[ANN] dstm's ZCash / Equihash Nvidia Miner v0.6.2 (Linux / Windows)

[minebomb]

SSL WRITE TIMEOUT.

Miner randomly stops with error.

Miner hashrate drops really low and sometimes freezes up completely.

Is DSTM supposed to reload miner automatically in a bad state?

I HOPE I CAN GET SOME SUPPORT MY LAST QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN IGNORED! @DSTM

[1713294938]

1713294938

[1713294938]

1713294938

[1713294938]

1713294938

[Canosgmk]

Try this:
zm --server ssl://eu.zec.slushpool.com  --port 4443 --user userName.workerName --pass workerpass

#  zm 0.5.8
#  GPU0 + GeForce GTX 1070         MB: 8192  PCI: 1:0
#  telemetry server started
#  encryption enabled
#  connected to: eu.zec.slushpool.com:4443
#  server set difficulty to: 001dca01dca01dca01dca01d...


it works for me

This worked for me.  My ping is around 300, but I'm in South Korea.  The other way didn't work at all. 

Nvidia cards (four 1070 OC)
Linux/Ubuntu 16.04/DSTM 0.5.8

Very important with slushpool, to have the period between the username and workername.  I has a '/' before like nanopool and it will not take.  My pass coda was 'z', not "workerpass"

[dstm]

Hello Dstm,

Can you add an optional column which shows the power consumption of the GPU that is equal (Sol/s / Sol/W).
Like the EWB miner has command "--pec"


thanks,

This was requested multiple times - there are a lot numbers on the ui already which confuses some people. You can access the power consumption via the web-ui or json-rpc or by simply using nvida-smi. I don't want to add it to the console-ui because of this, it seems also less important than e.g. efficiency.

[dstm]

Is there a way to get the device name from API? I can see the device name while accessing the miner with a web browser, but it is not included if I perform a API call.

What API?
What exports this API function?

I'm trying to access the API of the dstm miner and parse the information about hashrates etc.
My question is: is it possible to get the device name of each individual GPU from the dstm API?
As I said, the device name is shown in the web interface of the miner, but when performing a API request I only get the GPU ID and not the name.

I'll add pci-bus information and the device name in the next release.

[dstm]

error code 10054:
Connection reset by peer - An existing connection was forcibly closed by the remote host.

So either your local internet connection was down or the pool-servers had some issues.

So if connection goes down the miner stop? no reconection (so that is what happen)....

ZM reconnects by default unless you're using the '--noreconnect' option.

[dstm]

hello @dstm can you explain way zm is stay connected 100% of time to > XXXXX.ip-94-23-20.eu < first part of address i was remove ... anyone who use dstm it can see it in network activitie ...

if is a way to get your fee next question is way it stay 100% connected ?!?!?! & is not use only when fee it need to be take see how claymore done it !

cheers

ZM uses an additional connection (in addition to your pool-connection) to submit the dev-shares. For this zm uses currently one of the flypool servers (eu1-zcash.flypool.org, us1-zcash.flypool.org, asia1-zcash.flypool.org). ZM does not establish any connections to private servers and uses only public pool servers to submit the dev-shares. This is especially important since using connections to private servers allows the mining software to track/collect data about it's users - it would also allow the mining software to 'steal' shares which solve whole blocks.

[sir_blacks]

hello @dstm can you explain way zm is stay connected 100% of time to > XXXXX.ip-94-23-20.eu < first part of address i was remove ... anyone who use dstm it can see it in network activitie ...

if is a way to get your fee next question is way it stay 100% connected ?!?!?! & is not use only when fee it need to be take see how claymore done it !

cheers

ZM uses an additional connection (in addition to your pool-connection) to submit the dev-shares. For this zm uses currently one of the flypool servers (eu1-zcash.flypool.org, us1-zcash.flypool.org, asia1-zcash.flypool.org). ZM does not establish any connections to private servers and uses only public pool servers to submit the dev-shares. This is especially important since using connections to private servers allows the mining software to track/collect data about it's users - it would also allow the mining software to 'steal' shares which solve whole blocks.

Well getting dev-share i get it. From tracing that extra ip what is use i already seen is part from public pool (www.ipaddress.com tools, a perfect place to find good info) & that was reason way i use your apps & not use bminer! what it use some strange ip, plus it use 2 extra NOT only 1 ...

But back to my initial point way miner it need to stay connect always? & it not use same technique like claymore use in his miner app aka: => dev share time => it connect to pool => it done what it need to be done => it disconnect letting run on initial pool, what it make to be very transparent & fine

about dev fee i undested perfectly developing it require something in return for any dev time, i will not goo on road if is big fee or small ... but make it transparent

cheers

[toptek]

I figured out why i can't connect to any ssl port with dstm, it's awesome miner, AM won't let it enable encryption, I asked there after i did some more TSing .

I won't use any other remote start up soft ware because i all ready have to much other junk running, so i don't need to add more .... plus Awesome miner does all i need it to .


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=676942.msg28180964#msg28180964

[fecker]

Good that my whole post got deleted  

Writing it here again, then....

You would definitely get more ppl using your miner than EWBF's miner, if you reduced the fee to 1% or at least made it configurable with standard fee of 2%, but with configurable range of 1% up. I am not saying you should develop for free, but the fee has to be justified. Who wants to give you 2%, fine, who does not, he can then configure it to 1%, lets say.
Makes sense right ?

Otherwise, the Sol/s gain you get, using your miner over EWBF's miner + your fee of 2%(while EWBF's fee is configurable and can even be 0% with --fee 0) is just not justified. We gain sol/s, but we lose 2%(sometimes even more as reported elsewhere) on fees.
Also the gain using top hardware(1080ti) is very minimal(sometimes null and then you have to count the 2% fee) over EWBF's miner. Maybe you could improve that as well to attract more ppl with top hardware.

So, u want more ppl to use your miner? You want me to use it? Then think about what I just suggested.  

[toptek]

Good that my whole post got deleted  

Writing it here again, then....

You would definitely get more ppl using your miner than EWBF's miner, if you reduced the fee to 1% or at least made it configurable with standard fee of 2%, but with configurable range of 1% up. I am not saying you should develop for free, but the fee has to be justified. Who wants to give you 2%, fine, who does not, he can then configure it to 1%, lets say.
Makes sense right ?

Otherwise, the Sol/s gain you get, using your miner over EWBF's miner + your fee of 2%(while EWBF's fee is configurable and can even be 0% with --fee 0) is just not justified. We gain sol/s, but we lose 2%(sometimes even more as reported elsewhere) on fees.

So, u want more ppl to use your miner? You want me to use it? Then think about what I just suggested.  

I saw your other post but didn't notice it was deleted ..

Good luck getting the Dev to lower the fee, a few of us have asked in the past, the Dev is Greedy, he will call it some thing else but he is ... I not afraid to tell him or anyone either an have, I don't mind paying a fee, in fact I agree we should pay some thing... my whole point is like you said you get more if you give .... less if you don't even if it looks like you are .... so if some thing better comes a long most will drop using dstm's miner if the Dev does it right like EWBF's miner did.  

an sense EWBF's is no longer being updated, an i want full use of my NV GPU mining Zec, i have to use dstm's miner sense it is about the best one to use right now and kept updated but not that great .. again i don't mine the Fee, it's the greed I do mind an being told it's not greed when it is ....an if the updates for  EWBF's miner picked back up, i would use it again. an Ive been pushing dstm's and was one of them who got support added to Awesome miner ..

and Ive wondered how the fee works with this miner. is it so many seconds a hours or are we mining and that extra hash we seem to get Goes to the DEV .. i haven't seen much explained about the Fee on how the fee works ...an yea Claymroe and EWBF's let you adjust it or turn it off . I leave it on with those miner because i know I  can turn it off but I do wonder am i really getting extra hash with this miner or does it go to the DEV all the time ...

[MinerGTX]

Does the recent Meltdown and Spectre OS patches affect the DSTM Miner's performance?
Has anybody done any before/after benchmarks?

From what, I read the recent Meltdown patch (KPTI) affects any programs that call the Kernel frequently such as netwoking, SSD disk access and CUDA memory copy operations from host to GPU.

How often does the DSTM Miner call the Kernel, anyway ?

I'm looking into this on both Operating-Systems. Not all OS-patches are finished currently... so yes, I'm aware of the of the increased systemcall time.

Does the dstm miner perform the Blake2b hash on the CPU and transfer the results to the GPU by calling the CUDA driver and the Kernel each time ?
If "yes" then it can be affected by the increased systemcall time due to the OS Meltdown patches.

[toptek]

Does the recent Meltdown and Spectre OS patches affect the DSTM Miner's performance?
Has anybody done any before/after benchmarks?

From what, I read the recent Meltdown patch (KPTI) affects any programs that call the Kernel frequently such as netwoking, SSD disk access and CUDA memory copy operations from host to GPU.

How often does the DSTM Miner call the Kernel, anyway ?

I'm looking into this on both Operating-Systems. Not all OS-patches are finished currently... so yes, I'm aware of the of the increased systemcall time.

Does the dstm miner perform the Blake2b hash on the CPU and transfer the results to the GPU by calling the CUDA driver and the Kernel each time ?
If "yes" then it can be affected by the increased systemcall time due to the OZ Meltdown patches.

As far I know dstm miner only mines ZEC and can't dual mine unless you use a program like Awesome miner . I don't think the Meltdown patch will affect it ... but CM eth dual miner possible could sense it can dual mine Blake2b coin types. Ofc i don't know shit lol .....I understand what you mean !!! .... that's just a example or answer to a problem that might happen that's not limited to one coin .  i just wanted to add to it ........

[Atronoss]

Good that my whole post got deleted  

Writing it here again, then....

You would definitely get more ppl using your miner than EWBF's miner, if you reduced the fee to 1% or at least made it configurable with standard fee of 2%, but with configurable range of 1% up. I am not saying you should develop for free, but the fee has to be justified. Who wants to give you 2%, fine, who does not, he can then configure it to 1%, lets say.
Makes sense right ?

Otherwise, the Sol/s gain you get, using your miner over EWBF's miner + your fee of 2%(while EWBF's fee is configurable and can even be 0% with --fee 0) is just not justified. We gain sol/s, but we lose 2%(sometimes even more as reported elsewhere) on fees.
Also the gain using top hardware(1080ti) is very minimal(sometimes null and then you have to count the 2% fee) over EWBF's miner. Maybe you could improve that as well to attract more ppl with top hardware.

So, u want more ppl to use your miner? You want me to use it? Then think about what I just suggested.  

Write your own miner, reduce fee to 1%, and then watch how others will say, 1% is too much, make it 0,5%, you will do that and people will say, disable the dev fee completely, since 0,5% is too much. It is not him who is greedy, it is you actually you and all other people, that ask for reducing fee.

Get 1% more for you means almost nothing, if you are not mining on 20+ 1080 Ti, but for him, it would meant a lot. Try do some math...

So all of you, stop whining, you won't get rich anyway even with 2% more. And stop being smartasses, to tell the developer what he should do with his miner,... if you really think you know better, make your own, or hire someone who will make one for you.

This one is overall fastest and most stable, still actively developed, I guess it is ok to be "more expensive" 

[toptek]

Good that my whole post got deleted  

Writing it here again, then....

You would definitely get more ppl using your miner than EWBF's miner, if you reduced the fee to 1% or at least made it configurable with standard fee of 2%, but with configurable range of 1% up. I am not saying you should develop for free, but the fee has to be justified. Who wants to give you 2%, fine, who does not, he can then configure it to 1%, lets say.
Makes sense right ?

Otherwise, the Sol/s gain you get, using your miner over EWBF's miner + your fee of 2%(while EWBF's fee is configurable and can even be 0% with --fee 0) is just not justified. We gain sol/s, but we lose 2%(sometimes even more as reported elsewhere) on fees.
Also the gain using top hardware(1080ti) is very minimal(sometimes null and then you have to count the 2% fee) over EWBF's miner. Maybe you could improve that as well to attract more ppl with top hardware.

So, u want more ppl to use your miner? You want me to use it? Then think about what I just suggested.  

Write your own miner, reduce fee to 1%, and then watch how others will say, 1% is too much, make it 0,5%, you will do that and people will say, disable the dev fee completely, since 0,5% is too much. It is not him who is greedy, it is you actually you and all other people, that ask for reducing fee.

Get 1% more for you means almost nothing, if you are not mining on 20+ 1080 Ti, but for him, it would meant a lot. Try do some math...

So all of you, stop whining, you won't get rich anyway even with 2% more. And stop being smartasses, to tell the developer what he should do with his miner,... if you really think you know better, make your own, or hire someone who will make one for you.

This one is overall fastest and most stable, still actively developed, I guess it is ok to be "more expensive"  

NO actually i wouldn't and was one of those who pushed Claymore into adding the --nofee flag to his miners and I leave the fee on with CM's miners an don't use the flag ... so the DEV here is being Greedy ..  an sometimes you have to make a point, to get something done and if i could code like these guys can i would offer it free an ask for donations but wouldn't require it . so i won't  stop whining as you call it when i see  in justice being done to some extent an i don't want it free . I guess I'm what you call a Progressive who believes in helping everyone .

[Atronoss]

Justice, justice?! There is no right for mining, and there is no obligation to make software free or for reasonable price. It is his miner, he can set whatever dev fee he wants. And your justice, that should rather be called freedom, is that you don't have to use that miner if you do not agree with the "price".

[nkchokshi]

Hi guys is there any way to connect this miner to nicehash legacy? if there is please help for setup. thank you.

[captaindiptoad]

Good that my whole post got deleted  

Writing it here again, then....

You would definitely get more ppl using your miner than EWBF's miner, if you reduced the fee to 1% or at least made it configurable with standard fee of 2%, but with configurable range of 1% up. I am not saying you should develop for free, but the fee has to be justified. Who wants to give you 2%, fine, who does not, he can then configure it to 1%, lets say.
Makes sense right ?

Otherwise, the Sol/s gain you get, using your miner over EWBF's miner + your fee of 2%(while EWBF's fee is configurable and can even be 0% with --fee 0) is just not justified. We gain sol/s, but we lose 2%(sometimes even more as reported elsewhere) on fees.
Also the gain using top hardware(1080ti) is very minimal(sometimes null and then you have to count the 2% fee) over EWBF's miner. Maybe you could improve that as well to attract more ppl with top hardware.

So, u want more ppl to use your miner? You want me to use it? Then think about what I just suggested.  

Write your own miner, reduce fee to 1%, and then watch how others will say, 1% is too much, make it 0,5%, you will do that and people will say, disable the dev fee completely, since 0,5% is too much. It is not him who is greedy, it is you actually you and all other people, that ask for reducing fee.

Get 1% more for you means almost nothing, if you are not mining on 20+ 1080 Ti, but for him, it would meant a lot. Try do some math...

So all of you, stop whining, you won't get rich anyway even with 2% more. And stop being smartasses, to tell the developer what he should do with his miner,... if you really think you know better, make your own, or hire someone who will make one for you.

This one is overall fastest and most stable, still actively developed, I guess it is ok to be "more expensive"  

NO actually i wouldn't and was one of those who pushed Claymore into adding the --nofee flag to his miners and I leave the fee on with CM's miners an don't use the flag ... so the DEV here is being Greedy ..  an sometimes you have to make a point, to get something done and if i could code like these guys can i would offer it free an ask for donations but wouldn't require it . so i won't  stop whining as you call it when i see a in justice being done to some extent an i don't want it free . I guess I'm what you call a Progressive who believes in helping everyone .

you wouldnt what? is that a 2nd account of yours? are you spamming developers pools with bad/false information? holy crap dude get a life and get out!

[toptek]

Hi guys is there any way to connect this miner to nicehash legacy? if there is please help for setup. thank you.

do mean mine on nicehash with dstm's  ? .


stratum+tcp://equihash.usa.nicehash.com:3357

or for SSL connection:

stratum+ssl://equihash.usa.nicehash.com:33357

username: YourBitcoinAddress
password: x


either port works.

as for nice hash bot i haven't used it  a while i can make more not using it but there used to be a way to add custom software miners ...

[sir_blacks]

Hi guys is there any way to connect this miner to nicehash legacy? if there is please help for setup. thank you.

do mean mine on nicehash with dstm's  ? .


stratum+tcp://equihash.usa.nicehash.com:3357
or for SSL connection:
stratum+ssl://equihash.usa.nicehash.com:33357
username: YourBitcoinAddress
password: x

either port works.

nop he want to can use nicehash legacy app with dtsm but for that it require some deep file modification & some much more coding, depend how much nicehash team was hard lock there app
But best for him is to goo on https://github.com/nicehash/NiceHashMinerLegacy & open a new Issue & request Dstm to be add

[toptek]

Good that my whole post got deleted  

Writing it here again, then....

You would definitely get more ppl using your miner than EWBF's miner, if you reduced the fee to 1% or at least made it configurable with standard fee of 2%, but with configurable range of 1% up. I am not saying you should develop for free, but the fee has to be justified. Who wants to give you 2%, fine, who does not, he can then configure it to 1%, lets say.
Makes sense right ?

Otherwise, the Sol/s gain you get, using your miner over EWBF's miner + your fee of 2%(while EWBF's fee is configurable and can even be 0% with --fee 0) is just not justified. We gain sol/s, but we lose 2%(sometimes even more as reported elsewhere) on fees.
Also the gain using top hardware(1080ti) is very minimal(sometimes null and then you have to count the 2% fee) over EWBF's miner. Maybe you could improve that as well to attract more ppl with top hardware.

So, u want more ppl to use your miner? You want me to use it? Then think about what I just suggested.  

Write your own miner, reduce fee to 1%, and then watch how others will say, 1% is too much, make it 0,5%, you will do that and people will say, disable the dev fee completely, since 0,5% is too much. It is not him who is greedy, it is you actually you and all other people, that ask for reducing fee.

Get 1% more for you means almost nothing, if you are not mining on 20+ 1080 Ti, but for him, it would meant a lot. Try do some math...

So all of you, stop whining, you won't get rich anyway even with 2% more. And stop being smartasses, to tell the developer what he should do with his miner,... if you really think you know better, make your own, or hire someone who will make one for you.

This one is overall fastest and most stable, still actively developed, I guess it is ok to be "more expensive"  

NO actually i wouldn't and was one of those who pushed Claymore into adding the --nofee flag to his miners and I leave the fee on with CM's miners an don't use the flag ... so the DEV here is being Greedy ..  an sometimes you have to make a point, to get something done and if i could code like these guys can i would offer it free an ask for donations but wouldn't require it . so i won't  stop whining as you call it when i see a in justice being done to some extent an i don't want it free . I guess I'm what you call a Progressive who believes in helping everyone .

you wouldnt what? is that a 2nd account of yours? are you spamming developers pools with bad/false information? holy crap dude get a life and get out!

Let me ask you is this your second account being a newbie sense you don't like what i said ...bad/false information ?  ...  get a life or get out ? ...... lol that said I''m gonna ignore you and the other guy so things don't get out of hand . GL ....