Bitcoin Forum
October 19, 2017, 09:48:38 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 [70] 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 ... 142 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [ANN][XCN] Cryptonite - NEW Thread | 1st mini-blockchain coin | Bounties!  (Read 143487 times)
pallas
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1442


Black Belt Developer


View Profile
June 27, 2017, 11:45:45 AM
 #1381

Hi Pallas, George and everyone here.

So I just got this free subscription on Azure. and I decided to whip up a instance with 4 K80 GPUs (2 per card).
It had 4992 cores, 5000MHz memspeed, and 480 GB/s bandwidth, 24GB video memory on each card.
I just wanted to determine what they will give.

But I am shocked I am getting less  than 24MH/s. Each GPU die is more powerful than a 1070 (in all the numbers), so I should have at least 40MH/s (even the worst 1070 here gave 10MH/s)

How can I optimise that? What I am not getting right?

The card is Compute 3.7 and I am using djm34 CUDA miner on Windows.

Thanks for all your help.

EDIT: OR does it have anything to do with setting the vardiff on Suprnova

It is an old architecture, also probably lower core clock (memclock matters very little).
When they will update to pascal based cards it might be interesting to try cloud gpu mining.

Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1508406518
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508406518

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508406518
Reply with quote  #2

1508406518
Report to moderator
1508406518
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508406518

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508406518
Reply with quote  #2

1508406518
Report to moderator
DLGHT
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 31


View Profile
June 27, 2017, 12:08:31 PM
 #1382

Hi Pallas, George and everyone here.

So I just got this free subscription on Azure. and I decided to whip up a instance with 4 K80 GPUs (2 per card).
It had 4992 cores, 5000MHz memspeed, and 480 GB/s bandwidth, 24GB video memory on each card.
I just wanted to determine what they will give.

But I am shocked I am getting less  than 24MH/s. Each GPU die is more powerful than a 1070 (in all the numbers), so I should have at least 40MH/s (even the worst 1070 here gave 10MH/s)

How can I optimise that? What I am not getting right?

The card is Compute 3.7 and I am using djm34 CUDA miner on Windows.

Thanks for all your help.

EDIT: OR does it have anything to do with setting the vardiff on Suprnova

It is an old architecture, also probably lower core clock (memclock matters very little).
When they will update to pascal based cards it might be interesting to try cloud gpu mining.

Thank you for your reply.

core clock is 875MHz and I set it on max.

XCN: CT8weyKEvVvJ6MwVg9E9ZinE3trQdGEY3p
pallas
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1442


Black Belt Developer


View Profile
June 27, 2017, 12:47:37 PM
 #1383

Hi Pallas, George and everyone here.

So I just got this free subscription on Azure. and I decided to whip up a instance with 4 K80 GPUs (2 per card).
It had 4992 cores, 5000MHz memspeed, and 480 GB/s bandwidth, 24GB video memory on each card.
I just wanted to determine what they will give.

But I am shocked I am getting less  than 24MH/s. Each GPU die is more powerful than a 1070 (in all the numbers), so I should have at least 40MH/s (even the worst 1070 here gave 10MH/s)

How can I optimise that? What I am not getting right?

The card is Compute 3.7 and I am using djm34 CUDA miner on Windows.

Thanks for all your help.

EDIT: OR does it have anything to do with setting the vardiff on Suprnova

It is an old architecture, also probably lower core clock (memclock matters very little).
When they will update to pascal based cards it might be interesting to try cloud gpu mining.

Thank you for your reply.

core clock is 875MHz and I set it on max.

the 1070 runs at double that :-)

HamiltonWDS
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 73


View Profile
June 28, 2017, 11:02:11 AM
 #1384

Finally, I found block, but there is an issue with nonce distribution across rigs - it seems, that they are brutforcing against the same nonces

Curious, how do you know when you have a block ready for mining?

Sign off,
Hamilton
pallas
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1442


Black Belt Developer


View Profile
June 28, 2017, 11:09:16 AM
 #1385


Finally, I found block, but there is an issue with nonce distribution across rigs - it seems, that they are brutforcing against the same nonces

Forgot to reply you on this one.
Getwork is less flexible than getblocktemplate about multiple miners.
You can still use some techniques like ntime rolling, in order to avoid crunching the same blockheader on every worker.

pallas
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1442


Black Belt Developer


View Profile
June 28, 2017, 01:28:17 PM
 #1386

NEW cpu miner compiled (from 1gh sources) for windows64 by hashgoal:
Cpuminer for windows

DLGHT
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 31


View Profile
June 28, 2017, 02:28:43 PM
 #1387

NEW cpu miner compiled (from 1gh sources) for windows64 by hashgoal:
Cpuminer for windows


Hi Pallas.
Thank you.

I want to find out: is there is any way to set the diffculty (may using diff factor) either on djm's ccminer or this cpuminer, when mining on suprnova?

Thanks

XCN: CT8weyKEvVvJ6MwVg9E9ZinE3trQdGEY3p
pallas
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1442


Black Belt Developer


View Profile
June 28, 2017, 02:34:12 PM
 #1388

NEW cpu miner compiled (from 1gh sources) for windows64 by hashgoal:
Cpuminer for windows


Hi Pallas.
Thank you.

I want to find out: is there is any way to set the diffculty (may using diff factor) either on djm's ccminer or this cpuminer, when mining on suprnova?

Thanks

Not that I know of. It is usually done by putting the diff value into the worker or password fields in some way, but I believe it is not implemented into xcn.suprnova right now.
Maybe you could ask ocminer, cause it depends entirely on the pool.
Diff factor or divider is another thing, it just changes the way difficulty from the pool is used, but it doesn't affect its "absolute" value.

DLGHT
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 31


View Profile
June 28, 2017, 03:08:41 PM
 #1389

NEW cpu miner compiled (from 1gh sources) for windows64 by hashgoal:
Cpuminer for windows


Hi Pallas.
Thank you.

I want to find out: is there is any way to set the diffculty (may using diff factor) either on djm's ccminer or this cpuminer, when mining on suprnova?

Thanks

Not that I know of. It is usually done by putting the diff value into the worker or password fields in some way, but I believe it is not implemented into xcn.suprnova right now.
Maybe you could ask ocminer, cause it depends entirely on the pool.
Diff factor or divider is another thing, it just changes the way difficulty from the pool is used, but it doesn't affect its "absolute" value.

Thank you for your quick reply.
Does ocminer know about the suprnova pool (trying to figure why you said to ask him)?

XCN: CT8weyKEvVvJ6MwVg9E9ZinE3trQdGEY3p
pallas
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1442


Black Belt Developer


View Profile
June 28, 2017, 07:39:42 PM
 #1390

NEW cpu miner compiled (from 1gh sources) for windows64 by hashgoal:
Cpuminer for windows


Hi Pallas.
Thank you.

I want to find out: is there is any way to set the diffculty (may using diff factor) either on djm's ccminer or this cpuminer, when mining on suprnova?

Thanks

Not that I know of. It is usually done by putting the diff value into the worker or password fields in some way, but I believe it is not implemented into xcn.suprnova right now.
Maybe you could ask ocminer, cause it depends entirely on the pool.
Diff factor or divider is another thing, it just changes the way difficulty from the pool is used, but it doesn't affect its "absolute" value.

Thank you for your quick reply.
Does ocminer know about the suprnova pool (trying to figure why you said to ask him)?

He is the pool owner.

gnasirator
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 117


View Profile
June 28, 2017, 08:07:23 PM
 #1391

Hi pallas,

I just had a wallet crash (with txindex 1).
This is all I got out of it. I didn't attach my memdump, don't know whether it contains any wallet info.

http://www.yourfilelink.com/get.php?fid=1375952

XCN: CJSECkHi7tTTTA1ze9qYRkkUCKfFiF8EEG
pallas
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1442


Black Belt Developer


View Profile
June 28, 2017, 08:10:36 PM
 #1392

Hi pallas,

I just had a wallet crash (with txindex 1).
This is all I got out of it. I didn't attach my memdump, don't know whether it contains any wallet info.

http://www.yourfilelink.com/get.php?fid=1375952

I can't read the file, could you please put it into pastebin or mega?

HamiltonWDS
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 73


View Profile
June 29, 2017, 10:05:19 AM
 #1393

@gnasirator: your ideas are interesting, but to create a block you will still need to solve some kind of "problem", otherwise you would have a lot of blocks created together and no way to tell which one to keep. Also every time a transaction is made, the nodes would generate a block, making too many of them.

Interesting ideas indeed, but wrong solution to the problems, which are, as Gnasirator says:

1  Energy consumption
2  Poor distribution

The best solution which I have discovered so far appears to  be Proof of Capacity, as implemented in Burstcoin.

I'd be genuinely interested to know what you think of that protocol, and whether or not it may be technically feasible to incorporate it into a mini-blockchain coin.  

Hmm, PoC is interesting, too. But it fails to address the problem I'm trying to solve:
Whatever scarce resource we take for mining, sooner or later there will be one entity having most of it and therefore dominating the whole mining scene. PoC will lead to someone having MASSIVE datacenters full of old-fashioned mechanical hard drives - well at least it wouldn't use as much energy as PoW.
PoS is the same - whoever has the biggest share of money at one point generates most income. It's actually even worse because the rewards are completely independent of any contribution to the network (transaction processing).

My point was that instead of searching for a better scarce resource, we should take the incentive away which is leading to this concentration of resources in the first place, by changing the reward system. As long as there are rewards encouraging people to somehow get more of a share than others, there will be someone figuring out a way how to do it.

So instead, the new reward system would have to pay all participants in a predictable way based on useful contribution to the network. And the only actually useful contribution to the network is processing of new transactions, managing account databases and maybe acting as a block explorer - all of which doesn't use much resources at all. That's what it's about and that's what should be rewarded. So whoever helps with that processing, gets a reward proportional to created value in the network. And that proportion could just as well be the same number as every other participant gets, because just by being online and forwarding/processing transactions, he's helping the network.
This way, there will be no incentive for anyone to throw more resources into the game because there's nothing to gain for him - just as there wouldn't be any benefit for the network! Still, he would have an incentive to stay online and contribute because otherwise, he'll get nothing. This sort of mining should easily run in the background, using 1-2% of cpu time max. Same goes for network usage because there would suddenly be a lot more miners as there are now, simply because it has suddenly become cheap to run a miner. This would allow the network to grow and make the coin actually useable as real money.

I'm convinced that whichever coin ends up being "the one coin" for everybody to use, it would have to use a mining approach that somewhat resembles these ideas.

There is one downside to this approach though:
It wouldn't be possible any more to jump at a fresh alt coin and generate some quick buck with your high-spec mining gear. But for that, we have plenty of regular coins out there Smiley

edit: I might add that a hybrid PoS / Proof-of-Contribution (above) might also be good. I do like the idea of stakeholders being vested in the currency and therefore trying to keep harm from the system.
Revisiting this discussion...

Though I am new to this game, I am seeing some problems already not only with XCN, but with most others. As mentioned above along with business continuity and I do dare say, regulation. Coming for the security space, I am seeing way too many vulnerabilities present for any one coin to have a long prosper life in being accepted by the general public and governments.
I do like some of XCN's innovations and theories, but the execution seemed to have fallen short. Not saying XCN is a bad coin, not at all, I actually do like it; this is more of a matter of how these coins are developed, much like developing an online game system.
I would like to see a coin though become more accepted by the general public and I think to do so requires some governance (I know, its a bad word...).
The discussion above is one of the points I that I find very interesting. Mining is fun and I think people would be quite interested in doing so, but then need to provide the even playing field to prevent influencing or control by those who have the infrastructure already. Quite the challenge, but I think there are means to allow for this.

I would like to discuss this more if there is particular place/thread for this, assuming there is mutual interests.

Sign off,
Hamilton
pallas
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1442


Black Belt Developer


View Profile
June 29, 2017, 10:36:51 AM
 #1394

First of all I'd like to say that altcoins, especially those developed years ago, are supposed to be experiments.
The best that comes out from them, might be imported into the "main" coins like bitcoin.
The best ones may get market acceptance but that is really hard, as there are many coins and even bitcoin itself still has a long way to go, in this department.
XCN is experimental in nature, there is a lot of innovation, and despite that, it is still running fine as of today.
I'm pretty sure that catia, the original developer, didn't hope for a life so long of his coin ;-)
About regulation against mining and other consensus methods, well, maybe it's a bit offtopic but we can still talk about it, as a possible future development for XCN.

romasalah
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 87


View Profile
June 29, 2017, 03:57:55 PM
 #1395

Back again,

So, my hashrate is 44mh/s -small equipment- according to whattomine.com I should be mining 27 coins per hour but actually Iäm getting just 18 per hour.. Idk, what could be the reason for that? is it the pool?

thanks,
pallas
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1442


Black Belt Developer


View Profile
June 29, 2017, 06:17:24 PM
 #1396

Back again,

So, my hashrate is 44mh/s -small equipment- according to whattomine.com I should be mining 27 coins per hour but actually Iäm getting just 18 per hour.. Idk, what could be the reason for that? is it the pool?

thanks,

Maybe whattomine doesn't take orphans into account.

ExEric3
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 138


View Profile
June 29, 2017, 06:21:13 PM
 #1397

Back again,

So, my hashrate is 44mh/s -small equipment- according to whattomine.com I should be mining 27 coins per hour but actually Iäm getting just 18 per hour.. Idk, what could be the reason for that? is it the pool?

thanks,

From where you take that hashrate? Miner or pool side? Thats big difference. How typed pallas whattomine cannot count with orphans, pool luck, diff and other factors.
gnasirator
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 117


View Profile
June 29, 2017, 08:44:27 PM
 #1398

Hi pallas,

I just had a wallet crash (with txindex 1).
This is all I got out of it. I didn't attach my memdump, don't know whether it contains any wallet info.

http://www.yourfilelink.com/get.php?fid=1375952

I can't read the file, could you please put it into pastebin or mega?

Sure:
https://pastebin.com/fytwbM7L
two xml files in that bin. I hope it is of any value. I couldn't make much of it.

XCN: CJSECkHi7tTTTA1ze9qYRkkUCKfFiF8EEG
romasalah
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 87


View Profile
June 29, 2017, 09:05:36 PM
 #1399

Back again,

So, my hashrate is 44mh/s -small equipment- according to whattomine.com I should be mining 27 coins per hour but actually Iäm getting just 18 per hour.. Idk, what could be the reason for that? is it the pool?

thanks,

From where you take that hashrate? Miner or pool side? Thats big difference. How typed pallas whattomine cannot count with orphans, pool luck, diff and other factors.

Those are the readings of the miner. I don't trust suprnova because it shows obviously wrong hashrates. I mean right now it says 63 mh/s and I'm pretty sure 4 GTX 1060 can't do that. I just wanna know if I'm missing something. ist it normal to have such difference -40%- between expectations and results?
bogdanb
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 127


View Profile
June 29, 2017, 11:07:04 PM
 #1400

Back again,

So, my hashrate is 44mh/s -small equipment- according to whattomine.com I should be mining 27 coins per hour but actually Iäm getting just 18 per hour.. Idk, what could be the reason for that? is it the pool?

thanks,

From where you take that hashrate? Miner or pool side? Thats big difference. How typed pallas whattomine cannot count with orphans, pool luck, diff and other factors.

Those are the readings of the miner. I don't trust suprnova because it shows obviously wrong hashrates. I mean right now it says 63 mh/s and I'm pretty sure 4 GTX 1060 can't do that. I just wanna know if I'm missing something. ist it normal to have such difference -40%- between expectations and results?

something is wrong with suprnova.
with 4 nvidia 1070 local hashrate is around 46mh.
pool hashrate vary between 16 and 63mh.
estimation on statistic/pool 41,881mh    982.268XCN/day
earning Last Hour    13.63484121, that make 327 XCN/day
3 times lower than estimated.
about 7 hours of mining, for test, and 1/3 of expected gain.
i will let them mine for a whole day, but i do not think will be better.
Pages: « 1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 [70] 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 ... 142 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

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