To prevent any speculations what is bad and what is good. If you own Private Key - these are your coins. No other options. This tool is not purposed for any fraud, but at least it will help to recover your own coins if transaction sent with very low fee and it still unconfimed for hours or days or weeks. This is quite actual nowdays with sometimes huge mempool size and tx queue. Tool is located here with full description and service rules: https://double-spending.com or https://txid.io/No any other URLs related to this service.
If you see something like this in another place - it is fake page and scam!- New double-spending transaction generated automatically; - Actual network fee calculated automatically (manual mode available as well); - Private Key will be never sent out from your computer, new transaction will be signed in your browser! (Open Source code) - New transaction will be broadcasted to BTC network (periodically until confirmed) via our own specially configured nodes (no txn-mempool-conflict error)  |
|
|
|
|
Some SHA256 ASICs (especially S5 and S7, but not all of them) exactly has some issues with DGB, it hangs from time to time or loss blades like 1-of-3 stop hashing. So each pool software works in the differ way and it is possible that it works well at one pool but has problems at another. S4, S4+ and S9 working well with no issues.
The same story with rejected shares, as block time is much less than in Bitcoin, just 15s and sometimes even less, there are more rejected shares. Each share calculated 1-12 seconds depending on Diff and if new block found and new job received from pool before worker found share - it will be stale on the pool and will be paid.
And there is also difference in pool engine, some pool has <1.5-2.5% of invalid shares and some >5-7%
|
|
|
|
|
FYI, admin of Dwarfpool fixed something a few hours ago related to Claymore's miner rejects issues, so it should be much less rejects on v9.1 - it means even more profit in theory as result.
|
|
|
|
US Server result:
can you please show us the .bat file config ? not sure, but are you trying to get the SSL connection or not? just asking coz Dwarf is not supporting the SSL connection at the moment.... Dwarf real hashrate +15% higher than flypool, check actual screenshots some pages before. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1670733.msg17159315#msg17159315So you do not even need SSL on Dwarf with 2.5% fee - you will have much more profit than other pool with SSL and 2.0% |
|
|
|
@Claymore,
looks like something strange there... v9.1 (and maybe other versions - not tested) send shares below target after diff change (vardiff). So all of these shares rejected by pool. Why new diff ignored? Can you please check? I can be wrong and I have limited debug data - not sure if this happens always or only sometimes at some conditions.
That happened to the DEV mining. For the normal mining, the shares are not rejected. Nope really. This happens immediately AFTER DevFee mining (DevFee itself mined OK) and this is a real share loss to your own mining. This happens not always, but when happens - this is not just 1-2 shares, it can take very long time, up to 15-20 minutes before I have restarted manually. At some rigs there are up to 4+ % of rejected shares with Vardiff. 153/3692 = 4,1% ZEC - Total Speed: 641.475 H/s, Total Shares: 3692, Rejected: 153, Time: 18:00 It might be good idea to understand what is wrong and fix it if it is bug.  <... rejects rejects rejects here - check time next screenshot ...>  |
|
|
|
|
@Claymore,
looks like something strange there... v9.1 (and maybe other versions - not tested) send shares below target after diff change (vardiff). So all of these shares rejected by pool. Why new diff ignored? Can you please check? I can be wrong and I have limited debug data - not sure if this happens always or only sometimes at some conditions.
|
|
|
|
Dwarf appears to be fully functional again. Most users believe it to be better than flypool but unfortunately lost a lot of miners a few hours ago due to a web server failure
But my shares were calculated for all downtime, and my last 24hrs earnings are the same as before. The same here. Everything recalculated and recovered. |
|
|
|
my dwarf pool monitor page shows the same thing but my miner is showing me I am connected to EU server and still submitting shares as normal with roughly the same 68ms per share.
I'm wondering if I should just leave it running or move until seems to be resolved.
I am mining as usual, shares are accepted and no rejects. Looks like just Web backend died, it happened before some times. Not so good for sure to mine without stats, but everything was recovered and recalculated. Your decision to leave or not, but I think no reasons to worry much based on past experience. Anyway I am not Dwarf-related so can't guarantee anything. ZEC: 12/13/16-10:12:56 - SHARE FOUND - (GPU 4)
ZEC: Share accepted (203 ms)!
ZEC: 12/13/16-10:13:02 - SHARE FOUND - (GPU 5)
ZEC: Share accepted (188 ms)!
GPU0 t=60C fan=33%, GPU1 t=60C fan=34%, GPU2 t=58C fan=34%, GPU3 t=56C fan=34%, GPU4 t=58C fan=34%, GPU5 t=54C fan=34%
ZEC: 12/13/16-10:13:48 - SHARE FOUND - (GPU 1)
ZEC: Share accepted (250 ms)!
GPU0 t=60C fan=33%, GPU1 t=60C fan=34%, GPU2 t=58C fan=34%, GPU3 t=56C fan=34%, GPU4 t=58C fan=34%, GPU5 t=55C fan=34%
ZEC: 12/13/16-10:13:58 - SHARE FOUND - (GPU 3)
ZEC: Share accepted (203 ms)!
ZEC: 12/13/16-10:14:19 - SHARE FOUND - (GPU 5)
ZEC: Share accepted (203 ms)!
GPU0 t=60C fan=34%, GPU1 t=60C fan=34%, GPU2 t=58C fan=34%, GPU3 t=56C fan=35%, GPU4 t=58C fan=34%, GPU5 t=55C fan=34%
ZEC: 12/13/16-10:14:45 - New job from zec-eu1.dwarfpool.com:3333
ZEC - Total Speed: 1130.672 H/s, Total Shares: 5596, Rejected: 5, Time: 25:52
ZEC: GPU0 187.960 H/s, GPU1 188.916 H/s, GPU2 187.811 H/s, GPU3 189.769 H/s, GPU4 187.552 H/s, GPU5 188.664 H/s
ZEC: 12/13/16-10:14:46 - SHARE FOUND - (GPU 4)
ZEC: Share accepted (219 ms)!
ZEC: 12/13/16-10:14:52 - SHARE FOUND - (GPU 3)
ZEC: Share accepted (219 ms)!
GPU0 t=60C fan=33%, GPU1 t=60C fan=34%, GPU2 t=58C fan=34%, GPU3 t=56C fan=35%, GPU4 t=58C fan=34%, GPU5 t=55C fan=34%
ZEC: 12/13/16-10:15:25 - SHARE FOUND - (GPU 5)
ZEC: Share accepted (219 ms)!
GPU0 t=60C fan=34%, GPU1 t=60C fan=34%, GPU2 t=58C fan=34%, GPU3 t=56C fan=35%, GPU4 t=58C fan=34%, GPU5 t=54C fan=34%
ZEC: 12/13/16-10:15:32 - SHARE FOUND - (GPU 0)
ZEC: Share accepted (187 ms)!
|
|
|
|
|
This happens sometimes, but usually all shares counted and it will be recalculated later. At least no isses with recalc for this year on Dwarf (ETH).
|
|
|
|
Is it worth to rent hash power just to mine Zec?
It depends on price and duration, why not? |
|
|
|
<..>
The solution is for claymore to remove this check
It might be not good idea to remove. It is better to go to failover than to stay mining for malfunction pool (if any issues there). |
|
|
|
Dwarfpool is a good pool, but for zcash a small pool. 18 blocks found in the last 24hours. A small pool could be unlucky and your payouts will be small. What matters in the end is not the statistics on the server, but what you get payed in the end..
3.4% of total network hashrate is not so small hashrate actually - and it is growing. Even with high variance +10-20% more than Flypool it is more profitable. The reason it is small now - unfortunately it was launched quite late after ZCash started. But not a problem to get hashrate from smart miners. Flypool  Dwarfpool, the same hardware +900 H/s (+15%)  |
|
|
|
So for me using high diff port is good choice right ?
If you have low share losses, then it should be good. But vardiff works well and adopts difficulty to hashrate of your rigs. So I would not bother if have less then 0.5% lost shares and use 3333 port. I agree. Dwarf Vardiff works very well so port 3333 should be ok. Setup it and do not care. |
|
|
|
I'm also getting more at dwarf. much better that fly pool.
it's definitely v9-9.1 issue with regards to spikes & instability.
let's see if next version fixes it.
I switched 1/5 of all my rigs lets see what happens, also I'm confused about different difficulties on dwarfpool Main-Port (vardiff): 3333 Stratum-Port (diff=8): 3334 for CPU Stratum-Port (diff=128): 3335 for videocards Stratum-Port (diff=512): 3336 for rigs Stratum-Port (diff=1024): 3337 for big rigs 3333 works fine. BTW Dwarfpool shows actual hashrate and it is almost 10% higher than Flypool. Dwarf also the honest one for long time on ETH. |
|
|
|
What about make V10 claymore miner that only work on Claymore Pool and/or few trusted pool. Make the pool charge 3% and claymore get 2% of it. Walla!!!
Then you will have a distribution of the network problem. Who cares of this... 2.5% (or 2% - does not matter) - that is the real goal. |
|
|
|
|
Claymore, is this ok that CPU overloaded again in v2.1 with "-i 1 or 2"? CPU exactly, not GPU.
And as result higher hashrate at 390x with "-i 0", but not with 1 or 2.
|
|
|
|
|
15UDxmpzGvWjjZUV7P15uPnyccEbfLggK9
|
|
|
|
Anyone know why I only get 5.9MH/s with the latest sgminer mining X11 with a 7970 ? Should be around 10Mh
The optimized sgminer which is bundled in the latest NiceHash Miner ( https://github.com/nicehash/NiceHashMiner/releases) should get you approx 10 MHs on 7970 mining x11. Have you tried this yourself with your own 7970 ? |
|
|
|
Anyone know why I only get 5.9MH/s with the latest sgminer mining X11 with a 7970 ? Should be around 10Mh
Who told you "should be 10 Mhs" ? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
