### A ChainWorks Industries (CWI) Project - CWIgm | Simple Powerful Stable

[icelove]

hi crysx,

your pool was registered. waitting your miner..alrady PM you. thanks.

[1715021892]

1715021892

[1715021892]

1715021892

[chrysophylax]

hi crysx,

your pool was registered. waitting your miner..alrady PM you. thanks.

two more pages of requests left ...

getting there ...

#crysx

[Supercoiner111]

I have PM @chrysophylax hope to test the new miner on my 6 x 1070 rig!

im going through the messages as quickly as possible ...

but there are a couple of imbeciles that are attacking the pool via ddos ...

the imbeciles and their minions ...

i have over 70 requests for the miner TODAY ...

so bear with us - as i attend to EVERY pm personally and individually - not just skim them ...

#crysx

No problem, appreciate your attention to detail

Hope those idoits go away!

hi crysx,

your pool was registered. waitting your miner..alrady PM you. thanks.

two more pages of requests left ...

getting there ...

#crysx

Eagerly awaiting for the miner

[shgth]

So far so good. Getting highest hashrate out of all miners(few sp-mods and krnlx miner) that I've tested. Thanks for the beta-invite!
https://i.imgur.com/3UqmQGX.png

[chrysophylax]

I have PM @chrysophylax hope to test the new miner on my 6 x 1070 rig!

im going through the messages as quickly as possible ...

but there are a couple of imbeciles that are attacking the pool via ddos ...

the imbeciles and their minions ...

i have over 70 requests for the miner TODAY ...

so bear with us - as i attend to EVERY pm personally and individually - not just skim them ...

#crysx

No problem, appreciate your attention to detail

Hope those idoits go away!

hi crysx,

your pool was registered. waitting your miner..alrady PM you. thanks.

two more pages of requests left ...

getting there ...

#crysx

Eagerly awaiting for the miner

all good Supercoiner111 ...

just finished ...

if this continues at 70 per day - i wont have a life ... ...

now - back to testing the bitcore pool ... and assigning it on the list of pools available ...

#crysx

[damniatx]

can't wait for 0.9.9 please make it ready fast.

[Supercoiner111]

I have PM @chrysophylax hope to test the new miner on my 6 x 1070 rig!

im going through the messages as quickly as possible ...

but there are a couple of imbeciles that are attacking the pool via ddos ...

the imbeciles and their minions ...

i have over 70 requests for the miner TODAY ...

so bear with us - as i attend to EVERY pm personally and individually - not just skim them ...

#crysx

No problem, appreciate your attention to detail

Hope those idoits go away!

hi crysx,

your pool was registered. waitting your miner..alrady PM you. thanks.

two more pages of requests left ...

getting there ...

#crysx

Eagerly awaiting for the miner

all good Supercoiner111 ...

just finished ...

if this continues at 70 per day - i wont have a life ... ...

now - back to testing the bitcore pool ... and assigning it on the list of pools available ...

#crysx

Thanks for sending over the closed beta invite. The miner is great a boost of 10 MH/s in comparison to the traditional ccminer and that is for all my 6 x 1070, great job! The OC setting are the same as CCminer I will leave it for a day to check the stability and return. This is great I see myself sticking with the pool and the miner!

Awesome work, I will spread the word to the DNR community, keep it up!

[huyhoang]

I would like to try also ...

[shgth]

Getting this kind of error every now and then "[17:01:03][GPU0]:Invalid nonce" on the right side of the miner. 4x past 1½h. Everything works and all but just figured to post about it.

EDIT: Using this kind of command-line "cwigm -c sigt -u shgth.xxx -p xxx --lodiff --max-temp=70 --pstate=0 -d 0"(replaced private stuff with xxx). Max-temp was there by default and it's ok value so didn't remove it but added --pstate and -d.

[Skorby]

I would like to try, too pm is out

[atlas974]

Reporting testing results:

ver 0.9.8 on OS win 7 64

GTX 970 75% power limit +160 core clock
17.3 MH/s  //  0.135MH/s/W

GTX 970 65% power limit +160 core clock
16.27 MH/s  //  0.147MH/s/W

GTX 970 58% power limit +160 core
14.41 MH/s  //  0.141MH/s/W
-----------------------------------------
GTX 1080 75% power limit +160 core clock
36.2 MH/s  //  0.276MH/s/W

GTX 1080 65% power limit +160 core clock
34.06 MH/s  //  0.307MH/s/W

GTX 1080 50% power limit +160 core clock
29.32 MH/s  //  0.326MH/s/W
-----------------------------------------
GTX 1080 Ti 75% power limit +160 core clock
52.19 MH/s  //  0.296MH/s/W

GTX 1080 Ti 65% power limit +160 core clock
49.6 MH/s  //  0.318MH/s/W

GTX 1080 Ti 50% power limit +160 core clock
43.6 MH/s  //  0.355MH/s/W
------------------------------------------
Power limit are for testing purpose based on MH/s/W

[dandyqb]

my initial observation upon using the miner;


Rig 1
OS:  Windows 10 64bit Pro build 15063
Miner: cwigm 0.9.8
GPUs: 6x 1060 6gb
Total Speed: 116.20
OC: MSI AB -  PL 70, Core +152, Mem - 502, Fan 75

using SPMod3:
Total Speed: 111.26

Rig 2
OS:  Windows 10 64bit Pro build 15063
Miner: cwigm 0.9.8
GPUs: 1070 mini 8GB Solo Mining
Total Speed: 27.19
OC: MSI AB - PL 75, Core +152, Mem - 502, Fan 75

using ccminer_skunk_krnlx
Total Speed: 27.11

Its obvious that 1060 benefits with CWI, but on 1070 they're almost the same in performance. I'll continue observe the performance of this new miner.

[int64]

Do you have plans for future to have open miner? not lock for specific pool. Maybe with some fee.
Nice to have some new miner, but I like to chose pool wich I want to use
Thank you and keep the good work

[Supercoiner111]

Growing concerned with the pool... I have over 60k of shares submitted my unconfirmed share is staying at 0 and my confirmed is also not going up!

EDIT: nvm pool works slightly different to my previous pool

[Brucelats]

Sent a PM!


Want to try this miner


Cheers!

[zhulick]

                        VC++ 2013 and CUDA 8.0 x64 382.05
CPU:1.64%          ChainWorks Industries beta - Version 0.9.8         [12:30:16]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Algo:Skunk      | Port: 2000 | NetDiff: 21076.7            | Block:      35136 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coin:signatum   | POW: 1250  | Estimated coins/day: 269.506                    |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solved:   0 | Diff:     1.24 | Shares: 3519.78 | Rej: 0.588878% | Speed:  175.84
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.EVGA GTX 1070              : Shares: 589.07  | Rej: 4.91 | Speed:   29.13MH/s|
1.EVGA GTX 1070              : Shares: 620.8   | Rej: 3.86 | Speed:   29.31MH/s|
2.EVGA GTX 1070              : Shares: 618.98  | Rej: 5    | Speed:   29.45MH/s|
3.EVGA GTX 1070              : Shares: 543.51  | Rej: 1.82 | Speed:   29.07MH/s|
4.EVGA GTX 1070              : Shares: 592.34  | Rej: 2.83 | Speed:   29.44MH/s|
5.EVGA GTX 1070              : Shares: 555.08  | Rej: 2.43 | Speed:   29.61MH/s|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.EVGA GTX 1070              : T:55C | F:57% | P:106W | I: 24.0 | Core:1899Mhz |
1.EVGA GTX 1070              : T:56C | F:59% | P:106W | I: 24.0 | Core:1919Mhz |
2.EVGA GTX 1070              : T:48C | F:49% | P:106W | I: 24.0 | Core:1927Mhz |
3.EVGA GTX 1070              : T:55C | F:57% | P:106W | I: 24.0 | Core:1894Mhz |
4.EVGA GTX 1070              : T:52C | F:53% | P:107W | I: 24.0 | Core:1919Mhz |
5.EVGA GTX 1070              : T:52C | F:53% | P:107W | I: 24.0 | Core:1931Mhz |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[12:27:12]Share: 6c57a501              | [10:31:06][GPU0]:Job not found (=stale
[12:28:08]Share: 7ee05340              | )
[12:28:15]Share: b0dc41c4              | [10:31:09][GPU2]:Job not found (=stale
[12:28:31]Share: c0d5ce9c              | )
[12:29:06]Share: b1511593              | [11:21:43][GPU1]:Job not found (=stale
[12:29:36]Share: a6845026              | )
[12:29:49]Share: 1d6ca931              | [12:05:50][GPU4]:Job not found (=stale
[12:29:52]Share: 3da8d1ab              | )


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

x6 rig is running great. i have mine configured for efficiency over speed, so it may not be producing "record breaking" mhs, but i am very happy at the overall temp/wattage/speed balance this miner gives me.  this is excellent...

that said, my x1 and x2 rigs are still choking on high worker diff, with way too many blocks going by before a share is submitted.


        _________\ \     \____\     /|  \    \_\  \  Y Y  \  __________
                      \______  / \/\_/ |__|\______  /__|_|  / /
                             \/                   \/      \/ /
                        VC++ 2013 and CUDA 8.0 x64 382.05
CPU:   0%          ChainWorks Industries beta - Version 0.9.8         [12:40:58]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Algo:Skunk      | Port: 2000 | NetDiff: 20220.5            | Block:      35151 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coin:signatum   | POW: 1250  | Estimated coins/day: 40.8193                    |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solved:   0 | Diff:     1.12 | Shares: 623.29  | Rej: 0.52666% | Speed:   29.79M
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.EVGA GTX 1070              : Shares: 623.29  | Rej: 3.3  | Speed:   29.03MH/s|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.EVGA GTX 1070              : T:54C | F:72% | P:107W | I: 24.0 | Core:1950Mhz |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[12:34:17]Mean netDiff: 16873.9        | [06:16:30]Stratum connection interrupt
[12:34:47]Mean netDiff: 16969.1        | ed
[12:35:08]Mean netDiff: 17317.2        | [06:16:32]Failed to connect to stratum
[12:35:37]Mean netDiff: 17448.7        | .chainworksindustries.com port 2000: C
[12:36:31]Share: 86e53529              | onnection refused
[12:37:37]Mean netDiff: 17946.4        | [06:16:32]Retry in 30s
[12:37:59]Mean netDiff: 18027.3        | [06:17:29]Retry in 30s
[12:39:57]Mean netDiff: 18349.9        | [06:19:34]Retry in 30s
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


for now i'm leaving the x6 rig running the miner/pool combo, but pulling my smaller rigs.  

for me the issue is not the wild hashrate they produce at the pool, or their sharerate etc.  the issue is participation.  and i think it's the low rate of participation of the smaller rigs that's actually harming the pool's ability to find blocks consistently.  

at any point the solution, or part of the solution for a block could be on one of the smaller rigs.  if they don't participate and submit shares, then the pool never stands a chance to find that block.  2-3 blocks here and there is fine, but 6-7-8 blocks without a share is just too much, especially when the latter seems to be the norm.  

multiply that by who knows how many other smaller rigs that are experiencing the same thing, and there are a LOT of blocks that the pool just never has a chance to even compete for.   i believe that the smaller rigs are actually hurting the pool's performance right now.

like i said, my x6 is staying, so i'm not abandoning the project in any way, and as soon as the new version of a miner and/or a pool update that fixes worker diff for smaller rigs is done - i'll be more then glad to bring them back

[chrysophylax]

Getting this kind of error every now and then "[17:01:03][GPU0]:Invalid nonce" on the right side of the miner. 4x past 1½h. Everything works and all but just figured to post about it.

EDIT: Using this kind of command-line "cwigm -c sigt -u shgth.xxx -p xxx --lodiff --max-temp=70 --pstate=0 -d 0"(replaced private stuff with xxx). Max-temp was there by default and it's ok value so didn't remove it but added --pstate and -d.

well ...

the --max-temp parameter is an experimental parameter - and does work  but will pause your miner for milliseconds at a time to 'cool' the gpu ... this causes seesaw power consumption ( ie - high then low then high ) among other things ... this is great for those in a very high temp environment and dont mind losing a small bit hash - but not if you dont need to ...

if you want the miner to run constantly - remove that setting ...

-d 0 is a setting that will only force gpu device number 2 to run ... and only that card ... if you have more cards and want to run them also - then do so ...

--pstate is a ccminer parameter - and even though we adopted a few parameters from ccminer and sgminer for compatibility reasons - we created a number of our own parameters as well ... under normal circumstances - this will not force it to stay in pstate 0 mode ... but please double check that - as some windows users do run in administrator profiles ...

if you are overclocking - lower it ...

see what happens when you mess around with the settings and tweak them so the miner can run more consistently ... and hopefully less / or none invalid nonces ...

we are working on this also ...

#crysx

[chrysophylax]

Do you have plans for future to have open miner? not lock for specific pool. Maybe with some fee.
Nice to have some new miner, but I like to chose pool wich I want to use
Thank you and keep the good work

we have been asked this multiple times ...

currently there are no plans to release an unlocked miner ... we lock it to our pools so we get NO other interference with issues outside of our own ... which is why its a closed beta ...

there are hacked versions out there - and we will not support any one of them ... we cannot infect our closed environment with external issue - no matter how small they are ...

as for a fee version - we are trying to work against that ... a fee free miner is a better miner - but the pool we have setup is also being tuned ( and ultimately all algos will be tuned ) to the pool / stratum for the best performance ... we intend on having more than just a 'miner' ...

at the moment - there are many other unlocked miners out there for the taking ... we advice against using any form of hacked version of our miner - and it will be entirely at your risk if you ...

CWIgm will become a miner that will automate so much more than just the algo / coin ... which is why it is required to be consistent in its output and in a controlled environment ... and with the additional module we are incorporating into CWIgm - as well as the optimization of the algos it supports - will mean we will continue to require a strict grasp on what the miner does in our own environment ...

in saying that - ANYTHING can change ... this is afterall a beta test ...

#crysx

[chrysophylax]

                       VC++ 2013 and CUDA 8.0 x64 382.05
CPU:1.64%          ChainWorks Industries beta - Version 0.9.8         [12:30:16]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Algo:Skunk      | Port: 2000 | NetDiff: 21076.7            | Block:      35136 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coin:signatum   | POW: 1250  | Estimated coins/day: 269.506                    |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solved:   0 | Diff:     1.24 | Shares: 3519.78 | Rej: 0.588878% | Speed:  175.84
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.EVGA GTX 1070              : Shares: 589.07  | Rej: 4.91 | Speed:   29.13MH/s|
1.EVGA GTX 1070              : Shares: 620.8   | Rej: 3.86 | Speed:   29.31MH/s|
2.EVGA GTX 1070              : Shares: 618.98  | Rej: 5    | Speed:   29.45MH/s|
3.EVGA GTX 1070              : Shares: 543.51  | Rej: 1.82 | Speed:   29.07MH/s|
4.EVGA GTX 1070              : Shares: 592.34  | Rej: 2.83 | Speed:   29.44MH/s|
5.EVGA GTX 1070              : Shares: 555.08  | Rej: 2.43 | Speed:   29.61MH/s|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.EVGA GTX 1070              : T:55C | F:57% | P:106W | I: 24.0 | Core:1899Mhz |
1.EVGA GTX 1070              : T:56C | F:59% | P:106W | I: 24.0 | Core:1919Mhz |
2.EVGA GTX 1070              : T:48C | F:49% | P:106W | I: 24.0 | Core:1927Mhz |
3.EVGA GTX 1070              : T:55C | F:57% | P:106W | I: 24.0 | Core:1894Mhz |
4.EVGA GTX 1070              : T:52C | F:53% | P:107W | I: 24.0 | Core:1919Mhz |
5.EVGA GTX 1070              : T:52C | F:53% | P:107W | I: 24.0 | Core:1931Mhz |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[12:27:12]Share: 6c57a501              | [10:31:06][GPU0]:Job not found (=stale
[12:28:08]Share: 7ee05340              | )
[12:28:15]Share: b0dc41c4              | [10:31:09][GPU2]:Job not found (=stale
[12:28:31]Share: c0d5ce9c              | )
[12:29:06]Share: b1511593              | [11:21:43][GPU1]:Job not found (=stale
[12:29:36]Share: a6845026              | )
[12:29:49]Share: 1d6ca931              | [12:05:50][GPU4]:Job not found (=stale
[12:29:52]Share: 3da8d1ab              | )


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

x6 rig is running great. i have mine configured for efficiency over speed, so it may not be producing "record breaking" mhs, but i am very happy at the overall temp/wattage/speed balance this miner gives me.  this is excellent...

that said, my x1 and x2 rigs are still choking on high worker diff, with way too many blocks going by before a share is submitted.


        _________\ \     \____\     /|  \    \_\  \  Y Y  \  __________
                      \______  / \/\_/ |__|\______  /__|_|  / /
                             \/                   \/      \/ /
                        VC++ 2013 and CUDA 8.0 x64 382.05
CPU:   0%          ChainWorks Industries beta - Version 0.9.8         [12:40:58]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Algo:Skunk      | Port: 2000 | NetDiff: 20220.5            | Block:      35151 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coin:signatum   | POW: 1250  | Estimated coins/day: 40.8193                    |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solved:   0 | Diff:     1.12 | Shares: 623.29  | Rej: 0.52666% | Speed:   29.79M
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.EVGA GTX 1070              : Shares: 623.29  | Rej: 3.3  | Speed:   29.03MH/s|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.EVGA GTX 1070              : T:54C | F:72% | P:107W | I: 24.0 | Core:1950Mhz |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[12:34:17]Mean netDiff: 16873.9        | [06:16:30]Stratum connection interrupt
[12:34:47]Mean netDiff: 16969.1        | ed
[12:35:08]Mean netDiff: 17317.2        | [06:16:32]Failed to connect to stratum
[12:35:37]Mean netDiff: 17448.7        | .chainworksindustries.com port 2000: C
[12:36:31]Share: 86e53529              | onnection refused
[12:37:37]Mean netDiff: 17946.4        | [06:16:32]Retry in 30s
[12:37:59]Mean netDiff: 18027.3        | [06:17:29]Retry in 30s
[12:39:57]Mean netDiff: 18349.9        | [06:19:34]Retry in 30s
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


for now i'm leaving the x6 rig running the miner/pool combo, but pulling my smaller rigs.  

for me the issue is not the wild hashrate they produce at the pool, or their sharerate etc.  the issue is participation.  and i think it's the low rate of participation of the smaller rigs that's actually harming the pool's ability to find blocks consistently.  

at any point the solution, or part of the solution for a block could be on one of the smaller rigs.  if they don't participate and submit shares, then the pool never stands a chance to find that block.  2-3 blocks here and there is fine, but 6-7-8 blocks without a share is just too much, especially when the latter seems to be the norm.  

multiply that by who knows how many other smaller rigs that are experiencing the same thing, and there are a LOT of blocks that the pool just never has a chance to even compete for.   i believe that the smaller rigs are actually hurting the pool's performance right now.

like i said, my x6 is staying, so i'm not abandoning the project in any way, and as soon as the new version of a miner and/or a pool update that fixes worker diff for smaller rigs is done - i'll be more then glad to bring them back

tanx for the thorough insight ...

what you are mentioning is a common issue at the moment - where the smaller rigs do choke on high diff shares ...

there is a solution i can propose ... but it will mean that EVERYONE has to comply with it ...

here is my proposition ...

1 - lower the difficulty of the lodiff port ( 2000 ) to an acceptable level where small rigs can mine easily without interruption ... this means that ALL smaller machines will be required to enter the --lodiff parameter ... this will allow shares to be distributed fairly and equally among the smaller rigs - no matter how many are on the port ...
2 - lower the difficulty of the hidiff port ( 6000 ) to start at a lower rate - but increase enough to cater for the larger machines and farms alike ... this means that ALL larger machines will be required to REMOVE the --lodiff parameter ... this will allow shares of higher difficulty to be freely shared among all the larger rigs - and still be able to submit enough shares to the pool so ALL miner have a better opportunity to solve a block ...

if this proposal is acceptable - i can have it sorted very quickly ... this will include the denarius pool ( tribus ) for those mining on the dnr pool as well ...

but i must reiterate - ALL miners must adhere to the correct port for their systems ... if a large miner slams the lodiff port and floods the stratum - we will implement a much more aggressive blocking system for the ip that do that ...

this will be in effect for ALL miners mining at our pool - not just CWIgm miners ...

let me know your thoughts - and any better ideas ...

tanx ...

#crysx

[Brucelats]

I will write this just. It might be a small bug i seen.

When i started miner several times and after restart also, it always initialized only 2x GPU from 7. 7 were shown in device manager and in after burner, but when i started miner only gpu 2 and 6 shown hashrate, rest were stuck on 0.


Then i cancled miner for 5th time, went alt tab to do something, tried run miner again and it worked. Dunno why it didnt recognized my GPU-s right away.


This is my .bat file:


setx GPU_FORCE_64BIT_PTR 0
setx GPU_MAX_HEAP_SIZE 100
setx GPU_USE_SYNC_OBJECTS 1
setx GPU_MAX_ALLOC_PERCENT 100
setx GPU_SINGLE_ALLOC_PERCENT 100
cwigm -c sigt -u Brucelats.Zotacx7_SIGT -p x --cpu-priority=3 -i 22 --tlimit=65,65,65,65,65,65,65
pause


I used exact same on my other rigs with 5 6 7 GPU-s, only changed temp limits a bit and worker name and they all worked. Only thing that is speciffic to this rig that had problems is, it had all the same GPU-s and that are Zotac GTX 1070 AMP! Extreme. Rest have mix, or at least 1 card is different. Cheers!