 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
anyone ordered with credit card there? is it safe?
I ordered with my bank debit card on Thursday afternoon, and just received my order an hour ago. So the 1-3 day shipping estimate is legit. I'm just about to start setting it up with my Raspberry Pi.  Same here, Ordered 5 and some accessories late late Thursday night, delivered and up and running by Monday afternoon. Nice job ZoomHash. |
|
|
|
interesting and wow i want to reply to everything said lol first off happy Cheating Eliot  ..hypocrite lol i spent time debugging this last night and have tried out ALL the code and all the tweaks so i understand every comment here except the ones regarding the pools.. and its obvious who i would agree with murraypaul i don't know why you are claiming to be an authority on this by doing some half ass after the fact checking of random code you could of simply asked me.. anything as i have said 4 times now.. and your assertion that "everybody" is running the same slow client is unproven and almost certainly false and that is the basis of your cheating argument.. and that comment by ig0tik3d saying "profit" is an excerpt of a code fix that KILLER stated ALL people should patch their clients with and i asked more than once about it in the Quark ANN topic and was ignored (his diff patch was posted 1 page after the v2 QRK miner was posted for win64) and NOW you guys catch on months later after many of you have been raping quark with it and have some cheating bullshit for me and only me LOLOLOL and murraypaul you are sooo wrong when you said there is no difference in hash speed between Stoenfoz's version vs Neisklar's i have compared hashing using same difficulty settings and UncleBob's old git hub code he updated over a month ago is WAAAAY faster it also has issues compiling and i said that ALSO numerous times once again on the Quark topic and got little reply if any.. I didn't do squat.. i have done nothing but try and learn this crap and help out and i have been unjustly screwed over big time ! So where are the people screaming cheater for the XPM HP series of miners ? same situation different people using different miners.. did you guys go and call that guy who made it a scammer or something ? of course not lol murraypaul your making dumb excuses to call me a cheater ontopic now, spoetnik point ur miner to my pool on port 7103, using stratum+tcp://stratum.crypto-expert.com:7103 plz I've got the latest version pointed at you now with 4 cores EDIT: Added 2nd worker with 4 more, worker 1 is showing 532khs local for an i5-2400 3.1ghz, worker 2 is 4 xeon cores, and looks like it should level out around 400-450khs local |
|
|
|
2many280s: I acknowledge you found blocks at the crypto-expert pool for this I have no explanation... But on coinex you did not found the huge amount of blocks that you should have for your hashrate that is for sure.
I am no coder nor cryptanalyst I cannot help more.
I agree, I did find some blocks, but not as many as Veget and my local hashrate stats were pretty much matching his pool reported stats most of the time, although the pool would report me as being 2-5x as much as him. I'm not a coder either(or haven't done any in 20 years), so I don't have an answer as to why that is either. Seems to be an issue on all qrk/src pools though, none are reporting hashrate proper, and even the smallest guy on the pools will find several blocks in a row sometimes. Doesn't make much sense to me either really =) I just have the hardware to help test. |
|
|
|
EDIT: Just thought I would add, that on coinex I was withdrawing around 20-21 src per day, and before Crytpo-Expert went down, my auto withdraws were 20-21 per day also. That seems broadly in line with about 1Mh/s-1.25Mh/s, or a little bit more? I've been getting a bit less than 5 SRC a day with about 240kh/s Depends on the difficulty and pool luck, since coinmine.pl gets all the blocks anyway, But that is about what I report locally on the machines I had on coinex or what I ran on crypto-expert full time. The bigger xeon rigs I only run full power for 8 hours a night since they are power hungry and my electricity is free from 10pm to 6am. |
|
|
|
|
Found a block on crypto-expert now, so whatever the time was from my last post with the valid/invalid share percentage to now to find a block.
|
|
|
|
feel free to ask me rather than speculate i coded the damn miner and made the screen shot guy
Ok. a) Why is one miner generating more than 10 times as many shares, at the same hashrate? b) Why do these shares not seem to be leading to any found blocks? That's both of the things we have been trying to find out, although the shares are leading to found blocks also, there seems to be a massive discrepancy in hash rate reported between local and coinex and number of valid shares submitted vs the regular minerd64_sse4. On the Crypto-expert pool, which has round stats, the invalid % is in the 0.1 range for thousands of shares, so it's not submitting worthless invalid shares, but is submitting quite a few more valid ones between rounds than the sse4 version. Ah, someone coherent to talk to  At least on CoinEx, the shares don't seem to be leading to blocks, otherwise you would surely have expected one of you to have found one of the last 15 blocks, as you had [a very large pecrentage] of the pool hashrate? I suspect that the shares generated are invalid in a way that passes the pool's checks, but fail to generate blocks. [/quote] That is possible, no one is on the crypto-expert pool right now it looks like, so I moved some cpus over there to see what happens now that diff has come down some. The pool dashboard shows me to have 7 invalids out of 3,752 valids so far which is .08% and within the normal threshold. If you have an account there, you can see we were finding all the blocks there for quite a while until the pool went down a few times and we moved to coinex. There was one user there throwing tons of invalids, but it wasn't anyone using the miner compiled by Spoetnik. The three that were, were the ones finding all the blocks. EDIT: Just thought I would add, that on coinex I was withdrawing around 20-21 src per day, and before Crytpo-Expert went down, my auto withdraws were 20-21 per day also. |
|
|
|
feel free to ask me rather than speculate i coded the damn miner and made the screen shot guy
Ok. a) Why is one miner generating more than 10 times as many shares, at the same hashrate? b) Why do these shares not seem to be leading to any found blocks? That's both of the things we have been trying to find out, although the shares are leading to found blocks also, there seems to be a massive discrepancy in hash rate reported between local and coinex and number of valid shares submitted vs the regular minerd64_sse4. On the Crypto-expert pool, which has round stats, the invalid % is in the 0.1 range for thousands of shares, so it's not submitting worthless invalid shares, but is submitting quite a few more valid ones between rounds than the sse4 version. My equipment is 2 Supermicro 2u units, one with dual 6 core westmeres (24 cores) and another dual quad core HT xeon (16 cores) and an i5 (4 cores) on Coinex pool, All of that will break 30mhs, isn't right when locally I'm reporting 100-115(sse4)-150+(spoetnik's sse4.1)khs per core. The amount of blocks found at current diff though, is in line with what I should be finding. He's not actively trying to rip anyone off, just trying to increase the speed of the miner, and we have gone through several version tests already, and the one time the pool share discrepancy way over paid me on 2 blocks, I tracked down the finder (swiftshoot) and gave him the coins, and moved the largest part of my rig over to coinmine.pl where the other big guys are to keep from taking more. It's not an easy problem to track down, 3 pools, 3 different results, and no easy way to test other than on a pool....  Hopefully CaptainFuture can find out what is causing the massive share difference at coinex and resulting mega hash rate difference. |
|
|
|
Count me in at .29 also, Yours has a lot more detail than mine that I'm too lazy to add Sorry but there's another 0.29 Offer and because of the rules : Position 1 gets C.A.T 2 Days before each other Position in Auction 2 to 4 gets C.A.T. 2 Days before Position 5-7 Position in Auction 5 to 7 gets C.A.T. 2 Days before Position 7-10 You must do a different offer from 0.29 Ok Looks like .34 is still open, I'll offer that instead |
|
|
|
Count me in at .29 also, Yours has a lot more detail than mine that I'm too lazy to add |
|
|
|
Looks like to fix the 2 files missing. you have to compile them individually...7th comment down on this qrk thread page. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=260031.60The person that wanted me to ask before, OhShBit from Cryptsy, found the answer there. |
|
|
|
|
Anyone have a fix for this
"missing /Securecoin/src/leveldb/libmemenv.a :No such file or directory and the same exact thing for "libleveldb.a" "
when compiling under Linux?
|
|
|
|
If I'm not mistaken, 7x series and 5-68x series are different enough that the OpenCL SDK versions aren't compatible. You can run a 5x and 6x together, or later models of 69x and 7x together...No way that I know of to install both SDKs/Drivers though.  |
|
|
|
|
