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

[realbminer]

The results of the dstm vs. bminer showdown have been postponed for 3+ hours because the luckpool website (not the pool) has been down ever since I woke up around 5:30 AM. I did stop both miners at 6:00AM and both were still mining at that time without issue (though, see my posts above). I'll update this post when luckpool's website comes back online.

UPDATE - luckpool's website is back up and I checked the balances of both miners: 0.0613 ZEN for dstm and 0.0584 for bminer. So bminer got trounced by nearly 5%, but some of that might be due it mysteriously crashing without appearing to have crashed for around 1 hour yesterday evening (which I fortunately caught).

In the interest of fairness and to be extra thorough I decided to do a second round of testing with the same methodology as before: each miner runs on a separate desktop with a single GTX 1080 mining to the same pool but with different payment addresses. I've tweaked the MSI AB profile for both cards so that each miner gives the same hashrate regardless of which card it runs on.

If you have the bminer console log at the time when bminer crashed, could you share it with me? It would be very helpful for me to diagnose the problem.

[1715261766]

1715261766

[1715261766]

1715261766

[1715261766]

1715261766

[realbminer]

Can it display the temperature?

If you use the bat, you can open http://127.0.0.1:1880 with a browser to view the temperature.

I will output the temperature on the console log in the next release as well.

[MagicSmoker]

The results of the dstm vs. bminer showdown have been postponed for 3+ hours because the luckpool website (not the pool) has been down ever since I woke up around 5:30 AM. I did stop both miners at 6:00AM and both were still mining at that time without issue (though, see my posts above). I'll update this post when luckpool's website comes back online.

UPDATE - luckpool's website is back up and I checked the balances of both miners: 0.0613 ZEN for dstm and 0.0584 for bminer. So bminer got trounced by nearly 5%, but some of that might be due it mysteriously crashing without appearing to have crashed for around 1 hour yesterday evening (which I fortunately caught).

In the interest of fairness and to be extra thorough I decided to do a second round of testing with the same methodology as before: each miner runs on a separate desktop with a single GTX 1080 mining to the same pool but with different payment addresses. I've tweaked the MSI AB profile for both cards so that each miner gives the same hashrate regardless of which card it runs on.

If you have the bminer console log at the time when bminer crashed, could you share it with me? It would be very helpful for me to diagnose the problem.

No log file was created by bminer, and besides, it didn't crash in the usual way that word is defined. Bminer appeared to be running normally but the pool said it was offline. I stopped and restarted bminer, refreshed the pool page, and it was immediately registered as online again. The only possible connection I can think of is this occurred right after I switched computers the miners were running on - bminer was running on computer A and dstm was running on computer B, then at the 12 hour mark I shut down both miners and started them back up on the other computer (mining to the same address).

UPDATE - so far after 7 hours bminer has earned 0.0223 ZEN while dstm has earned 0.0210 ZEN.

[Eneen]

Is there way to set intensity?

[realbminer]

Is there way to set intensity?

There is no intensity option in Bminer. Bminer always run as fast as possible unless the GPU hits temp cap (default 85).

[nUm81]

Just wanted to start off by saying that i have been using Bminer for a few weeks now and am very happy with the performance.

There is one issue that I am encountering when using the miner though and would like to see if that can be fixed an a future release.

Sometimes when I lose connection to the mining pool or restart the pool I get the following error on the miners.  They can stay like this for quite some time before they establish a valid connection and begin submitting shares.



Cheers,

nUm

[cryptoyes]

@MagicSmoker, your test is flawed if you look at payout ... really. Look at hashrate, and use Flypool. Luckpool has the most unreliable web gui (often down, and loses all stats) and also uses vardif.

Also, your hashrate is too low (a single card) for reliable results after 24h because you're too dependent on luck. A single card won't get that many shares in and they all have different luck. The average pay for a 24h will vary quite a bit.

I've been doing some tests myself with a 7x 1080Ti rig. dstm reports 5402 sol/s while bminer reports 5620 sol/s -- that's 4% higher -- but the pool reports the same hashrate after 24h, usually slightly better for dstm.

I'm starting to be convinced that bminer is artificially over reporting.

When I get the time, I'd like to setup identical private chains locally, then run the test for each rig starting at the same block so they mine exactly the same things (100% controlled environment and reliable). However, by the looks of it, I probably don't need to waste my time and hashpower.

[cryptobro91]

I need to test it a little more, but console might be artificially inflating the numbers.  I'm still new to mining and have tried to a bunch of different combinations of miners and mining pools to see what works best, but I don't think I've let any of them really run for a full day yet (which probably isn't the best way to test from what I've been reading).

Currently using dtsm Zcash miner against Slushpool.  I think I'm going to run that for a few days then try against flypool for a few days.  Then do the same for Bminer and compare results.

[b19971458]

Bright future for nVidia mining

[sir_blacks]

@cryptoyes with one thing i agree, make a test on a pool like Luckpool is bad idea 1. very small Hpower (~2 MS/s) 2. Jumpy & unstable (personal when i try first thing what i sen was high ping = bad, even website it take some time to load) 3. very few miner / worker

A good test it can be done on a pool with better speed like at list 8-10 MS/s with +1000-2000 miner what can provide constant block found / hour / day & with less jump hoper around

@cryptoyes but at part with a test it can't be done with 1 single GPU i not agree only think what @MagicSmoker need to change is pool that it

p.s. Personal i will suggest to admin of pool like Luckpool, Zenmine to combine they'r power & make a single one, it will be more efficient for them & for miner to

cheers

[hopfi2k]

Okey why do you have that as an option if everyone lose on it ?

You are making a very valid point here!

Cheers,
Andy

[Dep18]

I tried it and did not see any changes for the better. I hope there is a future for this project. 

[Acrefawn]

Hello guys!
Want to remind to all of you, that if somebody has any problems with stability of EWBF, DSTM, BMINER, CLAYMORE, CC miners or needs some extra control over your rigs please read carefully my message below.

I want to introduce you a script, which can solve most of your problems. It is a result of half a year hard work with my beta testers. Now it is clean of any bugs and ready to be introduced for the wide mining community.

1) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2071108.0
2) https://forum.z.cash/t/cmd-equihash-miner-autorun-autorestart-watchdog-for-ewbf-claymore-dstm/20640

It will definetely reduce your valuable time spent near your rigs, because this script will do all the work for you. Just start it and forget about your rigs, relax or do anything else. In case of any problem this script will restart your miner, or the rig, if necessary. It will notify you by Telegramm message about all problems and corrective actions taken. It is open source code (CMD/BAT, not an .exe or something like this), so anyone can check throug the code if needed.
Enjoy your life, let the script to monitor your rigs for you.

[MagicSmoker]

@MagicSmoker, your test is flawed if you look at payout ... really. Look at hashrate, and use Flypool. Luckpool has the most unreliable web gui (often down, and loses all stats) and also uses vardif.

Also, your hashrate is too low (a single card) for reliable results after 24h because you're too dependent on luck. A single card won't get that many shares in and they all have different luck. The average pay for a 24h will vary quite a bit.

Hmm... I'll give Flypool a shot, but I'm afraid I can't do anything about only dedicated 1 GTX 1080 to each miner for these tests right now - or for the immediate future - as GPUs simply aren't available unless you want to pay fuck-you prices.

I have to concede your point about pool luck, though. Luckpool was finding a block every few minute, but that information seems to be out-of-date because I just checked the blocks tab and it looks like the average TTF is now 1.1 hours, so 24 hours with a single card is, indeed, way too short of a time period.

BUT... if the TTF is less than 5 minutes then a 24 hour test based on payout should be just as accurate as counting up the number of fixed diff shares (fixed diff does not appear to be an option on Luckpool, however), even with a single GTX 1080.

[MagicSmoker]

...
@cryptoyes but at part with a test it can't be done with 1 single GPU i not agree only think what @MagicSmoker need to change is pool that it
...

Thanks for the constructive criticism @cryptoyes and @sir_blacks. There's only 4.5 hours to go on the current test so I might as well let it run but I will start a new comparison on Flypool. Still with just 1 GTX 1080 for each miner, unless one of you is willing to sell me 2 more 1080's at MSRP or less  

EDIT - so, looks like Flypool only has ZEC for Equihash, which isn't my preferred coin to mine. Anyone have a suggestion for a high volume ZEN pool?

[MiningTaken]

...
@cryptoyes but at part with a test it can't be done with 1 single GPU i not agree only think what @MagicSmoker need to change is pool that it
...

Thanks for the constructive criticism @cryptoyes and @sir_blacks. There's only 4.5 hours to go on the current test so I might as well let it run but I will start a new comparison on Flypool. Still with just 1 GTX 1080 for each miner, unless one of you is willing to sell me 2 more 1080's at MSRP or less  

EDIT - so, looks like Flypool only has ZEC for Equihash, which isn't my preferred coin to mine. Anyone have a suggestion for a high volume ZEN pool?

I would prefer Miningpoolhub. :-) There are 4 coins of Equihash there to be mined, which are mostly top of profitable Nvidia mining these days.
(Just suggestion. :-) )

[MiningTaken]

@RealBminer :
I need to setup Bminer to run with Awesome Miner, coz I need the Profit Swicthing feature of AM.
Could you kindly advise ? Thank you.

[MagicSmoker]

...
EDIT - so, looks like Flypool only has ZEC for Equihash, which isn't my preferred coin to mine. Anyone have a suggestion for a high volume ZEN pool?

I would prefer Miningpoolhub. :-) There are 4 coins of Equihash there to be mined, which are mostly top of profitable Nvidia mining these days.
(Just suggestion. :-) )

I did a concurrently run comparison between MPH and NiceHash for 1 week which ended a few days ago and MPH lost, earning 10% less than NH; that's not exactly a good showing, given that NH more or less sucks.

MPH's website is a confusing mess, as well. For example, they don't list the coins available for each algorithm like on most Yiimp-based auto-switch, multip-algo pools. Manually checking those coins I know use Equihash it looks like the only one that finds blocks frequently enough for a 24 hour test to be valid is Zclassic. I also don't have a wallet set up for Zclassic yet, but I've been meaning to do that so this isn't a real obstacle.

I don't want to use auto-convert to BTC mode, however, as I noticed my BTC balance actually going down while coins were still waiting to be auto-exchanged.

[MiningTaken]

...
EDIT - so, looks like Flypool only has ZEC for Equihash, which isn't my preferred coin to mine. Anyone have a suggestion for a high volume ZEN pool?

I would prefer Miningpoolhub. :-) There are 4 coins of Equihash there to be mined, which are mostly top of profitable Nvidia mining these days.
(Just suggestion. :-) )

I did a concurrently run comparison between MPH and NiceHash for 1 week which ended a few days ago and MPH lost, earning 10% less than NH; that's not exactly a good showing, given that NH more or less sucks.

MPH's website is a confusing mess, as well. For example, they don't list the coins available for each algorithm like on most Yiimp-based auto-switch, multip-algo pools. Manually checking those coins I know use Equihash it looks like the only one that finds blocks frequently enough for a 24 hour test to be valid is Zclassic. I also don't have a wallet set up for Zclassic yet, but I've been meaning to do that so this isn't a real obstacle.

I don't want to use auto-convert to BTC mode, however, as I noticed my BTC balance actually going down while coins were still waiting to be auto-exchanged.

Sorry to hear that. :-(
Contrary to your experience, I've read many people get less earning with NH and now switching to MPH. I don't know, I guess it is just each one experience.
I use MPH for few months now, and quite satisfy with it. It has transparent fees and rewards, pretty straightforward.
Also you can choose to auto-exchanged to many other coins besides BTC (I choose LTC myself).

[cryptoyes]

@MagicSmoker - you're missing the point about luck. It's not the pool's luck I was talking about (see my message again) but each share's luck. As I explained a while back, even if you are mining with 2 rigs simultaneously, the 2 rigs will receive different shares to mine, and those shares will have different luck. Because you have a single card in those rigs, the payout will thus be highly variable.

The biggest flaw is that you look at payout instead of pool reported hashrate. The second flaw is that you are using a single card (a single card would be ok if the pool could give you 1 week average, but none of them do). The third is that you are using a bad pool (bad because it goes down often, has a highly variable ping, only reports 12h average, and has a very low hashrate -- yes, 2MH/s is very low, especially given you're using a single card).

If you don't have the expertise to setup two identical private chains or divert rpc packets, then the best you can do is to use Flypool (226 MH/s) and look at the pool reported hashrate after 24h. It will be more reliable than luckpool+payout, but still slightly flawed (again, single card, different lucks for each card).

All that being said, I'm now pretty sure bminer artificially inflates numbers. Oh well, what do you expect - these guys want to stay anonymous and use shady https connections back to their own servers...