the distribution means poor distribution. From an investor standpoint tell me why should I want to invest into a coin (and therefore give it value) if only a couple of people own all the coins? It's beyond risky to invest into a coin with poor distribution because all coin owners can heavily alter the price. You are looking at this like an investment minded investor. not a miner. The limited hash rate allows a fair distribution of coins to everyone in the crypto community who wishes to mine this with some of their low end hardware. This is not a coin for big ASIC or GPU farms. I'm looking at it as a miner who doesnn't have free electricity/hardware and who understands that without investors (or utility) coins have no value. So again, I don't see the point and it's also worth noting that the hashrate limitation will end up hurting legit users more since it's easy to exploit any of the current hashrate limiting methods.
|
|
|
exclusive group of investment minded miners.
I fail to see the point of that or the problem it suppose to solve. I get the point of limited hashrate but crippling the distribution means poor distribution. From an investor standpoint tell me why should I want to invest into a coin (and therefore give it value) if only a couple of people own all the coins? It's beyond risky to invest into a coin with poor distribution because all coin owners can heavily alter the price.
|
|
|
Ouch! yaamp hitting quark with 8% fee.
This is not going to be popular but I have to say I like that. I think that serves people right for being lazy. I mean that fee at least incentivizes miners to do their research about what to mine instead of pretty much ruinning the prices of coins they don't even know existed. There are 4 quark coins being mined by yaamp and the combined daily volume of those coins are below 2 BTC and they are all going down: ![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FGwPoQN1.png&t=665&c=lvvSpjB46dpDVQ)
|
|
|
Good luck! START.
Wallets?
|
|
|
Block target: 30 seconds per wallet owner
Not sure how that could possibly work.
|
|
|
just some math, for exmpl. average block speed 90sec/block ( 24h*60min*60sec=84600sec/day) 84600sec / 90sec/block= 960 BLOCKS per day now 960BLOCKS / 200 masternodes = 4.8CRAVE * 0.6666 = 2.88CRAVE per NODE per DAY on average.
That makes a lot of sense but it still doesn't explain why some masternodes received twice as many payments as others.
|
|
|
This is a graph on the number of payments on a single masternode: ![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FzpcuyVQ.png&t=665&c=XUzytg2tardM4A) That's an average of 3.96 blocks/day. With 1440 blocks being generated a day, that figure should only be that low if the number of masternodes would be as high as 360. With the masternode count being around 200, the payments frequency should be be much higher. There are masternodes that received over double of what I did. The masternode runs 24/7 on a VPS with plenty of active connections. Is the system is getting potentially exploited (low latency hosting, blocked nodes, etc)?
|
|
|
guys,there is not buy support. I'm afradi noone want to buy droidz,and here there are only bagholder waiting for a "ghost" that will buy to dump over when price reach 3k.
Good luck.
EDIT: i have droidz,but really dont' know hoe price could rise again...
Dev delivered...bittrex....c-cex....NOW? Why price is not rising?
I agree. It doesn't take much for potential investors to realize that pretty much everybody here is a bagholder who are just looking to drop their bags around the ICO price (or even much lower at this point). I can't imagine the price reaching anywhere near the ICO price.
|
|
|
Anyone have any figures on how much a 980 pulls from the wall for any algo?
|
|
|
Communism isn't a working idea. Why should I invest into mining gear if I can get money from the distributed taxes by just being there with some minimal hashing power.
Because in this case the price of a coin would highly depend on how many coin an average miner/user hold. You can not do it without centralized pools etc.
Multiple pool accounts even if you need to use proxies would easily exploit that method. Besides, a lot of people turn away from a coin when they hear that anything about it is centralized. This is just an idea. try to spark some creativity in this forum.
It's a great idea, I wondered a lot about how this could be done too but every solution is either too easy to exploit or too intrusive or centralized.
|
|
|
Big dog could just easily pretend he's 35 different persons all mining at 1% of the net hashrate to avoid the 'tax'.
How would he be able to split up into 35 people. I think he would be spending more money just to avoid a tax. Mining on different pools, or using more pool accounts, using different proxies, the possibilities are endless. If this is a problem of scarcity, then why not just make a coin that gives a random number of coins per block. Maybe between 1-100.
This coin won't fluctuate like the others, making it stable and easier for investors to get their money hungry hands on it.
A random block reward between 1 and 100 is an average reward of 50 so that doesn't really change anything.
|
|
|
|