Where is current hashrate Suprnova or MN? Can not choose which info is real..
Both are accurate; nethashrate (equivalent to networkhashps via getmininginfo) is quite irrelevant, as it is based on calculations derived from the rate that blocks are being solved, its not actually derived from network conditions. Suprnova is 1,600kh/s and Pool.mn is around 240kh/s. If you were to take the same share rate/size as currently being submitted (as scrypt), you'd divide the results by 128 for Lyra2. Additionally, i got quite sick of xzc.pool.mn; as the stratum appeared to continuously fail and reappear last night (no doubt due to traffic). This may actually be an implementation problem with Zerocoin and not pool.mn itself. Ok, that is good to know. But statistics page on both pool show total different results. apologies; my answer contradicts itself.. whichever nethashrate is higher will be the accurate 'world' hashrate. however both pool hashrates are correct. to me it seems like my personal current hashrate is off by one decimal on suprnova: is: 1.37kh/s should be 0.137kh/s aka 137h/s dont know about pool/net hash |
|
|
|
WTF nobody have seen this? is there any clean miner? Well.. It's a miner.. So the virusscanners report it's a miner when you check the results  if you want to be sure just compile it yourself, i have added a small tutorial on this on my blog (im sure you'll find it with "blog felixbrucker" in google) also you can upload the resulting cpuminer binary to virustotal and see, that many anti virus programs flag it as false positive or straight "miner", which it actually is, just like ocminer said cheers |
|
|
|
i dont have AVX2 capable cpus so i cant comment on those, but for the rest of my cpus ranging from SSE2 only Celerons to Xeon E3 i see similar results. - Celeron G1820's produce 5-6H/s with a single core used (they are used in GPU mining as well) - i3-3120m produces 20H/s - i5-3330 produces 15-20H/s (4 cores used, also running my desktop and stuff) - E3-1265Lv2 produces 25-40H/s (some great variance here, not sure why) using 4 cores - FX-8320e gives abyssal 7-8H/s (0.6H/s per core if all cores used) - A10-6800K gives abyssal 6H/s - A6-6400K gives abyssal 4H/s amd cpus do not seem to be very good in this algo (used native compiles) and celerons deliver a greater performance compared to other algos optminers version (with some AVX2 optimizations i suppose) is here: https://github.com/Optiminer/cpuminer-xzc |
|
|
|
Thanks got it working on one of my comp. with win10 64bit but does not work on other with win8 32 bit
yes, i only compiled 64 bits versions Nice, this version is showing H/S thanks It has a speed boost? i dont think so, optiminers version might have on AVX2 (noticed something in this regard in the commit history) |
|
|
|
I think I'm making progress with the rejects. It's slow to test as the frequency or rcvline failures has dropped. There are occasionally
rejects immediately after a new block is issued but that appears to be a race condition between the stratum thread and the miner
threads switching to the new block.
On the name side I'm leaning toward "Lyra2Z" as the formal name "lyra2z' as the command arg and "zcoin" as an alias.
I don't like using coins names or symbols as the primary algo name.
are the rejects you see after a block switch like this?  taken from the ocminer cpuminer |
|
|
|
Thanks got it working on one of my comp. with win10 64bit but does not work on other with win8 32 bit
yes, i only compiled 64 bits versions |
|
|
|
if anyone is interested in latest windows bins from ocminers cpuminer, i have just compiled the source for various targets herebuild scripts are in the source tree cheers Downloaded and tested -> works like a charm Thank you! Can you tell me how to decide which cpuminer to use? thanks basically most/all optimizations are independant of AVX/AVX2/AES, they dont have any effect/a small effect on your speed, but there might be improvements later on so i included the targets anyways. Best would be to lookup your supported features by cpu (you can use google or cpu-z) and select this version, should include all enhancements possible for your cpu. i noticed optiminer added some preloading build flag in his repo, anybody can confirm this gives an advantage on non AVX2 systems? have not included this in my compiles though |
|
|
|
if anyone is interested in latest windows bins from ocminers cpuminer, i have just compiled the source for various targets herebuild scripts are in the source tree cheers |
|
|
|
I have been looking at integrating the zcoin version of lyra2. I have ported the AVX2 optimizations but zcoin
is no faster. The algo is I/O bound (memory hard) so speeding up computation doesn't help when the CPU Is waiting
for data.
There are also some issues with rejects related to teh pool stability issues. These rejects are not seen with the ocminer
implementation. I will investigate further.
I'm still looking at ways to reduce memory accesses but am not optimistic.
Some notes about zcoin. It uses a monstrous implementation of pure Lyra2. It's memory requirements grow and hashrate slow
as block height increases.
I am not aware of an official name for the algo. ocminer has reused lyra2v2 but that causes confusion with the real lyra2v2 (Lyra2REv2).
Using the coin name has been a frequent choice for new algos and I'm going with zcoin in cpuminer-opt.
Some suggestions are lyra2Z or Lyra2-Zcoin.
id love to see zcoin supported in cpuminer-opt as for naming, you might also use the xzc short tag in combination with lyra2 |
|
|
|
Dont let us be delisted. get some btc and get over there. 00 Vol today. no one has even tried to do anything.
i wonder how that happened, auto locking to the rescue! |
|
|
|
|
i've had pretty good experience with low end laptops (lenovo, acer) and cpu mining (i3 something), just make sure your cpu fan stays low and temperature never exceeds 45°C while doing so, as noted by others excessive fan usage/speeds will kill it. i live in a cold environment where such mining is no problem though.
|
|
|
|
Same problem with the MSI Z170-A PRO.
Only 4 cards are working. 2 cards code 12.
Has anyone found a solution to this?
had the exact same mobo, tried *almost* everything, gave up and returned it h81 pro btc working smoothly oob |
|
|
|
joblo: we have detected that cryptonight would run faster in most cases when not using all available threads. This has most likely to do with CPU cache; the bigger it is, the more threads it can run fast. Are you aware of this?
Speed increase can be around 10-15% when using less than all available threads and that is not something to simply ignore.
i have observed the following: e3-1265lv2: half threads gives best result i5-3330, fx-8320e, a10-6800k: max threads gives best results this is indeed in regards to the cache (noted somewhere in this forum, maybe even this thread, not sure), though some cpus still need the default max threads to return best results even though they have plenty cache |
|
|
|
|
the switching relies not only on current exchange prices, else it would be useless as the pool does not exchange in realtime. I dont know which factors play a role in this, miningpoolhub may answer this, but i guess current diff also plays a role.
|
|
|
|
did sia net hash explode? pool gained massive hashrate but no found block since 26hrs :/
now many new blocks have been found, someone knows what happened? just really really really bad luck? |
|
|
|
Yes I am also wondering why it is so fast changing, sometimes only 5 minutes for a certain coin. My Baikal miners don't have time to get to full hash speed and then it changes again??
i cant say anything regarding the api, but every miner always hashes at the same speed, there is no time it needs to get to full hashspeed. The only penalty there is is when switching occurs that fast that the overhead of restarting your miner (which takes about 0.1-1sec i guess) is limiting your earnings, but for that it would have to switch like every 10 secs or so. |
|
|
|
|
did sia net hash explode? pool gained massive hashrate but no found block since 26hrs :/
|
|
|
|
Why?
I guess 'thank you' or '+1' on useful posts wouldn't be a bad idea (as a way of showing appreciation), but then again it isn't really necessary. With all the farmed/bought accounts voting a +1, what purpose would it serve?
I think that it would aid to help spread misinformation, among other (bad) things, as they could easily up-vote nonsense posted by their other accounts.. This is why a poll is laughable here.
I concur. It's too easily to manipulate one. valid points, i too like to show appreciation for some posts, but in my case id like to just show "i agree" maybe just use this, not a rating system, this should also reduce the chances of "upvoting" from multiple accounts, as "i agree" doesnt make sense on information posts, just on opinions |
|
|
|
|
I just learned that it is "forbidden" to post agreement posts like "+1", but missed a "thank you" button to show appreciation in such a case. I was introduced to this thread so i might contribute "original" content. I noticed the thread started 2014, now its getting closer to 2017, still no way to state that you agree with someones opinion "without cluttering the thread". A total counter like reddit has it would definitely be the goal, but for now im fine with a simple "Like" or "Thank you" button, though im not sure this will ever come, taking into consideration when this thread started.
|
|
|
|
|
yes, i stated im done, too. Like others. By saying so, one does not support the way you handle this issue and substantiate the comments made by others to be seen by new members, and not just watching and while doing nothing supporting your way. The only reason i'm "still" replying is to state this, as obviously i have not replied since this [deleted] post.
Additionally i have not lost hope like others that you may resolve this issue some day, so i keep watching, but the more you post, the more i lose the hope you ever want to fix it
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
