Do they have a 24h BTC mined counter yet? That was one thing that bugged me big time when I tried using them... I love being able to see exactly how much BTC I have mined in the last 24 hours.
BTC Guild has always had a 24 Hour Earnings counter since I have been mining there, even before they were PPS. Sam |
|
|
|
I just ran it up the flag pole. Catalyst 11.9 which has SDK 2.5 still has the 100% CPU utilization bug, which was what I kind of thought. I'll do some benchmarking to compare with what I was getting with the 11.6 and 100% CPU Utilization.
Sam
Since you are doing some benchies, also try this: 1) Run Catalyst 12.1 installer -> Custom install -> Unselect All button -> Select GPU Driver only -> Next... Untill it's installed 2) Run Catalyst 11.11 installer -> Custom install -> Unselect All button -> Select SDK Runtime only -> Next... Untill it's installed 3) Done! That should give you a driver without the 100% CPU bug and the last version of SDK 2.5 runtime. That's kind of my plan. I'm tinkering with 11.9 now and will then go to 11.11 and 12.1 per yours and others suggestions. I want to do some testing of my own before I settle on the combination you suggest. Is the SDK 2.5 in 11.11 differenet/better than what shipped with 11.9? I'm still perplexed that 11.6 has 100% utilization on Win7 but not on WinXP. I guess I'll have to let that one go  Thanks, Sam |
|
|
|
sam: install 11.9 if your using win7 with 5xxx series cards - it does not get better than that and believe me I have done the testing
Well, I'll run it up the flagpole and see what happens. Thanks, Sam I just ran it up the flag pole. Catalyst 11.9 which has SDK 2.5 still has the 100% CPU utilization bug, which was what I kind of thought. I'll do some benchmarking to compare with what I was getting with the 11.6 and 100% CPU Utilization. Sam |
|
|
|
Simply because so many miners are complete sheep. It's your move and I don't know what you're waiting for.
Baaaaaaaaaa, I find your, Baaaaaaaaa, remarks, Baaaaaaaaaaa, insulting. Baaaaaaaaaaaaa. |
|
|
|
Well, I'm just guessing, but we just had a difficulty increase and the so called "luck" on deepbit has been bad the last couple of days. I don't know if that would make up your 8 BTC difference or not.
I wouldn't try to extrapolate into the future but rather track an entire difficulty period and see how that measures with your expectation.
Sam
I'm still new and learning, so I guess there is a luck factor with all pools including deepbit, so this could explain why my average bitcoins/month is 20 instead of 28? So with neutral luck my 1380mhash should get 28bitcoins/month but couple of bad days of luck it shows as 20bitcoins? Also my calculations was based on last difficulty (1496978) so that should not explain 20bitcoins vs 28bitcoins Well your at almost a 30% disparity. I'm not sure what your calculator is using for the basis, I would assume it is using the difficulty to calculate it. When the luck figure comes back up on the stats page you may be able to see how your mileage is varying a little better. But anyway I would say the luck is a partial reason for your difference. These income calculations are only estimates and you shouldn't count on their accuracy. I hadn't paid attention to the actual difficulty, it seems that it was a very minor increase if your difficulty of 1496978 is what it was. Sam |
|
|
|
I'n beginner when it comes to mining and choose mining on deepbit and have couple of questions: 1. I have proportional mining and have 1380Mhash according Guiminer, according http://www.alloscomp.com/bitcoin/calculator.php I should be getting 28bitcoins/month. But I have now mined 24/7 for a couple of days and according my own calculations I'm about 20bitcoins/month this calculation is confirmed by the deepbit site which says I have 0.65bitcoins last 24h. What could cause me mining 20bitcoins instead of 28bitcoins with 1380mhash? 2. My understanding is that the proportional mining takes 3% fee, considering deepbit has wery high pool rate my understanding is usually the variance should be low on mined bitcoinst in relation to my mhash, so it should be around 28bitcoins? 3. Besides the 3% fee are there other fee's aswell? Well, I'm just guessing, but we just had a difficulty increase and the so called "luck" on deepbit has been bad the last couple of days. I don't know if that would make up your 8 BTC difference or not. I wouldn't try to extrapolate into the future but rather track an entire difficulty period and see how that measures with your expectation. Sam |
|
|
|
OK, I pretty sure this is ancient history, but here goes anyway.
I've been using Windoze XP with Catalyst 11.6 with a 5830 and 5770 and had low CPU utilization with that combination. I went back to my Win7 install where I was using 10.9 to get low CPU utilization prior to CGMiner 2.0. I updated this Win7 to Catalyst 11.6 and now have 100% CPU utilization. I had thought Catalyst 11.6 had low CPU utilization across all platforms?
Any thoughts? Or is this just the way it works with Windoze 7?
IIRC was a lot later than 11.6 before 100% bug was solved in Windows. Why not use 11.11? Why not use 12.1? As long as you don't install the SDK runtime that comes with it, it's working 100% with my 5850's. What SDK are you using with it? I guess I'll have to give that a try. I'm still perplexed why the 11.6, the last know good version, doesn't work on Win7, or is just my Win7 installation? Thanks, Sam sam: install 11.9 if your using win7 with 5xxx series cards - it does not get better than that and believe me I have done the testing Well, I'll run it up the flagpole and see what happens. Thanks, Sam |
|
|
|
I don't remember which version it was fixed in. >11.6 and <=11.11 I know it is fixed in 11.11. As pointed out above you can even use 12.1 just make sure to install Runtime/SDK FIRST and then do CUSTOM SETUP and the uncheck OpenCL Runtime. Once installed 2.6 is a pain to get rid of. That is why I suggested 11.11. It is a version I know has no 100% CPU bug and it doesn't have 2.6 so no chance of accidentally installing it. Sounds like my best shot. I'll give a whirl over the weekend. Thanks again, Sam |
|
|
|
OK, I pretty sure this is ancient history, but here goes anyway.
I've been using Windoze XP with Catalyst 11.6 with a 5830 and 5770 and had low CPU utilization with that combination. I went back to my Win7 install where I was using 10.9 to get low CPU utilization prior to CGMiner 2.0. I updated this Win7 to Catalyst 11.6 and now have 100% CPU utilization. I had thought Catalyst 11.6 had low CPU utilization across all platforms?
Any thoughts? Or is this just the way it works with Windoze 7?
IIRC was a lot later than 11.6 before 100% bug was solved in Windows. Why not use 11.11? Why not use 12.1? As long as you don't install the SDK runtime that comes with it, it's working 100% with my 5850's. What SDK are you using with it? I guess I'll have to give that a try. I'm still perplexed why the 11.6, the last know good version, doesn't work on Win7, or is just my Win7 installation? Thanks, Sam |
|
|
|
OK, I pretty sure this is ancient history, but here goes anyway.
I've been using Windoze XP with Catalyst 11.6 with a 5830 and 5770 and had low CPU utilization with that combination. I went back to my Win7 install where I was using 10.9 to get low CPU utilization prior to CGMiner 2.0. I updated this Win7 to Catalyst 11.6 and now have 100% CPU utilization. I had thought Catalyst 11.6 had low CPU utilization across all platforms?
Any thoughts? Or is this just the way it works with Windoze 7?
IIRC was a lot later than 11.6 before 100% bug was solved in Windows. Catalyst 11.6 was before the bug was introduced, which is why I was using it. Why not use 11.11?
I don't know why not, was the 100% CPU utilization for multiple GPU's fixed in that version? When I was messing with this installation before I had a terrible time get later Catalyst versions installed and functioning at all which was why I was using 10.7 and 10.9 at that time to begin with. Thanks, Sam |
|
|
|
|
OK, I pretty sure this is ancient history, but here goes anyway.
I've been using Windoze XP with Catalyst 11.6 with a 5830 and 5770 and had low CPU utilization with that combination. I went back to my Win7 install where I was using 10.9 to get low CPU utilization prior to CGMiner 2.0. I updated this Win7 to Catalyst 11.6 and now have 100% CPU utilization. I had thought Catalyst 11.6 had low CPU utilization across all platforms?
Any thoughts? Or is this just the way it works with Windoze 7?
Thanks,
Sam
|
|
|
|
Actually you CAN go back all the way As for showing block numbers - technically it's possible, but there is no real purpose for this. All blocks are pretty much the same anyway. Stats by date only lists 5 dates. I see no other obvious way to browse further back. Just keep subtracting 86400 off the number for each day. 86400 seconds = 24 hours. Sam |
|
|
|
If another large change is required in the future, I'm not at all certain if it can be done. This will leave Bitcoin vulnerable to competition from newer cryptocurrencies that have no such problem.
When a change is *required* I'm sure the Bitcoin community will be behind it. I'm also sure there will probably be allot of debate on how to implement a required change as well, but that is a good thing. Sam |
|
|
|
Someone sent some BTC to my "If you just want me to shut up pay me here:" address a few hours ago. I just now saw this and apologize for not honoring it because of being unobservant. I would be happy to refund it if you would like. If so please PM me with the amount you donated and an address.
Thanks,
Sam
Eheh, that was me, I don't need a refund though.  Which one was it? 0.1 BTC to the "shut up" address, is that what you mean? Yep Thanks, Sam |
|
|
|
Someone sent some BTC to my "If you just want me to shut up pay me here:" address a few hours ago. I just now saw this and apologize for not honoring it because of being unobservant. I would be happy to refund it if you would like. If so please PM me with the amount you donated and an address.
Thanks,
Sam
Eheh, that was me, I don't need a refund though. Which one was it? |
|
|
|
|
Someone sent some BTC to my "If you just want me to shut up pay me here:" address a few hours ago. I just now saw this and apologize for not honoring it because of being unobservant. I would be happy to refund it if you would like. If so please PM me with the amount you donated and an address.
Thanks,
Sam
|
|
|
|
|
[Tycho] and/or Deepbit,
Will you be posting a notice prior to implementing BIP16 voting?
Thanks,
Sam
|
|
|
|
... to delay switchover until April 1.
Hmm, I wonder if there is a hidden meaning in that date? Sam |
|
|
|
And if Tycho did start supporting BIP16 and the implementation was NOT a done deal I would mine elsewhere until it was implemented or defeated, granted at that point it wouldn't really make a difference except clear my conscience if things did go awry because of one of these multi-sig schemes.
I guess it's time to consider switching? Tycho has told me that the deepbit pool will support BIP16 as soon as he's able to merge and test the changes, which will put support at well over 55%
Maybe we will see a mass exodus from deepbit now? Or did you guys have a pool meeting? Well I wasn't invited to a meeting, strangely enough. But it sounds like a done deal or is it not? Sam |
|
|
|
I do think changes should be avoided at all cost's, UNLESS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY! I understand there was a change the HAD to be made because of an actual flaw, that is/was appropriate.
What change are you fearing? AT THE VERY WORST, all that can happen is that new (OP_EVAL/P2SH/CHV) transactions have "something bad" (if anything?) happen to them. Existing transactions aren't changed and do not get affected by this. When I started with Bitcoin all I wanted to do was solo mine with a mid range GPU and just check my wallet 2 or 3 times a year. That didn't work out. But if it had worked out that way and a multi-sig was implemented while I had an old bitcoind running then I would have risked loosing my coins. I think there are several people in that boat right now. Bitcoin users shouldn't be forced to keep up on all of this minutia just to make sure their coins and transactions are protected. This issue can be ameliorated in so many other ways, and is, that folks should question it a little more than they are.
Do pray tell, how? What are your significant contributions towards mitigating this issue? I have take steps to protect my wallet and network. I am not concerned about one pool effectively preventing the change by not voting for it and that is why I am mining there full time right now. And if Tycho did start supporting BIP16 and the implementation was NOT a done deal I would mine elsewhere until it was implemented or defeated, granted at that point it wouldn't really make a difference except clear my conscience if things did go awry because of one of these multi-sig schemes.
You seem to have an irrational fear of a multi signature transaction type being widely implemented and made useable by a larger segment of users. Why? I have a fear of fixing things that haven't been demonstrated to be broken. I am much more concerned with the Bitcoin community trying to strong arm and badger a pool op into doing what they want and effectively take away my voice of dissension in the process. That is very troubling to me.
This is certainly annoying (at best), but it isn't the end of the world. He is doing a great job of ignoring everyone  And why is he ignoring everyone? Because he has nothing to say on the subject or because of retribution? Sam |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
