[2017-06-21 00:49:12] 4 miner threads started, using 'lyra2' algorithm.
[2017-06-21 00:49:12] Starting Stratum on stratum+tcp://x11.eobot.com:5555
[2017-06-21 00:49:13] Stratum difficulty set to 0.01
[2017-06-21 00:49:17] x11.eobot.com:5555 lyra2 block 690026
[2017-06-21 00:49:21] CPU #1: 20.31 kH/s
[2017-06-21 00:49:21] CPU #3: 19.82 kH/s
[2017-06-21 00:49:21] CPU #2: 19.59 kH/s
[2017-06-21 00:49:22] CPU #3: 30.03 kH/s
[2017-06-21 00:49:22] accepted: 0/1 (0.00%), 69.92 kH/s nooooo
[2017-06-21 00:49:22] reject reason: low difficulty share of 5.990948456910059e-10
[2017-06-21 00:49:22] factor reduced to : 0.67
[2017-06-21 00:49:29] CPU #2: 26.73 kH/s
[2017-06-21 00:49:30] CPU #3: 30.49 kH/s
[2017-06-21 00:49:33] accepted: 0/2 (0.00%), 77.52 kH/s nooooo
[2017-06-21 00:49:33] reject reason: low difficulty share of 2.7899883812711003e-10
[2017-06-21 00:49:33] factor reduced to : 0.44
[2017-06-21 00:49:33] accepted: 0/3 (0.00%), 77.52 kH/s nooooo
[2017-06-21 00:49:33] reject reason: low difficulty share of 3.277118888390345e-10
[2017-06-21 00:49:33] factor reduced to : 0.30
Can help me, i need a explan & solution!
Thanks
You're mining with the wrong algo. The pool is x11 but you selected lyra2. |
|
|
|
|
Any expectation of civil discussion is just a fantasy considering recent political events.
It is unfortunate that joxnicehash doesn't realize he is representing an organisation and
not his personal hurt feelings. A refresher course in customer relations might be in order.
Unnanounced changes that are mostly cosmetic are bound to get a negative response.
All that new eye candy distracts from any functional improvements.
I don't like the new layout. The data is too spread out making the page look sparse. A lot
more info could have been included on a single page.
I still mourn the loss of auto update.
@joxnicehash: Please respond to my question in the nicehash pool thread instead of sulking
because users don't like the new layout.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm getting frequent stratum timeouts mining cryptonight, sometimes my i5 will go over 10 minutes
without submitting a share, my i7 seems to do better.
Vardiff never lowers the diff below 25000, can something be done about this?
|
|
|
|
|
This is not merged mining, it's a multipool, learn the difference.
|
|
|
|
|
Free electricity negates the only advantage of mining with a laptop, low power consumption.
|
|
|
|
If you just have it sitting there mining one algo on all the GPUs and don't ever do anything else with the system a Celeron is fine. We have a couple of 3920s as well as a couple older gen dual cores in mining rigs. The catch is that the if you want/need to multi-task at all you're pretty much screwed if you do much more then open a web browser. Normally that's not an issue, but we did run into the problem of having a mixed GPU system that we wanted to have automatically start mining 2 different algorithms after Windows starts up in case of a system reboot, power outage, etc... having 2 different miners start at the same time would hang the system and be frozen due to maxing out the CPU. Our next several builds are going to be Ryzen 1600s so that will most definitely not be an issue there, plus they are good CPU miners to pay for the extra cost very quickly.
I wish the forum software allowed "likes" or "thanks" because I really appreciate your input. It's food for thought and exactly the kind of real world info I'm looking for. Based on your experiences, I feel a little better with going with the pentium. The rig is purely for mining but I might mine more than one algo or at least I want the option to do so without it causing problems. That's what the BTC address in his sig is for.  The key CPU feature for GPU mining is the number of threads it can run simultaneously. Clock speed is mostly irrelevant. Each GPU card has a corresponding CPU thread so more CPU cores provides better thread distribution and less latency. Latency occurs when a process must wait for an available core to run because all cores are busy. More cores become more important of you intend to do anything else on that system. If you want a minimalist system a Celeron is fine, otherwise jump to a CPU with more threads. |
|
|
|
I'm also a nood to when it comes to autoconf. Also, for the record, I haven't been able to compile for SHA. First, I don't have a Ryzen, and second, I haven't been able to build a mignw environment with a version of gcc that supports SHA. Did you add the path to gcc? On my system it's this: PATH="/c/msys/opt/windows_64/bin/:$PATH" It's likely different on yours, you'll have to look for it. yes path is set, i see the files in there as well, is there a command to show the path? is the fstab needed at all? Can I compile with Visual Studio? I can try different things... Could I run a mingw under a different builld (not win-builds)? Funny thing is if I cd to the path I set and run gcc -v i get the output... flow@FLOX /c/msys/1.0/opt/windows_64/bin
$ gcc -v
Reading specs from c:/msys/1.0/opt/windows_64/bin/../lib64/gcc/x86_64-w64-mingw32/4.8.3/specs
COLLECT_GCC=c:\msys\1.0\opt\windows_64\bin\gcc.exe
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=c:/msys/1.0/opt/windows_64/bin/../libexec/gcc/x86_64-w64-mingw32/4.8.3/lto-wrapper.exe
Target: x86_64-w64-mingw32
Configured with: ../gcc-4.8.3/configure --prefix=/opt/windows_64 --with-sysroot=/opt/windows_64 --libdir=/opt/windows_64/lib64 --mandir=/opt/windows_64/man --infodir=/opt/windows_64/info --enable-shared --disable-bootstrap --disable-multilib --enable-threads=posix --enable-languages=c,c++ --enable-checking=release --enable-libgomp --with-system-zlib --with-python-dir=/lib64/python2.7/site-packages --disable-libunwind-exceptions --enable-__cxa_atexit --enable-libssp --with-gnu-ld --verbose --enable-java-home --with-java-home=/opt/windows_64/lib64/jvm/jre --with-jvm-root-dir=/opt/windows_64/lib64/jvm --with-jvm-jar-dir=/opt/windows_64/lib64/jvm/jvm-exports --with-arch-directory=amd64 --with-antlr-jar='/home/adrien/projects/win-builds-1.5/slackware64-current/d/gcc/antlr-*.jar' --disable-java-awt --disable-gtktest --build=x86_64-slackware-linux --host=x86_64-w64-mingw32 --target=x86_64-w64-mingw32
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.8.3 (GCC) On another note, my journey started cause I had been running 3.6.4 for a few weeks and it started to crash after a few hours, so after a few days of that I see you have 3.6.5 out and the readme about the SHA... Is there a way to check the problem besides Event viewer? The compiler version does not support SHA. It needs to be gcc v5 or higher. The VS project files are all messed up and I don't know how to unmess them. |
|
|
|
I'm also a nood to when it comes to autoconf. Also, for the record, I haven't been able to compile for SHA. First, I don't have a Ryzen, and second, I haven't been able to build a mignw environment with a version of gcc that supports SHA. Did you add the path to gcc? On my system it's this: PATH="/c/msys/opt/windows_64/bin/:$PATH" It's likely different on yours, you'll have to look for it. |
|
|
|
Hi Joblo, thanks for this miner, I have a Ryzen and from the release notes we have to compile to get SHA... So I just spent a long part of the day doing this and now I'm at a point where I have all the required MinGW, openssl 1.1.0... This is what I get: flow@FLOX /c/cpuminer-opt-3.6.5
$ winbuild.sh
make: *** No rule to make target `distclean'. Stop.
clean
./autogen.sh: line 8: aclocal: command not found
done
./winbuild.sh: line 21: ./configure: No such file or directory
make: *** No targets specified and no makefile found. Stop.
c:\msys\1.0\opt\windows_64\bin\strip.exe: 'cpuminer': No such file
flow@FLOX /c/cpuminer-opt-3.6.5
$ ./autogen.sh
./autogen.sh: line 8: aclocal: command not found This is on Win10x64, 16Gb ram, I don't know what else you need, I have built everything using x64 I believe, do you have any idea? Did you downlolad the source from git? Try the tarball instead. It might be a problem with aclocal. Yeah it was the zip and now I just tried again with the tarball and same issue... Still missing configure? The tarball from google should have it, anything from git doesn't. |
|
|
|
Hi Joblo, thanks for this miner, I have a Ryzen and from the release notes we have to compile to get SHA... So I just spent a long part of the day doing this and now I'm at a point where I have all the required MinGW, openssl 1.1.0... This is what I get: flow@FLOX /c/cpuminer-opt-3.6.5
$ winbuild.sh
make: *** No rule to make target `distclean'. Stop.
clean
./autogen.sh: line 8: aclocal: command not found
done
./winbuild.sh: line 21: ./configure: No such file or directory
make: *** No targets specified and no makefile found. Stop.
c:\msys\1.0\opt\windows_64\bin\strip.exe: 'cpuminer': No such file
flow@FLOX /c/cpuminer-opt-3.6.5
$ ./autogen.sh
./autogen.sh: line 8: aclocal: command not found This is on Win10x64, 16Gb ram, I don't know what else you need, I have built everything using x64 I believe, do you have any idea? Did you downlolad the source from git? Try the tarball instead. It might be a problem with aclocal. |
|
|
|
3.6.5, --cpu-priority 0 doesn't work. Any other value does work, but not 0.
0 is the default, it isn't supposed to work. Setting CPU priority isn't really useful. The default will use any available time and a higher priority will only starve out other processes, potentially destabilizing the system. In other words, if mining is the primary task there should be no others running and if mining is a background task the primary tasks should be allowed to run when they need to. The default CPU priority handles both situations quite nicely. |
|
|
|
|
I know I don't like it. The "optimized" GPUs are anything but. Only a 90 day warranty and, without display ports,
no secondary market. I wonder how they will prevent gaming GPUs from being used for mining.
|
|
|
|
The stats are correct but the return is almost always lower on zpool than on the other pools that doesn't autoexchange.
ex:
skein
zpool.ca 24hour payout per ghash: 0.00449BTC
yiimp.ccminer.org payout per ghash: 0.0062BTC
+38% if you mine on yiimp and exchange your coins yourself.
But zpool is more profitable than the nicehashminer..
so you "say" its stealing 20% profit.. and still it outperforming nicehashminer must be doing something right... you cant compare a marketplace with a pool what you can compare: mine coin X on zpool and another pool with same hashrates, dont exchange to anything. zpool payout coin amount for a given timeframe will be ~20% less than from other pool That's not a valid comparison either. Luck can easily cause a large variance, even between different blocks in the same pool. You just need to follow a block until it is credited to your balance, verify the credited share percentage matches your hash rate, the amount of coin matches the percentage of a block, the BTC value matches the exchange rate, etc, then magically see your balance is credited 20% less than the last value prior to exchange. If you get paid in the mined coin it's even clearer as it eliminates any exchange fluctuation. Those defending zpool should just do their own test. I've done my own tests (not recently) and analyzed the data from two other users who posted detailed information of their tests. Simply comparing with other pools, and especially Nicehash which doesn't mine coins directly, means nothing. |
|
|
|
Keep an eye on that block, see how much you get after exchange. If the problem still exists it will be around .028
assuming no drastic price change.
I think they have "fixed" the bug now by displaying 30% less than the market price in the expected earnings. Previously the 30% dissapeared up on exchange. I remember I tried to mine the coin directly by adding a LBRY adress and c=LBC in the password, but it didn't help. 30% was gone. Yes eliminating the exchange makes it more obvious. If you followed the block from the begining you should be able to confirm: 1. you received the expected percentage of the block 2. the amount of LBRY is the correct percentage and BTC value are correct 3. the BTC value is correct after after exchange after accounting for price fluctuations In the past the value was correct up to the point of exchange but the exchanged value was always 20% lower than expected. The loss coincides with the status change to "cleared". |
|
|
|
Keep an eye on that block, see how much you get after exchange. If the problem still exists it will be around .028 assuming no drastic price change. |
|
|
|
it looks like somethings were done, i tried to get to the thread and it is unavailable ...
at least in my area!
thanks for this information!
Partially, the old scam thread from 2014 still exists. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=409213.0 |
|
|
|
would be good if the modos were removing the post of the scammer... (reported it yesterday but haven't seen much effect so far)
Agreed. My agreeing with a post has crossed the mods in the past, maybe doing so again will help get their attention. |
|
|
|
|
Laptops aren't designed to run hot 24/7, I hope you have a cooling pad.
|
|
|
|
Unholy necro, DJM! You do realise you were replying to a post that was almost 3.5 YEARS old? But he's back with another scam, this time in a self moderated thread where he can delete any posts that out him. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1945404.0 |
|
|
|
How this miner beheaves if i'm mining with my CPU at the same time?
Will i get a major performance drop?
Thanks
It depends on your CPU and how many GPUs you have. A typical deskop with an i5 or better, and one or two GPUs can easily CPU mine as well as GPU mine. A CPU with fewer cores than GPUs should have no other applications running on the CPU. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
