[ANN]Bminer: a fast Equihash/Ethash/Cuckaroo29z miner for AMD/NVIDIA GPUs 16.4.9

[QuintLeo]

@echo OFF
REM Change the following address to your Zcash taddr.
SET ADDRESS=YOURTADDRESS.WORKERNAME
SET USERNAME=%ADDRESS%.PASSWORD
SET POOL=us1-zcash.flypool.org:3333
SET SCHEME=stratum
START "Bminer" bminer.exe -uri %SCHEME%://%USERNAME%@%POOL% -api 127.0.0.1:1880



 This was NOT obvious due to the totally weird (by ANY other miner standards) command line setup this miner uses.

 Why does the pool name and password all get munched together into ONE parameter, VERY VERY confusing - and how is this going to work on pools that need to pass OTHER parameters in the username, like suprnova and it's "fixed difficulty" adjustments?

[QuintLeo]

How can we custom add this miner to Nicehash legacy miner ?

 That's a "talk to Nicehash about it" thing - if this miner works with Nicehash at all (they do a couple "odd" things with their pools setup that sometimes break miners that don't know about and work with those "odd" things).

[Eviltoaster]

Am I able to add an email for nanopool?

[bigjee]

So i ran this miner for 24 hours.
It displays MUCH higher hashrate in the miner interface but is actually giving much LOWER hashrate on pool side.


So yeah dont be fooled by just whats shown in the software. Verify always pool side.

[krial]

So i ran this miner for 24 hours.
It displays MUCH higher hashrate in the miner interface but is actually giving much LOWER hashrate on pool side.

So yeah dont be fooled by just whats shown in the software. Verify always pool side.

Was just noticing a similar variation myself.

dstm shows about 940 sol/s on the dual 1070 test rig, and shows ~940 pool side.
bminer shows about 970 sol/s on the same test rig, but shows ~700 pool side.

If I watch the running graph for my hash power on the pool, the line declined slightly at the time I switched from dstm to bminer, then went back up when I switched back to dstm.
Test rig running 2x asus 1070 duals under windows 10, afterburner set to +100 core +500 memory at 80% power, mining zencash at luckpool

I tried it a couple of different times for an hour each with an hour of dstm in between. Not the most scientific testing, so take it with a grain of salt and do your own tests.

[chafer99]

So yeah dont be fooled by just whats shown in the software. Verify always pool side.

Exactly.  i can not download this Bminer (Windows Defender reports virus).
Dstm shows 990h/s on the 1080Ti + 1060, and ~ 950h/s pool side.
Ewbf shows 960h/s, and ~ 900h/s pool side.

[ShowMeCoins]

Any chance you can make this a "N,K=96,5" miner?

[shtarkel]

Hi everybody. I have tested the Bminer and like it's features, but hash rate is FALSE in the console, verified on Flypool. 

[WoW_Fishmonger]

Morning everyone!
New account, just registered, and wanted to give some data / information on what I've found so far.
For reference, I've been using Excavator 1.38a and Bminer 3.0.
I have an EVGA GTX 1050 SC, and an EVGA GTX 1060 3GB. FWIW the 1060s give some pretty good hash / $ investment compared to the 1060 since I got it for $190 after rebates. I think the 192bit GDDR [vs 128bit] of the 1060 helps. I know the extra CUDA cores certainly do.
I just mine in the background / overnight on my computer to earn a couple extra bucks. If I can convert my mining and eventually turn it into USD [even a couple hundred bucks] over the course of a year, it will help pay for my alcohol habit

The data I have below is not an apples - apples comparison since I could not get both miners to be happy with the same offsets in Afterburner, so use the information accordingly. At some point when I have more time I'll lower the clock / memory offsets and do a 1:1 test for both miners.

Also note, that with the "=polling-true" option in bminer I did see a significant increase in CPU on my FX-8370E, started out at about 25%-30% and 6 hours later was close to 50%. With that option disabled, CPU was less than 5%. I also did not see a significant change in hash rates with it on or off. This may be due to the video cards and/or settings I am using. Who knows.

My main concern was seeing how accurate the hash reporting of Bminer [well, any miner really] when compared to the mining pool, in this case it is Nanopool. Later on I will do better testing regarding efficiency and then of course top speed. I have 2 profiles in Afterburner, one for lower power draw [NORMAL] and one for higher power draw [FAST], as are labeled in the chart.

My first test with accuracy had a 6 hour overnight run of Bminer reporting an average hash of 465, while Nanopool reported 462.4. Those results are within the margin of error.

Hope this helps some people out. I'll continue to fiddle with things and either update this or post more information later.
73's

wowfishmonger@yahoo.com

https://i.imgur.com/2ScMFMx.jpg
Also, FML - can't figure out how to directly put the image into the post. Lol.

[QuintLeo]

So yeah dont be fooled by just whats shown in the software. Verify always pool side.

Exactly.  i can not download this Bminer (Windows Defender reports virus).
Dstm shows 990h/s on the 1080Ti + 1060, and ~ 950h/s pool side.
Ewbf shows 960h/s, and ~ 900h/s pool side.

 Windows Defender thinks bloody near EVERYTHING is a virus if it didn't come from the Microsoft Store.
 HORRIBLE high rate of false positives, while giving the worse protection against REAL viruses of any "major" anti-virus program, in the tests I've seen quite a few sites do.



 50% of one core on a 8370E, or 50% of ALL 8 CORES total? If it's the latter, that's WHY this miner would have issues on dual-core CPUs with running at all.


 What the heck is a "N,K-96,5"?

[ShowMeCoins]

...
 What the heck is a "N,K-96,5"?

Some coins (Zero, Minexcoin) use a different kind of equihash. (see here at the end of the page.)

[Backy2221]

So i ran this miner for 24 hours.
It displays MUCH higher hashrate in the miner interface but is actually giving much LOWER hashrate on pool side.


So yeah dont be fooled by just whats shown in the software. Verify always pool side.

I can confirm this as well... Reported hashrate is much lover than what this miner displays. ZM is definitely the best option at this moment.

[NameTaken]

On https://www.bminer.me/examples/ why is

bminer -uri stratum://t1ZBtpkUy1y1deYsNJnzdW4tk7HiJEcfUzr.worker@zec-eu1.nanopool.org.6666

vs

bminer -uri stratum://<username>.<worker>:<passwd>@btg.suprnova.cc:8816

?

[realbminer]

So i ran this miner for 24 hours.
It displays MUCH higher hashrate in the miner interface but is actually giving much LOWER hashrate on pool side.


So yeah dont be fooled by just whats shown in the software. Verify always pool side.

Which pool are you using? What's your configuration?

Have you noticed any rejected shares? Any numbers?

AFAIK many people in the community has gotten consistent results with nanopool.

[realbminer]

On https://www.bminer.me/examples/ why is

bminer -uri stratum://t1ZBtpkUy1y1deYsNJnzdW4tk7HiJEcfUzr.worker@zec-eu1.nanopool.org.6666

vs

bminer -uri stratum://<username>.<worker>:<passwd>@btg.suprnova.cc:8816

?

Thanks for spotting it -- I think this is an error in the document -- will fix it shortly.

[stash2coin]

Any progress on the issue with 12 cards rigs? ewbf and dstm doesn't have this problem. Running dual instances of your miner is not a solution for me, because the way watchdog script is setup.

[WoW_Fishmonger]

So yeah dont be fooled by just whats shown in the software. Verify always pool side.

Exactly.  i can not download this Bminer (Windows Defender reports virus).
Dstm shows 990h/s on the 1080Ti + 1060, and ~ 950h/s pool side.
Ewbf shows 960h/s, and ~ 900h/s pool side.

 Windows Defender thinks bloody near EVERYTHING is a virus if it didn't come from the Microsoft Store.
 HORRIBLE high rate of false positives, while giving the worse protection against REAL viruses of any "major" anti-virus program, in the tests I've seen quite a few sites do.



 50% of one core on a 8370E, or 50% of ALL 8 CORES total? If it's the latter, that's WHY this miner would have issues on dual-core CPUs with running at all.


 What the heck is a "N,K-96,5"?

50% on all cores... yea, I know...
But the odd thing was like I said, I didn't see any improvements with that option on....

[babalz]

On https://www.bminer.me/examples/ why is

bminer -uri stratum://t1ZBtpkUy1y1deYsNJnzdW4tk7HiJEcfUzr.worker@zec-eu1.nanopool.org.6666

vs

bminer -uri stratum://<username>.<worker>:<passwd>@btg.suprnova.cc:8816

?

Thanks for spotting it -- I think this is an error in the document -- will fix it shortly.

Can you please make build that has static link to libstdc++, for ubuntu 14.04 users (ethos)

[realbminer]

Any progress on the issue with 12 cards rigs? ewbf and dstm doesn't have this problem. Running dual instances of your miner is not a solution for me, because the way watchdog script is setup.

It will be addressed in the next release.

[MagicSmoker]

50% on all cores... yea, I know...
But the odd thing was like I said, I didn't see any improvements with that option on....

Hmmm... I don't want to unfairly tarnish the software author, but excessive CPU use in a GPU miner sort of sounds like some backdoor Cryptonight hashing is going on, eh?