 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 »
|
Ethereum Network Hashrate is currently: 955 TH/s
Etherecum Classic Network Hashrate is currently: 27 TH/s
Currently with 30MH/s you make $1 per GPU per day with ETC. Prior to any power costs.
If all the 955 TH/s switches to ETC, then the hashrate will become ~ 982 TH/s. Which means the difficulty will go up 36x. So basically the profits go down 36 times.
So $1 per day becomes $0.027 per day before any power costs.
Now lets assume that only half the hashrate are GPUs since the ETH ASICs cannot mine ETC. So 955/2=477TH/s. So ETC Network hashrate will become 504TH/s.
So basically instead of $0.027 per day it will be $0.053 per day. You basically need $0.015 kwh power to make nothing. Nobody except maybe in Iraq got 1 cent power.
>ETH ASICs cannot mine ETC Who the fuck told you that? Citation needed. |
|
|
|
So listening and reading in on all the dev comments. It seems that unless there is some major bug discovered last minute, it seems the merge will happen in June 2022. Maybe July 2022.
The merge means finally end of POW mining for ETH and quite possibly for most GPUs out there in existence. GPU mining might be a thing of the past.
Everybody is saying. Oh there are other coins to mine. However they don’t realize that most of the mineable GPU coins out there, the miner reward is nowhere near that of ETH. And ETH mining was not only profitable due to its block reward, it was profitable most of the time due to its transaction fees. No other coin out there generated as much miner transaction fees as ETH.
I can see this being the end of the road for most GPUs in terms of mining. Most GPUs will go live a second life as a gamer or rendering GPU, not mining. Maybe 1-2% will go on and continue to mine ETC.
It’s great if you are a ETH holder. The merge will lower the issuance rate and increase the staking rate. So it’s good for ETH long term price.
So question is when will you start to sell your GPUs?
1) If you sell too early and the merge is delayed you might lose out on some profits.
2) If you sell a month before a confirmed block number is confirmed, you will miss out on one or two months profits but you will get top dollar for your gear.
3) If you wait until the block number is released or sell until the last block is mined you are going to compete with many other miners out there who are listing their GPUs on eBay, Kijiji, Facebook marketplace, Amazon, etc.
I'm already preparing stuff for other coins - I don't plan on selling mine. See, the thing is... there ARE other coins to mine. Now, many will sell off their rigs, and as the profitability of them drop (due to ETH miners moving), the less efficient miners will drop off - leaving the more efficient ones. |
|
|
|
In the end of 2013, the ROI of a GPU was 30-40 days... OMG I miss these days...
I remember that my Radeon HD 7850 1GB was making $8/day on Dogecoin while it only cost $200. I really miss those days. Back in the day, you could also mine Ethereum on 2GB video cards. I also remember when I mined BTC in early 2013, but revenue was slashed by half in just one week. The 1st gen ASICs were being released. At least the upside is that the industry is more mature, so there's less risk, but less risk means less reward. Yeah I had that GPU. It was slow but you can get it for almost nothing if you monitored the Craigslist listings all day. I think I bought one for like $50. It was basically a low clock rate Radeon 270x pretty much. I think the regular 270x hashed at 450kh/s while the 7850 hashed at 375-400hs. However you can score them second hand for like $50 compared to paying $150-175 for a new r9 270x. The king mining GPU back then was the r9 280x (290 was just released and not popular) and those suckers put out something like 700kh/s and burned 350 watts EACH. I remember having 2 GPUs per PSU and each PSU was using 700watts. Crazy times. Even with all that power consumption they never really ran hot actually. Hah, I remember this too, but my 270X was 2GB. 270X was actually (mostly) a rebrand of 7870, and the 270 was a rebrand of 7850. Power usage back then was high as fuck, too - I remember having a 7950 and 2x280X on a 750W PSU and it was literally pulling like 775W+ from the wall, if I remember right. |
|
|
|
|
Clearly malware - the github user is three days old, there's no source, you're forced to run it on windows, and also load a driver provided by some random?
Also, the binaries aren't uploaded to the git repository's Releases page (like all the other closed-source apps, like TeamRedMiner or SRBMiner or etc) - probably because they'll flag his shit.
I don't know how much louder it could scream "malware!"
|
|
|
|
EDIT: Whenever you begin mining (in a PPLNS system), your shares start being counted there. Even if you know N, there is no point whatsoever in pool hopping - this is because no matter when you join, your share won't change. You can see this clearly because N makes the round time constant - instead of random, like with proportional.
A miner could switch from one Prop pool to to another, to another based on block freshness and use PPLNS as a last resort when nothing is fresh. Knowing N can determine how long a block is considered fresh enough for Prop. This is true, but compared to the rest of the miners on the PPLNS pool, they're not getting rewarded unfairly. If some people are still running proportional payout systems even though it's fucked like it is - that's kind of their issue, and has nothing to do with the safety from hopping PPLNS provides. |
|
|
|
PPLNS was created to close an exploit in proportional-style payouts, where you could join the pool which solved the most recent block (and as such, their share counters reset.) The reason this works is because *if* the pool gets another block quickly, the "new" miner who just joined will receive an unfair portion of the payouts compared to those who had been mining for a longer period of time. If the pool did not find another block "quickly" (as defined by your pool hopping algorithm), then you would switch to the next pool which found the most recent block, and repeat.
The reason this doesn't work with PPLNS, even if you know the value of N, is because you cannot force a payout "round" to be short. The last N shares are unaffected by any found blocks, therefore no counters are reset. It is, in effect, a rolling window of time. No matter when you join/leave, you're not going to gain an unfair advantage.
I agree with most of that. Where I disagree is Prop is random, based only on blocks. PPLNS has a non random factor N whose value is not publicly available. They both can be gamed just like any lottery, but in lotteries and Prop, all the variables are known or available to all. In PPLNS N is only known to some. That "rolling window of time" is regular as defined by N while block time is strictly random. That gives those who know the value of N an advantage. You can still time your mining to maximize the values of your shares if you know N. If N was public it would be fair. ... you just said right there, block time is strictly random. This means, because proportional starts counting everyone's work when they mine a new block, this means the round length is indeed random. Now, you can definitely figure out N if you care enough, but it doesn't matter, as long as N is large enough and does not change. EDIT: Whenever you begin mining (in a PPLNS system), your shares start being counted there. Even if you know N, there is no point whatsoever in pool hopping - this is because no matter when you join, your share won't change. You can see this clearly because N makes the round time constant - instead of random, like with proportional. |
|
|
|
It depends on what you mean by best. The intent of PPLNS is to discourage pool hopping and
reward long term mining. Whether it accomplisehes that is hard to say.
What I don't like about PPLNS is that they select which shares will be counted based on some algorithm.
Anyone who knows the details of the algorithm, specifically the value of N, can time their mining
sessions accordingly to gain an advantage.
PPS decouples the payout from the mining and pays a set amount for each share, like Nicehash does,
Prop is pure pooled mining where everyone gets a their fair share based on blocks found.
That's not true, about PPLNS - that exploit is exactly why PPLNS exists. PPLNS was created to close an exploit in proportional-style payouts, where you could join the pool which solved the most recent block (and as such, their share counters reset.) The reason this works is because *if* the pool gets another block quickly, the "new" miner who just joined will receive an unfair portion of the payouts compared to those who had been mining for a longer period of time. If the pool did not find another block "quickly" (as defined by your pool hopping algorithm), then you would switch to the next pool which found the most recent block, and repeat. The reason this doesn't work with PPLNS, even if you know the value of N, is because you cannot force a payout "round" to be short. The last N shares are unaffected by any found blocks, therefore no counters are reset. It is, in effect, a rolling window of time. No matter when you join/leave, you're not going to gain an unfair advantage. |
|
|
|
---
haaa he answered me))) does not rush with answers at all.
Ok you didn´t read anything from here. XD have fun Hey, let's give OP a chance! Next week, when OP gets the "software" on hand, he must be recorded it! OP, We're waitin' for your video to appear here!  The next guy who didn´t read anything. THE MINER HAVE NOT ENOUGH SHARES FOR 17 HOURS OF MINING AND THIS HASHRATE. YOU UNDERSTAND THAT OR SHOULD I TRANSLATE IT FOR THAT YOU TO UNDERSTAND THIS? It is no magic to make an "programe" to inflate the hashrates. PEOPLE ARE SO STUPID  Just gotta correct you here - even though the video is obviously faked, you cannot tell this from the amount of shares submitted alone - most pools implement some form of variable difficulty (vardiff) to keep shares coming at a certain rate. Therefore, if the hashrate *was* legitimate, their diff would be higher, but the number of shares submitted would be similar to that of a slower miner. |
|
|
|
|
Don't care; mining Ergo. :3
|
|
|
|
Several obfuscated checks were added to the Raptoreum CPU miner to signal if someone attempted to modify the donation address, to steal from the developers. At this line, it checks if the donation_userRTM was modified: https://github.com/WyvernTKC/cpuminer-gr-avx2/blob/main/util.c#L1866If it was, it fixes the donation addresses, but also adds ".1" to the address, signaling that it was modified. You can see the addresses (with the ".1" appended) here: https://github.com/WyvernTKC/cpuminer-gr-avx2/blob/main/util.c#L462And if we check the dev address on Flockpool, you can see quite a bit of hash going to that worker: https://flockpool.com/miners/rtm/RQKcAZBtsSacMUiGNnbk3h3KJAN94tstvtSo... where did it come from? Well, we don't have to look far... here's a normal protocol dump:  Here's one from Hive:  Stealing from the few developers who do open source miner work is a good way to stop people from doing open source miner work. Further, if they're doing this to developers... God knows what they would do to their users if they can get away with it. |
|
|
|
Thanks, will you release cuda 11.4 build soon? The 11.5 build is faster, and early x-mas holiday now. So might not be buildt in a few days. The team is Tired. 10 months of hard work completed.. All that hard work stealing open source code, making some improvements, and then profiting off of it without giving back. Must be tiring. I guess they're really playing a good long game, since they keep generating new features and slowly fixing bugs, which based on your comments, I assume they're generating on purpose to be sneaky and underhanded about some GNU violation? No, I assume they started off the work of other people, did not credit them, and then made money off of what is partially their work. Even if they did take open source code and modify it for commercial purposes, the software is better than any others out there and there are a lot worse things in this world to get upset about. The worst is that they have incorporated an open source project and built out and around it, which is common practice. Even creating a closed-source project based on the modification of the core open source code is not exactly uncommon, and there are far more flagrant violators of the GNU agreement for you to gripe about; how about elastic search, they _IPO'd_ on modified open source software which wasn't shared with the community.
So, because other people have done it, it's okay? As a developer myself, I know just how difficult and time consuming this shit is. While I personally dislike the GPL, If someone gives away their code for free and only wants those using it to follow the GPL - it's their right to decide what gets done with their shit. This is how you get people to stop contributing to open source. |
|
|
|
All that hard work stealing open source code, making some improvements,
 This miner is original work. The stratum code is written from scratch, and have low hits on the antivirus compared to the other miners out there. The latest gminer:  Again, you're lying and then dodging the issue. I didn't say you copied gminer - what I said was, you copied the Ethash OpenCL kernel. |
|
|
|
Thanks, will you release cuda 11.4 build soon? The 11.5 build is faster, and early x-mas holiday now. So might not be buildt in a few days. The team is Tired. 10 months of hard work completed.. All that hard work stealing open source code, making some improvements, and then profiting off of it without giving back. Must be tiring. |
|
|
|
|
I have exceeded 3MH/s per watt - so I rewrote the OP, and renamed the thread. Details and new screenshot are in the OP.
|
|
|
|
Impressed by the low power at only 65 Watt at 178 Mhsh or so.I am pretty sure that most of the miners here will be more than willing to see that miner go to 200-300 watt and see 4x or 5x the hash rate it currently has.That can be the miner all people living in countries like Germany and alike are waiting for because they pay really high electricity cost.I also hope you have success in your work and hopefully we will see more FPGA with better 16 GB HBM2 memory in not the so distant future.
The JC board will not take that much power. You can get a little more from water cooling but 200-300 watts will most likely end in tears or fire! That's not true, the JCC2L boards can take 450W (not per FPGA, total, so 225W per FPGA). will your bits be available for FK33 also , if/when its out ? good to see that there is some development for sqrl stuff, since seems like they are gone permanently in all shapes and forms.
An FK33 is too small for this implementation. I think you need to go look at the backlog in semi conductor production before you say a few months to asic. More like a year+ at this point. Fpgas fork easily unlike asics. But again it is not the threat you claim it is….there simply isnt the magnitude of volume of fpgas and the cost is sufficient to keep it that way for now.
They will only tell they are producing it publicly if they plan to sell or market it as to sell on a set date, many produced asics in the past and kept for themselves for years till they decided to sell because they had something else better to let in their warehouse. Bitmain is known to do that, anyway, those practices are common known, not sure why you asked me to check semiconductor backlog, they ask for discretion here, when lots of money is involved and they dont want people to know then nobody will know about it. I said few months probably there are prototypes already. This isn't always true. I mean, I'm announcing this one because I know of at least one other implementation, and people ought to know that it's possible. Also, this implementation uses HBM2 memory, which would be *very* expensive to put on an ASIC. Not only do you need the HBM2 itself and an interposer, but you additionally need memory controller IP and such. It complicates a design massively. |
|
|
|
He did the real first Eth miner.
 Did he do it in phyon or shell script? That's the only remaining *active* one, idiot. |
|
|
|
The repository you are linking from is from 2018. I was in the team that made the first ethereum gpu miner. back in 2015. The Gateless Gate Sharp version seems to be a slightly modified version of the original kernel.  I know the history - because I was there. You did *not* write the GPLv3 code which you stole; it does not matter at all what other code you may have written in the miner. Also, I linked the code from the ethereum-mining repo, if you care to read - which originates from https://github.com/ethereum/aleth - which predates you. He did the real first Eth miner. |
|
|
|
Some of you may remember me from my old account, Wolf0 (which I no longer have access to, as I got rid of the email I used long ago.) I'm still developing miners. Recently, I've been working on a miner for a coin called Ergo. Ergo uses a new proof of work known as Autolykos2 ( described here: https://docs.ergoplatform.com/ErgoPow.pdf ), which requires a large dataset in memory to mine. This dataset increases in size every 51,200 blocks, with a 2 minute block time. Currently mined with GPUs, and widely believed to be FPGA and ASIC resistant, this is the first FPGA miner (that I know of). While I have no clue what I'll be doing with it yet (releasing or otherwise), it performs slightly better than a 3070 per FPGA, at less than half the wattage. My miner is still in alpha stage - just a proof-of-concept, but I am currently mining it with a JC35 (Jungle Cat 35P) FPGA board which features two XCVU35P FPGAs, each with 8GB of HBM2 memory. I am also mining it with an Osprey ECU50 (aka U50C). I have exceeded 3 MH/s per watt - screenshot is here (NSFW): https://i.imgur.com/FsXfZiR.jpgBreakdown for those who don't feel like zooming in with the screenshot: FPGA0: 56.14W @ 172.0MH/s FPGA1: 55.54W @ 172.0MH/s FPGA2*: 68.96W @ 169.2MH/s *This FPGA is an Osprey ECU50 (aka U50C) which I cannot lower the voltage on. For FPGA0: Rounding the watts up to 57W: (172 / 57 == ~3.018 MH/s/W) For FPGA1: Rounding the watts up to 56W : (172 / 56 == ~3.071 MH/s/W) For FPGA2: Rounding the watts up to 69W: (169.2 / 69 == ~2.452MH/s/W) I still need to make more progress with the efficiency of the ECU50 (aka U50C) FPGA, but this may take me some time to get to, as the JC35 FPGAs (FPGA0 & FPGA1 are a JC35) are my primary target. Core clocks are 400Mhz for FPGA0 & FPGA1, and 425Mhz for FPGA2. Memory clocks for all three FPGAs are 1100Mhz. These can go lower or higher to gain efficiency and/or hashrate. |
|
|
|
Its just to modify the higher straps with the 1500mhz strap. That's what most people do. However some people update the clock settings so they don't need to use an overclocking program like MSI afterburn on every start-up and update the voltage profiles so they don't have to use WattMan to undervolt on every start up. So besides the straps for 1600Mhz+ and the core engine/memory clocks and voltage there isn't much to change. Changing anything else can damage the GPU and you shouldn't play around with random values. These days you don't need to modify even the straps, some miners do it for you on the fly. However those don't always work, like in my case so I had to mod the straps. Most people do that, however, there's more that can be done. Such as customizing the timings. |
|
|
|
|
