|
Used and currently running. All or nothing. No retail boxes, etc. Risers included, if you want them. GPUs currently have custom undervolted VBIOS suitable for Equihash. Best offer, you pay shipping, escrow required. Sold as is, in working order. Minimum offer $300 each. Cashed in last year and don't want the hassle this summer. Also have some Asrock H97 Ann. MBs and EVGA 1300w G2 PSUs.
PM me with questions, offers.
-Best
|
|
|
|
can it be mined using regular computer with nvidia gpu, will it be worth it or burn more power thn it can be produce a coin ?
If you had read the OP you'd know that Claymore's Zcash miner doesn't support Nvidia. |
|
|
|
|
Hopefully, zawawa's absence from the thread means he got that job!!
|
|
|
|
Well I ran the farm for 12Hrs but had to switch back to claymore as my effective hash was dropping, Need to fine tune more for 470 cards.
Not saying it's not GG, but effective hash rate in subject to variance, just like everything else. It's not a flat line, if that's what you're looking for. I understand but I should have been seeing 2.2-3.4GH/s fluctuation however I was only seeing 1.6-2.5GH/s with my full farm. Testing on a single 470 GG was faster but it was slower on my full farm. I am looking into optimizations for my 4 Card rigs now to see if it's just a config issue I was just trying to let zawawa know why I had to pull the farm from the fee version of GG for now. Are you running one instance of GG per rig, or one instance per card? If only one per rig, you might try one per card. Sometimes the miner's threading can be less than optimal (not just GG). I always get better farm stability with a miner instance per card. |
|
|
|
Well I ran the farm for 12Hrs but had to switch back to claymore as my effective hash was dropping, Need to fine tune more for 470 cards.
Not saying it's not GG, but effective hash rate in subject to variance, just like everything else. It's not a flat line, if that's what you're looking for. |
|
|
|
Claymore made a choise in his miner and fee can be disabled via -nofee 1 option. Can you make in gg miner this choise too?
So, you're happy to use the result of his hard work, which is open source, but you begrudge him 1%? Do you mine solo just to avoid the 1% pool fee, too? Do you steal rolls of toilet paper out of public rest rooms, while you're at it? At this moment I use Claymore miners - they are give more speed on my Tahiti and Pitcairn cards. I told about possibility to disable fee. Even Claymore make this possibility on his miners. And you're right - I allready paying too much fees (pools, etc.) and I don't want to add another 1%. OK, so you *do* realize that Claymore's -nofee option reduces the hash rate you get by a bit more than his devfee, right? He says so in his README. |
|
|
|
Claymore made a choise in his miner and fee can be disabled via -nofee 1 option. Can you make in gg miner this choise too?
So, you're happy to use the result of his hard work, which is open source, but you begrudge him 1%? Do you mine solo just to avoid the 1% pool fee, too? Do you steal rolls of toilet paper out of public rest rooms, while you're at it? |
|
|
|
This is a very interesting project! But what does S/s mean? How to convert to H/s?
Basically 1:1  Misinformation. There are approximately 1.88 sols (solutions) per hash. It's Equihash specific, i.e. Zcash, ZClassic, et al. Edit: The pools are all reporting sols/sec, regardless of whether they say "hash rate". |
|
|
|
It's true that GG's Ethash kernel performs better on Windows.
I just started with optimizations anyway.
So, respectfully, what ever happened to Zcash? We still don't have a first-rate open source miner. All these other algos already have decent open source miners available to them. Just sayin'. |
|
|
|
if I had to guess I seriously doubt it. I think the only mod they will HOPEFULLY make is a 8GB card on the 470. This one is less expensive to make with less fans, metal etc.
I think a 4GB 470D mod is more likely, with the 470D cards being cheaper than even 470's. Cheaper because .... ? Edit: Looked it up. So, it looks as though the performance and power would be about the same. Question is: will it be released in the MXM card format. |
|
|
|
if I had to guess I seriously doubt it. I think the only mod they will HOPEFULLY make is a 8GB card on the 470. This one is less expensive to make with less fans, metal etc.
Agreed on the 8GB. These days, I don't think 4 GB cards are certain to be future-proof. Example: if ASICs come out for Zcash, they will probably mod the Equihash parameters so that 8 GB is necessary for best performance (4 GB will still work, but at a decided lower solution rate). It's not a likely event, but when you're spending this much money, you'd like to think it will produce at high performance for years to come. |
|
|
|
|
Does anyone know if PandaMiner is even going to offer the B1+ again? Is it just a matter of waiting until the next batch? Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Talking with PandaMiner they can ensure that I get units in the next batch with an order of at least 30, is anyone interested in going in to hit that target to ensure we get units?
Is that for the B3+ or B1+? I'd be interested if it was the B1+. |
|
|
|
A shitload of potential here, lets hope they make something out of it..
Before whatever that jstenfanop is building makes them irrelevant I've seen what he's been working on. Not bad, but i prefer a 6xgpu rig over a 10x rig any day. (Non MXM GPU's) Yeah yeah, i know, more mobo's, etc.. but if i have a rig down, i don't have 10+ cards down. Plus, this (pandaminer) is interesting because of the MXM gpu's and their power efficienty, i believe what jstefanop is doing is basically a pci splitter..?.. based for Regular GPU's.. (correct me if i'm wrong) and so kind of irrelevant in comparison with this project. I totally agree. Talk about putting all your eggs in one basket! Then there's the stability question. No thanks. 6xGPUs works well. On the B3+: rx470s? Really? $100 less for a lot less hash rate (Zcash)? Makes no sense to me, although perhaps I'm missing something? |
|
|
|
so basically if we grab a lot of zcl now we will get the same amount of zen in april ? sounds too good  guess I misunderstood something? yes, but we have no idea how zen will trade when it goes live, so it's way too early to think it too good to be true. If you think that the current price of zcl < value of zcl + zen at fork, then it's a good deal; one way or another it's a speculative bet. Yes, indeed. |
|
|
|
you will ALSO receive a 1:1 amount of ZEN. So, if you have 1000 ZCL before the hardfork, you will have 1000 ZCL after the hardfork plus 1000 ZEN. ZCL will continue to exist.
Wow, it is great! Now I get it, thank's all for clearing  Just keep in mind that no one knows what ZCL will be worth after the harfork, or how much ZEN will be worth when in comes into existence. If everyone just dumps their coins, both ZCL and ZEN may be close to worthless, at least for some period of time. |
|
|
|
So ZCL will be swap to ZEN if I understand right? And ZCL will be no more exist?
What type of ZCl wallet I should choose - full/not full, t or z?
It's not a swap. Whatever ZCL you have when block 100,000 arrives (the hardfork that creates the ZEN blockchain), you will ALSO receive a 1:1 amount of ZEN. So, if you have 1000 ZCL before the hardfork, you will have 1000 ZCL after the hardfork plus 1000 ZEN. ZCL will continue to exist. |
|
|
|
As a BIGGER ZCL hodler, I'm very excited to buy one coin and get TWO!  Lets pray this move won't turn zcl to trash. At first, someone didn't like the Zcash 10% tax so they created Zclassic, now ZEN is forking with their own 8.4% tax... bravo. The Zcash tax is 20%. Are you just arrogantly stupid, or what? Each Zcash block is worth 12.5 ZEC. The miner gets 10 ZEC, the Founders get 2.5 ZEC. Perhaps that math is too difficult? Or you haven't learned how to use your desktop calculator? Oh, wait, I understand now: You voted for Trump, 10% is an alternative fact. |
|
|
|
As a BIGGER ZCL hodler, I'm very excited to buy one coin and get TWO! Lets pray this move won't turn zcl to trash. At first, someone didn't like the Zcash 10% tax so they created Zclassic, now ZEN is forking with their own 8.4% tax... bravo. The Zcash tax is 20%. |
|
|
|
Where can I find out more about this? How will this circumvent "fake" full nodes (like one node on two IPs)¿
The technical implementation isn't finalized yet, however the process for node rewards will be something like: - The node executes a shielded zero-knowledge transaction containing an unshielded payment address and the node's domain name or IP address which is valid for a certain time period.
- Once per block, a random XX% sampling is taken and those nodes are checked for being operational (a random block will be requested from each and verified against the longest chain).
- After a node is verified operational a non-shielded transaction will be sent to it.
There's going to be two-tiers of nodes; fully trusted and unverified. The difference with fully trusted nodes is that these nodes must have a valid TLS certificate. Getting a TLS certificate is free as long as the node has a domain name. These types of nodes will be awarded by unique root domain name (given that no IP addresses are duplicated). Unverified nodes are nodes that do not have authentic TLS certificates and will be paid from a smaller allocation. There will be maximum limitations on how many unverified nodes can be awarded per network subnet to prevent abuse. Ultimately that threshhold will be decided by the DAO. I'd expect that a significant portion of this group would consist of botnets and such so the awards for these would be kept low. For the most part the unverified nodes are the wild-wild west and incentivizing the fully trusted nodes is the goal. Why even allow untrusted nodes to participate? Seems as though you're complicating the network to accommodate nodes that are most likely to cause problems. Also, since you are putting this node verification process in place, are you also going to check node versions, so we don't have nodes running year old node code? For example, the zclassic network has a seed node that's still at v1.0.1, before the critical fix for the potential fork problem. This node verification procedure seems like a perfect opportunity to prevent nodes that are too far out of date from being active on the network. Just a thought. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
