Bitcoin Forum
October 20, 2017, 10:55:16 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 [41] 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 »
  Print  
Author Topic: NiceHash EQM Zcash NVIDIA optimized miner [Maxwell/Pascal] + CPU mining v1.0.4c  (Read 217858 times)
bensam1231
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


View Profile
December 30, 2016, 08:58:46 AM
 #801

well their competition it's already dead because EWBF provide already a pool unlocked miner, so i see no point for them to keep their version closed source

Because they're incapable of improving their miner, just like EWBF can't either? Your logic sometimes really blows my mind. When you open source something everyone adopts whatever makes your miner better into theirs.

I buy private Nvidia miners. Send information and/or inquiries to my PM box.
1508496916
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508496916

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508496916
Reply with quote  #2

1508496916
Report to moderator
1508496916
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508496916

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508496916
Reply with quote  #2

1508496916
Report to moderator
1508496916
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508496916

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508496916
Reply with quote  #2

1508496916
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1508496916
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508496916

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508496916
Reply with quote  #2

1508496916
Report to moderator
ioglnx
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378

Fighting mob law and inquisition in this forum


View Profile
December 30, 2016, 09:08:30 AM
 #802

well their competition it's already dead because EWBF provide already a pool unlocked miner, so i see no point for them to keep their version closed source

Because they're incapable of improving their miner, just like EWBF can't either? Your logic sometimes really blows my mind. When you open source something everyone adopts whatever makes your miner better into theirs.

You have one logical brick in this statement. You have not any proof that this is the case. You speak as you are sure 100% but what if again your statement turns out to be wrong?
I often see you 1.) saying EWBF and other should sell their code to nicehash 2.) then you complain here at nicehash why it is not open source. 3.) pointing you to your illogical ends up with strange accusations and insulting.

Sometimes it is better to wait and see and observe instead of accuse and speculate the bad way.
But anyway sometimes you also have good statements :-D Happy new year.

GTX 1080Ti rocks da house... seriously... this card is a beast³
Owning by now 18x GTX1080Ti :-D @serious love of efficiency
Amph
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
December 30, 2016, 09:12:55 AM
 #803

well their competition it's already dead because EWBF provide already a pool unlocked miner, so i see no point for them to keep their version closed source

Because they're incapable of improving their miner, just like EWBF can't either? Your logic sometimes really blows my mind. When you open source something everyone adopts whatever makes your miner better into theirs.

you clearly didn't understand my point, i repeat, there is no point in them having their miner closed source when there is already another oen with almost the same speed that can mine on any pool

they have understood this finally
Nikolaj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 446


View Profile
December 30, 2016, 09:14:34 AM
 #804

Here we go again with the "regurgitating brothers"  Grin

@nicehash, wise decision. Thanks !
xPwnK
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 41


View Profile
December 30, 2016, 09:58:35 AM
 #805

[WARNING]

EWBF is fake. He is using our EQM to make 2% fee on it.
He is always one step behind as you may noticed.

It is sad, because we have paid big bucks for the EQM's source, just to protect our miners from the dev fee. And here we go again, a dev fee. He is not a Robin Hood, he is practically leasing our miner for a 2% dev fee! Is this something you support? I would understand he would stole it and release the source, but no. He is egoistic like that.

Actions like this are delaying our miner development and its quality.

STOP using his software or ask him to release HIS source first.

Really? How can you know and do you have any proof? I've been using his miner but I'll stop using it if it's really stolen.
bensam1231
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


View Profile
December 30, 2016, 10:04:57 AM
 #806

well their competition it's already dead because EWBF provide already a pool unlocked miner, so i see no point for them to keep their version closed source

Because they're incapable of improving their miner, just like EWBF can't either? Your logic sometimes really blows my mind. When you open source something everyone adopts whatever makes your miner better into theirs.

you clearly didn't understand my point, i repeat, there is no point in them having their miner closed source when there is already another oen with almost the same speed that can mine on any pool

they have understood this finally

You realize they have been the ones releasing faster versions first right? You could just as easily say 'because Nicehash continually releases a faster miner, you should open source yours' to EWBF. Conversely then Nicehash coders would adopt EWBFs code.

The whole reason it's closed source is so someone doesn't copy their code. Whether or not they can or can't mine on all pools is independent of the coding effort put into it.

I understood your point perfectly, it's just dumb and doesn't really make sense when it comes to IP.

[WARNING]

EWBF is fake. He is using our EQM to make 2% fee on it.
He is always one step behind as you may noticed.

It is sad, because we have paid big bucks for the EQM's source, just to protect our miners from the dev fee. And here we go again, a dev fee. He is not a Robin Hood, he is practically leasing our miner for a 2% dev fee! Is this something you support? I would understand he would stole it and release the source, but no. He is egoistic like that.

Actions like this are delaying our miner development and its quality.

STOP using his software or ask him to release HIS source first.

Really? How can you know and do you have any proof? I've been using his miner but I'll stop using it if it's really stolen.

I've thought something similar for some time. You can tear apart someones code even if they don't give you the source unless it's encrypted and even then you can possibly do it. Wolf was talking about tearing apart Claymore's in his thread.

But yeah, proof needs to be offered in this case. EWBF did have a faster miner then Nicehash for like a week, I think that adds merit as well (I believe it was .3?)

Completely putting aside protecting the actual IP with coding, you guys could look at this from a objective standpoint too. Only reason people are using his miner is due to a 2% dev fee and you can use it with other pools. You could do the same thing with your miner (or fee free on Nicehash) and there would be no point in using his miner.

I buy private Nvidia miners. Send information and/or inquiries to my PM box.
krnlx
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 226


View Profile
December 30, 2016, 10:06:34 AM
 #807

[WARNING]

EWBF is fake. He is using our EQM to make 2% fee on it.
He is always one step behind as you may noticed.

It is sad, because we have paid big bucks for the EQM's source, just to protect our miners from the dev fee. And here we go again, a dev fee. He is not a Robin Hood, he is practically leasing our miner for a 2% dev fee! Is this something you support? I would understand he would stole it and release the source, but no. He is egoistic like that.

Actions like this are delaying our miner development and its quality.

STOP using his software or ask him to release HIS source first.


Very interesting, but how ? He extracted your cuda kernels and used them? But how you explain, that his linux version faster, than yours ? You said that you have issues with linux version of 1.0.4, but his 0.0.8b works flawless.

BTC 1DGhgVtTzJqxFvM9yrL8kFBGZdf8Zq6bEr
bensam1231
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


View Profile
December 30, 2016, 10:12:30 AM
 #808

[WARNING]

EWBF is fake. He is using our EQM to make 2% fee on it.
He is always one step behind as you may noticed.

It is sad, because we have paid big bucks for the EQM's source, just to protect our miners from the dev fee. And here we go again, a dev fee. He is not a Robin Hood, he is practically leasing our miner for a 2% dev fee! Is this something you support? I would understand he would stole it and release the source, but no. He is egoistic like that.

Actions like this are delaying our miner development and its quality.

STOP using his software or ask him to release HIS source first.


Very interesting, but how ? He extracted your cuda kernels and used them? But how you explain, that his linux version faster, than yours ? You said that you have issues with linux version of 1.0.4, but his 0.0.8b works flawless.

Programmers adopt and use others code all the time, that's pretty much what happens when something goes open source. Either copy paste or just simply integrate into your own coding to the point where it isn't just blatant copying. IF he's ripping someone off that doesn't mean he can't code or improve something.

I buy private Nvidia miners. Send information and/or inquiries to my PM box.
kell234
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 17


View Profile
December 30, 2016, 10:58:45 AM
 #809

But EQM have 100% cpu load, EWBF only 10%.     Nice hash fee more than 2% fee. 

Using EWBF and the normal pools i earn more $$$ than I get when I use your EQM.

If you are Robinhood and want to protect miners from dev fees, then lay out a miner that not locked on nicehash.
More like what you are simply unhappy that we have miner with a similar hashrate, and use the normal pools, not nicehash
xPwnK
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 41


View Profile
December 30, 2016, 11:13:39 AM
 #810

If you are Robinhood and want to protect miners from dev fees, then lay out a miner that not locked on nicehash.
More like what you are simply unhappy that we have miner with a similar hashrate, and use the normal pools, not nicehash
They already said they are going to open source this...
krnlx
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 226


View Profile
December 30, 2016, 11:18:41 AM
 #811

... EWBF did have a faster miner then Nicehash for like a week ...

All this is seen by the thread's posts.

But let me recap this for you:
- First it was just EQM
- EWBF comes into play
- EWBF making faster miner but with more power consumption
- In that time EWBF was making ~250 and EQM ~220 on GTX 1070
- EQM release with ~320 speed came out with much lower power consumption
- Few days later, EWBF "magically" drops in power consumption and almost equals the speed

So why is this important information:
if you use one algorithm, you can't just drop in power consumption like that - software needs to be rewritten for that - it means changing algorithm altogether.

And from this point on, we always release faster and better version and after us, he also releases the version with the same or little slower speed.

This is all from public posts, further proofs will be available on source release.

OK, OK. Imagine that he stole your miner (source, or disassembled kernels, or integrated binary kernels to his code).

How can you explain this .

"- EWBF making faster miner but with more power consumption
- In that time EWBF was making ~250 and EQM ~220 on GTX 1070"

and this.

"But how you explain, that his linux version faster, than yours ? You said that you have issues with linux version of 1.0.4, but his 0.0.8b works flawless."

Or EWBF == DjeZo ?

BTC 1DGhgVtTzJqxFvM9yrL8kFBGZdf8Zq6bEr
Amph
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
December 30, 2016, 11:30:54 AM
 #812

well their competition it's already dead because EWBF provide already a pool unlocked miner, so i see no point for them to keep their version closed source

Because they're incapable of improving their miner, just like EWBF can't either? Your logic sometimes really blows my mind. When you open source something everyone adopts whatever makes your miner better into theirs.

you clearly didn't understand my point, i repeat, there is no point in them having their miner closed source when there is already another oen with almost the same speed that can mine on any pool

they have understood this finally

You realize they have been the ones releasing faster versions first right? You could just as easily say 'because Nicehash continually releases a faster miner, you should open source yours' to EWBF. Conversely then Nicehash coders would adopt EWBFs code.

The whole reason it's closed source is so someone doesn't copy their code. Whether or not they can or can't mine on all pools is independent of the coding effort put into it.

I understood your point perfectly, it's just dumb and doesn't really make sense when it comes to IP.

it's faster by what 2-5%? pointless when they actually pay less in the end, their miner have no reason to stay closed source, and this was true already with the first version of EWBF not now

But EQM have 100% cpu load, EWBF only 10%.     Nice hash fee more than 2% fee.  

Using EWBF and the normal pools i earn more $$$ than I get when I use your EQM.

If you are Robinhood and want to protect miners from dev fees, then lay out a miner that not locked on nicehash.
More like what you are simply unhappy that we have miner with a similar hashrate, and use the normal pools, not nicehash

both have same consumption and same load for me, what are you talking about?

it's like their are based on the same code...EWBF can really be the one that is coding for nicehash and on top of that he released another copy paste version with 2% fee so he earn even more...
sp_
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190

Ccminer developer


View Profile
December 30, 2016, 11:34:27 AM
 #813

OK, OK. Imagine that he stole your miner (source, or disassembled kernels, or integrated binary kernels to his code).

How can you explain this .

"- EWBF making faster miner but with more power consumption
- In that time EWBF was making ~250 and EQM ~220 on GTX 1070"

Perhaps EWBF ran the EQM kernel with 2 threads. More power, more hash.
m1n1ngP4d4w4n
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112

CryptoLearner


View Profile
December 30, 2016, 11:39:10 AM
 #814

It could be me being paranoid. But it feels like, they hit a wall between speed & linux version and wish to force ewbf hand to release his source to get the "linux" solution and/or get rid of the competition. I wouldn't understand a big company like nicehash, unable to efficiently protect their code there are thousands of ways to make it virtually invulnerable. If that was done the "easy" way like thoses scammers out there that bundle claymore miners with some sort of bootstrapper to make it behave differently, i don't think EWBF would be this different, i dunno im not very proficient @ devving. But the whole story seems shacky.

EWBF has been out for a while now, why would the "copy" attack come now, when such a wall is hit ?, that sound a bit weird indeed....

It just seems so much of a bad business move to both unlock pool & make it open source for nicehash, because all the money invested into developing EQM would be lost. I know they did it before, but come on, any company releasing open-source stuff, has some agenda somewhere to make it profitable for them, they're not philantropist, it's a business.

As they say, they're lacking manpower, so will release it open-source, let all the willing devs improve it (even maybe get others algorythm tackled down like cryptonote), then close it again improve it by 5% and make $$$ ?

For me maybe the "good" solution would be to hire a 3rd neutral party, a few devs with nice skills, that would for a fee compare both sources before they're made public, and can tell publicly for all to see "ok this is true, or no this copy thing is bullshit", you take the risk of such 3rd party to be bribed into something, but again respectings devs (nicehash, ewbf) could at this moment defend themselves by making the code public, and this would bomb out any "wrong" results.

There is too many discrepancies between how EQM and EWBF miners are working (less now, but in previous version TDP/GPU occupation were very different), also if this was a pure clone, why ewbf wouldn't have made his miner with threads, logging and all that would have made it even better. Maybe to make the suspected "cloning" less obvious...

But after all, that could be me being all paranoid... i guess....

BTC - 1B1RBYkzxiTmrbnFe2vj8EaNPSYftW8186 for tips Wink - Please don't PM about sharing my tools, they're not for share.
sp_
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190

Ccminer developer


View Profile
December 30, 2016, 11:47:01 AM
 #815

As they say, they're lacking manpower, so will release it open-source, let all the willing devs improve it (even maybe get others algorythm tackled down like cryptonote), then close it again improve it by 5% and make $$$ ?

Yes. I will probobly do +5-10% for a few BTC's
LackyHash
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 46


View Profile
December 30, 2016, 12:03:58 PM
 #816

EQM will be free to use, with no pool lock and no fee!
No release time yet, but this is guaranteed.

Also, ask EWBF to do the same if he dares to expose himself and his stolen code.
Be warned - one that steals and resells other people's work is no man to be trusted!
It is like trusting a car thief's words that stolen car is in a perfect condition.
 

The fact that he uses EQM I was sure from the very beginning. And the fact that you have closed code and tied him to the service - your right. Complain on underpayment nicehash, but I tell thank you very much - without Nicehash Nvidia miner would be retarded as in most algorithms. When you open the code I personally stay at Nicehash due respect.
Bad english sorry.
m1n1ngP4d4w4n
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112

CryptoLearner


View Profile
December 30, 2016, 01:28:12 PM
 #817

@krnlx
We have been in contact with DjeZo and let him review our proofs - he confirmed our claims.
But he also clearly refused his involvement with the EWBF in any way.

Let's see how those proofs pans out then... eager to see !

any approximative ETA about releasing EQM open-source ? (like a week a month ?)

BTC - 1B1RBYkzxiTmrbnFe2vj8EaNPSYftW8186 for tips Wink - Please don't PM about sharing my tools, they're not for share.
reb0rn21
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190


View Profile
December 30, 2016, 02:22:01 PM
 #818

Its true that EWBF in last releases managed to drop power usage a lot and match nicehash miner, had he learn something from disambling nicehash miner, but still his speed is ~3% less for same frequency he only match same speed for same TDP, eg. his miner will boost more on same TDP then nicehash and produce "same" speed

can two coders came to same solution
can analising one miner help the other coder to see same or can he stole code, i have none knowlage

... PLAY SHARE EARN...
.LBRY...
                            __¦¦¦__
                        __¦¦¦¦¦¯¦¦¦¦¦__
                    __¦¦¦¦¦¯¯     ¯¯¦¦¦¦¦__
                __¦¦¦¦¦¯¯             ¯¯¦¦¦¦¦__
            __¦¦¦¦¦¯¯                     ¯¯¦¦¦¦¦__
        __¦¦¦¦¦¯¯                             ¯¯¦¦¦¦¦__
    __¦¦¦¦¦¯¯                                     ¯¯¦¦¦
__¦¦¦¦¦¯¯                                         __¦¦¦
¦¦¦¯¯                                         __¦¦¦¦¦¯¯
¦¦¦     ¦__                               __¦¦¦¦¦¯¯
¦¦¦     ¦¦¦¦¦__                       __¦¦¦¦¦¯¯  ________
¦¦¦       ¯¯¦¦¦¦¦__               __¦¦¦¦¦¯¯       ¦¦¦¦¦¦
¦¦¦¦¦__       ¯¯¦¦¦¦¦__       __¦¦¦¦¦¯¯       __¦¦¦¦¦¦¦
  ¯¯¦¦¦¦¦__       ¯¯¦¦¦¦¦___¦¦¦¦¦¯¯       __¦¦¦¦¦¯¯ ¦¦
      ¯¯¦¦¦¦¦__       ¯¯¦¦¦¦¦¯¯       __¦¦¦¦¦¯¯
          ¯¯¦¦¦¦¦__       ¯       __¦¦¦¦¦¯¯
              ¯¯¦¦¦¦¦__       __¦¦¦¦¦¯¯
                  ¯¯¦¦¦¦¦___¦¦¦¦¦¯¯
                      ¯¯¦¦¦¦¦¯¯
                          ¯
djm34
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


View Profile WWW
December 30, 2016, 02:50:59 PM
 #819

Had a look a bit to these algo, and as far as I have noticed they have different memory footprint.
So I don't think they are similar...

and lets be honest, the fastest algo was at first the ewbf code... so I would tend to believe your dev might have found inspiration in it...
since ewbf did left the ptx in it rather than the inverse...

and there isn't so many different way to proceed with the algo (so at some point all codes should converge, nothing miraculous in that)

djm34 facebook page
BTC: 1NENYmxwZGHsKFmyjTc5WferTn5VTFb7Ze
Pledge for neoscrypt ccminer to that address: 16UoC4DmTz2pvhFvcfTQrzkPTrXkWijzXw
gaalx
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 405


View Profile
December 30, 2016, 03:19:47 PM
 #820

Remove the snap of his miners to Nice, including def fee 2% (as EWBF) at minning on the side. When mining at Nice without def fee.

Rent of my installation (algo Blake 256 & SHA 256): miningrigrentals.com
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 [41] 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!