Crazypool does not remove uncle rewards. They pay the full uncle reward and it is split amongst the pool the same as any other block is. The more valid shares you have submitted then the higher your share of the reward. Uncle blocks and stale shares are not the same thing.

I've never heard of 'level 1' stale shares before this isn't a term commonly employed in the space. The stale shares reported on the pool side are not seen in the miner client output screen. The only non valid shares the miner client reports are the two rejected shares I have currently which are also shown in the hiveos dashboard.

I'm currently running the recommended intensity by the dev of 24 with my 69/68/67/6600 series cards.

Currently I'm specifying intensity 24.

Before employing TBM I was getting stales of around 0.5-0.8%. Now I'm seeing around 1.25-1.5% so this is within the range you specified and not anything unusual.

I mine on crazypool because they tend to be one of the more profitable pools to mine at and I prefer to mine on smaller pools. They also have a lottery system which affords the chance to win 0.1 ETH.

The git page seems to have some odd information here:
https://github.com/sp-hash/TeamBlackMiner/blob/main/FAQ.md
Conflating uncle blocks and stale shares. Even if that were true, crazypool does find and pay out uncles.

I checked a few of the pools on the page (MPH, f2pool, 2miners) for their stales policy. MPH and 2miners don't say anything about it one way or another. F2pool indicates they don't pay stale shares.

The client seems to be running per expectation on my end and I'm going to continue with it for a couple more days to get a conclusive result to compare with.

I'm not done testing it as one day isn't conclusive. So far at same settings I ran with team red I am getting about 0.5-0.75% more stales on crazypool with the slightly higher power use. Going to test through tomorrow and check the result.

I could try reducing intensity to knock down the stale shares however reducing intensity, I assume, would also pull back hash rate and possibly overall shares. It may be that while it works better than it used to and has improved quite a lot team red is just going to be a better option right now for crazypool since they do not pay any stales.

If I were to reduce intensity below 24 what do you recommend trying next sp?

I have two AMD 6000 series rigs and have switched over to 1.56 late yesterday on crazypool. I'll let it go a few days and then run a comparison on pool side stats for shares.

With same settings as TRM power consumption is a bit higher. For example, one rig went from 570w to 592w moving over to TBM. Software figures there but power at the wall seems to back it up increasing an additional 30w over TRM. With additional tinkering it MAY be possible to pull that back down however I'm not going to spend time trying until the initial test is over and I can compare the pool side shares over a few days at least.

I don't doubt it. They are hiding this somewhere on their website though. The changelog doesn't even mention this and when I try the dropdown on the rig dashboard it just says the same thing 'miners update' with no details.

https://hiveon.com/changelog/?type=All&page=1

Once it is available in Hive then I will go ahead and give that a try thank you very much. I kept the flight sheet so should be easy to try once I update.

0.6-213@220220 is showing as a 'miners update' and doesn't note the new version of TBM so it may be a few days before I can try this.

Hey thanks I'm up and running with 3333.

I am getting a lot of invalid shares. I did set the intensity to 24 which was suggested for 6000 series cards. I am using the same overclocks and settings that worked OK with team red. How do I resolve this issue with the invalid shares?

Thanks

https://imgur.com/a/y76Ro55

Cards are 6000 series AMD mixed but all reference.
Pool is crazypool.

Anyone running in hive? Does this flight sheet look correct? TIA

https://imgur.com/a/q1vneep

Case on the pool? Sorry not sure what you meant sir.

I am mining on crazypool, with AMD 6000 series cards. Does the miner start automatically with optimized defaults? Is it aware of the pool used and applies settings automatically for that pool?

Is there a version coming out that will set intensity automatically so as to avoid having to manually tune?

Just a note to the dev (sp_) here. I admire the work you've done on the client so far.

One thing I would really like to see from the software is less work required to tune it. Other clients like TRM for example auto-detect intensity and away you go that's it. One barrier to entry for some people is the tuning work it takes for TBM. You can't just run the executable and have it 'just work' like TRM does so well for example.

I realize some people are going to claim this is laziness and that's fine. The fact is less work to get something running is always a plus.

Hi team.  Sorry for the ignorant question.

When downloading the miner client archive file from git there doesn't seem to be any checksums to compare against.  Is there any way to verify the file is valid?  I am running on a personal computer and not a rig so am trying to be as careful as I can be to avoid malware.

TIA

3090 FE on the way here.  What miner client is in use in the photograph above?  Need to do some research on the best one to look at using.

Digital FUD Lord at it again eh?  Some things never change.

No I do understand.  I remain skeptical this is the correct prediction of future events.

I suppose time will tell won't it?  FWIW - I hope you're right.

Early on I expect FPGA to possibly end up being very profitable.  Some will sell their GPUs and re-equip with one or two FPGA at the same cost basis.  Some may quit entirely.  It'll be fine for a while.

The thing is people are greedy.  They are going to do the math and figure out how 10 more of them will vastly increase profits.  Which it will in the short term.  They will then take out a loan or whatever it takes thinking they have a gold mine on their hands.  And they will - for a while.

Once enough people do that, and once enough of the big players re-equip, then hello 10x difficulty increase.  It won't happen overnight.  Long term though - doesn't look real favorable to me.

Disregarding the normal fluctuation in value of coins being mined.  I don't see how this conclusion is arrived at.

Nobody interested in these devices is planning on continuing along at the same hash rate they are now with a GPU rig or farm.  They will want and need more to keep up.  Nobody is going to buy one and go "OK, I got the same hash as my 15 1080ti at 10% of the electricity so now I'm good this is it."  Once they re-equip en masse then network hash skyrockets.  Just like it does with an ASIC machine.  They hit the network and difficulty goes through the roof.  People then are under pressure to buy more to keep up.  And so on.

Perhaps this is a better way to illustrate:
I have one gpu.  I hash 1000 h/s @ 1000w.
I buy one FPGA.  I hash 10000 h/s @ 100w.
Am I going to buy just one FPGA then?  No.  I'm going to buy 10 of the things so I can run 100x the hash at the same power.  Just like everyone else will.  While we are all hashing more for the same power.  We are all hashing more.  And difficulty goes sky high to compensate for this.

Would like to know what I'm not understanding here.

Once everyone sells their GPUs and moves to FPGA your electricity savings are wiped out as is any advantage in hashing power you had.  Difficulty skyrockets once everyone re-equips.  It'll be good early on in the transition phase assuming this actually happens on a large scale.  Past that not so much.  Balance returns and you've come full circle.

Newegg had powercolor vega 64 cards for $619 before MIR and with a far cry license.  Seems pretty reasonable to me.  Should be Samsung hbm and a good cooler.  If I hadn't just bought asus rog strix I would've picked those up instead.

I'm getting about 20 h/s more per gpu after 18.5.1 driver upgrade.

Currently 2025 h/s vega 64.  1408 core and 1100 memory clocks.  I don't know how people hit 2080+ without pushing clocks higher than what I'm at.

I can confirm to anyone interested that running wattman in newer adrenaline drivers and setting -20% power along with manually setting clocks for the higher two p-states does not save as much power and heat as using the old power tables from the guide.  Loading the power tables, using the same clock settings in ODT, saves me at least 50w and cuts down on heat output for my xfx vega 64.

Those of you mining with cast-xmr are you using xmr-stak for cpu mining or is xm-rig a better option there?  I've been thinking of trying cast since everyone seems to swear by it as far as hash rates go it is supposed to be faster than xmr-stak.