Liar. Alexis78 ccminer whose work you use in most of your miners had nist5 algo from the beginning more than a year ago. |
|
|
|
the miner ( ie any miner you get ) will show the closest to the accurate hashrates due to it being the miner - being local - and being very very quick in determining the hashrates ... after all - its the miner thats producing the hashrates ( or processing cycles ) ...
the pools ( all of the pools ) work differently ... they estimate hashrates by averaging the submitted shares in a certain timeframe ... in this case - 5mins ... the pool estimates the hashrate over this given time using the shares submitted ... there is also another factor - which we are investigating ... there is also a module in the mpos pools that are called 'coin classes' ... these classes need to be built from the ground up - but most are not ...
once we find what class is meant to be built for skunkhash - it will become a more accurate measurement for hashrate on the pool itself ...
but there is the rub ... the stratum is accurate - and its the stratum that submits your shares ... the pool just does its best to measure those shares ... so in effect - you are not losing your hashrate or shares - they are just being displayed incorrectly ... hence the wild fluctuations on most pools in most algos ... but skunkhash is displaying much lower than what the miner is producing ... you are still hashing at the miner rate - but you are correct in saying that it would be nice if the pool displayed the results also - and not lower ...
lets look into this further ...
we appreciate your shedding light on this ...
#crysx
With new version 0.9.8 everything is fine. The hashrate is correctry reported by the pool. I put 765Mh/s (Spmod5) and it shows now ~800 which corresponds with increased speed in your miner. So the problem was with 0.9.7.1 Waiting for more hashrate from a new versions while there is still some time to mine SIGT. Sorry if you consider me beeing rude. English is not my native language. |
|
|
|
It's from too high sher diff. For some hidden reason, no one want change this...
No it is not. Yes it is. High difficulty leads to bigger fluctuations and thats all. But as you can see there are no fluctuations beyond real hashrate. So there are 2 explanations. 1) The reported hashrate is false. We can't check it as far as there is only one pool. 2) Stealing 1) you seem to forget WHO we are and WHAT we do - to even attempt an insult like that concoction of stealing ... 2) IF you have not set the miner to the lodiff port ( using --lodiff ) then you WILL be forced into the hidiff port ( port 6000 ) which starts at diff2.5 and goes upwards from there ... meaning this - if you have more than 4cards ( and we will fix this in future releases ) and you DO NOT add the --lodiff parameter - you are on port 6000 and the diff WILL be too high for your rig to handle and as such - submit less shares tho at high diff rates ... 3) your results and posts of stats are great ... and PROVES that you are submitting VERY high difficulty shares - which is why the pool shows you doing 'less' work by submitted shares ... 4) you have supplied two of the three things that we need ... so - to resolve this without slinging the 'option' of stealing / dirt around - please let us know what your commandline parameters are - so that we can test PROPERLY ... 1) Actually I don't know who you are except you loud words and a nickname on the forum. For me and many others you have only them and nothing more. Just remember it. 2) I already wrote it but of course I set to lowdiff, and received 0.25 at the beginning of the test. 3) As I said before all results were received at difficulty 0.25-1.xxx. Ok fine. Yesterday I put 531Mh/s and the best hashrate that I saw was less then 400. I thought it was a mistake or wrong miner that I downloaded from another guy. Today I downloaded by your link and gave it a try with clean setup. Nothung changed. 4) I think that as far as you own the pool you can check everithing by yourself. But anyway thats it: cwigm_x86.exe -a skunk -u abudfv2008.Rig5 -p 123 -i 25 --cpu-priority=3 --lodiff cwigm_x86.exe -a skunk -u abudfv2008.Rig6 -p 123 -i 23,25.5 --cpu-priority=3 --lodiff P.S. For testing purposes, your miner shows slightly better results than Spmod5. Something like 100vs99. Lase 0.9.8 shows even better results. 72.1 vs 69.5. It would be great to see these results on the pool. |
|
|
|
It's from too high sher diff. For some hidden reason, no one want change this...
No it is not. Yes it is. High difficulty leads to bigger fluctuations and thats all. But as you can see there are no fluctuations beyond real hashrate. So there are 2 explanations. 1) The reported hashrate is false. We can't check it as far as there is only one pool. 2) Stealing |
|
|
|
It's from too high sher diff. For some hidden reason, no one want change this...
No it is not. I start from scratch. And have low difficulty 0.25 at the beginning. So the shares are accepted several in a minute. After 30minutes diff was only 1.xxx (don't remebmer exactly) and 0.5 on another rig. P.S. Those who make 15Gh/s, i'd double check whether you really get your hashrate. It is something wrong with this miner/pool or else. |
|
|
|
|
I see 74Mh/s reported in miner
Added another 70Mh/s. So it should be 144MH/s
Worker Hashrate Difficulty
abudfv2008.Rig5 35,791.39 128
abudfv2008.Rig6 50,107.95 112
5 minutes later
Worker Hashrate Difficulty
abudfv2008.Rig5 21,474.84 128
abudfv2008.Rig6 42,949.67 128
Total 64,424.51
5 minutes later
abudfv2008.Rig5 28,633.12 128
abudfv2008.Rig6 28,633.12 128
Total 57,266.24
5 minutes later
Worker Hashrate Difficulty
abudfv2008.Rig5 28,633.12 128
abudfv2008.Rig6 35,791.39 128
Total 64,424.51
5 minutes later
abudfv2008.Rig5 78,741.07 128
abudfv2008.Rig6 35,791.39 128
Total 114,532.46
5 minutes later
abudfv2008.Rig5 57,266.23 128
abudfv2008.Rig6 42,949.67 256
Total 100,215.90
5 minutes later
abudfv2008.Rig5 78,741.07 128
abudfv2008.Rig6 57,266.23 256
Total 136,007.30
5 minutes later
abudfv2008.Rig5 71,582.79 128
abudfv2008.Rig6 28,633.12 256
Total 100,215.91
5 minutes later
abudfv2008.Rig5 64,424.51 128
abudfv2008.Rig6 28,633.12 256
Total 93,057.63
5 minutes later
abudfv2008.Rig5 35,791.39 128
abudfv2008.Rig6 14,316.56 256
Total 50,107.95
I understand luck, ddosing and other factors but for 30 minutes there was no reported hashrate. On suprnova/yiimp i get fluctations with 100-200+Mh/s at the top. But not on your pool.
For comparison suprnova. From the start:
abudfv2008.Rig5 53,559.14 21.28
abudfv2008.Rig6 21,065.79 18.83
5 minutes later
abudfv2008.Rig5 75,211.57 80.69
abudfv2008.Rig6 70,697.29 44.62
5 minutes later
abudfv2008.Rig5 71,180.43 80.69
abudfv2008.Rig6 79,014.62 44.62
abudfv2008.Rig5 66,745.89 47.74
abudfv2008.Rig6 82,928.15 55.61
5 minutes later
abudfv2008.Rig5 72,953.18 47.74
abudfv2008.Rig6 71,354.27 55.61
I even recieve such values sometimes
abudfv2008.Rig5 100,202.38 43
abudfv2008.Rig6 134,679.29 72.25
I really really hope that it is a problem of beta version of your miner, and nothing worse.
|
|
|
|
|
So how is it possible to receive a muner for testing?
|
|
|
|
There is a sudden increase in Miners @ Suprnova and the difficulty just doubled.
Half of the earning are gone per hour
You are looking wrong place. Right now difficulty dropped and touched 9K. Now 11K. Still lower than 24H average 14.5K yes its half now. last then a week ago i was getting about about 90-100 coins per hour, now only 1 week later am getting 49-50 as of this post AND i added a card to the system. sigt earnings are for sure 50% or more less then they were only a few days ago. What was a week ago doesn't make any sense today. I mined with 2cards hundreds of Sigs per several hours at first day with that awful sgminer which was capable of achiving 8-9Mh on 1060. So what? Now the difficulty is lower than yesterday while 5 days to the first halvening And it is really strange - thats the point. |
|
|
|
No, not at this moment.
Try harder.  Mine Fury is making 3$/day. I've only RXs They can do even more.  |
|
|
|
There is a sudden increase in Miners @ Suprnova and the difficulty just doubled.
Half of the earning are gone per hour
You are looking wrong place. Right now difficulty dropped and touched 9K. Now 11K. Still lower than 24H average 14.5K |
|
|
|
No, not at this moment.
Try harder. Mine Fury is making 3$/day. |
|
|
|
There is a working miner for AMD, not the most brilliant hashrates but it works Who need the miner without competitive hashrates? For 1$ profit. There are much more profitable coins/algo for Reds. |
|
|
|
Just imagine what happens when SIGT gets listed at whattomine ... right now we are still mining in the cover of the shadow Actually nothing happened. Maybe AMD users became more active in begging for the miner |
|
|
|
Any chances to see a more AMD optimize miner software for signatum ?
Get your greedy hands off the Sig Too late for the AMD miner ... I hope. |
|
|
|
You don't HAVE to plot all the drives on the same machine - you can plot on ANY machine as long as you don't duplicate nonce numbers.
There is no need in "other machines". 7 drives can be plotted simultaneously on i7. |
|
|
|
I've NEVER needed more than 5 days to plot a Seagate Archive 8TB - and that's on my GAMING machine that I don't have available TO plot on a "all the time" basis, and running XPlotter on the CPU.
If it's taking you 15 days, you're doing something wrong.
1) Open the wallet, press "Plot", press plot with CPU. What can be wrong? 2) Good to hear that, but you are the only one, i think. 8Tb Seagate Archive drives can be plotted much faster with GPU and buffered plotting. But with CPU (or GPU direct) I've tested on several PC - the plotting speed is only about 5-6Mb/s. Any other drive is much faster. |
|
|
|
Difficulty doubled in an hour!  price went up fast so the big miners came in for farming most likely - nothing unusual Where did you see "price went up"? It is not at the bottom but it is far from 3000-2500 where it came for a day after first spike to 5000. Even 1500-1700 which lasted for 2 days is not yet achieved. So - profitability at the moment is far from good. Only if you think the price will go up at least 2-3 times. |
|
|
|
Here comes a new version! Sorry for the delay... https://github.com/nicehash/excavator/releases/tag/v1.2.11a- added support for TITAN Xp - added algorithm CUDA lyra2rev2 - added API method message - bug fixes & improvements Personally, I worked really hard to make AMD support as reliable as possible. It took me forever to fix all these bugs, but I think it's worth it. Enjoy! Why were the command line parameters cut? It is common practice, and much easier to utilise miners via comand line params. |
|
|
|
Ok maybe I should think smaller...i have started burst mining with 7x 8TB HDDs and my workstation was busy with plotting them for more than 16 days/24h (one time I had a blue screen after 36h  ) Plotting the same TBs on SMR HDDs with my setup could be easy took more than 42 days! Thats to much time for me and my workstation CPU under 100% fire. CPU Plotting 1 SMR drive takes about 15days. So 7 drives can be plotted simultaneously 1 per thread on 1 PC. So it will take 15days for just plotting as it is. With some effort (and availability of faster drives) you can plot them faster. Or you can use GPU miner...  It won't help you. The speed of direct plotting SMR 8Tb is only 5-6Mb/s. |
|
|
|
Anyone mining with gtx970? how is hashrate?
Just as with all other algos 970 is ~10% slower than 1060 6Gb 16.9Mh with sp3 overclocked to ~1400Mh |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
