Not receiving shares.

[C_J]

So, I've recently begun configuring GUIMiner and Bitcoin client for personal use and experimentation but have run into this issue...

https://i.imgur.com/u3KTj3z.jpg

That was after leaving the machine running for 3 hours.  I'm not sure if it's me being impatient or some other problem.

This is a dual GPU machine and once everything is sorted I expect a regular return of 650mh/s (tested to fluctuate from 630-660) once I finish tweaking and fiddling with all those lovely flags.

It happens on Slush's pool and the Eligius pool.  Going to test solo after this post goes up.

2013-04-10 14:53:42: Running command: poclbm.exe 18FKFPvbvsVuo1yBZ5wKmALKy5gouN7PGV:x@mining.eligius.st:8337 --device=1 --platform=0 --verbose -r1 -v -w 128 -f 60
2013-04-10 14:53:42: Listener for "ELIG" started
2013-04-10 14:53:44: Listener for "ELIG": mining.eligius.st:8337 10/04/2013 14:53:44, started OpenCL miner on platform 0, device 1 (Cayman)
2013-04-10 14:53:44: Listener for "ELIG": mining.eligius.st:8337 10/04/2013 14:53:44, checking for stratum...
2013-04-10 14:53:46: Listener for "ELIG": mining.eligius.st:8337 10/04/2013 14:53:46, using JSON-RPC (no stratum header)
2013-04-10 14:53:47: Listener for "ELIG": mining.eligius.st:8337 10/04/2013 14:53:47, Verification failed, check hardware! (0:1:Cayman, c52c96c7)

Am I just being impatient?  I was under the impression that under a pool there should be some sign of activity after an hour or two, certainly over 200mh/s. 

Then again I could be completely wrong about that last bit.

Also, the error seems to be related to the miner and driver disagreeing more than anything else, but the GPU is still pumping out a decent rate of MH/s so I didn't think it to be anything impeding the actual process, rather, a general warning that some piece of code didn't like the other piece of code and went crying to daddy.

...Another case where I could be an idiot/wrong.

[C_J]

Bumping...
Updating...

https://i.imgur.com/cFwXFpU.jpg?1

Same shit, different day, both GPUs, problem persists in solo mode as well... Anyone?

[C_J]

Bumping... Again...

Still getting the problem along with connection refused in solo (verified OpenCL)...

Little help, someone?  Bueller?

[earthwormjim1]

bump

[grc]

Have you tried mining any other coins?

[myrez]

maybe you have to high difficulty level

[theprofileth]

Have you tried using a real miner like BFGminer or CGminer?

[C_J]

Have you tried mining any other coins?

Not yet, just got really sick and havent had energy to mess around with it today, when I do, I'll give litecoin mining a test.

maybe you have to high difficulty level

I doubt it as it seems I can get it to show difficulty if I lower the mh rate to <4 and it was under 1.0.

Have you tried using a real miner like BFGminer or CGminer?

BFG got installed before bed last night, incidentally and I haven't done much to experiment with it just yet.  So far I've tested with GUIMiner, and aoclbm/phoenix1.84 (hangs/crashes).

[C_J]

Time for another bump/update

So after tweaking GUIminer for a bit more, no success, but also reported "Failed to Subscribe", hell at least its' some different error.

Now, I've tried BFG miner but it crashes every time I exec the bat.

The windows error report;
https://i.imgur.com/S1IWrx6.jpg

This is my Eligius pool profile, no flags/toggles.
https://i.imgur.com/Dg84JCp.jpg

Beginning to think I should just give up at this point, LiteCoin wallet is currently syncing blocks but I don't have overly high hopes for it either.

[C_J]

Well, guess this is the last bump/giving up. 

[mskryxz]

C_J,

I am having the same problems as you, kind of.

Refer to my thread here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=177695.0

Basically I am running 2 cards. A 7970 and a 6950.

6950 hashes 400-450 and gets shares accepted
7970 hashes 600+ BUT no shares accepted

A fix for that is I turned the GPU Thread for the 7970 from 1 to 2.

Now the 7970 hashes 200-400 and shares are accepted.

As you can see now the problem is my hash rate is dropped by 50-75%, while it does fix the share problem, it creates a hashing problem.

I'll keep an eye out on your thread to see if we can figure out a solution.