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

[NN900]

so  if bminer uses 2 or 3 % more power it is still better. if it uses  20%  it is not better.

based on temp and fan readings  it will be around 1-4% more power for bminer

Thanks, very interesting, please keep us updated about WATT results!

[1714908480]

1714908480

[1714908480]

1714908480

[1714908480]

1714908480

[conid0]

Now I flipped  pc's

and bminer did better on both pc's

not much but better.  say 2.4% more payment from nicehash  8.83 for bminer vs  8.62 for dstm

next week I will do power tests

same meter  on each machine  10 minute test  should show between 330 watts to 410 watts

Maybe I will post it on thurs.

so  if bminer uses 2 or 3 % more power it is still better. if it uses  20%  it is not better.

based on temp and fan readings  it will be around 1-4% more power for bminer


https://i.imgur.com/iQyEfcg.png

There is something strange with the time on your screenshots.
It says during your first test the workers were active for
dtsm 1449 minutes = 24h
bminer 842 minutes = 14h

and for the second test

dtsm 1925 minutest = 32h
bminer 2048 minutes = 34h

Haven't you stated you're running each test for 24h? This doesn't make sense to me.

[lunobird]

how do i run the gpu devices individually?  Can someone give me an example?   Thanks

[Didi CC]

My rig, 4 1060 6 GB core + 100 mem + 600
2 1070 core + 125 mem 450
2 1080 core + 100
2 1080 Ti core + 100  ( all 10 cards at 65 % )

Dtsm = avg of 1480 watts
Bminer = avg of 1440 watts  with the same settings.

I used it also with other Clocks, for me B miner allways was lower in watts in compare to Dtsm.

Only thing funny with B miner is the big difference in Hashrate on the console in comparison to the Flypool stats, but even then it's higher then Dtsm.

[kipaxa]

6x1063 hynix, test 48h

bminer: local 1960hs  flypool average: 1790
dstm:  local 1900hs  flypool average: 1860

bminer not honest

[supermoew]

6x1063 hynix, test 48h

bminer: local 1960hs  flypool average: 1790
dstm:  local 1900hs  flypool average: 1860

bminer not honest

please show your screenshots otherwise I don't believe any words from you whose account is totally new.

[NN900]

BTW, did anybody conduct tests regarding power consumption between bminer and EWBF 0,3,4 miner? Or ~roughly the same?

[gettilee]

6x1063 hynix, test 48h

bminer: local 1960hs  flypool average: 1790
dstm:  local 1900hs  flypool average: 1860

bminer not honest

please show your screenshots otherwise I don't believe any words from you whose account is totally new.

i find your short post history to be pro bminer biased. you did a test of 6 hours each (not running at the same time so different difficulty) and you have been cheerleading since. sorry but i prefer to see large enough hashrate rigs side by side mining with both miners to see a real comparision. i've ran my 1070ti rigs with both dstm and bminer and have seen a much higher reported hashrate in console yet the same average hashrate pool side as dstm. dstm hashrate seems more stable where bminer's hashrate is all over the place on flypool.

i'm no fan of either dstm or bminer, but with bminers history of using sock puppet accounts on other forums to promote his miner...and seeing your post history, you look more suspicious than someone that posts the obvious that bminer reports a higher hashrate at the console than whats reported at the pool. theres no denying that.

[vit4lik]

I think this miner total scam, use dstm inside.
dstm performance different as ewbf, dstm more faster on 1060 little faster on 1080ti compare to ewbf.
bminer on all gpu always same difference compare to dstm.

[LoraineLY]

It seems that more people have tested bminer and got same results as I got in the past: Bminer is 2-3% faster than dstm. Unfortunately, the recent ZEC price drops significantly and it is now more profitable for me to mine ETH instead. If ZEC price goes back, I think I will use Bminer again. BTW, I still think 2% devfee is too high for all those equihash miners.

6x1063 hynix, test 48h

bminer: local 1960hs  flypool average: 1790
dstm:  local 1900hs  flypool average: 1860

bminer not honest

I think this miner total scam, use dstm inside.
dstm performance different as ewbf, dstm more faster on 1060 little faster on 1080ti compare to ewbf.
bminer on all gpu always same difference compare to dstm.

It is so funny that every three days there will be some new-account posts like this with no serious test and no data just asserting dstm is better. Thanks, I can do my own test and math. And seriously, if dstm wants more user, he should improve its miner performance or lower its devfee, not hire those trolls.

[realbminer]

To Developer: It would be very useful to see in statistic how many shares were send to developer too. And we need to see an exact time of working miner, because when the miner work about 20 hours the API report "a day" but not 21h 20min for example. Is it possible to add it in the future update?

Thank you for your suggestions. I will consider making those changes in future.

It is a good idea to make devfee collection transparent, however simply counting devfee shares might not be an ideal solution. Because devfee shares might be at a different difficulty than the normal shares, simply dividing the number of devfee shares by the number of normal shares will not be the devfee ratio. Anyone can suggest a simple but non-confusing way to show the devfee collection information?

[Scorpio777]

To Developer: It would be very useful to see in statistic how many shares were send to developer too. And we need to see an exact time of working miner, because when the miner work about 20 hours the API report "a day" but not 21h 20min for example. Is it possible to add it in the future update?

Thank you for your suggestions. I will consider making those changes in future.

It is a good idea to make devfee collection transparent, however simply counting devfee shares might not be an ideal solution. Because devfee shares might be at a different difficulty than the normal shares, simply dividing the number of devfee shares by the number of normal shares will not be the devfee ratio. Anyone can suggest a simple but non-confusing way to show the devfee collection information?

How about actual time of mining and time of working for developer in the API statistic (For example: Uptime - 1000min/devfee - 20min)?  

[vit4lik]

It seems that more people have tested bminer and got same results as I got in the past: Bminer is 2-3% faster than dstm. Unfortunately, the recent ZEC price drops significantly and it is now more profitable for me to mine ETH instead. If ZEC price goes back, I think I will use Bminer again. BTW, I still think 2% devfee is too high for all those equihash miners.

6x1063 hynix, test 48h

bminer: local 1960hs  flypool average: 1790
dstm:  local 1900hs  flypool average: 1860

bminer not honest

I think this miner total scam, use dstm inside.
dstm performance different as ewbf, dstm more faster on 1060 little faster on 1080ti compare to ewbf.
bminer on all gpu always same difference compare to dstm.

It is so funny that every three days there will be some new-account posts like this with no serious test and no data just asserting dstm is better. Thanks, I can do my own test and math. And seriously, if dstm wants more user, he should improve its miner performance or lower its devfee, not hire those trolls.

No troll, I did test.
Here data for you, lot people did test with same result.
https://miningclub.info/threads/polzujus-bminer-dlja-zec.35286/

Why you say different I don't know.

[minebomb]

Hi

I have been using bminer on 2x 12 1070ti rigs with no issue.
I have setup another rig with 9x 1080tis. The miner constantly restarts every 30mins or so. The last line in the console is "killed".
Previously when I had a riser fail while running bminer,  it stated exactly which gpu/riser it could not get temperature from.

The restarts do not happen with other softwares.

I am using simple mining and mining on nicehash.

[realbminer]

To Developer: It would be very useful to see in statistic how many shares were send to developer too. And we need to see an exact time of working miner, because when the miner work about 20 hours the API report "a day" but not 21h 20min for example. Is it possible to add it in the future update?

Thank you for your suggestions. I will consider making those changes in future.

It is a good idea to make devfee collection transparent, however simply counting devfee shares might not be an ideal solution. Because devfee shares might be at a different difficulty than the normal shares, simply dividing the number of devfee shares by the number of normal shares will not be the devfee ratio. Anyone can suggest a simple but non-confusing way to show the devfee collection information?

How about actual time of mining and time of working for developer in the API statistic (For example: Uptime - 1000min/devfee - 20min)?  

This is not a bad idea. I would still prefer to find a non-confusing way to show devfee shares, which are more transparent than times. Maybe I will consider print difficulties together with shares so that people can calculate normalized shares.

Realistically, this probably will not happen in the next version. I want to release 6.0 in the next few days and I do not want any further delay. So I would love to collect as many suggestions as possible before I go ahead and implement this.

[somethingiswrong]

Hi Bminer team,
is it possible for you to include some more information in the API response? Maybe in the next update?
I think it would be nice to get the GPU name, the pool and the user in the response.

Let me know what you think about it.

We would love to help:
Just understand your requests, you want to include the following two information in REST API response:

1.Device name: Something like "GTX 1080 Ti"?
2.Pool/User: We can put the whole uri path in REST API. This should contain all information include pool address and the user name. Is it enough?

1. Yes, something like "GeForce GTX 1080 Ti"
2. The whole uri path would be sufficient, but it would be easier to handle if you parse the user part and the pool part, like:
User : "t1ZBtpkUy1y1deYsNJnzdW4tk7HiJEcfUzr.worker"
Pool : "zec.coinfoundry.org:3036"

Thanks for your efforts

[philipma1957]

6x1063 hynix, test 48h

bminer: local 1960hs  flypool average: 1790
dstm:  local 1900hs  flypool average: 1860

bminer not honest

please show your screenshots otherwise I don't believe any words from you whose account is totally new.

i find your short post history to be pro bminer biased. you did a test of 6 hours each (not running at the same time so different difficulty) and you have been cheerleading since. sorry but i prefer to see large enough hashrate rigs side by side mining with both miners to see a real comparision. i've ran my 1070ti rigs with both dstm and bminer and have seen a much higher reported hashrate in console yet the same average hashrate pool side as dstm. dstm hashrate seems more stable where bminer's hashrate is all over the place on flypool.

i'm no fan of either dstm or bminer, but with bminers history of using sock puppet accounts on other forums to promote his miner...and seeing your post history, you look more suspicious than someone that posts the obvious that bminer reports a higher hashrate at the console than whats reported at the pool. theres no denying that.

dude  I certainly am not a sock puppet and my tests clearly show bminer  is doing better then dstm on identical machines pointed to the same pool.


this is  a realtime screen shot



as is this one taken today

[TheYankeesWin!]

Phil  looks like bminer is 1-2% better.  Did you do the kill-a-watt yet?

[philipma1957]

@ yankees  kill-a-watt  on thurs.

My wife had a dental emergency so I have been busy with real world stuff.

So far I think Bminer is a little better then dstm.

My real  issue with all of these zec miners  is not which is better  it is that all developers stay at 2%  for the fee.

2%  is way too high of a fee.   But with only a few programs to pick  the developers simply match  each other's fee.

I would love to see one of them do 1%  just to shake the game up.

hint hint.  

zec is 250 usd a coin


pretend  ebwf dstm claymore bminer

 mine 80%  combined

or 20% each  do the math

market cap is  860 million x 20% = 176 million x 2% = 3.52 million in fees


now that is not true  since most coins were mined at less then 250usd a coin

but   a 2% fee  is price fixing on developers part.  they all set it there and don't compete .

If bminer is 1-3% better then dstm  as I think it is.

and bminer reduced its fee to 1%  he would make out and be a leader  in the zec software sector.

Only morons would mine other zec software. I would think he would 3x his share  which would indeed make money for him.

But he won't  and this is my gripe with software developers not a lot of them and they price fix fees.

They don't ever have to say a single word or talk to each other to fix the fees.  Simply read each other's thread  and match each other's fees.

[Max Likelihood]

Thanks for your work on this Phil. 99% of readers appreciate it and will learn something.