RavenCoin (RVN), x16r NVidia miner. UPD! Windows version

[rvwf]

Version 0.0.4a

Improved fugue, echo, shavite performance.

Version 0.0.3

New experimental mode - "-e" option to enable. +2..5% performance, depends on hardware.
Double check your hardware, PSU, it will consume more energy in experimental mode.
Example :
 ./rvwf_miner  -o stratum+tcp://server:port -u user -p pass -e

New benchmark option - "-b" - benchmarks all 16 algos in row, to get your average hashrate.

You can benchmark in experimental mode or without to compare performance.


Version 0.0.2

Minor improvements
fee reduced to 1.5% - now mines on dev's wallet 162 sec, on your - 3 hours - to reduce reconnections to pool.
Linux and Windows versions.

Version 0.0.1

Linux and Windows versions.
Contains 2% fee.

FAQ:
Q: Usage ?
A: ./rvwf_miner  -o stratum+tcp://server:port -u user -p pass

Q: Cards supported?
A: I tested on 10x, but 9x nvidia card should work. Miner uses 1 GB of video ram


Q: Speed ?
A: x16r is algo with variable speed. If you want to compare with other miners - compare speed on same blocks!

Q: Overclock ?
A: All algos was rewrited from scratch, it needs MEM overclock, not core(like other)

0.0.4a


Linux x64
https://mega.nz/#!Y7BR1Zya!RKTFxjRjNYuX0qIASSidD_j6hBT3GjmEbPdvevK_tNI
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1BwoZGvHySWzNc6LyZXPRuap501yzl76R

WIndows
https://mega.nz/#!g24RQZgS!XGOgpagGO_4i46rhjojj2i0-LSGXdbxoGPCXXCv3aSc
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1KVHQU-RgFiHBGa6ZF4ZWfdvZsRiMFIsW
virustotal
https://www.virustotal.com/#/file-analysis/MWJhZDFkZDI1NzRmZGUwY2MwNjQzZGNmODI2MjEzZTI6MTUyMzU1NTIxNg==

0.0.3

Linux x64
https://mega.nz/#!Yjww1aQI!DD-bZwYZiYFUtcVJQpzDtISIVN-xDdzsw4E7qzdLOdg
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ZO1s5-OlAGBvHmH4eaGkDWZGMNdlRSVp

Windows
https://mega.nz/#!wm5TSAjJ!sX-K3m8rggN6NWIeRBm7R5zfkwoYvdvHz-UflDNi02k
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1sKaxqfIjX5Nbjnpk6gjZIE3Wjf5DdH5F

Virustotal
https://www.virustotal.com/#/file-analysis/YWUwYjg2YThkZWJkNmIzMGIzM2RmNzY1NDM1NjNiMmY6MTUyMzAyMzE0NQ==

0.0.2

Linux x64
https://mega.nz/#!Jr4EBKoA!91Z13OwQ42Adakqd4_Bt0jkWhyOCqy4xAWTe7-i8TeA
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1zNY33OdQQA9_o1v5Oj__FJLlthhZi98X

Windows cuda7.5 and cuda9.1 versions
https://mega.nz/#!F3xjGa7b!PFMd113k873n7nkZ7PLH6UQcaEUCPE5HHRTU1D3fXDg
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1GPYl3mjTtVzja2Mlf1SwaE-u21zn8aju

virustotal
https://www.virustotal.com/ru/file/822fa5fa5e986658f7377ae9219f03cdb1681eb9d1b92b1534cc09f4916e691b/analysis/1522446653/


0.0.1

Linux x64
https://mega.nz/#!MiZE2bKJ!H6HF3Ha0VJ7O6nE6Zgvoatwh28Qm32HSALldevwqZ-g

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ubfF7W83WVcH2aizuFOQwLlKS9Z3l8Cb

Windows
https://mega.nz/#!96xQgJgI!xhllWnIhO9sDIY9rlA1xMve4y9tMENSPchiv0Vt4ZUQ

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1gDChLgyHRr7MyGpmzBy2LvQoBTI13goJ

virustotal
https://www.virustotal.com/ru/file/bab40cd9e956072b6e0b4311f626515b527d067bab0627ebd02dc0e481b73395/analysis/1522331994/

[1715266645]

1715266645

[1715266645]

1715266645

[1715266645]

1715266645

[1715266645]

1715266645

[1715266645]

1715266645

[1715266645]

1715266645

[igotek]

contact with HiveOs team for your miner support on their miner os


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2350786.0;topicseen

[rvwf]

Hi guys! I see you are using my miner. But still no feedback!
https://imgur.com/onEOcIo

[GeeTee-X]

Will there be a Windows build?

[cost82el]

Will there be a Windows build?

Q: Windows version ?
A: Soon.

[GeeTee-X]

Will there be a Windows build?

Q: Windows version ?
A: Soon.

  Oops, that was very shortsighted of me   

[melpheos]

Can't test right now as my rigs are windows but what kind of performance increase do you get compared to enemy version (which has no fee)
2% is too big
You should reduce to a more acceptable 0.5% or less.
DSTM or Bminer get a lot of anger because of the 2% fee

[chrysophylax]

Is there any sourcecode?

Compilation on our Linux systems (Centos 7 x64 and Fedora 27 x64) is required and VERY few 'devs' supply any form of binary for these OS. Which is why we compile these binaries ourselves.

#crysx

[cristipuc]

Can't test right now as my rigs are windows but what kind of performance increase do you get compared to enemy version (which has no fee)
2% is too big
You should reduce to a more acceptable 0.5% or less.
DSTM or Bminer get a lot of anger because of the 2% fee

If you don't like the fee you should not use the miner or compile by yourself!

[melpheos]

Can't test right now as my rigs are windows but what kind of performance increase do you get compared to enemy version (which has no fee)
2% is too big
You should reduce to a more acceptable 0.5% or less.
DSTM or Bminer get a lot of anger because of the 2% fee

If you don't like the fee you should not use the miner or compile by yourself!

With the source code which is..... Oh wait, there is no source code

[Larvitar]

Can't test right now as my rigs are windows but what kind of performance increase do you get compared to enemy version (which has no fee)
2% is too big
You should reduce to a more acceptable 0.5% or less.
DSTM or Bminer get a lot of anger because of the 2% fee

If you don't like the fee you should not use the miner or compile by yourself!

With the source code which is..... Oh wait, there is no source code

Is sgminer a GPL source?

I think yes.

So... where is the source?

[rvwf]

Added windows version.

[Pantostao]

Gonna try

[cost82el]

i think is better than enemy +1 to 2 mh

[P00P135]

i think is better than enemy +1 to 2 mh

Doesn't seem worth a 2% fee

[rdluffy]

I use enemy miner because it's more stable and have less spikes than any other, it's better for GPU in long term

I'll test

[Alexsey1977]

Miner really faster than the enemy miner... Why it is blocked by the  Windows defender?

[rvwf]

Miner really faster than the enemy miner... Why it is blocked by the  Windows defender?

I really don't know. It does not contain viruses, or any malware.

[principino1984]

You've written that it's better to oc the DDR than GPU ... actually i'm using +100 -500 on 1080tis.... have you tried with this kind of gpu? Which are the oc profile to start trying?


I'm gettin error with this kind of string rvwf_miner.exe  -o stratum+tcp://rvn.suprnova.cc:6667 -u username.worker -p password -b 0.0.0.0:4028

[rvwf]

You've written that it's better to oc the DDR than GPU ... actually i'm using +100 -500 on 1080tis.... have you tried with this kind of gpu? Which are the oc profile to start trying?


I'm gettin error with this kind of string rvwf_miner.exe  -o stratum+tcp://rvn.suprnova.cc:6667 -u username.worker -p password -b 0.0.0.0:4028

Overclock memory +100 core + 500 mem.

remove "-b 0.0.0.0:4028 "

[rvwf]

It does not mean anything, everyone has different hardware. But still, maybe it's worth trying this miner.

https://imgur.com/3xXV1S8

[whoismoses]

x16r is really hard to dial in your rig. I've been mining RVN with with 30 RX 570/580 cards since the amd miner came out. It has been a pain in the ass!

I'm also not happy about my profits going down due to other miners jumping on board due to the price pop, but oh well, that's mining.

[P00P135]

You've written that it's better to oc the DDR than GPU ... actually i'm using +100 -500 on 1080tis.... have you tried with this kind of gpu? Which are the oc profile to start trying?


I'm gettin error with this kind of string rvwf_miner.exe  -o stratum+tcp://rvn.suprnova.cc:6667 -u username.worker -p password -b 0.0.0.0:4028

Overclock memory +100 core + 500 mem.

remove "-b 0.0.0.0:4028 "

Nice of you to suggest such a high memory OC right off the bat.  Fuck it why not +900, im sure it will be faster....

[P00P135]

It does not mean anything, everyone has different hardware. But still, maybe it's worth trying this miner.

https://imgur.com/3xXV1S8

You're right it doesnt mean anything and the 2% DEV FEE really isn't worth trying your miner over any of the current no dev fee miners.

[okamuwf]

2% for dev fee is too high !!! 

[bensam1231]

If a miner gives you +10% hash and has a 2% dev fee, you're netting +8%. It's not too high if it delivers performance. People will complain about anything.

Anyone have some 24hr comparisons on pool (not local), such as yiimp? Easiest way to tell what sort of hashrate this is putting out.

[P00P135]

If a miner gives you +10% hash and has a 2% dev fee, you're netting +8%. It's not too high if it delivers performance. People will complain about anything.

Anyone have some 24hr comparisons on pool (not local), such as yiimp? Easiest way to tell what sort of hashrate this is putting out.

Problem is there are 16algo's.  So it might hash one better but no one has bothered to test if it is overall actually better.

[bensam1231]

If a miner gives you +10% hash and has a 2% dev fee, you're netting +8%. It's not too high if it delivers performance. People will complain about anything.

Anyone have some 24hr comparisons on pool (not local), such as yiimp? Easiest way to tell what sort of hashrate this is putting out.

Problem is there are 16algo's.  So it might hash one better but no one has bothered to test if it is overall actually better.

Read the second sentence.

[nsummy]

If a miner gives you +10% hash and has a 2% dev fee, you're netting +8%. It's not too high if it delivers performance. People will complain about anything.

Anyone have some 24hr comparisons on pool (not local), such as yiimp? Easiest way to tell what sort of hashrate this is putting out.

Yah, I always think its ridiculous that some of these people will bitch and moan about a 2% fee, and without even trying the miner.  It takes 10 minutes to download a miner and copy your bat file to test its performance.  If its worse then move on to something else. People have honestly been spoiled by tpruvot and KlausT.

I will say though I'm not a fan of closed sourced miners from non-reputable sources.  With all of the AV false warnings it makes it difficult to run something like this.

[nsummy]

x16r is really hard to dial in your rig. I've been mining RVN with with 30 RX 570/580 cards since the amd miner came out. It has been a pain in the ass!

I'm also not happy about my profits going down due to other miners jumping on board due to the price pop, but oh well, that's mining.

Check out Pigeon Coin.  Who knows if it will be worth a damn (probably not), but the creator changed the algo to 16s (S is for shuffling while R is for random) to combat the fluctuations.

[oskarwu]

Hi guys! I see you are using my miner. But still no feedback!
https://imgur.com/onEOcIo

Hi RVWF :

I tried your RVN miner , it's really fast ... So I think 1% or 2% fee is OK ... But you should change the way you switch the fee pool ... Currently it switch too frequently ... I think you should change to mining 10 minutes and mine another 500 minutes ... Otherwise the switch loss is way too much ...

[du44]

I see 7-10% speedup after enemy miner ( depends from the algo ). But don't be greedy like sp, make 1-1.5% humanic fee and good luck!

[cost82el]

after 3 hours of testing ...https://i.imgur.com/00YxF0W.png
average on enemy is better... i will test for 24 hours... i have 2 x 1080ti, one for enemy , one for rvwf

[rvwf]

after 3 hours of testing ...https://i.imgur.com/00YxF0W.png
average on enemy is better... i will test for 24 hours... i have 2 x 1080ti, one for enemy , one for rvwf

You have 1830 shares on rvwf vs 1824 on enemy -\ and pool sets higher diff on rvwf.

I had some reports about degradation of performance under windows. I started investigation and made my own test.

stock 1050ti , w7 https://imgur.com/bidURfR

A lot of people, dont take care about overclock preset - (-500 mem on enemy), and run rvwf on same settings.

rvwf miner performance very much depends on on mem speed. Please, if you have -500 mem downclock - reset to stock while testing!

[cost82el]

i have +500 on both gpu

[oskarwu]

after 3 hours of testing ...https://i.imgur.com/00YxF0W.png
average on enemy is better... i will test for 24 hours... i have 2 x 1080ti, one for enemy , one for rvwf

You have 1830 shares on rvwf vs 1824 on enemy -\ and pool sets higher diff on rvwf.

I had some reports about degradation of performance under windows. I started investigation and made my own test.

stock 1050ti , w7 https://imgur.com/bidURfR

A lot of people, dont take care about overclock preset - (-500 mem on enemy), and run rvwf on same settings.

rvwf miner performance very much depends on on mem speed. Please, if you have -500 mem downclock - reset to stock while testing!

Please consider change the time between fee mining in the next release ... The switch pool lost is really big ... I will recommend to donate 10 minutes and mine for the next 500 minutes ....

[du44]

rvwf, how about adding other algos? x17 for example

[rvwf]

rvwf, how about adding other algos? x17 for example

maybe soon.

how to enable api to monitoring my rig ? whats a command ?

Will be added in future versions.

Updated to v0.0.2

[rvwf]

Added 0.0.2 Windows version. Now it contains 7.5 and 9.1 cuda builds.

[alani123]

i think is better than enemy +1 to 2 mh

Doesn't seem worth a 2% fee

Why would you say that? I don't really like that it's not open source but saying that the 2% fee doesn't make it worth it to use over a 2Mh/s improvement doesn't make much sense. +2Mh/s is well worth 2% unless that's the total improvement for a rig with >100Mh/s.

[Jeggu]

Still mining to dev pool first and now with 0.0.2 the fee time is even longer  Not good for idle only mining

[Pantostao]

0.0.2 much worse than 0.0.1 i tried the finished in 9, is the best one for win10 1080ti right???

[kesifkartal]

Is it possible to set intensity?
I had no luck with the standard params -i or --intensity, the miner just crashes.

[SEA1138]

a) doesn't work with my failover.conf so you lose your edge when your pool goes down

b) I think it's a trojan. Windows Defender always flags miners but not as trojans; it flagged this one specifically as trojan instead of just a coin miner.

[xTommYx]

The worst miner ever.

- Dev mining first. So even if you want to test it, you test it on devs pool (almost 3 mins of mining)
- Speed is good in the start (while mining for dev), decreases after the switch to your pool. It keeps on decreasing further more. (core +110, mem +400)
- With no fees and even better/stable speeds, there are better options out there.

I don't mind fees but fu for putting yourself first. This is the worst level of greed i've seen.

[P00P135]

The worst miner ever.

- Dev mining first. So even if you want to test it, you test it on devs pool (almost 3 mins of mining)
- Speed is good in the start (while mining for dev), decreases after the switch to your pool. It keeps on decreasing further more. (core +110, mem +400)
- With no fees and even better/stable speeds, there are better options out there.

I don't mind fees but fu for putting yourself first. This is the worst level of greed i've seen.

y i k e s

[B1tUnl0ck3r]

A good dump to buy pivx ! the ravencoin is so archaic, it can't survive in the wild .

[miningbabapk]

It was good but after 3 hours rig got stuck (hang), So I switched. It might be OC settings error in Simplemining. Wll check tomorrow.

[Pantostao]

Are you working in another version?

[Lukras]

- With no fees and even better/stable speeds, there are better options out there.

that would not talk, show the miner, because of the 4 x16r miners, only on this miner I get a big profit by 15-17%, maybe I do not know what? or I smoke the wrong grass?

[Bluecheese]

GoogleDrive is saying "hell nall!"  Virus for the windows version and will not let me download it.

[rvwf]

Are you working in another version?

Yes, but it becomes difficult to squeeze  more hashrate.

[Lukras]

Are you working in another version?

Yes, but it becomes difficult to squeeze  more hashrate.

no longer needed))), you need stability, and less floating hashed

[tbearhere]

I highly recommend not using this miner because I had no pool setup and after 3 minutes it says it's mining on my pool. I believe it just keeps on mining on his pool.

[Lukras]

I highly recommend not using this miner because I had no pool setup and after 3 minutes it says it's mining on my pool. I believe it just keeps on mining on his pool.

but I have the opposite, I really began to see on the pool what the miner shows, show the batch file, can something you do wrong? on the first page about these 3 minutes all painted.
I switched to this miner from version 2, and mine production increased compared to what NEMOS offers

[tbearhere]

I highly recommend not using this miner because I had no pool setup and after 3 minutes it says it's mining on my pool. I believe it just keeps on mining on his pool.

but I have the opposite, I really began to see on the pool what the miner shows, show the batch file, can something you do wrong? on the first page about these 3 minutes all painted.
I switched to this miner from version 2, and mine production increased compared to what NEMOS offers

What pool? I have no pool setup in that folder? That mining app. should after 3 minutes of mining say... no pool found... shutting down.

[Lukras]

I highly recommend not using this miner because I had no pool setup and after 3 minutes it says it's mining on my pool. I believe it just keeps on mining on his pool.

but I have the opposite, I really began to see on the pool what the miner shows, show the batch file, can something you do wrong? on the first page about these 3 minutes all painted.
I switched to this miner from version 2, and mine production increased compared to what NEMOS offers

What pool? I have no pool setup in that folder? That mining app. should after 3 minutes of mining say... no pool found... shutting down.

http://zerg.zergpool.com

[tbearhere]

I highly recommend not using this miner because I had no pool setup and after 3 minutes it says it's mining on my pool. I believe it just keeps on mining on his pool.

but I have the opposite, I really began to see on the pool what the miner shows, show the batch file, can something you do wrong? on the first page about these 3 minutes all painted.
I switched to this miner from version 2, and mine production increased compared to what NEMOS offers

What pool? I have no pool setup in that folder? That mining app. should after 3 minutes of mining say... no pool found... shutting down.

http://zerg.zergpool.com

Ok I'll try again ..... open app. it's mining on his pool. Ok 3 minutes later.. it tries to mine on my pool and stops mining on his pool ok. Now I have no pool bat file setup ok. But it is still mining. It should close the cmd window.

[Lukras]

I highly recommend not using this miner because I had no pool setup and after 3 minutes it says it's mining on my pool. I believe it just keeps on mining on his pool.

but I have the opposite, I really began to see on the pool what the miner shows, show the batch file, can something you do wrong? on the first page about these 3 minutes all painted.
I switched to this miner from version 2, and mine production increased compared to what NEMOS offers

What pool? I have no pool setup in that folder? That mining app. should after 3 minutes of mining say... no pool found... shutting down.

http://zerg.zergpool.com

Ok I'll try again ..... open app. it's mining on his pool. Ok 3 minutes later.. it tries to mine on my pool and stops mining on his pool ok. Now I have no pool bat file setup ok. But it is still mining. It should close the cmd window.

and you try to close the window with the handles of the miner, and not your program, which is unknown to anyone. I close the miner and the statistics in 3 seconds disappears from the pool about my miner. I remember talking about Claymore on the ETH+dual, maybe you're right, but the man has just started, he can fix it, if there's anything to fix, I personally like this miner if you're not comfortable with tweaking your scripts.

[Bluecheese]

@RVWF

He bro, thanks for the mining engine.  From what I can tell it's the best one yet.  IIIFFF you continue to make improvements over the life of this file, then I'll have no issues with your dev fee.  Even you have to eat and drink beer.  LOL

How long before you can add API support because I need it added to Awesome Miner.  I don't like running it in the wild without monitoring.

[HazakiYoshimi]

Seems modified from CCMiner, but no source code.

[hummer113]

Thank you for the Windows version, I'm going to check now, others miners often give me errors.

[rvwf]

Uploaded 0.0.3 version with performance improvements. Windows version soon.

[martinsults]

Is it really faster than others?

[Pantostao]

THX

[rvwf]

Added 0.0.3 windows version(cuda9)

[Pantostao]

Amazing stuff the "-e" mode, lets see if its stable, thx

[Lukras]

I did not like the 3 version, in normal mode when trying to close the miner, it hung up, but the video card was closed with a creak, with the -e option also hard going, I did not see a special gain, I remain on version 2.
Nevermore 022 almost caught up with you, but 1% fee, while I'm on your version, it gives 1 Mh on each card, we'll see next.

[Bluecheese]

Thanks for the update.

BTW, I like the fact that you mining engine resets a card if it detects any problems.  A very good feature to have and improves my uptime.  I use it as a gage so that if I'm pushing my cards too hard, just back it off a bit.

Can't wait to see what you have in store for the next update.

[rvwf]

I'm working on a new version. I already got speedup on echo and fugue.

[Bluecheese]

I'm working on a new version. I already got speedup on echo and fugue.

Cool can't wait.

[ruplikminer]

can't wait for the new version!!

[Lukras]

I'm working on a new version. I already got speedup on echo and fugue.

just do not overdo it, I'm still sitting on the second version, no other miner with yesterday's and today's updates has not surpassed the second version, we are waiting!

[miner32342]

Thanks for the update.

BTW, I like the fact that you mining engine resets a card if it detects any problems.  A very good feature to have and improves my uptime.  I use it as a gage so that if I'm pushing my cards too hard, just back it off a bit.

Can't wait to see what you have in store for the next update.

not always reset when an error occurs with the memory, then Miner restarts, and because of this the developer is often started.
|2018 - 04 - 11 17:00:49| GPU1: unspecified launch failure
|2018 - 04 - 11 17:00:49|Cuda error in func 'cuda_check_cpu_setTarget' at line 41 : unspecified launch failure.
 GPU3: unspecified launch failure
Cuda error in func 'cuda_check_cpu_setTarget' at line 41 : unspecified launch failure.
|2018 - 04 - 11 17:00:49| GPU4: GeForce GTX 1070, 35.93 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 11 17:00:49| GPU0: Gigabyte GTX 1070, 35.45 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 11 17:00:49| GPU5: GeForce GTX 1070, 96.54 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 11 17:00:49| GPU5: unspecified launch failure
Cuda error in func 'cuda_check_cpu_setTarget' at line 41 : unspecified launch failure.
|2018 - 04 - 11 17:00:49| GPU0: unspecified launch failure
|2018 - 04 - 11 17:00:49|Cuda error in func 'cuda_check_cpu_setTarget' at line 41 : unspecified launch failure.
 GPU4: unspecified launch failure
Cuda error in func 'cuda_check_cpu_setTarget' at line 41 : unspecified launch failure.

[Lukras]

Thanks for the update.

BTW, I like the fact that you mining engine resets a card if it detects any problems.  A very good feature to have and improves my uptime.  I use it as a gage so that if I'm pushing my cards too hard, just back it off a bit.

Can't wait to see what you have in store for the next update.

not always reset when an error occurs with the memory, then Miner restarts, and because of this the developer is often started.
|2018 - 04 - 11 17:00:49| GPU1: unspecified launch failure
|2018 - 04 - 11 17:00:49|Cuda error in func 'cuda_check_cpu_setTarget' at line 41 : unspecified launch failure.
 GPU3: unspecified launch failure
Cuda error in func 'cuda_check_cpu_setTarget' at line 41 : unspecified launch failure.
|2018 - 04 - 11 17:00:49| GPU4: GeForce GTX 1070, 35.93 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 11 17:00:49| GPU0: Gigabyte GTX 1070, 35.45 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 11 17:00:49| GPU5: GeForce GTX 1070, 96.54 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 11 17:00:49| GPU5: unspecified launch failure
Cuda error in func 'cuda_check_cpu_setTarget' at line 41 : unspecified launch failure.
|2018 - 04 - 11 17:00:49| GPU0: unspecified launch failure
|2018 - 04 - 11 17:00:49|Cuda error in func 'cuda_check_cpu_setTarget' at line 41 : unspecified launch failure.
 GPU4: unspecified launch failure
Cuda error in func 'cuda_check_cpu_setTarget' at line 41 : unspecified launch failure.

what is it? At me 2x1070ti and 1x1070 give 45mh, and at you 1x1070 gives 35 mh, it is the big overclocking and from here mistakes

[rvwf]

Version 0.0.4! Added linux binary, windows binary soon.

Improved fugue, echo, shavite performance.

performance comparison vs 0.0.3:

0.0.3

Code:

|||||||||||||||| RVWF's X16r miner rvwf/0.0.3
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:00:52| 4 GPU started
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:00:54| GPU2: GeForce GTX 1070 Ti, 9818.82 kH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:00:54| GPU3: GeForce GTX 1080 Ti, 15.74 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:00:54| GPU0: GeForce GTX 1080 Ti, 16.63 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:00:54| GPU1: GeForce GTX 1070 Ti, 11.97 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:00:55| Total: 59.48 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:00:56| Total: 61.26 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:00:56| Total: 61.55 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:00:57| Total: 61.57 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:00:58| GPU2: GeForce GTX 1070, 12.58 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:00:58| GPU1: GeForce GTX 1070 Ti, 13.66 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:00:58| GPU3: GeForce GTX 1080 Ti, 18.97 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:00:58| Total: 61.55 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:00:59| Total: 61.54 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:00:59| Total: 61.55 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:01:00| Total: 61.53 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:01:01| Total: 61.53 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:01:02| GPU1: GeForce GTX 1070 Ti, 13.70 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:01:02| GPU3: GeForce GTX 1080 Ti, 19.01 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:01:02| Total: 61.53 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:01:02| GPU2: GeForce GTX 1070, 11.94 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:01:02| GPU0: GeForce GTX 1080 Ti, 18.90 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:01:02| Total: 63.78 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:01:03| Total: 63.85 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:01:04| Total: 63.90 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:01:04| Total: 63.94 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:01:05| Total: 63.96 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:01:06| GPU2: GeForce GTX 1070, 12.32 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:01:06| GPU3: GeForce GTX 1080 Ti, 18.93 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:01:06| Total: 63.97 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:01:06| GPU1: GeForce GTX 1070 Ti, 13.68 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:01:07| Total: 63.97 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:01:07| Total: 63.97 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:01:08| Total: 63.93 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:01:09| Total: 63.93 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:01:10| GPU2: GeForce GTX 1070, 12.36 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:01:10| GPU3: GeForce GTX 1080 Ti, 18.97 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:01:10| Total: 63.96 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:01:10| GPU1: GeForce GTX 1070 Ti, 13.69 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:01:10| Total: 63.90 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:01:11| Total: 63.83 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:01:12| Total: 63.75 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:01:12| GPU0: GeForce GTX 1080 Ti, 18.90 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:01:13| Total: 63.78 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:01:13| Total: 63.77 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:01:14| GPU2: GeForce GTX 1070, 12.07 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:01:14| GPU1: GeForce GTX 1070 Ti, 13.64 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:01:14| GPU3: GeForce GTX 1080 Ti, 18.98 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:01:14| Total: 63.72 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:01:15| Total: 63.73 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:01:16| Total: 63.78 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:01:16| Total: 63.75 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:01:17| Total: 63.77 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:01:18| GPU2: GeForce GTX 1070, 12.32 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:01:18| GPU3: GeForce GTX 1080 Ti, 18.98 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:01:18| Total: 63.77 MH/s

0.0.3 experimental

Code:

|||||||||||||||| RVWF's X16r miner rvwf/0.0.3
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:02:04| 4 GPU started
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:02:04| GPU3: Experimantal mode ENABLED
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:02:04| GPU0: Experimantal mode ENABLED
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:02:04| GPU2: Experimantal mode ENABLED
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:02:04| GPU1: Experimantal mode ENABLED
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:02:06| GPU2: GeForce GTX 1070, 10.27 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:02:06| GPU3: GeForce GTX 1080 Ti, 16.61 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:02:06| GPU0: GeForce GTX 1080 Ti, 17.29 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:02:06| GPU1: GeForce GTX 1070 Ti, 13.53 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:02:07| Total: 63.50 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:02:07| Total: 64.40 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:02:08| Total: 64.72 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:02:09| Total: 64.77 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:02:09| Total: 64.79 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:02:10| GPU2: GeForce GTX 1070, 12.77 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:02:10| GPU1: GeForce GTX 1070 Ti, 14.40 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:02:10| GPU3: GeForce GTX 1080 Ti, 20.53 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:02:10| Total: 64.81 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:02:11| Total: 64.80 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:02:11| Total: 64.82 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:02:12| Total: 64.84 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:02:13| Total: 64.85 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:02:13| GPU0: GeForce GTX 1080 Ti, 20.31 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:02:14| GPU2: GeForce GTX 1070, 12.77 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:02:14| GPU3: GeForce GTX 1080 Ti, 20.38 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:02:14| Total: 67.86 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:02:14| GPU1: GeForce GTX 1070 Ti, 14.32 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:02:14| Total: 67.84 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:02:15| Total: 67.72 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:02:16| Total: 67.74 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:02:16| Total: 67.76 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:02:17| Total: 67.77 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:02:18| GPU2: GeForce GTX 1070, 12.83 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:02:18| GPU3: GeForce GTX 1080 Ti, 20.55 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:02:18| Total: 67.76 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:02:18| GPU1: GeForce GTX 1070 Ti, 14.30 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:02:18| Total: 67.73 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:02:19| Total: 67.72 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:02:20| Total: 67.75 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:02:20| Total: 67.75 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:02:21| Total: 67.75 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:02:22| GPU2: GeForce GTX 1070, 12.77 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:02:22| GPU3: GeForce GTX 1080 Ti, 20.57 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:02:22| Total: 67.76 MH/s

0.0.4

Code:

|||||||||||||||| RVWF's X16r miner rvwf/0.0.4
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:02:53| 4 GPU started
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:02:54| GPU2: GeForce GTX 1070, 10.69 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:02:54| GPU3: GeForce GTX 1080 Ti, 16.40 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:02:55| GPU0: GeForce GTX 1080 Ti, 16.47 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:02:55| GPU1: GeForce GTX 1070 Ti, 12.82 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:02:55| Total: 60.90 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:02:56| Total: 61.88 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:02:57| Total: 61.95 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:02:57| Total: 61.91 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:02:58| GPU2: GeForce GTX 1070, 11.99 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:02:58| GPU3: GeForce GTX 1080 Ti, 19.22 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:02:58| Total: 61.89 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:02:59| GPU1: GeForce GTX 1070 Ti, 13.72 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:02:59| Total: 61.88 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:00| Total: 61.87 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:00| Total: 61.86 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:01| Total: 61.83 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:02| GPU2: GeForce GTX 1070, 12.00 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:02| GPU3: GeForce GTX 1080 Ti, 19.20 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:02| Total: 61.79 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:02| GPU0: GeForce GTX 1080 Ti, 19.35 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:02| Total: 64.67 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:03| GPU1: GeForce GTX 1070 Ti, 13.67 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:03| Total: 64.55 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:04| Total: 64.52 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:05| Total: 64.52 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:05| Total: 64.51 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:06| GPU2: GeForce GTX 1070, 12.27 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:06| GPU3: GeForce GTX 1080 Ti, 19.29 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:06| Total: 64.52 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:07| Total: 64.54 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:07| GPU1: GeForce GTX 1070 Ti, 13.73 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:08| Total: 64.54 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:08| Total: 64.50 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:09| Total: 64.50 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:10| GPU2: GeForce GTX 1070, 12.22 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:10| GPU3: GeForce GTX 1080 Ti, 19.20 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:10| Total: 64.46 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:11| Total: 64.47 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:11| GPU1: GeForce GTX 1070 Ti, 13.71 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:11| Total: 64.49 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:12| Total: 64.50 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:13| Total: 64.51 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:13| GPU0: GeForce GTX 1080 Ti, 19.29 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:13| Total: 64.54 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:14| GPU2: GeForce GTX 1070, 12.09 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:14| GPU3: GeForce GTX 1080 Ti, 19.02 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:14| Total: 64.51 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:15| Total: 64.51 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:15| GPU1: GeForce GTX 1070 Ti, 13.69 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:16| Total: 64.52 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:16| Total: 64.51 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:17| Total: 64.51 MH/s

0.0.4 experimental

Code:

|||||||||||||||| RVWF's X16r miner rvwf/0.0.4
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:40| 4 GPU started
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:40| GPU1: Experimantal mode ENABLED
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:40| GPU0: Experimantal mode ENABLED
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:40| GPU2: Experimantal mode ENABLED
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:40| GPU3: Experimantal mode ENABLED
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:42| GPU2: GeForce GTX 1070, 10.30 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:42| GPU3: GeForce GTX 1080 Ti, 16.62 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:42| GPU0: GeForce GTX 1080 Ti, 17.58 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:42| GPU1: GeForce GTX 1070 Ti, 12.94 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:43| Total: 64.04 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:44| Total: 65.48 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:44| Total: 65.52 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:45| Total: 65.57 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:46| GPU2: GeForce GTX 1070, 12.86 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:46| GPU3: GeForce GTX 1080 Ti, 20.73 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:46| Total: 65.51 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:46| GPU1: GeForce GTX 1070 Ti, 14.44 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:46| Total: 65.53 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:47| Total: 65.58 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:48| Total: 65.55 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:48| Total: 65.55 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:49| Total: 65.58 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:49| GPU0: GeForce GTX 1080 Ti, 20.94 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:50| GPU2: GeForce GTX 1070, 12.81 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:50| GPU3: GeForce GTX 1080 Ti, 20.75 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:50| Total: 68.94 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:50| GPU1: GeForce GTX 1070 Ti, 14.41 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:50| Total: 68.96 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:51| Total: 68.88 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:52| Total: 68.92 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:52| Total: 68.91 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:53| Total: 68.91 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:54| GPU2: GeForce GTX 1070, 12.85 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:54| GPU1: GeForce GTX 1070 Ti, 14.48 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:54| GPU3: GeForce GTX 1080 Ti, 20.67 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:54| Total: 68.89 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:54| Total: 68.88 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:55| Total: 68.90 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:56| Total: 68.87 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:56| Total: 68.89 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:57| Total: 68.86 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:58| GPU2: GeForce GTX 1070, 13.01 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:58| GPU3: GeForce GTX 1080 Ti, 20.94 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:58| Total: 68.85 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:58| GPU1: GeForce GTX 1070 Ti, 14.28 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:58| Total: 68.84 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:03:59| Total: 68.85 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:04:00| Total: 68.89 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:04:00| Total: 68.86 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:04:01| GPU0: GeForce GTX 1080 Ti, 20.88 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:04:01| Total: 68.85 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:04:02| GPU2: GeForce GTX 1070, 12.88 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:04:02| GPU1: GeForce GTX 1070 Ti, 14.40 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 12 15:04:02| GPU3: GeForce GTX 1080 Ti, 20.62 MH/s

cards running +100 core +500 mem

[miner32342]

0.0.4 windows ? ))))))))))))

[miner32342]

Thanks for the update.

BTW, I like the fact that you mining engine resets a card if it detects any problems.  A very good feature to have and improves my uptime.  I use it as a gage so that if I'm pushing my cards too hard, just back it off a bit.

Can't wait to see what you have in store for the next update.

not always reset when an error occurs with the memory, then Miner restarts, and because of this the developer is often started.
|2018 - 04 - 11 17:00:49| GPU1: unspecified launch failure
|2018 - 04 - 11 17:00:49|Cuda error in func 'cuda_check_cpu_setTarget' at line 41 : unspecified launch failure.
 GPU3: unspecified launch failure
Cuda error in func 'cuda_check_cpu_setTarget' at line 41 : unspecified launch failure.
|2018 - 04 - 11 17:00:49| GPU4: GeForce GTX 1070, 35.93 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 11 17:00:49| GPU0: Gigabyte GTX 1070, 35.45 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 11 17:00:49| GPU5: GeForce GTX 1070, 96.54 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 11 17:00:49| GPU5: unspecified launch failure
Cuda error in func 'cuda_check_cpu_setTarget' at line 41 : unspecified launch failure.
|2018 - 04 - 11 17:00:49| GPU0: unspecified launch failure
|2018 - 04 - 11 17:00:49|Cuda error in func 'cuda_check_cpu_setTarget' at line 41 : unspecified launch failure.
 GPU4: unspecified launch failure
Cuda error in func 'cuda_check_cpu_setTarget' at line 41 : unspecified launch failure.

what is it? At me 2x1070ti and 1x1070 give 45mh, and at you 1x1070 gives 35 mh, it is the big overclocking and from here mistakes

core +50 , mem +500 often such an error flies where the card gives you excellent speed and falls

[Pantostao]

windooows

[rvwf]

Added 0.0.4 windows version

[Pantostao]

  ;Dthx

[Bluecheese]

Added 0.0.4 windows version

Thanks bro!!

[Pantostao]

mining on FEE

stratum_subscribe timed out... every 3 seconds

and doesn't change to our pool  

[rvwf]

Due to a serious bug in windows version, please, update to 1.0.4a version

[rvwf]

mining on FEE

stratum_subscribe timed out... every 3 seconds

and doesn't change to our pool 

fixed in 1.0.4a

[ThePunisher49X]

Will you posting a tutorial on how to get started?
My experience level on running a miner is 0.
This will be the first one so need step by step instructions on what commands to type in.
Will be using the updated version of your windows 1.0.4a release.
Thanks.

[Pantostao]

mining on FEE

stratum_subscribe timed out... every 3 seconds

and doesn't change to our pool 

fixed in 1.0.4a

0.0.4a  and it's working perfect! 

[leonix007]

Will you posting a tutorial on how to get started?
My experience level on running a miner is 0.
This will be the first one so need step by step instructions on what commands to type in.
Will be using the updated version of your windows 1.0.4a release.
Thanks.

this is same miner other app out there,

download the files

extracting them

create .bat files with the ff:

./rvwf_miner  -o stratum+tcp://server:port -u WALLET -p x -e

[Lukras]

who has any overclocking and what kind of cards, I have a 004 version with overclocking to auto switching all the coins stably works at 1060, and on 1070ti the computer at maximum overclock at normal auto switching goes into reboot. 1070ti while on version 002.
my 3x1060  core 2000Mhz  memory  4500 --- 25 Mh ,    3x1070ti  2000mhz   4400  ---  47 Mh

[N0pr3s3n7]

hmm pretty much looks like an ccminer generally , but did you remove the API of it ? Or will you implement new one ? I'm using ethcontrol application which is like awesome miner and it needs api to restart / control miner
also what overclocking do you recommend ? You used to say that it depends memory  ?

[zoko_cx]

Is this miner with virus which collects keys from wallets ?

Next to all open source miners and few good closed one, who will used this one.
Watch out boys, I heard that there are miner for raven with cleans your wallets

[duhjeff]

Is this miner with virus which collects keys from wallets ?

Next to all open source miners and few good closed one, who will used this one.
Watch out boys, I heard that there are miner for raven with cleans your wallets

Well, I don’t think you’ll lose much of raven coin since 1050 doesn’t get much right?

I’ve been using this miner for a few days now.....I mean I don’t see much gain over enemy, but what I can tell that it does run a lot smoother for some strange reason.... and my wallet is still full from what I see

Again, keep up the good works and now get the next update for pigeon coin

[miner32342]

Version 0.0.4a



0.0.4a


Linux x64
https://mega.nz/#!Y7BR1Zya!RKTFxjRjNYuX0qIASSidD_j6hBT3GjmEbPdvevK_tNI
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1BwoZGvHySWzNc6LyZXPRuap501yzl76R

WIndows
https://mega.nz/#!g24RQZgS!XGOgpagGO_4i46rhjojj2i0-LSGXdbxoGPCXXCv3aSc
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1b_LBmEoZjav3BFHhusfl7-6UisrnvBlv
virustotal
https://www.virustotal.com/#/file-analysis/MWJhZDFkZDI1NzRmZGUwY2MwNjQzZGNmODI2MjEzZTI6MTUyMzU1NTIxNg==

memory 0, kernel 0 pl 85, one farm flies with an error


not always reset when an error occurs with the memory, then Miner restarts, and because of this the developer is often started.
|2018 - 04 - 11 17:00:49| GPU1: unspecified launch failure
|2018 - 04 - 11 17:00:49|Cuda error in func 'cuda_check_cpu_setTarget' at line 41 : unspecified launch failure.
 GPU3: unspecified launch failure
Cuda error in func 'cuda_check_cpu_setTarget' at line 41 : unspecified launch failure.
|2018 - 04 - 11 17:00:49| GPU4: GeForce GTX 1070, 35.93 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 11 17:00:49| GPU0: Gigabyte GTX 1070, 35.45 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 11 17:00:49| GPU5: GeForce GTX 1070, 96.54 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 11 17:00:49| GPU5: unspecified launch failure
Cuda error in func 'cuda_check_cpu_setTarget' at line 41 : unspecified launch failure.
|2018 - 04 - 11 17:00:49| GPU0: unspecified launch failure
|2018 - 04 - 11 17:00:49|Cuda error in func 'cuda_check_cpu_setTarget' at line 41 : unspecified launch failure.
 GPU4: unspecified launch failure
Cuda error in func 'cuda_check_cpu_setTarget' at line 41 : unspecified launch failure.

[Lukras]

not always reset when an error occurs with the memory, then Miner restarts, and because of this the developer is often started.
|2018 - 04 - 11 17:00:49| GPU1: unspecified launch failure
|2018 - 04 - 11 17:00:49|Cuda error in func 'cuda_check_cpu_setTarget' at line 41 : unspecified launch failure.
 GPU3: unspecified launch failure
Cuda error in func 'cuda_check_cpu_setTarget' at line 41 : unspecified launch failure.
|2018 - 04 - 11 17:00:49| GPU4: GeForce GTX 1070, 35.93 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 11 17:00:49| GPU0: Gigabyte GTX 1070, 35.45 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 11 17:00:49| GPU5: GeForce GTX 1070, 96.54 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 11 17:00:49| GPU5: unspecified launch failure
Cuda error in func 'cuda_check_cpu_setTarget' at line 41 : unspecified launch failure.
|2018 - 04 - 11 17:00:49| GPU0: unspecified launch failure
|2018 - 04 - 11 17:00:49|Cuda error in func 'cuda_check_cpu_setTarget' at line 41 : unspecified launch failure.
 GPU4: unspecified launch failure
Cuda error in func 'cuda_check_cpu_setTarget' at line 41 : unspecified launch failure.

the problem is naturally on your side, see the power supply unit, the raiser, the motherboard, yes, anything, but I personally understand that the problem is not in the miner, but in you.
 WIN 7?

[miner32342]

not always reset when an error occurs with the memory, then Miner restarts, and because of this the developer is often started.
|2018 - 04 - 11 17:00:49| GPU1: unspecified launch failure
|2018 - 04 - 11 17:00:49|Cuda error in func 'cuda_check_cpu_setTarget' at line 41 : unspecified launch failure.
 GPU3: unspecified launch failure
Cuda error in func 'cuda_check_cpu_setTarget' at line 41 : unspecified launch failure.
|2018 - 04 - 11 17:00:49| GPU4: GeForce GTX 1070, 35.93 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 11 17:00:49| GPU0: Gigabyte GTX 1070, 35.45 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 11 17:00:49| GPU5: GeForce GTX 1070, 96.54 MH/s
|2018 - 04 - 11 17:00:49| GPU5: unspecified launch failure
Cuda error in func 'cuda_check_cpu_setTarget' at line 41 : unspecified launch failure.
|2018 - 04 - 11 17:00:49| GPU0: unspecified launch failure
|2018 - 04 - 11 17:00:49|Cuda error in func 'cuda_check_cpu_setTarget' at line 41 : unspecified launch failure.
 GPU4: unspecified launch failure
Cuda error in func 'cuda_check_cpu_setTarget' at line 41 : unspecified launch failure.

the problem is naturally on your side, see the power supply unit, the raiser, the motherboard, yes, anything, but I personally understand that the problem is not in the miner, but in you.
 WIN 7?

win 10

[oskarwu]

mining on FEE

stratum_subscribe timed out... every 3 seconds

and doesn't change to our pool 

fixed in 1.0.4a

Hi rvwf :

Is that possible for you to create a Bitcore optimized ccminer ? Bitcore use timetravel10 hash function and quite close to x16r did ...

Oskar

[rvwf]

Hi rvwf :

Is that possible for you to create a Bitcore optimized ccminer ? Bitcore use timetravel10 hash function and quite close to x16r did ...

Oskar

hmm pretty much looks like an ccminer generally , but did you remove the API of it ? Or will you implement new one ? I'm using ethcontrol application which is like awesome miner and it needs api to restart / control miner
also what overclocking do you recommend ? You used to say that it depends memory  ?

First I want to squeeze the maximum of the performance from x16r

[Lukras]

you can implement local network control by (example) --api 192.168.2.43:42000? ewfb (Equihash) is perfectly implemented, and monitoring the temperature of the cards and farm data.

[leonix007]

Hi rvwf :

Is that possible for you to create a Bitcore optimized ccminer ? Bitcore use timetravel10 hash function and quite close to x16r did ...

Oskar

hmm pretty much looks like an ccminer generally , but did you remove the API of it ? Or will you implement new one ? I'm using ethcontrol application which is like awesome miner and it needs api to restart / control miner
also what overclocking do you recommend ? You used to say that it depends memory  ?

First I want to squeeze the maximum of the performance from x16r

Any default power consumption on these miner for 1080ti?

observed it is hotter

ccminer has a visible power consumption on each card, appreciate if it has also this kind of feature

[duhjeff]

not sure if it's relevant but I got an issue and maybe you guys can help me with this..

so i'm running this miner on a rig that consists of 4 1080 and 8 1060's...   it runs for a bit and then TDR crash... I noticed that when I x16r algo....some of the gpu temp doesn't move up (i assume it's not being used).   Is this normal for this program to slowly fire up all the GPUs?

[Lukras]

theme alive? will there be an update or 0.4 latest version?

[NS-Soul]

not sure if it's relevant but I got an issue and maybe you guys can help me with this..

so i'm running this miner on a rig that consists of 4 1080 and 8 1060's...   it runs for a bit and then TDR crash... I noticed that when I x16r algo....some of the gpu temp doesn't move up (i assume it's not being used).   Is this normal for this program to slowly fire up all the GPUs?

Is there any no problems within your setup? I think it is not normal, although it depends on your GPU's set up so it will take effect on your temperature. If your GPU's is not in mining system it will not consume to much heat.

[madjpm]

Can you update the links plz ? Can't download the windows version (virus problem...)

[duhjeff]

not sure if it's relevant but I got an issue and maybe you guys can help me with this..

so i'm running this miner on a rig that consists of 4 1080 and 8 1060's...   it runs for a bit and then TDR crash... I noticed that when I x16r algo....some of the gpu temp doesn't move up (i assume it's not being used).   Is this normal for this program to slowly fire up all the GPUs?

Is there any no problems within your setup? I think it is not normal, although it depends on your GPU's set up so it will take effect on your temperature. If your GPU's is not in mining system it will not consume to much heat.

I'm not sure.  It runs on equihash no problem but it doesn't work with x16r for some reason.  Tried reinstall windows and still getting same result (TDR failure even @ 0 oc).

[Tikilou]

Hi, apparently, theses releases don't respect the GPL licence, your software is based on ccminer code, open source and free software under GPL v3 Licence.

Your have to release the licence source code of your releases, without that, your releases are not legit/legal, it's WAREZ.

Actually your asking fee, but you theft the code for your own profit and keep what you have added for your own profit too, this is bad, and selfish, if your don't release the source code, including your own added code. Please respect the work of original dev's, comply with the law, free software has licenses like any proprietary software, acting in a manner contrary to these licenses equates your actions to piracy, counterfeiting.
If your don't, GPL violation will then have to react to enforce the law.

Thanks


http://gpl-violations.org

The GNU General Public License is a free, copyleft license for software and other kinds of works.

The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed to take away your freedom to share and change the works. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change all versions of a program--to make sure it remains free software for all its users. We, the Free Software Foundation, use the GNU General Public License for most of our software; it applies also to any other work released this way by its authors. You can apply it to your programs, too.

When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for them if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs, and that you know you can do these things.

To protect your rights, we need to prevent others from denying you these rights or asking you to surrender the rights. Therefore, you have certain responsibilities if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it: responsibilities to respect the freedom of others.

For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same freedoms that you received. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.

Developers that use the GNU GPL protect your rights with two steps: (1) assert copyright on the software, and (2) offer you this License giving you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify it.

For the developers' and authors' protection, the GPL clearly explains that there is no warranty for this free software. For both users' and authors' sake, the GPL requires that modified versions be marked as changed, so that their problems will not be attributed erroneously to authors of previous versions.

Some devices are designed to deny users access to install or run modified versions of the software inside them, although the manufacturer can do so. This is fundamentally incompatible with the aim of protecting users' freedom to change the software. The systematic pattern of such abuse occurs in the area of products for individuals to use, which is precisely where it is most unacceptable. Therefore, we have designed this version of the GPL to prohibit the practice for those products. If such problems arise substantially in other domains, we stand ready to extend this provision to those domains in future versions of the GPL, as needed to protect the freedom of users.

Finally, every program is threatened constantly by software patents. States should not allow patents to restrict development and use of software on general-purpose computers, but in those that do, we wish to avoid the special danger that patents applied to a free program could make it effectively proprietary. To prevent this, the GPL assures that patents cannot be used to render the program non-free.

The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and modification follow.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html

[nitrobg]

GPL is not law, it is a voluntary license and it is not enforced.

[Apocalypse Onion]

GPL is not law, it is a voluntary license and it is not enforced.

Be that as it may, it seems to me this community relies on a lot of freely contributed open source software. A little bit of respect for the GPL way of doing things helps encourage more coders to follow that path - and we all benefit.

[sabercrypto]

GPL is not law, it is a voluntary license and it is not enforced.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/05/13/gnu_gpl_enforceable_contract/

[nitrobg]

GPL is not law, it is a voluntary license and it is not enforced.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/05/13/gnu_gpl_enforceable_contract/

That'll never happen, don't worry. This is about two companies suing each other for commercial products.
The worst thing that can happen is to make RMS shed a tear.

[Tikilou]

GPL is not law, it is a voluntary license and it is not enforced.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/05/13/gnu_gpl_enforceable_contract/

That'll never happen, don't worry. This is about two companies suing each other for commercial products.
The worst thing that can happen is to make RMS shed a tear.

This is different now, thanks to the crypto world, a generous donator gived lot of bitcoin for theses things too, so this is not a problem anymore.

Free Software Foundation receives $1 million donation from Pineapple Fund  => https://www.fsf.org/news/free-software-foundation-receives-1-million-donation-from-pineapple-fund.

Ps : with the fees, theses releases with this stolen code is a commercial product.

[Lukras]

as I understand it, after such a debate, you can not wait for the new version, sadly.

[miner32342]

the developer disappeared?

[prokpn]

how does it work with the API?

[Gema]

Due to a serious bug in windows version, please, update to 1.0.4a version

where get 1.0.4a? link please.

[Lukras]

Due to a serious bug in windows version, please, update to 1.0.4a version

where get 1.0.4a? link please.

z-enemy 1.09 now the best