As far as I understand, once GPU mining is active it will instantly kill CPU mining and the majority would leave. The result is that mining gets more centralized - again, those who own GPU farms would rule. I don't see any advantages for the coin itself in this scenario.
It all depends on the degree of acceleration and profitability of GPUs in doing DRK or something else plus the watt/performance formula. 2 MHash for a 290 is not much and it could be more profitable to mine, say, dogecoins with it. We'll have to wait and see. |
|
|
|
 I add this to my suggestions along with my initial pitchdark. the chain suffix is very recognizable for cryptocurrencies whilst maintaining the darkcoin brand. Nice... maybe we can also get a mascot-style cloaked guy emerging from the darkness or something...  |
|
|
|
Crazy to see people are paying .0005 per drk this early in the game, no way I would yet, I'll mine the shit out of them though
Not crazy at all... it takes around a day to mine just 2 with ~100kh. |
|
|
|
I have been following this since around Feb 1st or 2nd (not even sure how I came across it). I have read almost every post and have been mining since I picked up on this. Just wanted to say that I am liking this coin and I appreciate all the hard work everyone is putting in to this. Thanks for everything (once I get DarkRich I be sending out some tips).
You know what's funny? I came across dark coins by being pissed off for not throwing my btc into an intelligently made alt coin like vert. I was blinded by pump and dump scam coins which are basically 80% of alts out now. So I decided to scroll through coin market cap and saw someone ask gliss to add dark coin to coin market cap. Then someone else said no. Not yet. That was the first time something like that had ever happened. I was curious. That person definitely knew something that I did not. So I went through this thread and saw the specs. At first I though "this is X-coin" but then I scrolled through all the early FUD and then BAM! the dev chimed in with progress on the anonymity module. That kinda grabbed my attention. 4 days later, the dev came in with progress report 2. That was when I knew this coin was going to be something. We're not there yet, but I'll be damned if I'm not strapped into this motherfucker. Real life mining involves the process of prospecting. Similarly to what you are describing about mining all kind of shitcoins, DRK seems to be the place where cryptocurrency-prospectors have struck the gold vein / gold-rich pay-dirt. I shouldn't say that because the diff will go higher still, but what the hell  |
|
|
|
DRK go! Go! GO! Price will be equal litecoin price!
Please lets not start that just yet. We are currently in baby stages. If the anonymous technology is delivered in a reasonable time frame, I fully expect this coin to exceed Litecoin. Litecoin is just the original clone. No functionality expansion, apart from being temporarily asic proof. A truly anonymous coin however, has incredible potential. I think most coins with many hashes will, in the long run, prove much more safe than both Bit and Lite. It is too much to wake up one morning and have all your money gone because one hash was broken - and that one hash was your coin's hash. Ideal specs for coin are, as far as I'm concerned, a) many secure hashes b) anonymous if possible c) quick transactions but not bloated blockchain d) asic and quantum computing resistant e) limited quantity vs infinite edit: On the (b) I would also add anonymous that resists advanced AI-pattern detection/analysis. |
|
|
|
0.0005199 BTC NOW. How come this so value ?  Actually with the difficulty of mining them right now, I wouldn't be surprised for a 5fold-10fold increase in price. It's WAY more difficult to produce quantities of DRK right now without farms. |
|
|
|
I think publicly debating and deciding the name could be problematic for copyright reasons... I mean the whole list could be copyrighted tomorrow by an evil third party who is bent on suing later on for infringing on "their" name. Perhaps it should simply be debated and picked by a close circle and then copyrighted / announced to the community. In any case, I like darkcipher, but I would give it a twist (darkciph3r)  |
|
|
|
100khash shouldn't generate more than a handful of coins a day anyways.
It did generate ~1 per hour prior to the whale though and with 400-600 MHs network hashrate for the hours post 15200, I don't think the payout should be like 1/8th - 1/10th of what I was getting (?). Seems anomalous so the only explanation I can think of is that the pool software being confused (?). there are more people running miners now than before the whale, so that would also make your payout go down I don't know.. I did some basic maths to see what I should be getting roughly... A few hours ago it was close to this: ~75 coins per block X close to 20 blocks per hour (1 block / ~3m) = ~1500 coins per hour 115 kh (mine) / 450000 khash (network) = 0.000255 x 1500 coins generated = 0.3825 should be mine per hour instead of 0.1. A few hours later (now) with the network at 957MH and the stats displayed it goes like this: ~60 coins per block x 22 blocks per hour (~2m 40secs) = ~1320 coins per hour 115 kh (mine) / 957000 khash (network) = 0.00012 x 1320 = 0.158 coins per hours (which is still larger than my average of 0.13 coins for the last few hours where the network hashrates were like 400-500-600-700 instead of 1000) |
|
|
|
100khash shouldn't generate more than a handful of coins a day anyways.
It did generate ~1 per hour prior to the whale though and with 400-600 MHs network hashrate for the hours post 15200, I don't think the payout should be like 1/8th - 1/10th of what I was getting (?). Seems anomalous so the only explanation I can think of is that the pool software being confused (?). |
|
|
|
Regarding http://pool.darkcoin.io/ are the payout schemes calculated ok after 15200? They seem way too low for the difficulties involved... before the whale thing etc, I averaged around a coin per hour now I'm waaayyy down to something like 0.1 per hour. Is it possible that the new diff scheme has messed up the pool share calculations? Everything seems fine on this end, try restarting your miners Done that, no useful change though. Averaging ~0.13 coins per hour with 100kh+ and the net hashrate was 400-600mh in this period, so the payout is too low compared to pre15200 standards. |
|
|
|
Regarding http://pool.darkcoin.io/ are the payout schemes calculated ok after 15200? They seem way too low for the difficulties involved... before the whale thing etc, I averaged around a coin per hour now I'm waaayyy down to something like 0.1 per hour. Is it possible that the new diff scheme has messed up the pool share calculations? |
|
|
|
does it help much to fiddle with gcc options? If so, what is recommended setting for Xeon?
You can gain a few %. You can also try -march=native -O3 If you can, use gcc 4.9 development version, it's faster than 4.8. |
|
|
|
Thing is, it has to be done in linux because the catalyst sucks in windows (if cpu use is high, the gpu hashrate falls).
I'm mining with full hashrates on windows with i7 cpu and 2 radeon cards.. 6 threads on LOW priority hashing DRK and sgminer in HIGH priority. Good hashrates for both coins. With less than 100% threads (like 6 out of 8 ), it's mostly ok. In linux you can have 100% utilization on all cores and the GPU won't lose a single khash... I have a dual core and the windows / catalyst combo sucks so bad that even with one thread at 100%, the gpu loses khashes... with both threads it goes down massively, even if I have the cpu miner on idle and the cgminer on high. It's just bad programming on the catalyst or the windows kernel being problematic (?). |
|
|
|
Difficulty 95.19166610
...and the big miner stays with his gigahashes (=it's not a question of cpu profitability)...
I have abandoned mining. For me this coin is not profitable anymore. Indeed. There is a profitability solution, although crude. Unvervolting/underclocking and using the cpu in parallel with a GPU which is mining scrypt coins (where the bulk of one's daily profit will come from). Some cpus burn extremely little if they get, say, 0.8v-0.9v instead of 1.3v and 1.6-1.8ghz instead of 3gh+. The rationale is: "If the pc is switched on anyway for the GPUs to do the work, why not use the cpu also but in a very low-power consumption mode?". Thing is, it has to be done in linux because the catalyst sucks in windows (if cpu use is high, the gpu hashrate falls). Of course, for all practical intents and purposes, right now cpu mining seems about dead. |
|
|
|
|
Difficulty 95.19166610
...and the big miner stays with his gigahashes (=it's not a question of cpu profitability)...
|
|
|
|
|
A:0 and HW through the roof for all of us... hmm.
edit: The difficulty of the shares also seems to be broken since it rejects everything on submission... like 6/0 rejected, above target, 3/0 rejected etc.
edit2: The HW errors like these:
[08:45:37] GPU0: invalid nonce count - HW error
[08:45:38] GPU0: invalid nonce count - HW error
[08:45:38] GPU0: invalid nonce count - HW error
[08:45:39] GPU0: invalid nonce count - HW error
[08:45:39] GPU0: invalid nonce count - HW error
were high intensity related, needed lower intensities (i17 = errors, i15=ok)
|
|
|
|
|
[08:45:13] Started sgminer 4.0.0
[08:45:31] Probing for an alive pool
[08:45:32] (null) difficulty changed to 0.003906
[08:45:32] Network diff set to 2.66M
[08:45:33] GPU0: invalid nonce count - HW error
[08:45:34] GPU0: invalid nonce count - HW error
[08:45:34] GPU0: invalid nonce count - HW error
[08:45:35] GPU0: invalid nonce count - HW error
[08:45:35] GPU0: invalid nonce count - HW error
[08:45:36] GPU0: invalid nonce count - HW error
[08:45:36] GPU0: invalid nonce count - HW error
[08:45:37] GPU0: invalid nonce count - HW error
[08:45:38] GPU0: invalid nonce count - HW error
[08:45:38] GPU0: invalid nonce count - HW error
[08:45:39] GPU0: invalid nonce count - HW error
[08:45:39] GPU0: invalid nonce count - HW error
...I just checked if its thread concurrency related, because it tends to mess things, but checking a few values around it seems that it isn't. This is on a 5830. Hmm.. no shares submission, just plenty of HW.
edit: debug output
[08:52:51] OCL NONCE 13269 found in slot 0
[08:52:51] Set globalThreads to 256, hashes to 256
[08:52:51] GPU0: invalid nonce - HW error
[08:52:51] Discarded cloned or rolled work
[08:52:51] GPU 0 found something?
[08:52:51] OCL NONCE 13488 found in slot 0
[08:52:51] Set globalThreads to 256, hashes to 256
[08:52:51] GPU0: invalid nonce - HW error
[08:52:51] Discarded cloned or rolled work
[08:52:51] Set globalThreads to 256, hashes to 256
[08:52:51] GPU 0 found something?
[08:52:51] OCL NONCE 13833 found in slot 0
[08:52:51] Set globalThreads to 256, hashes to 256
[08:52:51] GPU0: invalid nonce - HW error
[08:52:51] Discarded cloned or rolled work
[08:52:51] GPU 0 found something?
[08:52:51] OCL NONCE 14321 found in slot 0
[08:52:51] Set globalThreads to 256, hashes to 256
[08:52:51] GPU0: invalid nonce - HW error
[08:52:51] Discarded cloned or rolled work
[08:52:51] GPU 0 found something?
[08:52:51] OCL NONCE 14476 found in slot 0
[08:52:51] Set globalThreads to 256, hashes to 256
[08:52:51] GPU0: invalid nonce - HW error
[08:52:51] Discarded cloned or rolled work
[08:52:51] GPU 0 found something?
[08:52:51] Set globalThreads to 256, hashes to 256
[08:52:51] OCL NONCE 14712 found in slot 0
[08:52:51] GPU0: invalid nonce - HW error
[08:52:51] Discarded cloned or rolled work
[08:52:51] Set globalThreads to 256, hashes to 256
[08:52:51] GPU 0 found something?
[08:52:51] OCL NONCE 15122 found in slot 0
|
|
|
|
He will stop right after the rediff to ~120.
And we'll never get another rediff with our hashrate...
there is 1 way to do a rediff... doing a hardfork.... its a bit complicated, but it can be done It's no problem if it comes to that. We actually did that early on already, it's pretty simple. However, I have a feeling the "whale" is just using GPUs. The X11 algos are very hardware optimized to run on a GPU and I think it would have taken someone about this much time to implement that and launch a farm. Time will tell if I'm right, but it seems likely. If I'm correct, the hashrate shouldn't fall when difficulty resets (not > 20%) because the cost of running that setup is minimal. I thought this was CPU only mining? And any thoughts on implmenting KGW? The X11 algo should be compatible with GPUs and very difficulty to port to ASICs. I did some work on a GPU miner for X11, which is here: https://github.com/evan82/darkcoin-sgminer What is it missing in terms of completeness? (not that I can meaningfully contribute). I did a config / make etc, throws HW errors (which is as should be expected for an incomplete program). |
|
|
|
Difficulty 40.59416625 Est Next Difficulty 112.64161278 (Change in 433 Blocks) Est. Avg. Time per Block 54 seconds  |
|
|
|
does he use GPU mining? unbelievable
well, there is no known gpu miner for this coin Key word "known". In theory the code can be run, if not in GPU directly, then in a hybrid GPGPU setup that accelerates certain algos. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
