EWBF's CUDA Zcash miner

[Viperho]

Would it be possible to compile a compute 2.0 version of 0.5b?  Thank you

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B9EPp8NdigFiNzlWT3NIbFJhZ00

THANKS so much for this. really quick, it is appreciated!

[1713582474]

1713582474

[1713582474]

1713582474

[1713582474]

1713582474

[1713582474]

1713582474

[1713582474]

1713582474

[bensam1231]

Why not buy a new card instead of hassle with outdated hardware and make a problem of not supporting a device that even nvidia dropped long long time ago.

 Do keep in mind that a lot of us have EXISTING hardware on hand we'd like to mine more efficiently with, and don't see any reason to toss out working hardware just to spend $$$ on new stuff.
 There are also the SMALL miners that can't afford to casually just "buy a new card".


 Also keep in mind that AMD in particular had *3 generations* of "new" stuff that was no more than a bios refresh + slightly faster RAM with NO CHANGE TO THE ACTUAL GPU for most of the cards in the "new" line.
 (HD 7750/7770/78xx/79xx series, R5/7/9 2xx series, R5/7/9 3xx series - each generation only added 1 or 2 actual NEW gpu chips, usually at the top-end of the new line).

 Some of the R9 3xx series IS STILL IN PRODUCTION as AMD hasn't released their RX 4xx series replacements yet - which makes cards like the HD 7970 and 7950 arguably still current, and DEFINITELY the HD 7990.
 They also haven't released replacements for the bottom-end cards, so my HD 7750 is arguably still a CURRENT GPU (not one a miner should go out to buy, but since I have them on hand already no point in not USING them and achieving even MORE profit past the ROI they managed years ago).


 As far as the GPU goes, my HD 7870 is in actual FACT only one generation behind current, even if it's OFFICIALLY 4 generations old and 3-4 years out of production - and my R9 290s blow away ANY RX SERIES CARD that has been released to date on hashrate on pretty much ANY coin despite having been "dropped years ago".

If you were a real miner you should be doing research before you make a purchase and not just pick something out of the trash regardless of how little money you have and expect it to work like a top tier piece of hardware. The same can be said about people who are buying four year old AMD hardware and expecting it to hash as fast and be as efficient as brand new AMD hardware because someone recommended them buying a $80 7970 off of eBay. Sadly Ethereum has given people a false sense of profitability concerning older hardware due to the unique way it hashes. As we get closer and closer to electricity cost efficiency is going to matter a lot more and there are going to be a lot of disgruntled miners turning off their rigs.

This has already happened before at the end of '14, beginning of '15 and if you've did your research you would have also figured that out.

That aside, this is a Nvidia thread, it doesn't matter what AMD is doing on the other side of the spectrum. Nvidia hardware has had new architecture with every new GPU generation (putting aside super low end cards). The only cross generation weirdness was the 750ti which was Maxwell regardless of branding. Coming in here and talking about AMD cards and what's happening with AMD doesn't apply to Nvidia.

[bensam1231]

I also want to report there is a weird ass bug that's been plaguing this miner since the beginning, it still doesn't look like it's fixed. If you have a six GPU rig, one of the GPUs will sometimes hash 20% slower then all the other GPUS. It doesn't really make sense what causes it to happen. I can't figure it out even on virtually identical systems except for GPU brands. I have a couple systems like this.

Oh and add the ability to run multiple threads from the same miner.

[QuintLeo]

If you were a real miner you should be doing research before you make a purchase

 You keep ASSuming that all miners "purchase" all of their gear to mine with, as opposed to the LARGE number of us that already had EXISTING gear we put (or put BACK) into Mining service once something came up it was profitable on.

 This is just as applicable to NVidia as to AMD, though NVidia has rarely been competative on mining vs AMD and there is a lot less "older" NVidia gear around used for mining with as a result. (in my case, 2x GTX 960, 3 x GTX 950, and 2 x GTX 750 Ti on the NVidia side as opposed to 5 x HD 7750, 2 x 7870, and a 7850 on the AMD side - but I'm probably a rarity in having comparable numbers of GPU on each side when the current ETH/ETC/XMR/ZEC/etc period of profitability began).


 On the other hand, NVidia's "new GPU architecture with each generation" was nothing more than a minor rehash and usually a "more cores on the top end" change, the only REAL difference is they "officially" changed their silicon on their various 28nm generations - with similar performance gains (small and mostly due to faster memory being available) vs the contemporary AMD generations. Their only BIG change during the GPU mining years has been the move to 14/16nm with Pascal vs the previous generations - they just did a better job HIDING that fact vs AMD's "rebranding" on THEIR GCN 28nm generations.
 AMD's move to GCN vs the older Terrascale was a much bigger change in architecture than anything NVidia in that period prior to Maxwell.

 I never did understand why NVidia labeled the 750 as the same generation as the older 7xx stuff - by rights it should have been the GTX 940.
 On the other hand, AMD should have changed their generation numbers when they moved to GCN, instead of having quite a few of their 7xxx series be Terrascale and the rest GCN.


 BTW - I make my entire living from mining, if that's not "real" then you have a really wierd definition of "real".



 I'm fully aware of the GPU bust from a couple years back - I had quite a bit of gear left over from mining Litecoin and X11 days, but instead of selling it off I just started using it for what I'd ORIGINALLY bought most of it for prior to my ever hearing of Bitcoin much less Litecoin. I "did my research" back THEN when I was part of that history.

[wll1rah]

Why not buy a new card instead of hassle with outdated hardware and make a problem of not supporting a device that even nvidia dropped long long time ago.

 Do keep in mind that a lot of us have EXISTING hardware on hand we'd like to mine more efficiently with, and don't see any reason to toss out working hardware just to spend $$$ on new stuff.
 There are also the SMALL miners that can't afford to casually just "buy a new card".


 Also keep in mind that AMD in particular had *3 generations* of "new" stuff that was no more than a bios refresh + slightly faster RAM with NO CHANGE TO THE ACTUAL GPU for most of the cards in the "new" line.
 (HD 7750/7770/78xx/79xx series, R5/7/9 2xx series, R5/7/9 3xx series - each generation only added 1 or 2 actual NEW gpu chips, usually at the top-end of the new line).

 Some of the R9 3xx series IS STILL IN PRODUCTION as AMD hasn't released their RX 4xx series replacements yet - which makes cards like the HD 7970 and 7950 arguably still current, and DEFINITELY the HD 7990.
 They also haven't released replacements for the bottom-end cards, so my HD 7750 is arguably still a CURRENT GPU (not one a miner should go out to buy, but since I have them on hand already no point in not USING them and achieving even MORE profit past the ROI they managed years ago).


 As far as the GPU goes, my HD 7870 is in actual FACT only one generation behind current, even if it's OFFICIALLY 4 generations old and 3-4 years out of production - and my R9 290s blow away ANY RX SERIES CARD that has been released to date on hashrate on pretty much ANY coin despite having been "dropped years ago".

If you were a real miner you should be doing research before you make a purchase and not just pick something out of the trash regardless of how little money you have and expect it to work like a top tier piece of hardware. The same can be said about people who are buying four year old AMD hardware and expecting it to hash as fast and be as efficient as brand new AMD hardware because someone recommended them buying a $80 7970 off of eBay. Sadly Ethereum has given people a false sense of profitability concerning older hardware due to the unique way it hashes. As we get closer and closer to electricity cost efficiency is going to matter a lot more and there are going to be a lot of disgruntled miners turning off their rigs.

This has already happened before at the end of '14, beginning of '15 and if you've did your research you would have also figured that out.

That aside, this is a Nvidia thread, it doesn't matter what AMD is doing on the other side of the spectrum. Nvidia hardware has had new architecture with every new GPU generation (putting aside super low end cards). The only cross generation weirdness was the 750ti which was Maxwell regardless of branding. Coming in here and talking about AMD cards and what's happening with AMD doesn't apply to Nvidia.

Nvidia's 6xx and 7xx series both are built on Kepler and Fermi was 9xxx to 5xx series, you really need to read more if you think Maxwell 75x to 9xx are the only cross over GPU's with Nvidia.  Hell the GTX 1050/ti only real change is die size and a few memory optimaztions.

[jiggytom]

I'm not seeing that issue on my 6x1070 rig or another mixed rig.

I also want to report there is a weird ass bug that's been plaguing this miner since the beginning, it still doesn't look like it's fixed. If you have a six GPU rig, one of the GPUs will sometimes hash 20% slower then all the other GPUS. It doesn't really make sense what causes it to happen. I can't figure it out even on virtually identical systems except for GPU brands. I have a couple systems like this.

Oh and add the ability to run multiple threads from the same miner.

[nevermind41]

@bensam1231
 When you are using remote connection software (like teamviewer) you can live some hashrate drops. Did you checked that which gpu is slow then the others? zec algorithm is hungry to gpu. Maybe your psu isn't enough for 6 X 1070??? What is the current clock speeds of the gpu when you live this problem? and also gpu and mem controller load ratio?

[ioglnx]

I also want to report there is a weird ass bug that's been plaguing this miner since the beginning, it still doesn't look like it's fixed. If you have a six GPU rig, one of the GPUs will sometimes hash 20% slower then all the other GPUS. It doesn't really make sense what causes it to happen. I can't figure it out even on virtually identical systems except for GPU brands. I have a couple systems like this.

Oh and add the ability to run multiple threads from the same miner.

Its due to signal processing of monitor signal. I noticed that to when I disconnect the monitor or turn it of..the hash increases on this card. But since I have this miner the diff is just 1-2h not that much it behaves better than many others. Maybe you need also to check the nvdia system setting and enable the max. perf setting..this also helped in certain cases for my setups. Give it a try if not already done.

[bensam1231]

If you were a real miner you should be doing research before you make a purchase

 You keep ASSuming that all miners "purchase" all of their gear to mine with, as opposed to the LARGE number of us that already had EXISTING gear we put (or put BACK) into Mining service once something came up it was profitable on.

 This is just as applicable to NVidia as to AMD, though NVidia has rarely been competative on mining vs AMD and there is a lot less "older" NVidia gear around used for mining with as a result. (in my case, 2x GTX 960, 3 x GTX 950, and 2 x GTX 750 Ti on the NVidia side as opposed to 5 x HD 7750, 2 x 7870, and a 7850 on the AMD side - but I'm probably a rarity in having comparable numbers of GPU on each side when the current ETH/ETC/XMR/ZEC/etc period of profitability began).

 On the other hand, NVidia's "new GPU architecture with each generation" was nothing more than a minor rehash and usually a "more cores on the top end" change, the only REAL difference is they "officially" changed their silicon on their various 28nm generations - with similar performance gains (small and mostly due to faster memory being available) vs the contemporary AMD generations. Their only BIG change during the GPU mining years has been the move to 14/16nm with Pascal vs the previous generations - they just did a better job HIDING that fact vs AMD's "rebranding" on THEIR GCN 28nm generations.
 AMD's move to GCN vs the older Terrascale was a much bigger change in architecture than anything NVidia in that period prior to Maxwell.

 I never did understand why NVidia labeled the 750 as the same generation as the older 7xx stuff - by rights it should have been the GTX 940.
 On the other hand, AMD should have changed their generation numbers when they moved to GCN, instead of having quite a few of their 7xxx series be Terrascale and the rest GCN.

 BTW - I make my entire living from mining, if that's not "real" then you have a really wierd definition of "real".

 I'm fully aware of the GPU bust from a couple years back - I had quite a bit of gear left over from mining Litecoin and X11 days, but instead of selling it off I just started using it for what I'd ORIGINALLY bought most of it for prior to my ever hearing of Bitcoin much less Litecoin. I "did my research" back THEN when I was part of that history.

Good amount of unnecessary spacing for the win, right?

Unless you have boxes of 7970s laying around(!?!?!) you're in the extreme minority. That is to say you don't fucking matter. All the other points hold true. The random guy trying to mine on his six year old laptop or random card he upgraded from is not the forefront of development effort for devs on here. You know why? Because legitimate miners are actually using hardware that is recent and they have a lot of hashing power. Whether or not you can make $.10 per day doesn't matter around here. Put your card on eBay and let a big miner swallow it up.

Rarely competitive vs AMD? You mean like NeoS, Lyra, Quark (before it was ASIC'd), Library and all the other algos you don't mine because AMD hardware isn't competitive on them. Ethereum is a niche case scenario when it comes to the world of cryptos. It is literally the one algo that is so memory bus restricted it literally strangles any GPUs put on it and can't be improved. Even Equihash is showing some individuals who thought hardware couldn't break 200 sols and then Nvidia hardware couldn't break 200 sols, this isn't fucking Ethereum. It's not completely bus limited, you can check out your MCU usage on powerful cards... Nvidia hardware still has a lot to go as far as that goes.

Now you're just talking semantics. They redesign their chips and it doesn't count? Sorry, but I'm calling bullshit on that one. Visit any real hardware website that's not trying to shovel self supporting agendas down your throat (BCT) and you know that's not true. Maxwell and Pascal have both had relatively good support on Nvidias side of things for mining (when devs develop for Nvidia). Anything older then that people should be happy if miners work for it.

If you live off $.1 a day then that's amazing, otherwise we have some discrepancies here. On one hand you're toting your old ass hardware that you want to be brand spanking new and just as efficient as recent hardware as 'stuff you have laying around' and on the other now you're saying you have boxes of them? This goes back to my original point that you made misinformed purchases and now you're getting pissy as we're approaching electrical cost and want devs to spend extra time specifically on your shitty hardware.

So curiously if you have boxes of GPUs laying around, what did you use it for during the time when it's unprofitable? Oh you powered it down for a year? Do you know what opportunity cost is? Although since you did your research back then, you should probably be pretty happy that it's lasted this long and you're ready to sell it to buy new stuff.

I also want to report there is a weird ass bug that's been plaguing this miner since the beginning, it still doesn't look like it's fixed. If you have a six GPU rig, one of the GPUs will sometimes hash 20% slower then all the other GPUS. It doesn't really make sense what causes it to happen. I can't figure it out even on virtually identical systems except for GPU brands. I have a couple systems like this.

Oh and add the ability to run multiple threads from the same miner.

Its due to signal processing of monitor signal. I noticed that to when I disconnect the monitor or turn it of..the hash increases on this card. But since I have this miner the diff is just 1-2h not that much it behaves better than many others. Maybe you need also to check the nvdia system setting and enable the max. perf setting..this also helped in certain cases for my setups. Give it a try if not already done.

Yeah I figured this out last night, it's just when a monitor is connected. This doesn't happen on other miners though like EQM.

[ioglnx]

If you were a real miner you should be doing research before you make a purchase

 You keep ASSuming that all miners "purchase" all of their gear to mine with, as opposed to the LARGE number of us that already had EXISTING gear we put (or put BACK) into Mining service once something came up it was profitable on.

 This is just as applicable to NVidia as to AMD, though NVidia has rarely been competative on mining vs AMD and there is a lot less "older" NVidia gear around used for mining with as a result. (in my case, 2x GTX 960, 3 x GTX 950, and 2 x GTX 750 Ti on the NVidia side as opposed to 5 x HD 7750, 2 x 7870, and a 7850 on the AMD side - but I'm probably a rarity in having comparable numbers of GPU on each side when the current ETH/ETC/XMR/ZEC/etc period of profitability began).


 On the other hand, NVidia's "new GPU architecture with each generation" was nothing more than a minor rehash and usually a "more cores on the top end" change, the only REAL difference is they "officially" changed their silicon on their various 28nm generations - with similar performance gains (small and mostly due to faster memory being available) vs the contemporary AMD generations. Their only BIG change during the GPU mining years has been the move to 14/16nm with Pascal vs the previous generations - they just did a better job HIDING that fact vs AMD's "rebranding" on THEIR GCN 28nm generations.
 AMD's move to GCN vs the older Terrascale was a much bigger change in architecture than anything NVidia in that period prior to Maxwell.

 I never did understand why NVidia labeled the 750 as the same generation as the older 7xx stuff - by rights it should have been the GTX 940.
 On the other hand, AMD should have changed their generation numbers when they moved to GCN, instead of having quite a few of their 7xxx series be Terrascale and the rest GCN.


 BTW - I make my entire living from mining, if that's not "real" then you have a really wierd definition of "real".



 I'm fully aware of the GPU bust from a couple years back - I had quite a bit of gear left over from mining Litecoin and X11 days, but instead of selling it off I just started using it for what I'd ORIGINALLY bought most of it for prior to my ever hearing of Bitcoin much less Litecoin. I "did my research" back THEN when I was part of that history.

Not our fault if you don't have a job to make your income. And you mix things in your argumentation not worth going into them..you miss the point. but nevertheless those compute 2.0 guys got what they were crying for.

[giagge]

For use 1 only nvidia card ? --cd 0 , dont work .

[jiggytom]

For use 1 only nvidia card ? --cd 0 , dont work .

--cuda_devices 0

[Amph]

For use 1 only nvidia card ? --cd 0 , dont work .

-cd not "--cd"

[QuintLeo]

If you were a real miner you should be doing research before you make a purchase

 You keep ASSuming that all miners "purchase" all of their gear to mine with, as opposed to the LARGE number of us that already had EXISTING gear we put (or put BACK) into Mining service once something came up it was profitable on.

 BTW - I make my entire living from mining, if that's not "real" then you have a really wierd definition of "real".

Not our fault if you don't have a job to make your income. And you mix things in your argumentation not worth going into them..you miss the point. but nevertheless those compute 2.0 guys got what they were crying for.

 My mining is real enough I don't NEED a job to support it.

 My point is that y'all keep missing the point because of your BAD ASSUMPTION.

[QuintLeo]

If you were a real miner you should be doing research before you make a purchase

 You keep ASSuming that all miners "purchase" all of their gear to mine with, as opposed to the LARGE number of us that already had EXISTING gear we put (or put BACK) into Mining service once something came up it was profitable on.


 BTW - I make my entire living from mining, if that's not "real" then you have a really wierd definition of "real".

Good amount of unnecessary spacing for the win, right?

Unless you have boxes of 7970s laying around(!?!?!) you're in the extreme minority. That is to say you don't fucking matter. All the other points hold true. The random guy trying to mine on his six year old laptop or random card he upgraded from is not the forefront of development effort for devs on here. You know why? Because legitimate miners are actually using hardware that is recent and they have a lot of hashing power. Whether or not you can make $.10 per day doesn't matter around here. Put your card on eBay and let a big miner swallow it up.

Rarely competitive vs AMD? You mean like NeoS, Lyra, Quark (before it was ASIC'd), Library and all the other algos you don't mine because AMD hardware isn't competitive on them. Ethereum is a niche case scenario when it comes to the world of cryptos. It is literally the one algo that is so memory bus restricted it literally strangles any GPUs put on it and can't be improved. Even Equihash is showing some individuals who thought hardware couldn't break 200 sols and then Nvidia hardware couldn't break 200 sols, this isn't fucking Ethereum. It's not completely bus limited, you can check out your MCU usage on powerful cards... Nvidia hardware still has a lot to go as far as that goes.

Now you're just talking semantics. They redesign their chips and it doesn't count? Sorry, but I'm calling bullshit on that one. Visit any real hardware website that's not trying to shovel self supporting agendas down your throat (BCT) and you know that's not true. Maxwell and Pascal have both had relatively good support on Nvidias side of things for mining (when devs develop for Nvidia). Anything older then that people should be happy if miners work for it.

If you live off $.1 a day then that's amazing, otherwise we have some discrepancies here. On one hand you're toting your old ass hardware that you want to be brand spanking new and just as efficient as recent hardware as 'stuff you have laying around' and on the other now you're saying you have boxes of them? This goes back to my original point that you made misinformed purchases and now you're getting pissy as we're approaching electrical cost and want devs to spend extra time specifically on your shitty hardware.

So curiously if you have boxes of GPUs laying around, what did you use it for during the time when it's unprofitable? Oh you powered it down for a year? Do you know what opportunity cost is? Although since you did your research back then, you should probably be pretty happy that it's lasted this long and you're ready to sell it to buy new stuff.

 I use spacing to improve legibility.
 Ironical how the very post you complain about my use of it had even more of it than I use.

 NeoS and LBRY as far as I know has never been particularly profitable IF at all.
 Lyra is long dead, LyraRE2 has low profitability some of the time but would likely be ignored by most if NiceHash didn't support it.
 Quark was never profitable enough to be worth mining even before the ASIC invasion.

 ETH / ETC are a rare case but not unique, XMR is also very memory bus limited and ZEC to a lesser degree.

 I pointed out Maxwell was their first SERIOUS redesign (minor changes to support faster memory isn't a serious redesign, AMD didn't need to do THAT much for 3 generations of cards) in all of their 28nm "generations", excluding adding usually one "more cores" high end design (same thing AMD did).
 There's a big difference between claiming "major new improvements" and actually delivering them.

 I don't live off 10 cents per day, or even 10 dollars per day, or even close to that.
 That's not even a good strawman argument, it's nothing more than a rude insult.

 As far as what my AMD and NVidia hardware was doing between "profitable mining" timeframes, I'm a VERY long-term participant in the distributed.net project (where AMD dominates) and a fairly long-term participant in Folding@Home (where NVidia dominates). Most of the hardware I mined Scrypt with before ASIC took over was repurposed from dnet work, and the money I earned from that Scrypt work mostly went into funding more AMD card purchases intended for later DNet work (which worked out nicely).



 The core POINT is that "just because a card is old doesn't make it worthless and unworthy of mining on" - especially when a lot of those "old cards" can match or beat the performance of many CURRENT cards.
 

[vapourminer]

As far as what my AMD and NVidia hardware was doing between "profitable mining" timeframes, I'm a VERY long-term participant in the distributed.net project (where AMD dominates) and a fairly long-term participant in Folding@Home (where NVidia dominates). Most of the hardware I mined Scrypt with before ASIC took over was repurposed from dnet work, and the money I earned from that Scrypt work mostly went into funding more AMD card purchases intended for later DNet work (which worked out nicely).

funny how some folks think of gpus as only money makers, game cards or obsolete.

f@h got use of a lot of my crypto cards as some coins dried up. and vise versa of course as new coins popped in.

[ioglnx]

If you were a real miner you should be doing research before you make a purchase

 You keep ASSuming that all miners "purchase" all of their gear to mine with, as opposed to the LARGE number of us that already had EXISTING gear we put (or put BACK) into Mining service once something came up it was profitable on.

 BTW - I make my entire living from mining, if that's not "real" then you have a really wierd definition of "real".

Not our fault if you don't have a job to make your income. And you mix things in your argumentation not worth going into them..you miss the point. but nevertheless those compute 2.0 guys got what they were crying for.

 My mining is real enough I don't NEED a job to support it.

 My point is that y'all keep missing the point because of your BAD ASSUMPTION.

Well go to Neverland Ranch man..you don't get anything from what i said. So its easier to train my rats to use their toilet than talking with you.

[lokko]

Hello I have the following determined, the Miner 0.0.5b has between
2-4  O´clock in the morning many many Shares as Dev-Fee displayed?


problem still exists
2% I know
Thats not Okay !!!


+---------------------------------+
| EWBF's Zcash CUDA miner. 0.0.5b |
+---------------------------------+

Total speed: 638 Sol/s
INFO 03:43:20: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share
INFO: Detected new work: HiLk9kSz9a
INFO: Detected new work: HiLk9kT79K
GPU0: 320 Sol/s GPU1: 322 Sol/s
Total speed: 642 Sol/s
GPU0: 319 Sol/s GPU1: 313 Sol/s
Total speed: 632 Sol/s
INFO: Target: 0007ffffffffffff...
INFO: Detected new work: GNqMZIaBra
INFO 03:44:42: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share
GPU0: 318 Sol/s GPU1: 316 Sol/s
Total speed: 634 Sol/s
INFO 03:44:53: GPU0 Accepted share 352ms [A:131, R:0]
INFO 03:45:03: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share
INFO 03:45:05: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share
INFO: Detected new work: GNqMZIcB4Y
GPU0: 320 Sol/s GPU1: 315 Sol/s
Total speed: 635 Sol/s
INFO 03:45:22: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share
INFO: Detected new work: GNqMZId11S
INFO 03:45:34: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share
INFO 03:45:37: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share
GPU0: 318 Sol/s GPU1: 318 Sol/s
Total speed: 636 Sol/s
INFO 03:45:44: GPU0 Accepted share 652ms [A:137, R:0]
INFO 03:45:46: GPU0 Accepted share 653ms [A:138, R:0]
INFO: Target: 0003ffffffffffff...
INFO: Detected new work: HiLk9kXwJj
INFO 03:45:48: GPU0 Accepted share 652ms [A:139, R:0]
INFO 03:45:48: GPU0 Accepted share 352ms [A:140, R:0]
INFO 03:45:54: GPU0 Accepted share 352ms [A:141, R:0]
INFO 03:45:57: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share
INFO 03:46:04: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share
GPU0: 323 Sol/s GPU1: 307 Sol/s
Total speed: 630 Sol/s
INFO: Detected new work: HiLk9kZpOo
INFO 03:46:29: GPU0 Accepted share 653ms [A:144, R:0]
GPU0: 323 Sol/s GPU1: 319 Sol/s
Total speed: 642 Sol/s
INFO: Detected new work: HiLk9kbnoE
INFO 03:47:10: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share
GPU0: 319 Sol/s GPU1: 298 Sol/s
Total speed: 617 Sol/s
GPU0: 318 Sol/s GPU1: 314 Sol/s
Total speed: 632 Sol/s
INFO: Target: 0007ffffffffffff...
INFO: Detected new work: GNqMZIisWU
GPU0: 320 Sol/s GPU1: 312 Sol/s
Total speed: 632 Sol/s
INFO 03:48:22: GPU0 Accepted share 354ms [A:146, R:0]
INFO 03:48:24: GPU0 Accepted share 353ms [A:147, R:0]
INFO 03:48:42: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share
GPU0: 320 Sol/s GPU1: 311 Sol/s
Total speed: 631 Sol/s
INFO: Detected new work: GNqMZIkvaw
INFO 03:49:01: GPU0 Accepted share 353ms [A:149, R:0]
INFO 03:49:06: GPU0 Accepted share 353ms [A:150, R:0]
INFO 03:49:08: GPU0 Accepted share 354ms [A:151, R:0]
INFO 03:49:13: GPU0 Accepted share 354ms [A:152, R:0]
GPU0: 317 Sol/s GPU1: 310 Sol/s
Total speed: 627 Sol/s
INFO 03:49:28: GPU0 Accepted share 353ms [A:153, R:0]
INFO 03:49:31: GPU0 Accepted share 353ms [A:154, R:0]
INFO: Target: 0003ffffffffffff...
INFO: Detected new work: HiLk9kfqtD
INFO 03:49:34: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share
INFO 03:49:36: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share
INFO: Detected new work: HiLk9tmkHG
INFO 03:49:45: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share
GPU0: 311 Sol/s GPU1: 311 Sol/s
Total speed: 622 Sol/s
INFO 03:50:00: GPU0 Accepted share 353ms [A:158, R:0]
INFO 03:50:06: GPU0 Accepted share 354ms [A:159, R:0]
GPU0: 320 Sol/s GPU1: 306 Sol/s
Total speed: 626 Sol/s
INFO 03:50:21: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share
INFO: Detected new work: HiLk9kjZzS
GPU0: 327 Sol/s GPU1: 311 Sol/s
Total speed: 638 Sol/s
GPU0: 314 Sol/s GPU1: 309 Sol/s
Total speed: 623 Sol/s
INFO 03:51:18: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share
INFO 03:51:19: GPU0 Accepted share 352ms [A:162, R:0]
INFO: Detected new work: HiLk9klY8M
INFO 03:51:24: GPU0 Accepted share 352ms [A:163, R:0]
INFO 03:51:25: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share
GPU0: 325 Sol/s GPU1: 312 Sol/s
Total speed: 637 Sol/s
INFO 03:51:48: GPU0 Accepted share 351ms [A:165, R:0]
INFO 03:51:53: GPU0 Accepted share 352ms [A:166, R:0]
INFO: Detected new work: HiLk9knXD4
GPU0: 320 Sol/s GPU1: 313 Sol/s
Total speed: 633 Sol/s
INFO 03:52:21: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share
INFO: Detected new work: HiLk9kofPK
GPU0: 317 Sol/s GPU1: 305 Sol/s
Total speed: 622 Sol/s
INFO 03:52:49: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share
INFO: Detected new work: HiLk9tuGsY
GPU0: 319 Sol/s GPU1: 317 Sol/s
Total speed: 636 Sol/s
INFO 03:53:27: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share
INFO 03:53:29: GPU0 Accepted share 352ms [A:170, R:0]
INFO 03:53:35: GPU0 Accepted share 353ms [A:171, R:0]
INFO 03:53:36: GPU0 Accepted share 354ms [A:172, R:0]
INFO: Detected new work: HiLk9kr3zi
GPU0: 333 Sol/s GPU1: 318 Sol/s
Total speed: 651 Sol/s
INFO: Detected new work: HiLk9twuus
GPU0: 316 Sol/s GPU1: 312 Sol/s
Total speed: 628 Sol/s
INFO 03:54:34: GPU0 Accepted share 353ms [A:173, R:0]
GPU0: 319 Sol/s GPU1: 311 Sol/s
Total speed: 630 Sol/s
INFO: Detected new work: HiLk9ktlA6
INFO 03:55:07: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share
GPU0: 317 Sol/s GPU1: 308 Sol/s
Total speed: 625 Sol/s
INFO: Detected new work: HiLk9kvjRG
GPU0: 324 Sol/s GPU1: 316 Sol/s
Total speed: 640 Sol/s
GPU0: 326 Sol/s GPU1: 313 Sol/s
Total speed: 639 Sol/s
INFO 03:56:22: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share
INFO 03:56:27: GPU0 Accepted share 352ms [A:176, R:0]
INFO 03:56:32: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share
INFO: Detected new work: HiLk9kxsEo
INFO 03:56:38: GPU0 Accepted share 352ms [A:178, R:0]
GPU0: 321 Sol/s GPU1: 308 Sol/s
Total speed: 629 Sol/s
INFO 03:56:55: GPU0 Accepted share 352ms [A:179, R:0]
INFO 03:57:02: GPU0 Accepted share 351ms [A:180, R:0]
GPU0: 316 Sol/s GPU1: 313 Sol/s
Total speed: 629 Sol/s
INFO: Detected new work: HiLk9kzpyw
INFO 03:57:26: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share
INFO: Detected new work: HiLk9l0abW
GPU0: 320 Sol/s GPU1: 302 Sol/s
Total speed: 622 Sol/s
INFO 03:58:13: GPU0 Accepted share 352ms [A:182, R:0]
GPU0: 306 Sol/s GPU1: 301 Sol/s
Total speed: 607 Sol/s
INFO: Detected new work: HiLk9l2CN4
INFO 03:58:40: GPU0 Accepted share 352ms [A:183, R:0]
GPU0: 318 Sol/s GPU1: 310 Sol/s
Total speed: 628 Sol/s
INFO: Detected new work: HiLk9l49qg
GPU0: 316 Sol/s GPU1: 303 Sol/s
Total speed: 619 Sol/s
INFO 03:59:20: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share
INFO: Detected new work: HiLk9u9hrC
INFO 03:59:30: GPU0 Accepted share 1002ms [A:185, R:0]
GPU0: 322 Sol/s GPU1: 307 Sol/s
Total speed: 629 Sol/s
INFO: Detected new work: HiLk9uBDlO
GPU0: 322 Sol/s GPU1: 305 Sol/s
Total speed: 627 Sol/s
INFO 04:00:33: GPU0 Accepted share 354ms [A:186, R:0]
INFO: Detected new work: HiLk9l7bVO
GPU0: 318 Sol/s GPU1: 314 Sol/s
Total speed: 632 Sol/s
INFO: Detected new work: HiLk9uCxWg
INFO 04:00:50: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share
INFO: Detected new work: HiLk9uD5vC
GPU0: 313 Sol/s GPU1: 309 Sol/s
Total speed: 622 Sol/s
INFO 04:01:38: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share
INFO: Detected new work: HiLk9l9tlm
GPU0: 316 Sol/s GPU1: 308 Sol/s
Total speed: 624 Sol/s
INFO: Detected new work: HiLk9uFQqU
INFO 04:01:54: GPU0 Accepted share 358ms [A:189, R:0]
INFO: Detected new work: HiLk9lAY4M
INFO 04:01:58: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share
INFO 04:02:07: GPU0 Accepted share 354ms [A:191, R:0]
GPU0: 321 Sol/s GPU1: 308 Sol/s
Total speed: 629 Sol/s
INFO: Detected new work: HiLk9lBcfe
INFO: Detected new work: HiLk9lC6NS
INFO 04:02:42: GPU0 Accepted share 353ms [A:192, R:0]
GPU0: 320 Sol/s GPU1: 305 Sol/s
Total speed: 625 Sol/s
INFO: Detected new work: HiLk9uIMbe
GPU0: 320 Sol/s GPU1: 311 Sol/s
Total speed: 631 Sol/s
GPU0: 312 Sol/s GPU1: 312 Sol/s
Total speed: 624 Sol/s
INFO: Target: 0007ffffffffffff...
INFO: Detected new work: GNqMZJKFYk
INFO: Detected new work: GNqMZJKuzG
INFO 04:04:15: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share
INFO 04:04:16: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share
GPU0: 318 Sol/s GPU1: 310 Sol/s
Total speed: 628 Sol/s
INFO 04:04:34: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share
INFO 04:04:34: GPU0 Accepted share 354ms [A:196, R:0]
INFO 04:04:37: GPU0 Accepted share 352ms [A:197, R:0]
GPU0: 319 Sol/s GPU1: 308 Sol/s
Total speed: 627 Sol/s
INFO: Detected new work: GNqMZJMtvi
GPU0: 318 Sol/s GPU1: 306 Sol/s
Total speed: 624 Sol/s
INFO 04:05:23: GPU0 Accepted share 354ms [A:198, R:0]
INFO 04:05:27: GPU0 Accepted share 352ms [A:199, R:0]
INFO: Detected new work: GNqMZJObp8
GPU0: 317 Sol/s GPU1: 312 Sol/s
Total speed: 629 Sol/s
INFO 04:05:49: GPU0 Accepted share 352ms [A:200, R:0]
INFO 04:05:53: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share
INFO: Detected new work: GNqMZSULQ6
GPU0: 320 Sol/s INFO 04:06:20: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share
GPU1: 312 Sol/s
Total speed: 628 Sol/s
INFO 04:06:53: GPU0 Accepted share 29550ms [A:203, R:0]
INFO 04:06:53: GPU0 Accepted share 7410ms [A:204, R:0]
INFO 04:06:53: GPU0 Accepted share 380ms [A:205, R:0]

[jiggytom]

 Are you saying he's taking a higher percentage in the middle of the night? 

Hello I have the following determined, the Miner 0.0.5b has between
2-4  O´clock in the morning many many Shares as Dev-Fee displayed?


problem still exists
2% I know
Thats not Okay !!!


+---------------------------------+
| EWBF's Zcash CUDA miner. 0.0.5b |
+---------------------------------+

Total speed: 638 Sol/s
INFO 03:43:20: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share
INFO: Detected new work: HiLk9kSz9a
INFO: Detected new work: HiLk9kT79K
GPU0: 320 Sol/s GPU1: 322 Sol/s
Total speed: 642 Sol/s
GPU0: 319 Sol/s GPU1: 313 Sol/s
Total speed: 632 Sol/s
INFO: Target: 0007ffffffffffff...
INFO: Detected new work: GNqMZIaBra
INFO 03:44:42: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share
GPU0: 318 Sol/s GPU1: 316 Sol/s
Total speed: 634 Sol/s
INFO 03:44:53: GPU0 Accepted share 352ms [A:131, R:0]
INFO 03:45:03: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share
INFO 03:45:05: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share
INFO: Detected new work: GNqMZIcB4Y
GPU0: 320 Sol/s GPU1: 315 Sol/s
Total speed: 635 Sol/s
INFO 03:45:22: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share
INFO: Detected new work: GNqMZId11S
INFO 03:45:34: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share
INFO 03:45:37: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share
GPU0: 318 Sol/s GPU1: 318 Sol/s
Total speed: 636 Sol/s
INFO 03:45:44: GPU0 Accepted share 652ms [A:137, R:0]
INFO 03:45:46: GPU0 Accepted share 653ms [A:138, R:0]
INFO: Target: 0003ffffffffffff...
INFO: Detected new work: HiLk9kXwJj
INFO 03:45:48: GPU0 Accepted share 652ms [A:139, R:0]
INFO 03:45:48: GPU0 Accepted share 352ms [A:140, R:0]
INFO 03:45:54: GPU0 Accepted share 352ms [A:141, R:0]
INFO 03:45:57: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share
INFO 03:46:04: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share
GPU0: 323 Sol/s GPU1: 307 Sol/s
Total speed: 630 Sol/s
INFO: Detected new work: HiLk9kZpOo
INFO 03:46:29: GPU0 Accepted share 653ms [A:144, R:0]
GPU0: 323 Sol/s GPU1: 319 Sol/s
Total speed: 642 Sol/s
INFO: Detected new work: HiLk9kbnoE
INFO 03:47:10: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share
GPU0: 319 Sol/s GPU1: 298 Sol/s
Total speed: 617 Sol/s
GPU0: 318 Sol/s GPU1: 314 Sol/s
Total speed: 632 Sol/s
INFO: Target: 0007ffffffffffff...
INFO: Detected new work: GNqMZIisWU
GPU0: 320 Sol/s GPU1: 312 Sol/s
Total speed: 632 Sol/s
INFO 03:48:22: GPU0 Accepted share 354ms [A:146, R:0]
INFO 03:48:24: GPU0 Accepted share 353ms [A:147, R:0]
INFO 03:48:42: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share
GPU0: 320 Sol/s GPU1: 311 Sol/s
Total speed: 631 Sol/s
INFO: Detected new work: GNqMZIkvaw
INFO 03:49:01: GPU0 Accepted share 353ms [A:149, R:0]
INFO 03:49:06: GPU0 Accepted share 353ms [A:150, R:0]
INFO 03:49:08: GPU0 Accepted share 354ms [A:151, R:0]
INFO 03:49:13: GPU0 Accepted share 354ms [A:152, R:0]
GPU0: 317 Sol/s GPU1: 310 Sol/s
Total speed: 627 Sol/s
INFO 03:49:28: GPU0 Accepted share 353ms [A:153, R:0]
INFO 03:49:31: GPU0 Accepted share 353ms [A:154, R:0]
INFO: Target: 0003ffffffffffff...
INFO: Detected new work: HiLk9kfqtD
INFO 03:49:34: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share
INFO 03:49:36: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share
INFO: Detected new work: HiLk9tmkHG
INFO 03:49:45: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share
GPU0: 311 Sol/s GPU1: 311 Sol/s
Total speed: 622 Sol/s
INFO 03:50:00: GPU0 Accepted share 353ms [A:158, R:0]
INFO 03:50:06: GPU0 Accepted share 354ms [A:159, R:0]
GPU0: 320 Sol/s GPU1: 306 Sol/s
Total speed: 626 Sol/s
INFO 03:50:21: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share
INFO: Detected new work: HiLk9kjZzS
GPU0: 327 Sol/s GPU1: 311 Sol/s
Total speed: 638 Sol/s
GPU0: 314 Sol/s GPU1: 309 Sol/s
Total speed: 623 Sol/s
INFO 03:51:18: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share
INFO 03:51:19: GPU0 Accepted share 352ms [A:162, R:0]
INFO: Detected new work: HiLk9klY8M
INFO 03:51:24: GPU0 Accepted share 352ms [A:163, R:0]
INFO 03:51:25: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share
GPU0: 325 Sol/s GPU1: 312 Sol/s
Total speed: 637 Sol/s
INFO 03:51:48: GPU0 Accepted share 351ms [A:165, R:0]
INFO 03:51:53: GPU0 Accepted share 352ms [A:166, R:0]
INFO: Detected new work: HiLk9knXD4
GPU0: 320 Sol/s GPU1: 313 Sol/s
Total speed: 633 Sol/s
INFO 03:52:21: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share
INFO: Detected new work: HiLk9kofPK
GPU0: 317 Sol/s GPU1: 305 Sol/s
Total speed: 622 Sol/s
INFO 03:52:49: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share
INFO: Detected new work: HiLk9tuGsY
GPU0: 319 Sol/s GPU1: 317 Sol/s
Total speed: 636 Sol/s
INFO 03:53:27: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share
INFO 03:53:29: GPU0 Accepted share 352ms [A:170, R:0]
INFO 03:53:35: GPU0 Accepted share 353ms [A:171, R:0]
INFO 03:53:36: GPU0 Accepted share 354ms [A:172, R:0]
INFO: Detected new work: HiLk9kr3zi
GPU0: 333 Sol/s GPU1: 318 Sol/s
Total speed: 651 Sol/s
INFO: Detected new work: HiLk9twuus
GPU0: 316 Sol/s GPU1: 312 Sol/s
Total speed: 628 Sol/s
INFO 03:54:34: GPU0 Accepted share 353ms [A:173, R:0]
GPU0: 319 Sol/s GPU1: 311 Sol/s
Total speed: 630 Sol/s
INFO: Detected new work: HiLk9ktlA6
INFO 03:55:07: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share
GPU0: 317 Sol/s GPU1: 308 Sol/s
Total speed: 625 Sol/s
INFO: Detected new work: HiLk9kvjRG
GPU0: 324 Sol/s GPU1: 316 Sol/s
Total speed: 640 Sol/s
GPU0: 326 Sol/s GPU1: 313 Sol/s
Total speed: 639 Sol/s
INFO 03:56:22: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share
INFO 03:56:27: GPU0 Accepted share 352ms [A:176, R:0]
INFO 03:56:32: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share
INFO: Detected new work: HiLk9kxsEo
INFO 03:56:38: GPU0 Accepted share 352ms [A:178, R:0]
GPU0: 321 Sol/s GPU1: 308 Sol/s
Total speed: 629 Sol/s
INFO 03:56:55: GPU0 Accepted share 352ms [A:179, R:0]
INFO 03:57:02: GPU0 Accepted share 351ms [A:180, R:0]
GPU0: 316 Sol/s GPU1: 313 Sol/s
Total speed: 629 Sol/s
INFO: Detected new work: HiLk9kzpyw
INFO 03:57:26: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share
INFO: Detected new work: HiLk9l0abW
GPU0: 320 Sol/s GPU1: 302 Sol/s
Total speed: 622 Sol/s
INFO 03:58:13: GPU0 Accepted share 352ms [A:182, R:0]
GPU0: 306 Sol/s GPU1: 301 Sol/s
Total speed: 607 Sol/s
INFO: Detected new work: HiLk9l2CN4
INFO 03:58:40: GPU0 Accepted share 352ms [A:183, R:0]
GPU0: 318 Sol/s GPU1: 310 Sol/s
Total speed: 628 Sol/s
INFO: Detected new work: HiLk9l49qg
GPU0: 316 Sol/s GPU1: 303 Sol/s
Total speed: 619 Sol/s
INFO 03:59:20: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share
INFO: Detected new work: HiLk9u9hrC
INFO 03:59:30: GPU0 Accepted share 1002ms [A:185, R:0]
GPU0: 322 Sol/s GPU1: 307 Sol/s
Total speed: 629 Sol/s
INFO: Detected new work: HiLk9uBDlO
GPU0: 322 Sol/s GPU1: 305 Sol/s
Total speed: 627 Sol/s
INFO 04:00:33: GPU0 Accepted share 354ms [A:186, R:0]
INFO: Detected new work: HiLk9l7bVO
GPU0: 318 Sol/s GPU1: 314 Sol/s
Total speed: 632 Sol/s
INFO: Detected new work: HiLk9uCxWg
INFO 04:00:50: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share
INFO: Detected new work: HiLk9uD5vC
GPU0: 313 Sol/s GPU1: 309 Sol/s
Total speed: 622 Sol/s
INFO 04:01:38: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share
INFO: Detected new work: HiLk9l9tlm
GPU0: 316 Sol/s GPU1: 308 Sol/s
Total speed: 624 Sol/s
INFO: Detected new work: HiLk9uFQqU
INFO 04:01:54: GPU0 Accepted share 358ms [A:189, R:0]
INFO: Detected new work: HiLk9lAY4M
INFO 04:01:58: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share
INFO 04:02:07: GPU0 Accepted share 354ms [A:191, R:0]
GPU0: 321 Sol/s GPU1: 308 Sol/s
Total speed: 629 Sol/s
INFO: Detected new work: HiLk9lBcfe
INFO: Detected new work: HiLk9lC6NS
INFO 04:02:42: GPU0 Accepted share 353ms [A:192, R:0]
GPU0: 320 Sol/s GPU1: 305 Sol/s
Total speed: 625 Sol/s
INFO: Detected new work: HiLk9uIMbe
GPU0: 320 Sol/s GPU1: 311 Sol/s
Total speed: 631 Sol/s
GPU0: 312 Sol/s GPU1: 312 Sol/s
Total speed: 624 Sol/s
INFO: Target: 0007ffffffffffff...
INFO: Detected new work: GNqMZJKFYk
INFO: Detected new work: GNqMZJKuzG
INFO 04:04:15: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share
INFO 04:04:16: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share
GPU0: 318 Sol/s GPU1: 310 Sol/s
Total speed: 628 Sol/s
INFO 04:04:34: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share
INFO 04:04:34: GPU0 Accepted share 354ms [A:196, R:0]
INFO 04:04:37: GPU0 Accepted share 352ms [A:197, R:0]
GPU0: 319 Sol/s GPU1: 308 Sol/s
Total speed: 627 Sol/s
INFO: Detected new work: GNqMZJMtvi
GPU0: 318 Sol/s GPU1: 306 Sol/s
Total speed: 624 Sol/s
INFO 04:05:23: GPU0 Accepted share 354ms [A:198, R:0]
INFO 04:05:27: GPU0 Accepted share 352ms [A:199, R:0]
INFO: Detected new work: GNqMZJObp8
GPU0: 317 Sol/s GPU1: 312 Sol/s
Total speed: 629 Sol/s
INFO 04:05:49: GPU0 Accepted share 352ms [A:200, R:0]
INFO 04:05:53: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share
INFO: Detected new work: GNqMZSULQ6
GPU0: 320 Sol/s INFO 04:06:20: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share
GPU1: 312 Sol/s
Total speed: 628 Sol/s
INFO 04:06:53: GPU0 Accepted share 29550ms [A:203, R:0]
INFO 04:06:53: GPU0 Accepted share 7410ms [A:204, R:0]
INFO 04:06:53: GPU0 Accepted share 380ms [A:205, R:0]

[lokko]

Definitely !!
I've been watching it all day. Between 2 and 5 o'clock in the morning

3 x he is scrapped


Something is wrong with the miner !