OFFICIAL CGMINER mining software thread for linux/win/osx/mips/arm/r-pi 4.11.1

[crazyearner]

Problems mining on a pool is this cgminer problem within unit or is this problem on their side on the pool

The shares you sent have been looking like this:
020000005e4757cdbd7b756ceac436c46fe3ba6d9f532adaca8541c3beba010000000000246cf2c 7800231d5d50c5a7c9241e7465fb2085346478a4b95c70a34d43fec20daa1dc518db6011b70523f dc80000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000280

I think your miner messed up formatting the shares from mining to results.

it seems that it puts the result at the beginning

correct form should be:
result of the hash:
020000005e4757cdbd7b756ceac436c46fe3ba6d9f532adaca8541c3beba01
data sent to pool
0000000000246cf2c7800231d5d50c5a7c9241e7465fb2085346478a4b95c70a34d43fec20daa1d c518db6011b70523fdc800000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000280

Is this a bug to be fixed? or something to do with cgminer or something to do on their side on the pool ?

[GenTarkin]

think I MAY have found a bug in most recent avy firmware ..

It seems w/ avalon-auto & avalon-freq & an initial clock frequency > min of avalon-freq...
once avy clocks down the the min specified per avalon-freq, it seems to no go back up from that floor no matter what temps / hw error rate is =(
Example:

My initial clock is 350mhz, freq 315-400, during hot day avy will slowly clock down to 315, but even when it cools down and HW error rate is below 2% & temps are below their specified max...
It wont start climbing from 315 =(

[-ck]

Problems mining on a pool is this cgminer problem within unit or is this problem on their side on the pool

The shares you sent have been looking like this:
020000005e4757cdbd7b756ceac436c46fe3ba6d9f532adaca8541c3beba010000000000246cf2c 7800231d5d50c5a7c9241e7465fb2085346478a4b95c70a34d43fec20daa1dc518db6011b70523f dc80000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000280

I think your miner messed up formatting the shares from mining to results.

it seems that it puts the result at the beginning

correct form should be:
result of the hash:
020000005e4757cdbd7b756ceac436c46fe3ba6d9f532adaca8541c3beba01
data sent to pool
0000000000246cf2c7800231d5d50c5a7c9241e7465fb2085346478a4b95c70a34d43fec20daa1d c518db6011b70523fdc800000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000280

Is this a bug to be fixed? or something to do with cgminer or something to do on their side on the pool ?

There's a standard way to submit shares in terms of byte swapping and endian order. cgminer secures more than half the bitcoin network having sent gazillions of shares since its inception. Look at the pool instead.

[paladin281978]

Why decreased speed?
cgminer 3.2.1 - 645 kh
cgminer 3.3.1 - 605-610 kh

[tom_o]

Just an idea which could be very useful over the summer, could temperature control by dynamic intensity be possible? I've had to reduce intensity from 20 to 16 to keep my 7970s under 86°C this last week due to the how hot it's been in the UK but they can run at 19 overnight fine cause it's quite a bit cooler.

[SkyNet]

Why decreased speed?
cgminer 3.2.1 - 645 kh
cgminer 3.3.1 - 605-610 kh

most likely you changed your settings there is no decrease in speed...

[micalith]

very noobish question:

I'm load-balanced across three pools. I'm thinking of going for the one with the highest average yield, and hoping that the load-balanced setting is basically helping to show up which pools are better. Is using load-balance a reliable way of comparing pool efficiencies?

[-ck]

very noobish question:

I'm load-balanced across three pools. I'm thinking of going for the one with the highest average yield, and hoping that the load-balanced setting is basically helping to show up which pools are better. Is using load-balance a reliable way of comparing pool efficiencies?

Efficiency means nothing in the stratum protocol era. Compare disconnects, GF and RF.

[crazyates]

very noobish question:

I'm load-balanced across three pools. I'm thinking of going for the one with the highest average yield, and hoping that the load-balanced setting is basically helping to show up which pools are better. Is using load-balance a reliable way of comparing pool efficiencies?

Not really. Balance or load-balance don't distribute the hashrate perfectly evenly over multiple pools. If it favors one pool over another, and sends more shares that way, you're going to think you're earning more with that pool, when the pools may end up being the same.

Whenever I've tried it, it's always given Ozcoin the short straw, submitting less shares to Ozcoin and giving more to the other pools. Idk why it happens like this, but it can make Ozcoin look less profitable, when it's really not.

[micalith]

very noobish question:

I'm load-balanced across three pools. I'm thinking of going for the one with the highest average yield, and hoping that the load-balanced setting is basically helping to show up which pools are better. Is using load-balance a reliable way of comparing pool efficiencies?

Not really. Balance or load-balance don't distribute the hashrate perfectly evenly over multiple pools. If it favors one pool over another, and sends more shares that way, you're going to think you're earning more with that pool, when the pools may end up being the same.

Whenever I've tried it, it's always given Ozcoin the short straw, submitting less shares to Ozcoin and giving more to the other pools. Idk why it happens like this, but it can make Ozcoin look less profitable, when it's really not.

Efficiency means nothing in the stratum protocol era. Compare disconnects, GF and RF.

OK, so I'll set it to 'balance' for unbiased results.

GF and RF are 0 for about 36 hours of run time. I'll check those periodically

thanks

[GrapeApe]

I just wanted to say that I have solved my issue of 2 cards hashing at same speed as one. I have no desire to share the solution on this thread. I love the miner and I thank the devs for all of their hard work but I got no help on this thread. If anyone is having issues with hash speed being cut in half after adding a second card they can pm me and I will be happy help. Thx CYA
GrapeApe

[Krak]

I just wanted to say that I have solved my issue of 2 cards hashing at same speed as one. I have no desire to share the solution on this thread. I love the miner and I thank the devs for all of their hard work but I got no help on this thread. If anyone is having issues with hash speed being cut in half after adding a second card they can pm me and I will be happy help. Thx CYA
GrapeApe

It's alright, that problem has been fixed many times in this thread already (I can recall at least 3 off the top of my head).

[PatMan]

I just wanted to say that I have solved my issue of 2 cards hashing at same speed as one. I have no desire to share the solution on this thread. I love the miner and I thank the devs for all of their hard work but I got no help on this thread. If anyone is having issues with hash speed being cut in half after adding a second card they can pm me and I will be happy help. Thx CYA
GrapeApe

Damn those pesky readme files, ruining everyone's fun......

[GrapeApe]

I find very telling that the only responses I got here were after I said I fixed it and to just talk shit, basically because I'm upset. Very helpful. How about pointing out some of those posts. No you just wait for a troll moment then pounce. THANK YOU
TROLLS I am shocked at how far this has gone. The community here has spoken and evidently  I am the troll here so I stand corrected, you are all very helpful considerate people and I would like to thank all you for pointing out the readme to me.WOW I never thought of that. It was a power supply issue so this was no help whatsoever but I thank you again.
VERY HELPFUL

[Krak]

I find very telling that the only responses I got here were after I said I fixed it and to just talk shit, basically because I'm upset. Very helpful. How about pointing out some of those posts. No you just wait for a troll moment then pounce. THANK YOU
TROLLS
VERY HELPFUL

It's obnoxious having to help people who won't help themselves over and over.

[crazyates]

It's obnoxious having to help people who won't help themselves over and over.

It sounds harsh, but it's true. Oh so very true... 

[Askit2]

I find very telling that the only responses I got here were after I said I fixed it and to just talk shit, basically because I'm upset. Very helpful. How about pointing out some of those posts. No you just wait for a troll moment then pounce. THANK YOU
TROLLS
VERY HELPFUL

Says the person who wouldn't post how their problem was fixed. Isn't that telling as well?

[Joshwaa]

I find very telling that the only responses I got here were after I said I fixed it and to just talk shit, basically because I'm upset. Very helpful. How about pointing out some of those posts. No you just wait for a troll moment then pounce. THANK YOU
TROLLS
VERY HELPFUL

Says the person who wouldn't post how their problem was fixed. Isn't that trolling as well?

Fixed it for you.

[alatvian]

I find very telling that the only responses I got here were after I said I fixed it and to just talk shit, basically because I'm upset. Very helpful. How about pointing out some of those posts. No you just wait for a troll moment then pounce. THANK YOU
TROLLS
VERY HELPFUL

Says the person who wouldn't post how their problem was fixed. Isn't that telling as well?

So you guys aren't willing to help me fix a problem on my one setup which is most likely different than every other setup because everyone's machine is different?  Well... Screw you guys... I'm going home.

[kano]

I find very telling that the only responses I got here were after I said I fixed it and to just talk shit, basically because I'm upset. Very helpful. How about pointing out some of those posts. No you just wait for a troll moment then pounce. THANK YOU
TROLLS
VERY HELPFUL

Says the person who wouldn't post how their problem was fixed. Isn't that telling as well?

So you guys aren't willing to help me fix a problem on my one setup which is most likely different than every other setup because everyone's machine is different?  Well... Screw you guys... I'm going home.

Bye

Really, the problem is people not bothering to read the README files that have the answers.

Basically:

"Oooh wow - free software to make money"

"Damn I'm not getting my free money"

"Why should I bother to read README files to get free money, I'm sure I can get someone else to do that for me so I get free money for no effort at all"

"Hey - can someone help me"

...