The trick that was posted earlier in the thread, here...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1891461.msg18858856#msg18858856

Just in case it helps anyone else, been having real trouble getting a 5th MSI RX580 Gaming X 8gb to work on a Asrock H81 BTC Pro R2, furthest I got was an error 43.

After trying every driver I could find, and bios settings and registry hacks etc, decided to give this a whirl and it fixed the problem straight away, now I need to pop to the shop and get a 6th card :-)

Apneal / Truthchanter

Thanks to you both for all the useful information, only recently got back into GPU mining and I seem to have forgotten everything I used to know and lots of things are new

Fired up my old 7950's that had been gathering dust and I got some new MSI RX580 Gaming X 8Gb cards and they come with Samsung Memory.

All I have done so far is copy the 1:1750 strap to the 1:2000 strap, currently using -cclock 1135 -cvddc 975 -mclock 2150 and getting much better results than stock of around 30MH and 100w per card ETH mining only, the problem I am having is when I try to dual mine with decred. My numbers go to pot, the ETH mining speed drops significantly to around 28MH even when the DCR speeds are much lower than yours around 600.

Could either of you share your claymore command lines to see if I am doing anything obviously wrong.

Also that doreymills site that was linked earlier, my original 1:1750 strap is
and it gives me

Do I copy the new one to both the 1:1750 and 1:2000 or just one of them, or do I do the 1:1750 then use the tool on the 1:2000 and get a new value for that too ?

TIA

Well the stock has dropped to 1,525 so somebody has been buying them 

Those are the pacmic contracts that work that way.

Buying machines via hashnest, is just like buying them direct and having them shipped to a hosting facility. They continue to run until Maintenance Fee > Income (and to be fair bitmains fees are reasonable), whilst there may be some newer miners coming the huge gains in efficiency have already occurred so they should be profitable for a long time to come.

The benefit is for people like me who live in countries with 20% import duties and very high electric, yes there are downsides like you can't point them to mine elsewhere, and you don't get the fees in the block rewards being the main 2, but then there are other positives like the ability to buy/sell all or part of your hashrate.

So it will depend on your own circumstances if it's a good idea

Hashnest charges a maintenance fee of $0.00266/MH/Day so about $1.34 a day

I think the shipping & deployed within 3 days thing is slightly misleading though, there is no way these are sat on a shelf waiting for people to buy, they are already mining for them, all they do is swap them to you in 3 days (because last time I bought S9's this way it was exactly 3 days to the minute)

It's likely therefore that they won't strictly increase the hashrate on their own, it was more the quantity that they have been able to produce.

Hashnest has been very profitable for me, but the sheer volume of machines and it's effect on global scrypt hashrate (compared to what a batch of S9's can do) is what makes these extremely risky IMHO

Anyone who has paid for a July machine could well find it's losing money by the time it arrives.

Well I just noticed that the L3+ has just shown up on Hashnest @ $1895 and deployed within 3 days, not great news for those who paid for their July orders (but then pre-orders are never a good idea)

Also worth noting that it is showing a current stock of 1,712 that's a massive amount of hashrate !!!!

Thanks, I used the current litecoin difficulty, but even using the old one the figures still don't work out right as it only dropped 0.29% on the recent change.

Would you care to share your current formula so I can see if i need to tweak mine ?

Not sure if it's my maths or yours, but the scrypt rate doesn't look right (the percentage)



I think the default rate should be around 0.0441

My workings

(1000 * 25 / 131639) * (60*60*24 * 65536 * (pow(10,6)) / (pow(2,48))) = 3.82039559

3.82039559 x 0.01155 = 0.04412

Well I just tried it and whilst it works and is getting shares accepted on both pools, the GUI doesn't show any speed reading and as a result keeps restarting.

I run 2 nodes. One since I started with Bitcoin, and the second was fired up recently as a BU node as a hedge just in case but has since gone back to core after their bugs and closed source patch.

Bandwidth hadn't even entered my head, probably because I have no caps both here and at my office, will have to take a look what they are actually using and if they are maxing out my connections (I am also sure I read that the problem isn't the downloading of the blockchain but the processing of it once it arrives).

Even so upload speeds here have increased over time in the same way as hard disks have got bigger, so I don't see a problem.

It's also silly to me that the 7,000 nodes all need the full blockchain, and surely there has to be a better way that maintains security ?

Node's are running fine on Raspberry PI's and an SD Card for ~$75, that's a perfect example of how technology has moved on since bitcoin started.

Why wasn't the 1MB block size a concern in the beginning when the biggest hard disk you could by was ~10GB, these days we have 10TB drives.

I just don't see how 'node maintenance cost' is an issue at all ?

Well what they say is ...


Now I have no doubt that this is true, as I said I use it too, but never underestimate the ability of bad people to find ways around anything.

Too many times sites have claimed to be ultra secure, no chance of anything being taken, all funds stored in cold wallets etc etc and either through hackers or malicious admins people's bitcoins have gone.

It's just my opinion that the more secure the private key (ie by only me actually having it and no-one else, or being offline) then the more bitcoins I trust there.

Also worth mentioning that the last bit 'and can be imported into any desktop Bitcoin client' is only true if you have the private key, if the website vanishes and you haven't previously got it, what then ?

As no-one answered this bit I shall assist, you don't need to know what your S9 earns, you just need to know the rate per PH which is the measure that Nicehash uses.

So you can use any of the online calculators eg
https://bitcoinwisdom.com/bitcoin/difficulty

Enter 1000TH, and it will tell you that currently the rate is 0.5286

You can also find this figure in Nicehash's own API here...
https://www.nicehash.com/api?method=stats.global.current

You need algo 1 which is SHA256, and I have highlighted the price

{"price":"0.7800","profitability_btc":"0.5286","profitability_above_btc":"47.56","algo":1,"speed":"17106408.29029320"}

So that gives you a base value for -p, but remember you may need to take other things into account. For example the 3% fee that nicehash charges in which case you could have -p 0.5445. Some pools are currently paying PPS + 10%, so you could have -p 0.5818, it all depends what margin you want and where you currently mine.

HTH

I don't know what the OP uses, but I have always used the add2psu adaptors in my rigs.

You can chain them together, so you can mix and match different power supplies, so a small one can power 2 cards, some 3 etc.

http://www.add2psu.com/

You can see one on my titan at the front of the desk in the middle, the PSU on the right stays switched on and you turn the machine on/off with just the left



HTH

For sale is my KNC Titan.

This was one of the very first delivered and arrived with several bad dies, KNC compromised and let me send only one cube back that only had 1 die working, and then sent me 3 replacement ones to make up for the shortfall in hash, so it has ended up as a 6 cube machine running at 340MH

You could get more speed out of this, I used to rent it out on MRR so for stability I just disabled some of the more temperamental dies and left it as it was, and I've seen that people have success in tinkering with re-pasting also there is a user called lightfoot on these forums who can now fix a lot of problems.

It has the paid for version of GenTarkins firmware installed which keeps the machine stable, though I have never bothered with the EnergySaver mode.

I'd prefer to sell this in the UK but at the end of the day it needs to go so offers will be entertained.

If you require power supplies I have plenty, currently using 2x EVGA 1300's with custom cables on most of the cubes.

You are welcome to come and view the machine working, and I have no problem with escrow (I have used both SebastianJu / OgNasty on multiple occasions)

Can't find a recent one for sale, so no idea on price, make me an offer either in the thread or by PM.

But wasn't that during the changeover period, once GPU mining was established didn't it spread out again, I don't recall the deepbit pool was it just one user ?  There was a time when btcguild and ghash both got very high but in the former that was lots of users and the latter some split between their own hashrate and users

Not sure if I'm not 'getting it' or we are on about different things, but when I say centralisation I mean the number of individual users (as a percentage of hashrate).  It's decentralised by the fact that there are many more machines sure, it's also decentralised as there are more individual users than before, but the current top 10 pools which are the bulk of the hashrate are mainly private.

As the technology has moved on so has the ability for groups to control greater percentages, even with and I suppose despite of an increase in users.

I'd disagree, how would forcing everyone to solo mine help decentralisation ?

The big farms would still have the same chances of finding blocks daily so it wouldn't affect them, but the small miners that are the decentralisation (what little of it there is) are hit worse, for an example someone with an S9 @ 12.5TH would on average wait over 5 years to find a block, that would surely reduce the number of users, burning all that electric everyday and with an ever increasing diff you may never hit one.

As much as most users hate centralisation, it's the hardware not the pools that is the cause. CPU -> GPU -> FPGA -> ASIC as we moved down the line the more centralisation occurred.

There is an option that could have made your poll list and you said as much in your linked post.

5. No Change.

Whilst initially leaning towards BU as the lesser of two evils, I'd much rather stay as we are, than have either atm, alts to me have only ever been a way to increase my BTC holdings but since almost all my hardware has now gone I don't do those either.

Well they don't want Segwit/LN, and they probably don't want BU either it's just a means to block the former.


I'll admit it, I was running one core node and one unlimited node (but no actual bitcoins on it, not that daft!!), keeping my options open. Not a fan of segwit/ln it seems to be so far away from what got me into bitcoin, and on balance BU seemed a simpler and better solution (though not ideal) to the current problems.

Sadly as you say, they just can't be trusted at the moment, my BU node has gone down (btw on a windows machine, thought this was a linux problem), and it's staying down.