PhoenixMiner 6.2c: fastest Ethereum/Ethash miner with lowest devfee (Win/Linux)

[Rewqpro]

I disabled fee in Claymore. Lost 1Mh/s on each gpu.

So it' s worth to pay the fee.

how come 1% is more than 1Mh/s ? what is wrong with you?

Can't you count? The 1MH/s loss scales too. That is, let's say he has 1k GPUs, at 31MH/s per:

With the fee on, his "effective" hashrate is 31 * 1000 * 0.99 = 30,690MH/s.
With the nofee switch and the inability to modify the code to disable the slowdown: 30 * 1000 = 30,000MH/s.

Pretty clear to me.

oh yeah sorry, I misread the message.

YES, my point was paying fee is better.

What a drama coming!

For those who wants Claymore to lower dev fee - suck it up dudes, he makes constant developments of miner things and he's the only one who always deliver.

If you are so greedy and for you 0.35% makes a huge difference (sick joke, seriously), it would be better to throw yourselves out of the window.

I am 100% sure those who have industrial mines have their own miner software and not have any problem with comission.

So, most of baby cryers outta here have 1 rig with 300$ monthly income -- 3$ per month for actually MAKING this income possible -- it is too much for you guys?




Coming back to reverse engineering thing, I do not appreciate such kind of actions. Hope it has nothing with stealing Claymore's code.

Have a nice day everyone!

I have significant hashpower and believe me, 0.35% makes a substantial difference at current prices

it is your problem you cannot inquire someone about your private miner and have a stable hashrate with no fees.

you misunderstand me - 0.35% is the difference between Phoenix Miner and Claymore - that difference IS significant

Here I have completely understood your point, you have unlimited hashpower - blah blah.

But in the case you have zillion hashes per second, why aren't you able to buy a private miner for your needs and remove fee, approximately, forever?

So, your words are just blabbering to me.

[1714205636]

1714205636

[1714205636]

1714205636

[1714205636]

1714205636

[headshot155]

I disabled fee in Claymore. Lost 1Mh/s on each gpu.

So it' s worth to pay the fee.

how come 1% is more than 1Mh/s ? what is wrong with you?

Can't you count? The 1MH/s loss scales too. That is, let's say he has 1k GPUs, at 31MH/s per:

With the fee on, his "effective" hashrate is 31 * 1000 * 0.99 = 30,690MH/s.
With the nofee switch and the inability to modify the code to disable the slowdown: 30 * 1000 = 30,000MH/s.

Pretty clear to me.

oh yeah sorry, I misread the message.

YES, my point was paying fee is better.

What a drama coming!

For those who wants Claymore to lower dev fee - suck it up dudes, he makes constant developments of miner things and he's the only one who always deliver.

If you are so greedy and for you 0.35% makes a huge difference (sick joke, seriously), it would be better to throw yourselves out of the window.

I am 100% sure those who have industrial mines have their own miner software and not have any problem with comission.

So, most of baby cryers outta here have 1 rig with 300$ monthly income -- 3$ per month for actually MAKING this income possible -- it is too much for you guys?




Coming back to reverse engineering thing, I do not appreciate such kind of actions. Hope it has nothing with stealing Claymore's code.

Have a nice day everyone!

I have significant hashpower and believe me, 0.35% makes a substantial difference at current prices

it is your problem you cannot inquire someone about your private miner and have a stable hashrate with no fees.

you misunderstand me - 0.35% is the difference between Phoenix Miner and Claymore - that difference IS significant

Here I have completely understood your point, you have unlimited hashpower - blah blah.

But in the case you have zillion hashes per second, why aren't you able to buy a private miner for your needs and remove fee, approximately, forever?

So, your words are just blabbering to me.

wow, why the agression. I've never claimed to have unlimited hash power - just that 0.35% is significant

[wtfonly16]

when ogodaoffset release for free?? we need linux undervolt!@!!!

[Claymore]

I may look into it, just to check. While they have only a Win version, where I'm less practiced, I don't need nor want to go through the logic itself - location and extraction of the binary GPU kernel will tell me. Even if they based it on yours and made modifications - certain things in it stand out, so it shouldn't be ambiguous at all.
While I *know* it's quite possible to do better than Claymore's kernels - recently, he's made improvements resulting in them being quite a bit better, which cuts some of my own advantage. The optimizations in regards to core computations I've done result in me requiring far lower core clocks for the same hashrates, so I'll take the power savings. Despite this, I don't see Claymore blatantly lying about something so easily proved.

It would be nice if you can confirm my words. No modifications at all, the kernels are the same, taken from v10. I know you dumped my binaries for v10 so you can compare them easily.

It is also quite wrong of you to assume these things:

• That you can't be fooled by our anti-reversing measures (really do you think that we can't detect dll-injection attacks?).
• And that, if you do succeed in extracting our real/current kernels and leak them in the open, we can't do the same with yours. "We know" a guy that was part of the driver development team of AMD and he is itching to test its kernel-level emulator by trying to extract your current kernels. Heck, if he's successful, we can even put your kernels in our miner and let the users select them explicitly and see for themselves how they compare with ours. 

1. Yes you cannot detect my runtime attacks, at least not all, and 100% you cannot detect driver level attacks. In fact, your protection is really weak, I spent some more time and now have three different ways to get kernels and they all return same binary. Of course you will state that your super-protection even detects my system driver, it's ridiculous.
2. My dumped kernels are on this forum already in public, so I don't care about your "kernel guy", "a guy from AMD" etc. The only thing I care is to prove that you are the liar.

[wtfonly16]

its 2018... we have idiots who think asus b250 is a trash board. mining has really gone to shit. to many new "gamers" who have no idea wtf their doing.

so u calling pheonix a lier is like calling a retarded person retarted... just file lawsuit and be done with it.

[tenmoi]

Also, if you really had serious ties to AMD - it's not likely to be something you'd flaunt. It sounds awesome - yeah. There's two tragedies in life: one is not getting what you want; the other one is getting it.

May I chime in? There’s this hidden tragedy named demion with his nodevfee sword. So stop quarreling and lower the fee before the life blood is cut.

[wtfonly16]

or just release private binaries already keeping same 1% fee lol

if the whole world has it u as the dev get more cause everyone mining faster.

[pickaxe123]

I've been mining since 2.4, now on 2.7b, on a single Vega 56, W10, latest drivers, and it's been mostly fine. I've only experienced one recurring problem where mining stops (driver crash AFAIK) then restart and hangs at detecting cards for 60-80 minutes before resuming mining. Before 2.7b, my wattman overclock settings were reset to default, now with 2.7b I get to keep my settings which is much better already.

    Thank you for the logs. Unfortunately we can't determine much from there just that the GPU thread is freezing after the crash. You've got quite a bit of memory overclock though maybe try dialing it back a little. We also had problems with Vega because of the card high power consumption - even 600W quality PSU led to sporadic crashes when powering a single Vega56 even with big underclock. It seems like Vega has high peak currents that lead to crashes if the PSU is not ridiculously overpowered. We have some work to do with hardware controls support for Vega though, as it appears to use some new (and undocumented) ADL functions and structures.

Ok I'll try lowering mem clocks but in the meantime do you have an idea why recovering takes 60-80 minutes in that case?

Here's another log from this morning:

Code:

17591:09:24:46.146: main Phoneix Miner 2.7b Windows/msvc - Release
17591:09:24:46.146: main Cmd line: -pool eu1.ethermine.org:4444 -pool2 us1.ethermine.org:4444 -wal xxx -cdm 0 -amd -fanmin 10 -fanmax 20 -tmax 65 -powlim 50 -cclock 997 -cvddc 935 -mclock 1125 -mvddc 950 -minRigSpeed 39 
17591:10:36:41.383: main Available GPUs for mining:

Thanks for your help

[flatounet]

tested OC by phoenix too ,

i dont have the same minning speed .... ,i think dont have constant voltage
i have it in afterburner ,but not in phoenix ....

back to afterburner

OC with AB = 1880w
OC with phoenix = 1840w 

minning speed same ,a bit slower with phoenix

[GPUHoarder]

I may look into it, just to check. While they have only a Win version, where I'm less practiced, I don't need nor want to go through the logic itself - location and extraction of the binary GPU kernel will tell me. Even if they based it on yours and made modifications - certain things in it stand out, so it shouldn't be ambiguous at all.
While I *know* it's quite possible to do better than Claymore's kernels - recently, he's made improvements resulting in them being quite a bit better, which cuts some of my own advantage. The optimizations in regards to core computations I've done result in me requiring far lower core clocks for the same hashrates, so I'll take the power savings. Despite this, I don't see Claymore blatantly lying about something so easily proved.

It would be nice if you can confirm my words. No modifications at all, the kernels are the same, taken from v10. I know you dumped my binaries for v10 so you can compare them easily.

It is also quite wrong of you to assume these things:

• That you can't be fooled by our anti-reversing measures (really do you think that we can't detect dll-injection attacks?).
• And that, if you do succeed in extracting our real/current kernels and leak them in the open, we can't do the same with yours. "We know" a guy that was part of the driver development team of AMD and he is itching to test its kernel-level emulator by trying to extract your current kernels. Heck, if he's successful, we can even put your kernels in our miner and let the users select them explicitly and see for themselves how they compare with ours. 

1. Yes you cannot detect my runtime attacks, at least not all, and 100% you cannot detect driver level attacks. In fact, your protection is really weak, I spent some more time and now have three different ways to get kernels and they all return same binary. Of course you will state that your super-protection even detects my system driver, it's ridiculous.
2. My dumped kernels are on this forum already in public, so I don't care about your "kernel guy", "a guy from AMD" etc. The only thing I care is to prove that you are the liar.

I am also very active in the low level side of this, and have also dumped both kernels at a mock hardware level and can absolutely confirm Claymore’s post. Private kernels developed to match specific hardware can be developed that are faster than Claymore’s, but significant work has gone into those kernels. They are absolutely rights  of Claymore and stolen in this case. Never mind all originally stole from open source...

[GPUHoarder]

[quote author=Wolf0 link=topic=2647654.msg31357143#msg31357143 date=
You can back up the accusation of being stolen from open source, I take it? I rewrote my Ethash over a dozen times. At least four of them was in pure GCN assembly without a starting template.
[/quote]

That was meant more anecdotally than accusitorily, in general I don’t think code or binaries were copied directly so much as techniques. Ethash isn’t that complicated so there are only so many ways to write it. I do believe I’ve seen higher level stratum and other code that very much looks like someone started with an ethminer fork though. I don’t necessarily think this is wrong as much as standing on shoulders of existing work.

[gsrcrxsi314]

how does one "steal" something that's opensource? lol. seems contradictory.

[rockk]

today huge stale numbers + ethermine.org disconect at eu1. not reporting current hashrate but showing average and effective one> wtf

[Branko]

how does one "steal" something that's opensource? lol. seems contradictory.

By using it in closed source project which is usually against open source license?

[xS-RaGnaR]

3rd time ill ask u: when do u think we can dual mine on pheonix?
tnx

[mxl86]

3rd time ill ask u: when do u think we can dual mine on pheonix?
tnx

cant you fucking read? he already answered plenty of times.
tnx

[agustin9200]

3rd time ill ask u: when do u think we can dual mine on pheonix?
tnx

He answered you in this msg. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2647654.msg31314200#msg31314200

[xS-RaGnaR]

3rd time ill ask u: when do u think we can dual mine on pheonix?
tnx

He answered you in this msg. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2647654.msg31314200#msg31314200

Ma bad,sry.

[fr4nkthetank]

lol guys, please dont turn this thread into an _SP thread.  IF you want to discuss open license abuse...then you know where to go now.

W0lf it sounds you are buying a boat.  Over here it goes like this : The two happiest days of your life are : The day you buy your boat, and the day you sell your boat

[PcChip]

lol guys, please dont turn this thread into an _SP thread.  IF you want to discuss open license abuse...then you know where to go now.

W0lf it sounds you are buying a boat.  Over here it goes like this : The two happiest days of your life are : The day you buy your boat, and the day you sell your boat

Working with someone who does, however... means I end up, a lot of times, on the "need to know" list.

I swear every time I see an update from her she's in a different goddamned country. like weekly!