NiceHash EQM Zcash NVIDIA optimized miner [Maxwell/Pascal] + CPU mining v1.0.4c

[bensam1231]

[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.

[1714031082]

1714031082

[1714031082]

1714031082

[kell234]

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]

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]

... 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 ?

[Amph]

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_]

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]

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....

[sp_]

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]

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]

@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 ?)

[reb0rn21]

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

[djm34]

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)

[gaalx]

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.

[_javi_]

Its my fault..
but EWBFs (007,008) crashes on launch here and i cant manage to fix it
Meanwhile EQM works flawlessly.. maybe the code its not the same...

[giagge]

Nicehash when you release free miner without tax ? its a mature time .

[xPwnK]

[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.

Wow!
Nice to meet you!
The modest results of profiling ...
We are both use tromp solver https://github.com/tromp/equihash
Your kernels:
https://s29.postimg.org/nt8jnc29z/image.jpg

My kernels:
https://s29.postimg.org/b3x4es2h3/image.jpg

First digit kernel launch parameters:
Yours
https://s30.postimg.org/8ieeejkkx/image.jpg
My
https://s29.postimg.org/xyn1x8qmf/image.jpg

Complete ptx assembly for kernel digit2
Yours:
https://s29.postimg.org/z2g1fi2qf/their.jpg
My:
https://s27.postimg.org/u051n9dmr/image.jpg

Ps: of course if you release you miner open source, i will lost a lot of my users. But whole community must be grateful to me because my actions lead to this decision Happy new year!

Maybe you should research little more before you make false accusation nicehash.

[bensam1231]

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...

I don't think you understand how coding and IP work. The whole reason they keep it closed source is so people don't copy it and then turn it into their own miners, then build off of it ending up with a (usually) superior product... which is basically what this thread turned into for exactly this reason.

[Amph]

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...

I don't think you understand how coding and IP work. The whole reason they keep it closed source is so people don't copy it and then turn it into their own miners, then build off of it ending up with a (usually) superior product... which is basically what this thread turned into for exactly this reason.

that is only one point of it, because if the 2% fee miner was tied to a pool i would not use it and many other also would use the nicehash, if none would use it they should not bother if someone else copyed their work and it's making money(nothing actually if none use it) and release it open source

[NiceHashSupport]

Here are some news. Another dev (non-linux expert) take a look into linux situation and we found the issue.  So there will be Linux version for next ver (4b). Bad news is, that the dual instance trick does not increase speed on linux but rather decrease. With single instance, GPU is not fully loaded. So this trick of two instances works only on Windows. Therefore stock GTX 1070 gets ~370 on linux where it gets ~390 on Windows.

There is also some good news for GTX 750 Ti owners. It will be working, few % faster than previous versions, but probably not optimally fast (there is room for improvement, but we will let community do that with src release).

[sp_]

Can you release it today please. I have some time to look at the code in the weekend.