Edit: confirmed, fee is accurate

[louiseth1]

Please verify this for yourself before making any accusations. A few of us have been wondering if the dev fee charged by Claymore is really 2.5% on his Zec miner releases.
 
We were able to isolate the fees charged by Optiminer, and did indeed verify that the fee was 15% as announced. We used the same method to isolate the fees charged by Claymore. For reference, we used version 4.0 and 5.0 to confirm this behavior. What we found is very surprising.
 
During (and after) the 90 seconds where it mines for the developer we do notice serious inconsistencies:
 
 - We counted 111 submitted shares in 90 seconds per hour (2.5%) that the claymore mines for himself.
 - We counted 15 submitted shares in the immediate 90 seconds after the fee period.

Here is a brief extract of logfiles for the two periods of 90 seconds we referred to. See for yourself:
http://pastebin.com/0EFM8Bat
 
Using various methods, we redirected the "dev fee" workers to Nicehash. We set up static difficulty on the workers and noticed that during the 90 seconds the amount of stale shares increased.
 
What can we conclude from this? User shares outside of the dev fee period could be used inside the dev fee period. This means that claymore's fee could be as high as 5% (or more).
Because a new block can appear at any time during the "accumulation" period, this would explain why we've been seeing stale shares. They are being gathered from the previous block.
 
We invite other users to verify this behavior and confirm this theory.

Edit; confirmed wrong. Nicehash ports on Zec aren't working as we assumed for preferred diffs, the miner does mine its dev fee at a lower difficulty.

[1715474204]

1715474204

[1715474204]

1715474204

[1715474204]

1715474204

[1715474204]

1715474204

[toptek]

LMAO !!!  I trust you all more then some one that kind of strong armed us .

good fine

[HardSign]

difficulty is lower when devfee mining

Q: Why do I see more shares for devfee than in my mining for the same time?
A: Most pools support variable diff, they change "target share" after some time after connection. For example, you have very powerful rig, after connection you will send shares very often. It takes some CPU time to check your shares so after some time pool will send higher share target and miner will send less shares (but they will have more value). When pool updates share target you will see "Pool sets new share target" line in the miner. This way pool can adjust the number of shares that miner sends and balance its load.
So check the log or console text to see current target for main mining thread and for devfee thread. For example:
DevFee: Pool sets new share target: 0x0083126e (diff: 500H) - this is for devfee mining connection
Pool sets new share target: 0x0024fa4f (diff: 1772H) - this is for main mining connection
As you can see, target share for main mining is higher in about 3.5 times, so for main mining miner sends in 3 times less shares (but they have 3x more value) than for devfee mining.

and please explain how you set the static difficulty?
because d=xx does not work on nicehash for the zcash

[louiseth1]

difficulty is lower when devfee mining

Q: Why do I see more shares for devfee than in my mining for the same time?
A: Most pools support variable diff, they change "target share" after some time after connection. For example, you have very powerful rig, after connection you will send shares very often. It takes some CPU time to check your shares so after some time pool will send higher share target and miner will send less shares (but they will have more value). When pool updates share target you will see "Pool sets new share target" line in the miner. This way pool can adjust the number of shares that miner sends and balance its load.
So check the log or console text to see current target for main mining thread and for devfee thread. For example:
DevFee: Pool sets new share target: 0x0083126e (diff: 500H) - this is for devfee mining connection
Pool sets new share target: 0x0024fa4f (diff: 1772H) - this is for main mining connection
As you can see, target share for main mining is higher in about 3.5 times, so for main mining miner sends in 3 times less shares (but they have 3x more value) than for devfee mining.

How would you then explain the stales? and as said, we used static diffs and not vardiff.

[ioglnx]

He asked how to set static diff on nicehash since it's not supported ..I also wonder since I can't find any hints about static diff on nicehash.

[adaseb]

First I was going to call you a newbie and that shares can vary in weight... then I noticed you are the owner of Suchpool and probably know what you are talking about.

Maybe others can investigate this issue.

[HardSign]

Also you have posted partial log. Please post a whole log which looks like:

21:17:18:845   568   ZEC: Share accepted (125 ms)!

21:17:18:845   568   new buf size: 0
21:17:19:375   a90   ZEC: put share nonce 12c
21:17:19:375   a90   ZEC round found 1 shares
21:17:19:391   568   ZEC: 11/14/16-21:17:19 - SHARE FOUND - (GPU 0)
21:17:19:391   568   send share: {"id": 4, "method": "mining.submit", "params": ["13ZoYSGj6jWnoD26Uo2f17P2VFxPVLQpJQ.7950","0000003e4e09e613","5c0d2a58","2c0100000000000000000000000000","fd4005005b2525e94438570fc81b89b0e4ff97537e7ef8
21:17:19:531   568   got 36 bytes
21:17:19:531   568   buf: {"id":4,"result":true,"error":null}

21:17:19:531   568   parse packet: 35
21:17:19:531   568   ZEC: Share accepted (141 ms)!

[louiseth1]

First I was going to call you a newbie and that shares can vary in weight... then I noticed you are the owner of Suchpool and probably know what you are talking about.

Maybe others can investigate this issue.

I of course understand shares can vary in weight. However this is why I posted asking for others to investigate this, mostly because it's quite late I'm tired and other opinions wouldn't hurt.

He asked how to set static diff on nicehash since it's not supported ..I also wonder since I can't find any hints about static diff on nicehash.

Yes you can: https://www.nicehash.com/?p=faq#faqs10
I know it is not properly static but more or a preferred diff, however it is usually working nice to keep a worker diff around the specified limit.

[freebutcaged]

I don't get it, zcash company takes percentage and even the miner developer takes some as well?
I think zcash dev team at least should provide the best miner not just launch a coin and sit back.

[HardSign]

For those who say you can't set a "static" diff on nicehash, yes you can: https://www.nicehash.com/?p=faq#faqs10

this DOES NOT WORK FOR ZCASH. Even if it worked - this is PREFERRED diff, but not the static.

Note: Your miner may sometimes work with lower or higher difficulty since the difficultly you set is only a preferred difficulty and the actual difficulty depends on the current orders at NiceHash. This is completely normal.

also 5.0 version does not support nicehash for devfee. Have you set static diff for devfee pools?

[louiseth1]

For those who say you can't set a "static" diff on nicehash, yes you can: https://www.nicehash.com/?p=faq#faqs10

this DOES NOT WORK FOR ZCASH

also 5.0 version does not support nicehash for devfee. Have you set static diff for devfee pools?

As I wrote, he "May be" doing it, I didn't post this for people scream at me without any proof or evidence, just so people can pay attention and do proper and better research than I did.

All I really want is to be proven wrong.

EDIT: didn't read you mentioned that it doesn't support nicehash for dev fee. Well to be able to send his dev-fee to nicehash on our workers with "preferred diff" set for analysis we've had to do some proxy tricks.

[toptek]

@ adaseb at first i thought the same, it was some one feeding us BS till i noticed his tag. i read on .

[louiseth1]

@ adaseb at first i thought the same, it was some one feeding us BS till i noticed his tag. i read on .

I'm looking further right now and HardSign may seem right, it looks like nicehash is not adjusting the diff as it would usually do on other algorithms..

[adaseb]

Whatever rate I get at the pool is roughly 97-98% or so what I have displayed as my total speed. So I am pretty sure this is some bug and he is not overcharging, since it would be very easy to prove.

[yslyung]

STOP ! the arguments,  but good to have some prove ...

i've humbly requested CM to lower the fees earlier on but obviously nth was done, you don't like it, don't use it !

his cheerleader coc* suckin' fanboy comes in & bla bla bla that whatever nanonaoano shi*head stepping on everyone's toes.

i think even on eth solo mining or something, boysie had some not so good experience with the devfee.

STOP ! it ! just STOP it !

bypass it !

heh, no more fees for CM !

[louiseth1]

Whatever rate I get at the pool is roughly 97-98% or so what I have displayed as my total speed. So I am pretty sure this is some bug and he is not overcharging, since it would be very easy to prove.

I re did some checks and compared the diffs (without setting any static diffs nor redirecting anything, just with the logfile from the console) and things seem to match up.
It did mine 22 shares at 242h diff during the 90 seconds it's mining for the dev and the following 90 seconds 11 shares at 636H were mined for myself.

I guess I was wrong, still worth it for someone to investigate deeper.

Sorry for the false alarm.

For Optiminer there were "hidden fees" because he forgot to mention in initial releases his 15% fee. The fact that his miner was also "hiding" that fee, giving the users the impression of always having their full hashrate however 15% is mining in the background to another pool. This is what raised suspicions and got us looking into Claymore's fee to see if they really are what they claim to be.

[toptek]

Whatever rate I get at the pool is roughly 97-98% or so what I have displayed as my total speed. So I am pretty sure this is some bug and he is not overcharging, since it would be very easy to prove.

Cool

[toptek]

Whatever rate I get at the pool is roughly 97-98% or so what I have displayed as my total speed. So I am pretty sure this is some bug and he is not overcharging, since it would be very easy to prove.

I re did some checks and compared the diffs (without setting any static diffs nor redirecting anything, just with the logfile from the console) and things seem to match up.
It did mine 22 shares at 242h diff during the 90 seconds it's mining for the dev and the following 90 seconds 11 shares at 636H were mined for myself.

I guess I was wrong, still worth it for someone to investigate deeper.

Sorry for the false alarm.

For Optiminer there were "hidden fees" because he forgot to mention in initial releases his 15% fee. The fact that his miner was also "hiding" that fee, giving the users the impression of always having their full hashrate however 15% is mining in the background to another pool. This is what raised suspicions and got us looking into Claymore's fee to see if they really are what they claim to be.

hey all good I'm glad you at least care ....some times you gotta do what you gotta do ..

thanks top .

[louiseth1]

hey all good I'm glad you at least care ....some times you gotta do what you gotta do ..

thanks top .

Closed source software is always more prone to debunking attempts vs open source software. When we can't see what the code is doing, we have to be more careful

[yslyung]

STOP ! the arguments,  but good to have some prove ...

i've humbly requested CM to lower the fees earlier on but obviously nth was done, you don't like it, don't use it !

his cheerleader coc* suckin' fanboy comes in & bla bla bla that whatever nanonaoano shi*head stepping on everyone's toes.

i think even on eth solo mining or something, boysie had some not so good experience with the devfee.

STOP ! it ! just STOP it !

bypass it !

heh, no more fees for CM !

 your a whiner right according to them lol .....  i was told the same BS when i asked for way around it or way to pay to stop it I told that ass to back off and left .

 

lol, must be some co*k sucker bitch lolz.

cm is already so bloody rich !

those who keeps track or do some monitoring.

i did post up some of his add's.

was just requesting a small reduction, prolly same as eth fees, it seems to be fair imo.

but again, who pays the fees ?

why no linux ? not that he hates linux, linux can "see" much things inside, win version a little tougher cuz it's a closed source.

regardless of linux or win or osx or android, the fees are still being bypassed as he himself knows it.