I'm using a laptop guiminer setup and I am getting a 3.7 MHashes/s rate. Is this accurate, as I've seen a max of Hrates in the high KHases per sec for GPUs, so I am doubting the accuracy of this value. Attaching the screenshot  . http://imgur.com/YSshMKiedit : just noticed the screenshot says 3.4, but I usually see 3.7 Those higher rates are with high-end desktop ATI cards. GPU mining is on its way out anyway; probably best to not mine and give your laptop some rest. |
|
|
|
|
Yeah, it's getting ridiculous. Soon they won't even bother giving the alt coins proper names, they'll just be "yet another coin" or some shit.
|
|
|
|
especially since it can be easily compressed down to a single byte (by counting the number of zero bits).
In other words, pdiff is a hack. |
|
|
|
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/DifficultyPools "often do" pdiff, but it seems bdiff is what bitcoin actually does internally. Wouldn't that make bdiff the defacto standard? Since pdiff ends up slightly higher, there's no harm done. Anything hitting the pdiff target also meets the bdiff target. But isn't bdiff the true standard? This exactly. |
|
|
|
standard pdifficulty pdifficulty is not the standard. Not sure where you've been mining all this time, but until very recently, all pools used pdifficulty 1. In any case, Eligius is completely stratum-spec-compliant here. The spec doesn't specify a minimum difficulty, but you'll note that the default difficulty is 1, not 0.9999847412109375, making 1 an implied minimum. |
|
|
|
standard pdifficulty pdifficulty is not the standard. |
|
|
|
We're working on provisioning a new poolserver ASAP - wizkid057 has to be gone for a bit, so I'll probably be finishing it up. On a side note, I created a bugfix for the poclbm (GUIMiner) bug with stratum, but m0mchil refuses to merge the fix. If you prefer poclbm and/or stratum, you can post your complaint/encouragement here... Your pool sends a fractional difficulty below 1 and you have the nerve to say that poclbm is broken? |
|
|
|
Pool2: eligius.st:80 Should be in front of that hostname, but the pool is broken anyway. Try another pool. |
|
|
|
Anyone have an idea what this might be indicative of? Suggestions?
This machine is W8 Pro, 7850 + 7970 and CGminer 2.11.4
Pool 0: eligius.st:3334 Pool1: mint.bitminter.com:8332 Pool2: eligius.st:80 Pool3: eligius.st:8337 And I believe this log was while I was running with Pool Load Balancing setting [2013-05-02 20:07:53] ALL (5s):1.043G (avg):989.3Mh/s | A:125 R:6 HW:0 U:12.6/m WU:13.6/m [2013-05-02 20:07:53] GPU1 73.0C 3392RPM | (5s):716.7M (avg):661.3Mh/s | A:94 R:6 HW:0 U:9.5/m I:15 [2013-05-02 20:07:55] GPU0 73.0C 2047RPM | (5s):330.9M (avg):331.6Mh/s | A:31 R:0 HW:0 U:3.1/m I:15 [2013-05-02 20:07:57] Setting GPU 0 fan percentage to 48 [2013-05-02 20:07:57] Setting GPU 1 fan percentage to 74 [2013-05-02 20:07:58] ALL (5s):1.029G (avg):989.4Mh/s | A:125 R:6 HW:0 U:12.5/m WU:13.5/m [2013-05-02 20:07:58] GPU1 73.0C 3406RPM | (5s):743.5M (avg):660.8Mh/s | A:94 R:6 HW:0 U:9.5/m I:15 [2013-05-02 20:07:59] Setting GPU 0 fan percentage to 47 [2013-05-02 20:08:03] ALL (5s):950.3M (avg):987.9Mh/s | A:125 R:6 HW:0 U:12.4/m WU:13.4/m [2013-05-02 20:08:03] Setting GPU 0 fan percentage to 48 [2013-05-02 20:08:03] Setting GPU 1 fan percentage to 73 [2013-05-02 20:08:04] GPU1 74.0C 3398RPM | (5s):722.5M (avg):660.4Mh/s | A:94 R:6 HW:0 U:9.3/m I:15 [2013-05-02 20:08:05] Testing pool http://eligius.st:80 [2013-05-02 20:08:05] HTTP request failed: necessary data rewind wasn't possible [2013-05-02 20:08:05] GPU0 74.0C 2173RPM | (5s):337.0M (avg):331.1Mh/s | A:31 R:0 HW:0 U:3.1/m I:15 [2013-05-02 20:08:05] HTTP request failed: necessary data rewind wasn't possible [2013-05-02 20:08:05] JSON decode failed(1): '[' or '{' expected near '<' [2013-05-02 20:08:05] Setting GPU 0 fan percentage to 47 [2013-05-02 20:08:05] JSON decode failed(1): '[' or '{' expected near '<' [2013-05-02 20:08:05] Closing socket for stratum pool 2 Looks like a pool problem. |
|
|
|
Hypocritical of Luke-Jr hey  Complaining about a clone ... Though I do wonder about the thread title "quick" It's been around for quite a while. But Luke-Jr does have his own definition of words given to him directly by a priest or maybe even the pope ... Perhaps compare the speed to that of the Catholic church accepting new ideas. |
|
|
|
They all hate it because all the man hour is put into bitcoin, other coins just fork, adjust some params, or change a few algorithms, and compete with the original.
Maybe bitcoin needs a new license to prevent the clone from taking benefit from it.
Restrictive licensing? That'll improve adoption. |
|
|
|
It also doesn't make much sense to buy a 60Gh/s miner at this point.
The profitability is going down at this point....so if I am going to buy something it has to be superior to 75Gh/s. ........or just buy two smaller units. If that's not economical, then the problem is hashrate per dollar which has nothing to do with the size of the units. |
|
|
|
Number of chips is not a useful metric, you're discounting die size, transistor counts and many other factors. Component count roughly correlates with unit production cost, which suggests that BFL could push prices down further than Avalon could. But yes, I agree that right now J/H and $/H/s (is that equivalent to s$/H?) are more important, with a secondary focus on H/s/m 3. |
|
|
|
B) The Avalons are actually upgradeable. The Avalons are 66~74GH/s while the BFL's are stuck in nuetral at 60GH/s....we hope.... Remember when I predicted that their super secret hidden killer feature (which turned out to be that) would be near-useless? You can only "upgrade" them by ordering more ASIC modules from Avalon, with effectively zero cost saving per GH/s compared to just getting more units. The new BFL single design will still pack more GH/s into a smaller space and at a lower cost. When it finally ships, of course. |
|
|
|
I love to suck BFL cock
ohrly? I don't know, you may be confusing me with the guy that's had (access to) a little single for a month... |
|
|
|
Wait, what? I thought, chip for chip, BFL's chips seriously outperform the Avalon ones. Hence why Avalon uses 108 or something chips to achieve 60GH/s Avalon actually uses 240 chips... |
|
|
|
...usual avalon dick sucking shit... Are you ever going to change your sig? Edit: I also love sucking BFL cock, in case anyone was wondering. |
|
|
|
1. Every time I change the mem-clock, the hashrate will go up slightly (about 15Kh/s), and then drop back down to where it was (275Kh/s). According to GPU-Z, the speed is staying where I set it, so why is the hashrate going back down??? It's complicated. really? care to explain, or is your comment just a reflection of your inadequacies? Either your inadequacies in articulation, which prevent you from explaining, or is it you inadequacies in comprehension, which prevent you from understanding it yourself? yes |
|
|
|
1. Every time I change the mem-clock, the hashrate will go up slightly (about 15Kh/s), and then drop back down to where it was (275Kh/s). According to GPU-Z, the speed is staying where I set it, so why is the hashrate going back down??? It's complicated. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
