 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »
|
Question that I am hoping someone can help me with - I configured MultiPoolMiner with only MPH, and altered the Algorithm list to contain only MPH compatible algorithms. Nonetheless, several times per day it seems to switch over to mining on zpool, no matter what I do to the configuration.
Is this somehow the way that the devfee is being handled for MPM? The individual miners with devfees sometimes switch, but they're labelled with "devfee" so at least I know what is happening. With the zpool switches, I have no idea why it's happening. I don't always catch it right away so I'm unable to tell if it does it for the 10 minutes I've configured, or just "as long as it feels like it."
I'm happy to let it do some time for the dev, just want to be sure that's what's happening - like I said, I see it more than once per day, and I haven't pinned down the amount of time, so it feels like something it shouldn't be doing.
Please can you upload the log(s) on GitHub? Sure thing, next time I catch it I'll upload the log. [NM, found a log from earlier today with a few connections]. |
|
|
|
|
Question that I am hoping someone can help me with - I configured MultiPoolMiner with only MPH, and altered the Algorithm list to contain only MPH compatible algorithms. Nonetheless, several times per day it seems to switch over to mining on zpool, no matter what I do to the configuration.
Is this somehow the way that the devfee is being handled for MPM? The individual miners with devfees sometimes switch, but they're labelled with "devfee" so at least I know what is happening. With the zpool switches, I have no idea why it's happening. I don't always catch it right away so I'm unable to tell if it does it for the 10 minutes I've configured, or just "as long as it feels like it."
I'm happy to let it do some time for the dev, just want to be sure that's what's happening - like I said, I see it more than once per day, and I haven't pinned down the amount of time, so it feels like something it shouldn't be doing.
|
|
|
|
|
When PIRL starts up on my Nvidia card (GTX 770) it reports hashrate several times per second, but about 1 per second is "0.00".
This seems like a ton of hashrate updates to be sending to the live stats page, and the occasional "0" makes the data go wonky.
Totally minor thing, but maybe something to look into when you have the time.
|
|
|
|
Hi Guys! Like the project, but I've got a bit of an odd issue I'm hoping you can help with.
On my multi-card rig, some sort of error occurred during benchmarking. This has resulted in the UI perpetually showing "Benchmarking - Target: (value)/day (ETN+PIRL)" despite the fact that it's not benchmarking anything. Instead, it completely benchmarked the one Nvidia card, but all 4 AMD cards have been on ZEN and ZEN only since I started. Checking the Benchmark history, it just didn't even try to bench anything else for the AMD cards.
Interestingly, I tried uninstalling and reinstalling, thinking this would force it to re-benchmark everything, but it seems that once again the AMD cards are straight to mining zen while the Nvidia goes through a series of benchmarks.
Am I nuts? On my other rig, a single AMD card, it benchmarked as expected and has switched here and there as profits moved around.
Is there any way to ensure I have truly knocked out all previous benchmarks and really start from a clean slate on the multi-card rig?
Welcome aboard! Here is a quick explanation about benchmarking on WinMiner - (1) Benchmarking - Target - This metric shows up before benchmarking takes place, and it is based on crowd wisdom logic - it analyzes the performance of very similar hardware by other users on WinMiner and gives out an expected target metric. The idea is that users will have an estimate of what realistically they can expect before the full cycle of benchmarking is completed. (2) Benchmark modes - (a) Express (default) - in this mode the benchmarking will commence with the combination most likely to provide the best performance for the specific hardware, and then once in a while attempt a different combination to make sure the best combination is indeed the one being mined. This mode gets a user up and running with max performance asap. (b) Regular Benchmark - in this mode all combinations will be tried out, one by one until the most profitable combination is chosen In addition, once every 24 hours hardware will be examined per each algo for hash poer performance. Hope this clarifies :-) Thanks! I actually knew these things, but it's always good to refresh.
What I'm saying is that I set it for "Regular" benchmark and it did not try all combinations. It only tried one, and stopped trying any further. Likewise, the "Benchmarking" message has been stuck on the UI, regardless of whether or not the app was actually benchmarking anything.
I've seen the "expected" process on my other machine, so I know what it should look like. Ran them all, message went away, began mining as expected, switching as expected. All is well on that machine.
Now, I didn't know that it would re-check every 24 hours, so I guess I can just let it sit and when jobs return see if it actually does so. Still, I wouldn't be mad at a method to ensure I've cleared it of all benchmarks and try to start from scratch, if it's at all possible. If not, I can afford to wait and see.Good luck with your growing pains! I know how it goes, I'm sure you'll get it all sorted out soon. Edit: I'll be damned if I didn't kill both instances this morning, re-launch, and it went and benchmarked everything. Now it's doing precisely what I'd expect. Chalk it up to the issues of rapid expansion or just weird luck, but it's working like a charm now. |
|
|
|
|
Hi Guys! Like the project, but I've got a bit of an odd issue I'm hoping you can help with.
On my multi-card rig, some sort of error occurred during benchmarking. This has resulted in the UI perpetually showing "Benchmarking - Target: (value)/day (ETN+PIRL)" despite the fact that it's not benchmarking anything. Instead, it completely benchmarked the one Nvidia card, but all 4 AMD cards have been on ZEN and ZEN only since I started. Checking the Benchmark history, it just didn't even try to bench anything else for the AMD cards.
Interestingly, I tried uninstalling and reinstalling, thinking this would force it to re-benchmark everything, but it seems that once again the AMD cards are straight to mining zen while the Nvidia goes through a series of benchmarks.
Am I nuts? On my other rig, a single AMD card, it benchmarked as expected and has switched here and there as profits moved around.
Is there any way to ensure I have truly knocked out all previous benchmarks and really start from a clean slate on the multi-card rig?
|
|
|
|
Have you guys thought about changing the website upon this release? The interface of curecoin.net just looks like total balls. Webdesign is very much like a fashion trend, you know.
Let me know if you guys need assistance, I would like to help fund that and I know some web designers. Just PM me.
What do you dislike in particular, or what would you improve? There's always room for evolution, so it's good to have more specific feedback. |
|
|
|
Hey everyone, just wanted to drop in here to note some fun changes. We're trying to create a bit of a better user experience by slowly bring our separate web elements into one domain and central branding. The forum is now located on-site at CureCoin.net/forum. All existing topics and users should have been brought over without issue; that said, we converted from SMF to phpBB and rolled the login into the site's central system, so you might find you need to reset your password or something. If you have issues, visit the IRC chat for help and I'll get you squared away. In the future, we'll bring the pool from cryptobullionpools.com to Pool.CureCoin.net as well (it forwards for now, if you happen to try the URL). Pop on over to the forum, and breathe a little life into it - like a tender rose, it was a little shocked by the move.  |
|
|
|
Who has more miners/folders now I wonder, gridcoin or curecoin? Gridcoin is in like 141st place for most BOINC generated. But just curious.
I am the enthusiast of both coins (and please don't forget about undervalued CPU-only ripple-based ResearchSupportCoin). One part of my hardware is working for gridcoin and another part for curecoin. I can see advantages and disadvantages. Your question "who is on better place" in ranking is completely wrong way of thinking. Both coins should do some things to improve, I mean technically and good information (if you want, I can list them). Both have unjust way of rewarding, but both have future. There's one fundamental difference: gridcoin needs help and has wider perspectives, but curecoin is older and seems to be more stable. It's always interesting to hear what people think would improve things - do let us know your ideas. |
|
|
|
I've added a nice, visible Download link on the front page. |
|
|
|
On another random note , I had lost the link to http://curecoinfolding.com/progress-updates-p2p-networking/ then I realized it's not on the curecoin.net website. I really think a link to the curecoinfolding.com website should be on the curecoin.net as I never really knew about that site until and accidently came by it. I'll see if I can find a nice spot or two to add a link. Let me know if you have any suggestions. |
|
|
|
Secondly can you please advise how many cure coins will be in existence and how many have been produced?
Does curecoin has any relationship with foldingcoin?
What is the best platform to obtain curecoins currently?
There's a page in the KB where we link a spreadsheet showing the details on premine and future mintage plans. This should answer your first question. CureCoin is not involved with FoldingCoin, and predates it significantly. For obtaining, it depends on how you define "best". Do you mean best way to Fold, or best between folding/SHA mining/buying? |
|
|
|
are my few curecoins that I bought upon release very expensive will be worth once cure coin 3 is released?
You're skipping a version there  But the plan is for any existing CureCoins to move seamlessly into future versions of the coin. Your coins will not become useless/deprecated. |
|
|
|
If you've been antsy about not hearing any news, today is your lucky day. Check out the new update on the website to get a heads-up on where we stand. |
|
|
|
After the first day of the Conference, here's a bit of a recap: linkLess easily communicated in a coherent update is just how busy the team was making connections and talking to people about CureCoin generally. Today should be as busy as yesterday, so here's hoping the team has another big day! |
|
|
|
Begun, the clone wars have. |
|
|
|
Seems like there is some decent size buy orders though. Considering how many coins are available on the market. http://coinmarketcap.com/1 currently ranked 99 Thats true however this coin needs to get back no track as devs hardly active and all market moved to LTC would be nice to get it back in BTC markets and grow again but sadly seems more are begining to remove this coin from their markets. Devs are not hardly active though. Join in the IRC ha. They seriously never quit working. So many new things in the works  But that doesn't matter - most buyers don't come from IRC - what the coin needs to do is start getting buy offers starting getting back up to where it was at over a dollar each at 300 to the Bitcoin. And you do that by maintaining a strong public presence. The features are great but if no one hears of them they are useless. Maintaining a strong public presence and building buy pressure takes a community effort. One cannot expect to sit back and relax while other people do the work needed to spread the word and build value. The developers should be doing what they do best, improving the coin and the core services around it. The Community should be doing things like bugging Merchants, voting on places like CoinPayments (to make it much easier for merchants), posting on relevant forums and groups, etc. Bitcoin did not become huge because 2 core developers did all of the work to get the word out. And last - do recall this is a BitCoinTalk Forum thread. CureCoin has its own presence at CureCoin.net, and it has the IRC channel. There's a Reddit, LinkedIn, GooglePlus, Facebook, Twitter... If you feel like it's a bit quiet here, look around. |
|
|
|
There's a new post on the website with some updated information. Check it out! |
|
|
|
I am not a stupid person
You claim to have 100,000 coins, and are unable or unwilling to use the publicly available information to verify your claims that the devs are somehow rolling in daily fortunes. You suggest that they SELL their coins in order to somehow bring up the price. You're looking at a CryptoCurrency that's a month old complaining that you're not rich enough yet, and threatening to "destroy it" to get your way. I am not a doctor, but if it walks like a stupid duck and talks like a stupid duck... Of course, I could be wrong. If I am, you can post your Address so people can use the Block Explorer to verify your fortunes. Surely if I am wrong, you have no problem with backing up your post, right? |
|
|
|
the development team are not active enough really, the premine for ipo and dev fund was too large. It has crushed the price. Things will recover as the ipo dumpers eventually run out of coins, but with the current BTC coming in per day it will take a long time. This team didn't really get this off to a good start.
What makes you think it was IPO dumpers and not early folders dumping? The market volume is extremely low; it doesn't require IPO holders dumping to keep the price low. IPO addresses were published; you could try to research it if you think that's true. The Dev Funds are largely untouched at the moment, so you're off base there. |
|
|
|
|
