 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 »
|
Hi, I am just new to this pool, I am wondering u guys how many DOGE u can get from about 700kh/s, I had tested for 24hours with one 280X/710kh/s, I get 200 DOGE per hour average, now I add one more 280x with 1440KH/S in total, it's been 10hours run, I get 1800 DOGE in total, that's 180 DOGE per hour average, can anyone give some ideal what is going on? should I leave? I will run it in full 24 after that I will update my result. anyway happy mining fellow miners:)
At current difficulty (1319), 1440 kH/s should get you 457 DOGE per hour. You can google "Dogecoin calculator" and do you own calculation. |
|
|
|
|
I started mining here 27 hours ago. Taking the balance accumulated in the last 24 hours, the profit is very close to what I would have got if I mined LTC directly. In contrast, the site advertised ~168% profit. I'll move on to another pool.
|
|
|
|
1) When do payouts occur?
Here is the timeline of my first payout (1/28, UTC) 14:22 Auto-withdrawal limit reached 17:09 Withdrawal initiated 19:32 Transaction included in the blockchain |
|
|
|
I find that the web server's time is incorrect Right now it's 11:12 PM EST (4:12 AM UTC), but the website says: Stats last updated:
5:10:10 AM EST
You may want to fix that. How often do you exchange coins into LTC? |
|
|
|
I've finally bitten the bullet and killed off GPU mining from the code and it will not be in the release I'm about to post. I have given ample warning that this was coming for some time on this forum thread and IRC about this and its time has come. It's also worth noting that even GPU mining has been used lately for botnets so cgminer once again is being flagged inappropriately as malware or a virus by various "authorities". I have left a 3.7 branch on git that is based on the last code that support GPU, OpenCL and scrypt code for those who wish to use it, but it is basically unchanged in terms of its mining code for GPUs compared with 3.7.2 which will be the last official release with GPU support. You are most welcome to fork, maintain, extend etc. the existing code provided you abide by the GPLv3 copyright restrictions that cgminer is released under. I am making a conscious decision and taking a stance to only support bitcoin by doing this and will consider all discussions regarding alternative cryptocurrencies as offtopic from here on. It is absolutely clear that we are in a stage where only ASICs matter in mining bitcoin, and cgminer is moving with the rapidly changing landscape that is bitcoin mining.
On the other hand, I think it's time to remind people of a warning I put up on this very forum thread almost 1 year to date, as I seriously worry about the massive amounts of money people are pouring into bitcoin mining hardware without being completely informed of the fact that they're unlikely to ever recoup the costs of the hardware they're purchasing.
Yes I am most aware of the apparently hypocritical nature of only supporting ASIC mining for bitcoin and then saying it's a waste of money to do so. I believe this situation is transient for the next few months though and we need to ride it out as best we can for the future of bitcoin. Thank you for keeping scrypt in cgminer for the past year  |
|
|
|
Coinchoose's 1479.86% profitability is based on an outdated difficulty (0.08708762)
Current block: 26367
Current difficulty: 1.02827421
Correct profitability = 1479.86%*0.08708762/1.02827421 = 125.33%
This +1 Since it's just 125.33% I'll stay with LTC Effectively, I built powercoind just to find out the correct difficulty  For those who can't connect, these are some of the nodes I was connected to before I stopped powercoind addnode=68.149.50.248:9862 addnode=68.4.217.116:9862 addnode=85.177.233.215:9862 addnode=94.78.189.39:9862 addnode=105.236.180.66:9862 addnode=122.226.16.218:9862 addnode=174.111.52.191:9862 addnode=213.103.202.73:9862 addnode=217.174.51.8:9862 |
|
|
|
|
Coinchoose's 1479.86% profitability is based on an outdated difficulty (0.08708762)
Current block: 26367
Current difficulty: 1.02827421
Correct profitability = 1479.86%*0.08708762/1.02827421 = 125.33%
|
|
|
|
1) Gigabyte 7950 3GB GDDR5 windforce $290
This card is Undervolted @ 1.09V (switch 2) It has not been used for more than an hour.
It was simply taken out of the box, voltage modified, tested and was put back in it's original box.
Voltage modified by flashing BIOS or hardware mod? |
|
|
|
|
r1cBdJ86pgF4caTB1QdokyunM1KT5qtQZ
|
|
|
|
Potential bug report - "corrupted double-linked list" (or it can be my hardware failing) [2013-05-08 04:50:36] Accepted f266a801 Diff 189/64 GPU 0 pool 0
[2013-05-08 04:50:36] Accepted b4effe14 Diff 116/64 GPU 0 pool 0
[2013-05-08 04:50:39] Accepted aeb15073 Diff 83/64 GPU 1 pool 0
[2013-05-08 04:50:39] Accepted a8f92b24 Diff 138/64 GPU 1 pool 0
[2013-05-08 04:50:48] Stratum from pool 0 detected new block*** glibc detected *** cgminer-3.0.0-x86_64-built/cgminer: corrupted double-linked list: 0x0000000001c1ed10 ***
[2013-05-08 04:50:54] Accepted 0458233f Diff 143/64 GPU 0 pool 0
[2013-05-08 04:50:56] Accepted 7bbd5c46 Diff 199/64 GPU 0 pool 0
[2013-05-08 04:50:56] Accepted 6d3aa40a Diff 111/64 GPU 1 pool 0
[2013-05-08 04:50:57] Accepted 4a58484c Diff 112/64 GPU 1 pool 0
Xubuntu 12.04 x64, Catalyst 12.8, cgminer 3.0.0, scrypt, intensity 19, lg2tc22336w256l8 I didn't turn on debug when this happened so this is all I have. I've only seen it once so far. I'll update to the latest version and let you know if I can still get the error. |
|
|
|
That's like going back to how we mined bitcoins >2 years ago before pools and longpoll. The answer is set the scantime as low as you can before the hashrate drops. If you're solo mining, something like 5s is usual for sha coins. However it can be slow to return results for scrypt so you'll have to experiment.
Thank you for the advice. I have two more questions: 1. I don't see a reduction in the displayed hash rate when I decrease scan-time. Is the displayed hash rate reliable at very low scan-time? 2. Is scan-time=0 a valid setting? According to the README, scan-time is an "Upper bound on time spent scanning current work, in seconds", so it sounds like 0 wouldn't make sense. However, it appears to work, and I found that scan-time=0 allows cgminer to detect new blocks slightly more quickly than scan-time=1. At this moment there are ~5 CNC blocks per minute so every second of stale work counts. I'm solo-mining and I haven't mined a block since I changed to scan-time=0, so I can't tell whether it's truly working. |
|
|
|
Question: Is it a good practice to use "--scan-time 1" in cgminer? I'm trying to solo-mine FTC (scrypt, 2.5 min/block) with GPUs. From what I can found, the usual recommended practice is to add stratum or longpoll pools to the list of pools, so cgminer will know when there is a new block. However, from my own experiment, I found that existing FTC pools are slow to send out new block notifications. The following is a screenshot of cgminer running on 2 different machines.  Machine on the left: pools = [feathercoind, (stratum) feathercoin.is-a-geek.com, (longpoll) featherpool.com] scan-time = 60 Machine on the right: pools = [feathercoind] scan-time = 1 Using "--scan-time 1" with a local feathercoind gives me new blocks detections 0-30 seconds faster than the stratum/longpoll connections (as seen above). However, the statistics for the machine on the right show 60 new blocks (NB), 177 discarded work items (DW), and 1 rejected block (R). Having "DW > NB" and "R > 0" makes me feel that it might I may be doing something wrong. Naively I think that cgminer discards work only when a new block forces it to do so. If anyone knows whether it's OK to use "--scan-time 1", and whether it's fine to have "DW > NB" and "R > 0", please let me know. Thanks! |
|
|
|
Thanks for trying to help. Your BIOS works with my card, but unfortunately I still cannot undervolt. Like some of the other BIOS I've tried, it significantly increases the power consumption (to ~450W). So I'll revert the the original BIOS for now Now I think it's safe to assume that they've changed the components on the board |
|
|
|
|
Tried 8 BIOSs with the same device ID from the TechPowerUp Video BIOS Collection. Unfortunately, none of them unlocked undervolting for me. Some of them actually increases the power consumption significantly (both idle and load).
Using the stock BIOS, the power consumption of the system (with GPU load) is ~264W
HIS.HD7970.3072.120816.rom
Works, but the voltage table is exactly the same as stock
ATI.HD7950.3072.120706.rom/HIS.HD7950.3072.120706.rom (idential ROMs)
Does NOT work
ATI.HD7950.3072.120116.rom
GPU-Z reports a lower voltage at load, but power consumption increases to ~452 W
MSI.HD7950.3072.120202.rom
GPU-Z reports a lower voltage at load, but power consumption increases to ~450 W
VTX3D.HD7950.3072.120822.rom
Does NOT work
Sapphire.HD7950.3072.120706.rom
Does NOT work
Sapphire.HD7950.3072.120731_1.rom
Does NOT work
Sapphire.HD7950.3072.120907.rom
GPU-Z reports a lower voltage at load, but power consumption increases to ~320 W
|
|
|
|
It would be pointless listing the 7950s that can be undervolted for 2 reasons:
1) Pretty much only the original versions of most 7950s can be undervolted. I have 4 MSI 7950s with the 8/6 connectors instead of the newer 6/6 pin. The newer ones are locked. Same with Gigabyte and XFX and Sapphire. I assume Diamond, Powercolor, and any other brand would be the same. The part numbers are usually the same between older and newer ones.
2) The only decent place to find older ones would be eBay (or here) and by the time you get them in your hands difficulty will have gone up 50%.
The days of GPU mining are nearing an end. If you have cards then mine away. It makes no point buying new or even used cards for mining now unless you need them for gaming also.
Thank you for the info. It is surprising to me that they're locking all new 7950 cards. I recently bought two 7870 XT (Tahiti LE) and they're both unlocked. But it's good to know. Are new 7970, 7870 (Pitcairn) and 7850 are typically locked as well? (I agree that the days of bitcoin GPU mining is ending. So I mine litecoin ) |
|
|
|
Have you undervolted any 7950 cards, or do you know any 7950 that can be undervolted? If so, please tell me the full name (or preferably the part number) of the card. I'd like to get one of those for mining purposes. I'll use your input to build a list here. As far as I can find, no such list exists yet. The list will help everyone who's looking for the same thing as I do |
|
|
|
I will rip my older XFX DD 7950 bios later and put it up, that may fix this
Thank you. I'll send you 10 LTC for the help if it works! (Assuming you don't hate LTC  ) I contacted XFX technical support about that. They say that the 2 DVI version is voltage locked (which is not true as overvolting works) but the 1 DVI version is not. Which one do you have? |
|
|
|
I've a XFX Double D Radeon HD 7950 (FX-795A-TDFC) with 2 DVI ports. Interestingly, I can only increase the voltage of the card but not decrease it. Here is the voltage table set by the manufacturer: Core clock VDDC
below 701 MHz 950 mV
701-850 MHz 1069 mV
above 851 MHz 1169 mV The default core clock of this card is 900 MHz. At that speed, no matter what I do, the voltage won't go below 1.169 V. TriXX and AfterBurner allows me to set a lower voltage (say 0.9 V), but the card will simply ignore it. GPU-Z will show 1.169 V, and the power consumption measured at the wall won't decrease. On the other hand, overvolting does work. I can set it to 1.2+ V and reach 1100+ MHz. GPU-Z will show the voltage I set, and the power consumption measured at the wall will increase rapidly as I change the voltage. List of things I've tried: Use Windows 7/8 x64 Use Catalyst 13.1 and 12.3 Sapphire TriXX: force constant voltage MSI AfterBurner: force constant voltage and extend overclocking limit ASUS GPU Tweak: disable 2D clocks and extend overclocking limit Any idea how I can undervolt this card?Could it be that it's hardware locked to allow only overvolting but not undervolting? Any help is appreciated |
|
|
|
If anyone wasn't sure how to run it, I've expanded the post on forum.litecoin.net a bit and it should now be clear. (It took some effort to be able to post here) ck: that Lucy is cute |
|
|
|
|
