EWBF's CUDA Zcash miner

[thevictimofuktyranny]

From, what I understand from the patenting process, which is the closest analogy.

It is acceptable too look at other people's patents, for inspiration.

As long as you can come up with an alternative solution, a person or company is on safe ground.

The purpose of patents is not too stop improvements or innovation or discoveries.

Merely, to give the person with the perfect solution to that task a decent percentage of the fruits of their genius for finding a solution that cannot be surpassed.

From, everything that has been posted, it does not look like patent infringements are occurring.

EWBF's work is noticeable different.

[Newton90]

on pps pools like dwarfpool,antpool,f2pool after a while i have error:

Device 0: Thread exited with code: 46
Device 1: Thread exited with code: 46

ERROR: Some workers are stopped.Attemped to restart: 87

have this error in both 0.06 and 0.08 version.

EWBF_ , need optimize miner.

Never had this error (tried all version from 0.0.5 until current one), mined on Dwarfpool (PPS) and Nanopool (PPLNS).
You might want to check your OC, it doesn't seem to be miner's fault.

cards not OC.

[djm34]

From, what I understand from the patenting process, which is the closest analogy.

It is acceptable too look at other people's patents, for inspiration.

As long as you can come up with an alternative solution, a person or company is on safe ground.

The purpose of patents is not too stop improvements or innovation or discoveries.

Merely, to give the person with the perfect solution to that task a decent percentage of the fruits of their genius for finding a solution that cannot be surpassed.

From, everything that has been posted, it does not look like patent infringements are occurring.

EWBF's work is noticeable different.

It makes no sense: closed source both (meaning they can't read the source of each other, have access to ptx or sass which may or may not help), second no licensing what so ever and definitely no patent... (and there is nothing to patent... lol a sorting/xor algo come on lol)

Quite frankly I don't like NiceHash behavior in that one, I understand they paid for their algo a dev, but that doesn't mean other dev must stop their own development... yeah right... they've been in that game for long enough to know that may and will happen...

ps: I hope Adobe open source their softwares because they have some pretty good competition at the moment
 

[thevictimofuktyranny]

From, what I understand from the patenting process, which is the closest analogy.

It is acceptable too look at other people's patents, for inspiration.

As long as you can come up with an alternative solution, a person or company is on safe ground.

The purpose of patents is not too stop improvements or innovation or discoveries.

Merely, to give the person with the perfect solution to that task a decent percentage of the fruits of their genius for finding a solution that cannot be surpassed.

From, everything that has been posted, it does not look like patent infringements are occurring.

EWBF's work is noticeable different.

It makes no sense: closed source both (meaning they can't read the source of each other, have access to ptx or sass which may or may not help), second no licensing what so ever and definitely no patent... (and there is nothing to patent... lol a sorting/xor algo come on lol)

Quite frankly I don't like NiceHash behavior in that one, I understand they paid for their algo a dev, but that doesn't mean other dev must stop their own development... yeah right... they've been in that game for long enough to know that may and will happen...

ps: I hope Adobe open source their softwares because they have some pretty good competition at the moment
 

Personally, I'm all in favour of fee based miners - coders like yourself get decent rewards for sharing their improvements.

And, I've said, a lot of nice stuff about Nicehash in the past

Bought hash from the site when electricity was $0.30 in the UK.

But, the crypto-currency community needs to get away from having badly optimised mining software - that has no future support or development.

And, it needs to retain it coders for mining software and you know a 2% fee on miners is perfectly acceptable to the small rig owners.

Furthermore, Nicehash could have simply asked EWBF to make his software incompatible with Nicehash BTC mining pool. So, they weren't stepping on each other toes. Rather, than kick up all this dust in everyone's faces.

[djm34]

From, what I understand from the patenting process, which is the closest analogy.

It is acceptable too look at other people's patents, for inspiration.

As long as you can come up with an alternative solution, a person or company is on safe ground.

The purpose of patents is not too stop improvements or innovation or discoveries.

Merely, to give the person with the perfect solution to that task a decent percentage of the fruits of their genius for finding a solution that cannot be surpassed.

From, everything that has been posted, it does not look like patent infringements are occurring.

EWBF's work is noticeable different.

It makes no sense: closed source both (meaning they can't read the source of each other, have access to ptx or sass which may or may not help), second no licensing what so ever and definitely no patent... (and there is nothing to patent... lol a sorting/xor algo come on lol)

Quite frankly I don't like NiceHash behavior in that one, I understand they paid for their algo a dev, but that doesn't mean other dev must stop their own development... yeah right... they've been in that game for long enough to know that may and will happen...

ps: I hope Adobe open source their softwares because they have some pretty good competition at the moment
 

Personally, I'm all in favour of fee based miners - coders like yourself get decent rewards for sharing their improvements.

And, I've said, a lot of nice stuff about Nicehash in the past

Bought hash from the site when electricity was $0.30 in the UK.

But, the crypto-currency community needs to get away from having badly optimised mining software - that has no future support or development.

And, it needs to retain it coders for mining software and you know a 2% fee on miners is perfectly acceptable to the small rig owners.

Furthermore, Nicehash could have simply asked EWBF to make his software incompatible with Nicehash BTC mining pool. So, they weren't stepping on each other toes. Rather, than kick up all this dust in everyone's faces.

I don't see how anyone is stepping on NiceHash toes, since NiceHash is a pool/hashrate selling entity... So no matter what is running they get their share.

regarding "badly optimised" this has no meaning at all. Software gets released whenever there is an improvement and that's it.
You will never get the fully optimize stuff at starts, because it doesn't even exist. Developpment proceed through step into solving issues and self improvement.

[marvykkio]

someone is noticing less gains on flypool?
I have the strange feeling that missing payments
 

[thevictimofuktyranny]

From, what I understand from the patenting process, which is the closest analogy.

It is acceptable too look at other people's patents, for inspiration.

As long as you can come up with an alternative solution, a person or company is on safe ground.

The purpose of patents is not too stop improvements or innovation or discoveries.

Merely, to give the person with the perfect solution to that task a decent percentage of the fruits of their genius for finding a solution that cannot be surpassed.

From, everything that has been posted, it does not look like patent infringements are occurring.

EWBF's work is noticeable different.

It makes no sense: closed source both (meaning they can't read the source of each other, have access to ptx or sass which may or may not help), second no licensing what so ever and definitely no patent... (and there is nothing to patent... lol a sorting/xor algo come on lol)

Quite frankly I don't like NiceHash behavior in that one, I understand they paid for their algo a dev, but that doesn't mean other dev must stop their own development... yeah right... they've been in that game for long enough to know that may and will happen...

ps: I hope Adobe open source their softwares because they have some pretty good competition at the moment
 

Personally, I'm all in favour of fee based miners - coders like yourself get decent rewards for sharing their improvements.

And, I've said, a lot of nice stuff about Nicehash in the past

Bought hash from the site when electricity was $0.30 in the UK.

But, the crypto-currency community needs to get away from having badly optimised mining software - that has no future support or development.

And, it needs to retain it coders for mining software and you know a 2% fee on miners is perfectly acceptable to the small rig owners.

Furthermore, Nicehash could have simply asked EWBF to make his software incompatible with Nicehash BTC mining pool. So, they weren't stepping on each other toes. Rather, than kick up all this dust in everyone's faces.

I don't see how anyone is stepping on NiceHash toes, since NiceHash is a pool/hashrate selling entity... So no matter what is running they get their share.

regarding "badly optimised" this has no meaning at all. Software gets released whenever there is an improvement and that's it.
You will never get the fully optimize stuff at starts, because it doesn't even exist. Developpment proceed through step into solving issues and self improvement.

Yeah, you not saying that back in the bad old days people weren't buying better optimised miners for BTC in underground deals?

That is not something, that anyone should wants too see again!

[petrmaje]

I will reply to myself ... Newest drivers nedded
1060 does 267 Sols on stock setting.

Hi,
I have a issue with yours miner, Linux version.
Latest working version is 0.05b.

+---------------------------------+
| EWBF's Zcash CUDA miner. 0.0.5b |
+---------------------------------+
INFO: Target: 007fffffffffffff...
INFO: Detected new work: 1482962614_64854
INFO: Detected new work: 1482962614_64854
CUDA: Device: 0 GeForce GTX 1060 6GB, 6072 MB
INFO 23:04:01: GPU0 Accepted share 297ms [A:1, R:0]
INFO 23:04:07: GPU0 Accepted share 298ms [A:2, R:0]

Newer versions crased with this:
+---------------------------------+
| EWBF's Zcash CUDA miner. 0.0.8b |
+---------------------------------+
INFO: Target: 007fffffffffffff...
INFO: Detected new work: 1482962393_64849
INFO: Detected new work: 1482962393_64849
ERROR: Cannot run workers.

Does your miner require OPENCL files? I have installed driver without OPENCL files, because I had problems with second videocard installed in my PC. Other miners (claymore, genoil) works well. Where is the problem?
Thanks
Petr

[anorganix]

I will reply to myself ... Newest drivers nedded
1060 does 267 Sols on stock setting.

Hi,
I have a issue with yours miner, Linux version.
Latest working version is 0.05b.

+---------------------------------+
| EWBF's Zcash CUDA miner. 0.0.5b |
+---------------------------------+
INFO: Target: 007fffffffffffff...
INFO: Detected new work: 1482962614_64854
INFO: Detected new work: 1482962614_64854
CUDA: Device: 0 GeForce GTX 1060 6GB, 6072 MB
INFO 23:04:01: GPU0 Accepted share 297ms [A:1, R:0]
INFO 23:04:07: GPU0 Accepted share 298ms [A:2, R:0]

Newer versions crased with this:
+---------------------------------+
| EWBF's Zcash CUDA miner. 0.0.8b |
+---------------------------------+
INFO: Target: 007fffffffffffff...
INFO: Detected new work: 1482962393_64849
INFO: Detected new work: 1482962393_64849
ERROR: Cannot run workers.

Does your miner require OPENCL files? I have installed driver without OPENCL files, because I had problems with second videocard installed in my PC. Other miners (claymore, genoil) works well. Where is the problem?
Thanks
Petr

Hey, try the following settings:

• power limit @ 80%
• core +185
• memory +640 (you can go further if Samsung memory)

It should give the same hashrate as the one you posted with only 95W.
Good luck!

[bensam1231]

Well i guess you have a point, i agree completely that i would be also angry if someone copied over my work, but so far it doesn't seems like it, if they're right as i said, i will be 100% behind them. But still i think it could have been handled better. If you feel like i was being disrespectful, that wasn't the intention, and im no invalid in no way, i think this was disrespectful for people that really are... thinking they don't go for holidays in family & such....

You seems to give your blessing to nicehash that so far have produced no proof it was cloned or copied (ok they seems to be serious peoples & all so they have a better trust level). So if you found me to be biased, i found you to be too in a way, but i probably don't have much history with them to trust them as completly as you do, you have probably the advantage in this situation, im kinda the "external" eye, since im into mining for so little time.

So as i said, i give the benefit of the doubts to both of them (nicehash & ewbf) for the allegations. What i don't like is how it has been handled as i said. No the matter by itself that i find to be 100% legitimate if ever true. As i said i saw too many times company trying to take down the competition in that way, so im being wary, if they're proven to be right i'll recognize it and my trust level with them will go up for sure.

And yes i do hope both of them will continue to improve things for us. And make them protect their codes better . Maybe the resolution will come to EWBF working for them ? :p, let's wait a week and see what's the situation after the dust settle. hope we get resolution. Cheers for the new year all.

I don't believe shit anyone says, especially online. I look at what's available in terms of actions of participants in a conversation and what's happened. EWBF has suspiciously came out with very close hash wise miners every time Nicehash had a release a couple days later with the exception of where he apparently had virtually the same hash, but never 'fixed' the utilization issue until it was pointed out a couple different times in this thread. It was previously discussed in the Nicehash thread and fixed a few versions earlier.

I noticed the trend before Nicehash started pointing fingers, it just happens to coincide with what I already noticed so I'm giving Nicehash more cred then EWBF. On top of that Nicehash is a company and didn't just pop up out of no where and became a CUDA miner coding guru. Nicehash also already had two previously optimized Equihash miners before EQM, which also lends more credibility to Nicehash.

It may not be true and it could be this is a coincidence, but I kinda doubt that. All it takes is the rough idea and then a good coder can go to town on that. There are plenty of other miners where this hasn't happened, so this is a pretty rare occurrence if it is a coincidence. Take Claymores miners and a lack of a 'EWBF' competing with it. Claymore has also gone to a lot more extremes to prevent disassembly of his code. Considering Nicehash is new to the game, they may have been a bit too lax.

For instance, if it was really this easy EWBF should have a competing AMD miner. Since Nvidia is basically only 20% of the network hashrate, there are much greener pastures on the other side... But Nicehash's miner is in CUDA, not OCL.

As I mentioned this is all circumstantial, but I'm definitely more inclined to agree with Nicehash for various reasons and definitely am not going to hop on the poopoo train till this is sorted out. I'd rather not lose one of the few Nvidia developers. I will say with almost 100% certainty the relationship isn't reverse, Nicehash stealing code from EWBF.


Keep in mind Nicehash isn't trying to 'take out the competition', they basically flipped the board and said 'I'm done' by releasing their source code and exiting the game. That also lends more credibility to Nicehash. Like I said, we as miners are hurt any way this turns out.

[thevictimofuktyranny]

bensam1231, if you weren't English I'd rip you a new asshole.

Sorry. LOL

New Years and I'm half way through a bottle of JD.

Have a Happy New Year - Nicehash and EWBF!

[m1n1ngP4d4w4n]

Well i guess you have a point, i agree completely that i would be also angry if someone copied over my work, but so far it doesn't seems like it, if they're right as i said, i will be 100% behind them. But still i think it could have been handled better. If you feel like i was being disrespectful, that wasn't the intention, and im no invalid in no way, i think this was disrespectful for people that really are... thinking they don't go for holidays in family & such....

You seems to give your blessing to nicehash that so far have produced no proof it was cloned or copied (ok they seems to be serious peoples & all so they have a better trust level). So if you found me to be biased, i found you to be too in a way, but i probably don't have much history with them to trust them as completly as you do, you have probably the advantage in this situation, im kinda the "external" eye, since im into mining for so little time.

So as i said, i give the benefit of the doubts to both of them (nicehash & ewbf) for the allegations. What i don't like is how it has been handled as i said. No the matter by itself that i find to be 100% legitimate if ever true. As i said i saw too many times company trying to take down the competition in that way, so im being wary, if they're proven to be right i'll recognize it and my trust level with them will go up for sure.

And yes i do hope both of them will continue to improve things for us. And make them protect their codes better . Maybe the resolution will come to EWBF working for them ? :p, let's wait a week and see what's the situation after the dust settle. hope we get resolution. Cheers for the new year all.

I don't believe shit anyone says, especially online. I look at what's available in terms of actions of participants in a conversation and what's happened. EWBF has suspiciously came out with very close hash wise miners every time Nicehash had a release a couple days later with the exception of where he apparently had virtually the same hash, but never 'fixed' the utilization issue until it was pointed out a couple different times in this thread. It was previously discussed in the Nicehash thread and fixed a few versions earlier.

I noticed the trend before Nicehash started pointing fingers, it just happens to coincide with what I already noticed so I'm giving Nicehash more cred then EWBF. On top of that Nicehash is a company and didn't just pop up out of no where and became a CUDA miner coding guru. Nicehash also already had two previously optimized Equihash miners before EQM, which also lends more credibility to Nicehash.

It may not be true and it could be this is a coincidence, but I kinda doubt that. All it takes is the rough idea and then a good coder can go to town on that. There are plenty of other miners where this hasn't happened, so this is a pretty rare occurrence if it is a coincidence. Take Claymores miners and a lack of a 'EWBF' competing with it. Claymore has also gone to a lot more extremes to prevent disassembly of his code. Considering Nicehash is new to the game, they may have been a bit too lax.

For instance, if it was really this easy EWBF should have a competing AMD miner. Since Nvidia is basically only 20% of the network hashrate, there are much greener pastures on the other side... But Nicehash's miner is in CUDA, not OCL.

As I mentioned this is all circumstantial, but I'm definitely more inclined to agree with Nicehash for various reasons and definitely am not going to hop on the poopoo train till this is sorted out. I'd rather not lose one of the few Nvidia developers. I will say with almost 100% certainty the relationship isn't reverse, Nicehash stealing code from EWBF.


Keep in mind Nicehash isn't trying to 'take out the competition', they basically flipped the board and said 'I'm done' by releasing their source code and exiting the game. That also lends more credibility to Nicehash. Like I said, we as miners are hurt any way this turns out.

Yeah i guess if you present it like this, it has merits.

For now, no source code was released, but it will add to their credibility as you said if they do. Also why EWBF should bother with AMD since there is already claymore, the pros of a new miner is to improve upon to be able to justify the fees, or not have any locking of pools. With nvidia he was able to offer a real alternative, for AMD it's pretty much locked on claymore that has cornered the AMD miner market, but as you said it could also be because claymore did a much better job to protect his code. Also he "could" be a cuda expert and less opencl... but again, as you said it's suspicious especially the timing between each optimisation that look to be too much "in-sync" with NH releases.

But what disturb me overall is what EWBF could still be accused of, his miner is obviously different, doesn't has the linux issues EQM has, and work a bit differently. So at the most it would be maybe "solvers cloning" ? I think in both cases the timing is weird, and may be coincidental as you said. I dunno how it goes when you only duplicate a "principle" he can't be considered code thief... maybe ideas thief then, but again can you really say that when it's all mathematical ? I guess there is some algos for trading that are kept very tight secret, the same idea could be applied here...

Waiting for more proof at any cases. What came to me @ first is that it was the same dev as EQM trying to get the best of both worlds... but it seems far-fetched now. Ah well wait & see...

bensam1231, if you weren't English I'd rip you a new asshole.

Sorry. LOL

New Years and I'm half way through a bottle of JD.

Have a Happy New Year - Nicehash and EWBF!

HNY you all

[go6ooo1212]

@EWBF
Are you able to implement failover option in your next release , mate ?

[Altcoining]

410S/s stock EVGA FTW reporting in.
Can get up to 450 with +500MHz on mem, not sure about stability though.
Haven't checked power usage yet too.

[Q_R_V]

Outstanding miner, keep working on it and don't listen to the haters.

I see people reporting around 400 S/s with overclocked 1070 on Win10. Best i can do is 340 S/s with 150W per card.

Samsung memory.
Drivers 376.33, already tried 376.09 and 375.50 - almost no change.



I am obviously missing something crucial. Any ideas?

[Newton90]

on pps pools like dwarfpool,antpool,f2pool after a while i have error:

Device 0: Thread exited with code: 46
Device 1: Thread exited with code: 46

ERROR: Some workers are stopped.Attemped to restart: 87

have this error in both 0.06 and 0.08 version.

EWBF_ , need optimize miner.

Never had this error (tried all version from 0.0.5 until current one), mined on Dwarfpool (PPS) and Nanopool (PPLNS).
You might want to check your OC, it doesn't seem to be miner's fault.

cards not overclocked.on suprnova pool all works fine.but on f2pool after a while have error.really wanted to try f2pool.

[lucasan123]

on pps pools like dwarfpool,antpool,f2pool after a while i have error:

Device 0: Thread exited with code: 46
Device 1: Thread exited with code: 46

ERROR: Some workers are stopped.Attemped to restart: 87

have this error in both 0.06 and 0.08 version.

EWBF_ , need optimize miner.

Never had this error (tried all version from 0.0.5 until current one), mined on Dwarfpool (PPS) and Nanopool (PPLNS).
You might want to check your OC, it doesn't seem to be miner's fault.

cards not overclocked.on suprnova pool all works fine.but on f2pool after a while have error.really wanted to try f2pool.

you should go to coinmine.pl and mine zcash, zcashclassic. and zdah, flypool.com . suprnova.com these works for sure!.
perhaps you should control better the batch files...............

[nevermind41]

Outstanding miner, keep working on it and don't listen to the haters.

I see people reporting around 400 S/s with overclocked 1070 on Win10. Best i can do is 340 S/s with 150W per card.

Samsung memory.
Drivers 376.33, already tried 376.09 and 375.50 - almost no change.



I am obviously missing something crucial. Any ideas?

I think your os is win10. Try win 8.1

[giagge]

Win 10 is very good , i have 390 sol with nvidia gtx 1070 .

[Amph]

Win 10 is very good , i have 390 sol with nvidia gtx 1070 .

what consumption?