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.

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.

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.

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.

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:


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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

No wallet, no party.

Wallets?

Not sure how that could possibly work.

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:



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)?

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?

bump

Interesting, I skipped the whole 9xx-series because of my price/performance figures but I'm curious about the 980 Ti.

Non-mobile version of the same link:
http://www.techpowerup.com/212205/nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-ti-silicon-marked-gm200-310.html

Because in this case the price of a coin would highly depend on how many coin an average miner/user hold.


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.



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.

Mining on different pools, or using more pool accounts, using different proxies, the possibilities are endless.


A random block reward between 1 and 100 is an average reward of 50 so that doesn't really change anything.