Poloniex is also a exchange so it should be quite safe to keep your earnings there.
You never use exchange as a wallet. They tend to be hacked, poloniex has been hacked too. Obviously you need to keep something there if you are trading. If linux is not an option use jaxx. what is jaxx??? how it works? Why not try Bittrex? I've had my ZEC deposited straight there through flypool since the beginning with no problems at all. for over 100 payouts they show up there like clockwork  interesting... one more question if you don't mind.. you're a hero member.. sure you are more experienced in cryptocurrency stuff.. in your opinion, which one is safer to keep coins for long term period, poloniex or jaxx? jaxx. But first thing to do when windows wallet is released is to move your holdings there. If you want to be really sure just google for 'cold wallet' or 'paper wallet'. Remember to use strong passwords and 2FA whenever it is possible. And remember to remember your passwords  OK.. thanks again for valuable information....it's quite educative.. i learn new thing.. I read the FAQ in jaxx's support page.. I read this line and I'm a bit worried: ====================================================================================== I can't find my ZCash z-address & my address keeps changing! Also, can I receiving ZEC mining rewards in Jaxx? We only support transparent addresses at this time. We haven't made a full decision on supporting z-addresses yet. The address changing is normal. Jaxx is an HD (hierarchical deterministic) wallet, which means it generates a new address every time you send/receive funds to/from your Jaxx wallet as a way of keeping your balance private. And yes, you can use any of your previous addresses to receive funds. And please do not point your ZEC mining rewards to Jaxx, as we are a lightweight wallet that is not designed to receive mining payouts. We do not recommend pointing any mining rig payouts to Jaxx as it may cause issues on your end as well as potentially causing issues on our end. https://decentral.zendesk.com/hc/en-us================================================================================ If you don't mind me asking, how long have you been using jaxx? have you ever experienced any problem transfering your zec earning from pool directly to jaxx's wallet? |
|
|
|
Yeah very nice to see that price creep up. I finally eclipsed 1 ZEC with my modest 4-card rig and tempted to sell a bit of it now but in reality, I will probably just hold it. Not like selling half of it is going to make any real difference for me so might as well hold and see if it takes off.
I have most of what I need to build my 2nd rig when I get back in town next week, but only have 3 GPUs so hoping to find some good deals during the black friday/cyber monday craze. Anyone know what kind of deals to expect on 470's? I would highly prefer to stay with MSI 4GB but would consider other brands if the they are solid and a great deal. What would be considered maybe the 2 other top brands of this card along with MSI? Sapphire I would assume is really good and I've heard bad things about PowerColor, but what about Asus & XFX?
Just looked at NewEgg and they have an MSI Radeon RX 470 DirectX 12 Radeon RX 470 ARMOR 4G OC 4GB for $169.99 plus there is a $20.00 mail-in rebate per card bringing the price to $149. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814137050&ignorebbr=1Interesting... i never noticed that Armor GPU before. Anyone actually used these in a mining rig? I am wondering what the difference is between these and the MSI Gaming 4GB, which are what I have. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814137024Seems like the Armor have slightly slower mem clock (6600 vs 6700) and consume 10w more power (120 vs 110), but wondering if there are any other differences that would affect mining efficiency. Both Amazon and NewEgg have the gaming now at $193 - $15 rebate, so $178, which is the lowest I've seen. Still, that Armor is $28 less. The crappy thing is that MSI limits these rebates to 1 per model. But, I guess I could get 1 of each which would bring me up to 5 cards for my new rig and I would only need 1 more. Waiting to see if there are any mega deals tomorrow. |
|
|
|
|
Yeah very nice to see that price creep up. I finally eclipsed 1 ZEC with my modest 4-card rig and tempted to sell a bit of it now but in reality, I will probably just hold it. Not like selling half of it is going to make any real difference for me so might as well hold and see if it takes off.
I have most of what I need to build my 2nd rig when I get back in town next week, but only have 3 GPUs so hoping to find some good deals during the black friday/cyber monday craze. Anyone know what kind of deals to expect on 470's? I would highly prefer to stay with MSI 4GB but would consider other brands if the they are solid and a great deal. What would be considered maybe the 2 other top brands of this card along with MSI? Sapphire I would assume is really good and I've heard bad things about PowerColor, but what about Asus & XFX?
|
|
|
|
Can someone pinch me, I must be still asleep dreaming...  Yup... and already now back down to almost all-time low lol. It's beyond me how the ZEC dev team can release with crap Z wallets that i do not believe have been working for even 1 days since its release! Until they get that fixed I cant see the price of ZEC really increasing at all. Think about it... why would people invest in a crypto that has has huge functionality issues (with those Z wallets) since day 1? Luckily, I had set up a "t" wallet from the start through Bittrex but even with that, I lost out big time (relatively). Back around the first week when 1 ZEC was about 1 BTC, I had mined a nominal amount of ZEC. But, at that time, even the T wallets were not working through Bittrex, so I could not sell the measly .1 ZEC i had mined. Granted, it only woulda netted me about $70 at the time, but now that same .1 ZEC is worth a laughable $6! This case is not material dollars but for people with large numbers of rigs, not so immaterial. |
|
|
|
thats sick ! getting 145 985/7=140.7 985 was his first crack at it... after upping his clock speed to 1200 he achieved 1015 total h/r... so, 1015/7=145  |
|
|
|
Just Redid my settings and came out better:
1015 H/s
7 MSI RX470s
968 Watts at the wall
68 ave Watts (MSI Afterburner)
57C ave GPU Temp (MSI Afterburner)
49C CPU Temp
1500 Strap
MSI Afterburner settings: 1950 Memory Clock, 1200 Core Clock
My main goal is profitability = W/Hs (less is better)
Previously I was at .97 W/Hs
I am now at .95 W/Hs
To Undervolt I would loose efficiency and hashrate. I also get more Hs and no Errors/Rejects! Very Stable as well.
Wow Aries that is very interesting! So, it looks like you got +30 h/r (with only +13W) just from changing clock speed from 1150 to 1200? And am I to understand that you have eliminated under-volting altogether on this rig? If so, was the under-volting reducing your h/r? Overall, did you see any wattage or temp increase vs v5? Also, are you leaving your v6 at the default "i 4"? Did you experiment with the different intensity levels at all? Curious to know what h/r & wattage difference intensity makes in this version. |
|
|
|
Claymore v6 is a blessing !!! Now, ZCash came a lot more profitable ! It is now even twice more profitable than Ethereum ! I gained an overal of 160 H/s on 2x RX 470 and 2x R9 380 ! Calymore  . yup, these big h/r increases alone have kept ZEC mining profitable vs ETH. Even going back to v4 it would probably be close to a toss-up but v6 at least doubles the h/r of v2, or at least that's what it seems like based on early reports. I just started running v5 this morning and went from 65 to 110 on my RX 470s! While that was amazing it looks like another 30-40 is possible with v6. Still waiting to see more posts about wattage draw and heat with v6 since i am away from my rig this week but v5 had no increases vs v4 but we will see. Saw at least 2 people post on the Claymore thread that v6 increased wattage pull by about 10-15W per card, but others have refuted that so who knows. |
|
|
|
In the end, which one appear to you to be the more reliable : Nanopool or Flypool ?
(in terms of reported hashrate accuracy, effective payment etc ...)
This is what I have heard from zcash forums Flypool hash rate is all over the place but payouts are on time Nana pool hash rate is stable but payouts sometimes get delayed I mine at flypool and I can say payouts are on time and hash rate is up an down My rig is doing about 700h/s according to claymore, but Nanopool show something closer to 600 than 700. Will try flypool to compare. NB : I have many payout all the day from Nanopool , no worries about it. But not sure to be paid as much as I should ! I havent used nanopool but can share my experience with flypool. Yes, the reported hash-rate is all over the place... my graph looks like the Rocky Mountain range lol! Since going to v5 a few hours ago, I have been bouncing anywhere in between 350 & 450 h/r. But... they do pay out very consistently, which is very important given the volatility of ZEC. |
|
|
|
|
Nice to see ZEC up at least a bit today so far, but with the overall huge drop over the last week in price, really the only thing keeping the mining of ZEC profitable has been the HUGE increase in hashrate provided by each successive version of his miner. Think about it... just a but over a week ago we were getting what... maybe a max of 50 S/s? Now, according to Claymore, v6 to be released today or tomorrow is going to provide roughly a 4x increase over that! Pretty amazing if you think of it. At current prices, I think even v4 probably equates to about a wash vs mining ETH, but with almost a 2x increase from 4 to 6 likely, it seems that mining ZEC even at $100 will still be more profitable than mining ETH.
|
|
|
|
Hey Aries... what kind of bump did you get on your MSI 470 rig using v5.0? over 100 H/s now I would assume? Could you also tell me what effect v5 had (if any) power draw and GPU temps? I am managing my rig remotely so i need to be careful with changes as I only have someone checking it for crashes twice a day and don't want to risk long down-times or really even get it running too hot while I am away. With V4 my GPUs were running about 59-60 degrees with minimal fan usage. Thanks for any results you can share! RIG004 6 x MSI RX470 Big Changes:  With the v5.0 -i 0 I was getting about 660Sols Wow! that is insane! Almost 2x hash rate on same power draw! I was hoping that this was gonna happen since it seemed like Claymore was concentrating more on the 390/290's first. Now... if the price of ZEC would just come back a bit lol. Thanks for the info... well worth the slight risk of managing the upgrade remotely. |
|
|
|
Hey Aries... what kind of bump did you get on your MSI 470 rig using v5.0? over 100 H/s now I would assume? Could you also tell me what effect v5 had (if any) power draw and GPU temps? I am managing my rig remotely so i need to be careful with changes as I only have someone checking it for crashes twice a day and don't want to risk long down-times or really even get it running too hot while I am away. With V4 my GPUs were running about 59-60 degrees with minimal fan usage. Thanks for any results you can share! |
|
|
|
|
Totally agree on the upgrade to 4.0! Now getting about 65 sols per RX 470 with it.
Regarding that message at flypool... it's been there for a couple of weeks already so not really sure it applied to the most recent drop. Not 100% i am calculating this right but yesterday I was getting .01 ZEC payout every 5-6 hours. My last payout was at 18:51... now its 21:00 and I have almost .003 ZEC but that includes about 15-20 of down-time while I was upgrading to v4.0... so, maybe it's ok.
|
|
|
|
Anyone have any results with the MSI RX 470 GPUs?
Hey Aries... I just started running 4.0 on my rig a few minutes ago and am getting 62-67 per MSI 470 4GB on my rig. As you might remember, I tried to model my GPU mods after yours. I got 2 of them close to your results but haven't been able to get the other 2 over 1900 Mhz. Given this, I would expect your 470 rig will get a minimum of 66-67 per GPU with v4.0. Edit: forgot to mention... this is only at intensity setting of "1". Not sure how much more you can get from setting to "2" but I am trying to get my rig as stable as possible before leaving for vacation so don't want to push it too hard. |
|
|
|
Getting this error all the time on different pools. What is it ? server: bind failed with error: 10048 (port is busy, use different -mport value), next attempt in 10sec... You have opened the miner more than once. Disable the remote port with "-mport 0". Try rebooting your rig a couple of times. I had the exact same error... then tried to go back to 3.0 but same error then occurred in it as well. Rebooting, ran 4.0 again and no error, but 1 of my GPUs was only getting 5-6 h/r. Rebooted again and all 4 GPUs were working well. Ran at about 220 (4 MSI RX 470s, set at intensity 1) for a few minutes, then busted it up to the 260-265 range! Big speed improvement over even 3.0, which itself was a big jump. Great work as always Claymore! |
|
|
|
|
Does anyone know what is going on with ZEC shares reporting on flypool? I was humming along all day yesterday averaging about 260-270 valid shares per bar on their bar graph belwo the hashrate average chart but today I wake up and check it and the last 6-7 bard have roughly been cut in half... so averaging only about 135 per bar. I've got the exact same average overall hashrate of about 220-240 that is was running at yesterday and same <1% stale shares.
Anyone know what this means? Is there a problem that will reduce profits per hour/day/etc? Or, is this another change in reporting made by flypool?
|
|
|
|
|
hmmm... interesting points about Intel potentially impacting the price of ZEC to promote higher CPU sales. Certainly it is possible but AMD & NVidia would benefit much more from pumping ZEC right? Because most Intel CPUs will only provide about 50% hash-rate vs just 1 high end GPU... and you can of course build a rig with 4-6 GPUs, so the effective impact of the CPU on a mining rig for ZEC is only about 10% of the overall hash-rate. Still, I do think Intel could benefit from pumping/buying ZEC... I doubt AMD can afford to do much but maybe NVidia can afford to impact it a bit.
|
|
|
|
|
ZEC finally having a good day (at least for now lol)... back up over .4 BTC / $300 USD. Might be short-lived but I'm just happy to see a day without a 20% drop lol. Not that the whopping .15 ZEC i've mined with my 1 4-card rig amounts to much anyway, but was just about to switch back over to ETH with my GPUs, then this happened. I guess it wont hurt to keep mining ZEC for a while longer lol.
BTW... I am heading out of town soon and the wife knows nothing about how to maintain my rig, so was looking into remote desktop control options. Windows built-in remote PC control seems to be a decent option since the 2 PCs i want to control remotely are both on W7 and my travelling laptop is W10. Is this a good way to go for just my minimal set-up? Looking for something both easy to set up and easy to operate. Just curious what people are using and recommendations for my specific case. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
My rig saw a weird drop in hash-rate... was getting in the range of 166-172 for close to 24 hours using 1.1 (4 MSI RX 470 4GB - strap1500 mod, under-volted, over-clocked). About 3 hours ago, I had an ISP disruption and had to reboot my rig. Since then (and after 2 additional reboots) my HR has fallen to the 150-158 range. All settings in afterburner were returned to my standard overclocks but I am seeing about 10% drop in HR and nothing else has changed. Running same exact v1.1 with exact same parameters.
Has anyone else seen this behavior? I'm at a loss for what to try.
|
|
|
|
I guess, most peepz is now dumping, the price still falling reaches 0.74BTC as of the moment. and difficulty is also increasing. effect of claymore's Best miner :-)
Yeah, I really do not know why people are so happy. Here is the effect of CZM (this miner): profitability dropped by 2. In fact this is the end of profits on ZEC. Maybe it is good for decentralization, but it is an absolute evil for those who wanted (and made) some money on this. Let me explain in some bogus numbers if you like. Assume there were 3 players that generated 200, 300, 500 shares for 100 coins/day (10 shares per coin), they received 20 (200/10), 30 (300/10), 50 (500/10) ZEC coins. Assume 1 ZEC = 1 BTC. And they received 20, 30, 50 BTC/day. Now they have doubled hash rate and generate 400, 600 and 1000 shares. Since number of coins per day is the same (difficulty jump up to ensure it), now we need 20 shares per coin. They still create 100 coins/day and should receive 20 (400/20), 30 (600/20), 50 (1000/20) coins. The same amount, but increased power consumption. But now some lazy newbies started mining ZEC as well, and lot of old cards are now mining too. Let assume they added +20% of total shares. That is we decrease the ZEC profit by 20% and now receive 16, 24, 40 + new 20 percent of share for same 100 coins/day. Also we all are rich now and start dumping. The price dropped by 25%, and now in BTC we have 20% less. If 1 ZEC was = 1 BTC, now it is 0.75 BTC, and instead of original 20, 30, 50 BTC/day we and newbies receive 12 (16*0.75), 18 (24*0.75), 30 (40*0.75) and 15 (20*0.75) BTC. Was: 20, 30, 50
Now: 12, 18, 30 and 15 for new players who was waiting for this miner. And yes, you should also subtract 2.5% fee from this amount. Net result: 50% real profit loss. Numbers are not real, but the idea is the same. Do not know why people are so happy. I think only those who was not able to build a miner on Linux are now happy since they have come into the game. But good profitability is behind. Your analysis has some merit... several valid points if you will... but the other huge factor in all of this is the big drop-off in ZEC price. And while certainly some of that drop is due to the growing supply of coins, it seems likely that another factor is the big problem with many ZEC wallets at the moment. I alone have seen 2... flypool has not been able to send to "z" addresses in over 24 hours. Luckily, (or so i thought) I am using a "t" address from my bittrex account BUT... bittrex's ZEC wallet system has also been down for over 24 hours. Granted, I am still pretty new to all of this but it seems that problems like this cause concern, which means that a certain % of people that were so gung-ho about ZEC have backed off on that stance, hence, further lowering demand for ZEC, dropping the price even further. Hopefully this will get resolved soon and provide a bit of a rebound but at this rate, it may indeed be back to ETH for a lot of miners very soon. |
|
|
|
Firstly, big thanks to Claymore for getting this great miner out to everyone! I know you mentioned that you still expect you can get better rates down the road but I think I am not alone in appreciation for you publishing this version now so we can mine more efficiently than other options currently available!
I have only read about half of this thread so sorry if I am repeating anything here but I did have a few observations and questions that I wanted to post.
- I have 4 MSI RX 470 4GB (strap 1500 mod, overclocked, undervolted) averaging between 40-42 Sols/s each using your miner. This is a vast improvement over the 13 I was getting using nicehash the last few days, so really appreciate the extra sols!
- I noticed that the power draw for this miner is much lower than your ETH Dual Miner. Even just solo mining ETH my rig was using ~625W at the wall, while your ZEC miner is only using between 400-450W! This of course increased the profit margin over ETH mining even more, which is great, but I have a question about the power consumption. Is it just that mining this coin is inherently less power-consuming than ETH? Or, does the much lower power draw mean that there is still a lot more headroom to work towards increasing Sols/s even more?
- Finally, after running your ZEC miner stably for about an hour this morning, I launched nicehash miner to use only its CPU ZEC mining function. Unfortunately, almost right at launch, it cut the Sols/s rate in your miner by about 25% on each GPU. Then after about 5 minutes, it crashed my system. Then crashed again after reboot, so I haven't tried it again. This seems a bit weird to me since I have used other CPU/memory intensive programs like Claymore Crytponote CPU to mine XMR and plotting & optimizing BurstCoin plots on HDDs and neither affected your ETH GPU miner.
Normally, I wouldn't even bother about CPU but this rig has an i7-6800k that was pulling 23 S/s, which equates to more than half of a GPU, so I hate to waste it idly. Anyone here been able to CPU mine ZEC with NH and GPU with Claymore successfully?
i7 3770 and 1x amd fury almost 11 hours stable now.. -t 6 ..win7 x64, 16.10.3 driver ~19 sols on cpu ~ 50 sols on gpu You're using Nicehash for your ZEC CPU mining? yes. nheqminer_v0.4b version use the nheqminer.exe github download link at nicehash "getting started" page nheqminer.exe -l stratum.zcash.nicehash.com:3357 -u zcashwalletaddress -p x -t 6 OK... thanks to all that have replied with help on this issue... I really appreciate it! I have downloaded v0.4b as mentioned above and later linked by mike. I created a text file with the exact line above and saved as a text file in the main directory. I think I can figure out how to convert it to a .bat file, but I have a question about the "zcashwalletaddress" part. In using the NH GUI to CPU mine on my 2 other PCs, its converting my mined ZEC directly to BTC and sending to my Coinbase account. I would prefer to keep this intact, if possible, using this stand-alone non-GUI nheqminer. To accomplish this, can I simply paste my BTCwalletaddress in place of the zcash in the line above? Or, is this "selling hashing power" functionality only available if the NH GUI is used? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
