Just follow Cryptobadger's guide, you should get there, or close, especially if you want it stable.
http://www.cryptobadger.com/2017/04/build-ethereum-mining-rig-optimization/

I downloaded and until now I alive
[/quote]


Was likely an uptime problem on MEGA's side, or she turned me into a newt but I got better.

You know I didn't get the conern till this second, but no, everything has been running fine on a new machine with one VII for fun. 

Always download from official Claymore links. If not, sooner or later another noob start to cry here that Claymore is a thief.
[/quote]

That was the point it was the link from the OP, it didn't work.  Likely something brief on MEGA's side.  The VII is purring along, now to optomize this week-end.  If I recall some years back there was a back-up link for downloading the miner, might not be a bad idea to reincorporate some such for increased Claymore revenue if the only current link remains intermittant.

Working fine now, but, Spasibo Comrade.

Can't download Claymore from MEGA

"SyntaxError: JSON.parse: unexpected character at line 1 column 1 of the JSON data"
occured on a Windows and Linux machine

Don't see any other download sites.

Edit: it seems to be working again.

JM,
Thanks for the link looking forward to watching Albert's interview.  I also see there is a reddit for pascal coin and will check in on happenings there.  Would just re-iterate you might give a thought to contacting nanex exchange.  Would always seem nice to have more exchanges, good chance they would list PASC.  Yes it is built for NANO denominated trades, I would view NANO as in some respects a "competitor" of PASC.  At the same time NANO has a 1B market cap versus a 20 mil market cap currently for PASC. I would wonder if investors interested in NANO might be interested in a coin that likewise addresses latency and scalability shortcomings but has 1/50th the market cap of NANO.  Might be worth checking into.

Request to developers to contact Nanex exchange for possible Pascal Coin listing.

First by way of context/background 1) I've mined so far maybe 30 PASC i am not too financially invested, certainly at this point, but would like to see PASC continue to grow. 2) Recently, maybe a week ago, there was a fork of ZClassic + Bitcoin -> Bitcoin Private(BTCP), a variant of Bitcoin with greater privacy.  For whatever reason major exchanges have been reluctant to list the coin. The Nanex exchange actually reached out to BTCP community as to whether they should list the coin.  Prior to listing the coin 2 days ago Nanex was doing $30K/24 hours, in less than 12 hours after listing they did 1 million dollars so on pace for >2 million/24hr volume. Also their new registrations have increased 50 fold/day since BTCP launch.  

There is a unique and possibly time limited opportunity here. At 2 mil/24 hour volume Nanex is either now a top 100 exchange (coinmarketcap data) or 38th largest (crypto coin charts listings) and it is growing.  A few more points 1) The site is maintained primarily by one programmer, he obviously knows his stuff as the site didn't blink over a >67 fold increase in traffic in a 24 hour period, it is based in U.S. and has positive reviews, can't remember developers bio but I remember thinking he was qualified and may have had some background in securities markets along with software engineering 2) If he views this exchange still as a new/small project he may not ask anything for listing 3) And here is where it gets even more interesting, he built the exchange to build NANO coin denominated trading pairs.  NANO as I am sure devs are aware is the rebranded RaiBlocks coin whose price took off like a scalded cat recently.  Raiblocks was designed to solve scalability and transaction time issues, sound familiar?  The exchange developer does not work directly on NANO development he just liked the idea of a fast scalable coin and wanted to build an exchange for it.  NANO uses an entirely different approach, as I understand it, to solving scalability and speed, in other words the exchange developer could quite likely list the coin because of his interest in fast scalable coins. Oh and NANO has, during this dip a billion and a half market cap at the moment.

In summary Nanex looks like a near perfect fit for Pascal coin, it would already have people there interested in speed and scalability and it might not cost a dime to get listed on this fast growing, innovative exchange.

Edit: https://www.reddit.com/r/nanocurrency/comments/838s4j/nanex_has_finally_reached_over_1000000_in_trading/
https://www.reddit.com/r/nanocurrency/comments/838s4j/nanex_has_finally_reached_over_1000000_in_trading/dvg149e/
https://twitter.com/CryptoJake22/status/972188016218464256 (CryptoJake is a developer for BTCP)

1) No PR and small development team, this may be addressed with future developments
2) Wallet is weird and complicated, though it sounds like if implemented well could be more intuitive and simple than other current crypto wallets. Also it is an extra step to get an account for a wallet, devs should a figure a way around or to mitigate this complexity
3) There is a weird bug (second time I started with weird, how weird) that causes exchange wallets to randomly crash.  This is a huge deal in my mind.  It apparently pissed Cryptopia off to the point they delisted them.  Only Poloniex remains.  The bug may be an artifact of being written in Pascal while nothing else in crypto is.  If devs need to write in C or some such I hope they do and don't try to be all Pascal or die on everyone.  Yea Pascal! Yea, you wrote groundbreaking stuff with it, now rewrite in something people actually use.  Maybe, maybe and I have a question on their discussion forum on this they solved the wallet problem in the last release.  If they keep breaking wallets on exchanges it can't go anywhere. If the wallet problem is solved I think things look good, the rest can sort itself out over time.

To get back to your original post, yes I find it pretty, not weird, but astonishing.  I'm not a programmer or cryptographer I can't directly evaluate what they have done maybe there are problems with their approach.  If not they already solved both transaction time and scalability while everyone is saying wait until we get our level two solutions in place.  Again astonishing. I agree that if valid, and while there are always growing pains, it is a sleeper.  I suspect it will be awhile before people notice it.  Level two solutions will take some time to roll out and my hunch is there will be some push back from established financial interests that could delay things further.  If Pascal cleans up the other problems, people may take a look at that time and so oh look Pascal coin already solved all this a year ago in a different way. If that happens to happen, watch out. 

"- Those improvements solved BUG that caused operations not included to blockchain due slow processing with MemPool
- NOTE: It's HIGHLY RECOMMENDED to upgrade to this version"

Does this mean the bug that is causing problems with deposits at Poloniex is likely fixed?

Ahh the good 'ole days when GPu mining just became possible and a few of us mined almost all the coins.  
No pools to screw with.
[/quote]

9/10 humblebrag there dreamer, but I am happy for you and your enormous stash of coins.  Again I don't have a strong opinion about changing the algorithim I just don't know if it will solve centralization. Developers could also tweet out a PSA to try to avoid using nanopool as it has led to too much centralization, BTC and LTC did things like that in the past if I am not mistaken.  I imagine if Pascal makes it back to $5 there may be more pools online and the problem could correct itself, but who knows maybe a CPU centric algo is the way to go.

PASC is profitable to dual mine. That sounds like a pretty incredible CPU hash rate unless you are using a $1,000 CPU or something.  Good luck with getting your rig stable you reminded me I need to pick up a surge suppressor.  

If you check the Blockchain Explorer tab, there are 3 mining entities. Nanopool, cointron (also a pool you can mine on) and Zetapool (unknown).
[/quote]

Did not know about Coinotron will look to give them a try in next week or two.  Zetapool has a website but seems to have zero active miners. Thx.

The way I see it one of the problems Pascal coin has right now is mining is centralized.  With centralized mining some exchanges may be reluctant to list PASC over fear of a 51% attack.  The developers, it is my understanding, are proposing a CPU algorithm to seek to address the problem.  I'm not at all sure the current algorithm is the problem, that is to say with suprnova gone there is 1, ONE, pool to mine pascal, correct me if I am wrong.  What if one goes through all the effort of putting a new algorithm in place at the end of which there is ONE mining pool, and possibly lots of botnets?  So again it would seem the problem is there need to be more mining pools for Pascal, this doesn't seem like a terribly difficult problem to solve.  The developers could 1) reach out to established pools and ask them to include Pascal, 2) talk to their programmer friends about creating mining pools 3) If they built the coin they sure could build a mining pool.  So developers could build a Pascal mining pool take the 1% mining fee, 1% right and put the revenue towards coin development.  Might not be much, but until or unless PIP11 passes it is something.

For the past three weeks or so I have been happily dual mining ETH/PASC at nanopool. If I had someplace else to point my six GPUs for PASC I likely would and definitely would if I knew the mining fee was going towards coin development. There may be something I am missing in all this like a problem with ASICs or some such but I am not sure changing the algorithm solves the problem of too few mining pools.  Even though I am not a programmer I am half tempted to try and set up a PASC pool myself, probably not a great idea unless I had a lot of expert help.  Anyways, my two cents and something to think about.