|
bullus
|
 |
July 15, 2014, 04:06:24 PM |
|
I have it in my config "extranonce-subscription" : true |
btc 16LWhms487bzCxQWq5oeW8SMDPmU2rvQjf
|
|
|
miner256
Newbie
 Offline
Activity: 23
Merit: 0
|
|
July 15, 2014, 04:20:12 PM |
|
Hi Guys, I have written a little bit of code to check the different algorithm profits on TradeMyBit and then to switch my ccminer accordingly. I use GTX 750 Ti so I have to use ccminer and so the need to right my own code. I check the profit every 5 minutes, like this. First value is 'normalized' profit from TMB API, second value is my corrected profit taking into account my rig's hash rate and power consumption. nist5 0.00022 0.00589
x13 0.00072 0.00532
x11 0.00051 0.00481
nscrypt 0.00269 0.00129
scrypt 0.00068 0.00068
x15 0.00007 0.00034
2014-07-15 08:54:34 Best Rate: nist5 0.00589 switch
x13 0.00102 0.00754
nist5 0.00016 0.00431
x11 0.00039 0.00372
nscrypt 0.00248 0.00119
scrypt 0.00080 0.00080
x15 0.00007 0.00034
2014-07-15 08:59:35 Best Rate: x13 0.00754 switch
When it says 'switch' it will kill the running ccminer and start a new one to the new port/algorithm. However I think it is switching too frequently as my profits are not so good in testing. Can someone who understands this better than me (wouldn't be hard) comment on some logic on when to switch algorithms to maximise profit. Too quickly and you lose shares? Too slow and you stay in the less profitable algorithm. The profits seem to fluctuate a lot. Maybe I need a rolling average? What about difficulty?? Thanks |
|
|
|
|
juanbond
Member
Offline
Activity: 96
Merit: 17
|
|
July 16, 2014, 05:20:17 AM
Last edit: July 16, 2014, 03:31:10 PM by juanbond |
|
Does anyone else notice with sgminer5 that the 4010-4013 multi-multi ports seem to lag considerably behind what coin/algo is in the top profitability spot on the TMB homepage? My sgminer5 seems to switch ports sometimes up to two minutes after the top spot changes on the website... Are there config settings I should be adjusting to make the switches quicker, or is this an issue on the TMB stratum side of things?
EDIT: I'm now noticing lag of up to two minutes between when an algo goes into the top profitability spot and when its multi-multi port opens up.
|
|
|
|
|
jkminkov
|
|
July 16, 2014, 08:47:29 AM |
|
TMB_Multi-Multi_X11 stable for 10 seconds
"failover-switch-delay": "10",
drop that value
|
.:31211457:. 100 dollars in one place talking - Dudes, hooray, Bitcoin against us just one, but we are growing in numbers!
|
|
|
|
RoyalSands
|
|
July 16, 2014, 09:55:23 AM |
|
Re:
2014-07-15 at 09:28pm EST: Normalization values have been updated as follows (compared to scrypt) X11=5.5, X13=3.8, X15=3.4, Nist5=16.5
It would be really nice if we could input our own ratios or actual hashrates at each algo because this will vary wildly from person to person and will depend on their hardware and tweaking abilities. Without that we have no idea if we are mining what is actually most profitable for us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Xenocyde
|
|
July 16, 2014, 09:58:26 AM |
|
Does anyone else notice with sgminer5 that the 4010-4013 multi-multi ports seem to lag considerably behind what coin/algo is in the top profitability spot on the TMB homepage? My sgminer5 seems to switch ports at least 30-60 seconds after the top spot changes on the website... Are there config settings I should be adjusting to make the switches quicker, or is this an issue on the TMB stratum side of things?
Quoted from below the BTC/Hashrate chart: "Hashrate's are a 10minute average, they may be lagged a bit  " |
|
|
|
|
StuffOfInterest
|
|
July 16, 2014, 12:07:24 PM |
|
How about an API call for raw (non normalized) BTC/Day/Mhash earnings per algorithm?
I'm planning to extend my autoswitcher (currently works with NiceHash) to support TradeMyBit. To make it work correctly I need the non-normalized earnings per algorithm as I factor in hash rates myself to get the best bang for the hash. The "bestalgo" call has the format I want, but it currently has normalized values. If another key/value pair could be added per algorithm for the non-normalized values this would work great.
|
|
|
|
miner256
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 23
Merit: 0
|
|
July 16, 2014, 12:26:31 PM |
|
Just done the same thing! And I wanted raw earnings as well. All I did was take their settings and divide all values by their normalisation factor. Not so hard, but it is a pain to keep up to date. Raw would be so much better. Simple python dictionary. tmb_n = {}
tmb_n['scrypt'] = 1.000
tmb_n['nscrypt'] = 0.470
tmb_n['x11'] = 5.500
tmb_n['x13'] = 3.800
tmb_n['x15'] = 3.400
tmb_n['nist5'] = 16.500
I check every 5 minutes, then if the difference is more than 5% I will switch. If less than 5% I leave it run. I also added a check against NiceHash with a view to adding code to switch pool if needed but so far NiceHash never beats the reported TMB numbers. For example: ------------------------------------------
2014-07-16 12:22:39 Current Rate: x13 0.0107
2014-07-16 12:22:40 NiceHash Best Rate: x13 0.0063
2014-07-16 12:22:40 Best Rate: x13 0.0107 stay: algo still best
------------------------------------------
2014-07-16 12:27:41 Current Rate: x13 0.0081
2014-07-16 12:27:41 NiceHash Best Rate: x13 0.0064
2014-07-16 12:27:41 Best Rate: x11 0.0083 stay: performance +3.0%
------------------------------------------
2014-07-16 12:32:42 Current Rate: x13 0.0085
2014-07-16 12:32:42 NiceHash Best Rate: x13 0.0065
2014-07-16 12:32:42 Best Rate: x13 0.0085 stay: algo still best
------------------------------------------
2014-07-16 12:37:43 Current Rate: x13 0.0143
2014-07-16 12:37:44 NiceHash Best Rate: x13 0.0065
2014-07-16 12:37:44 Best Rate: x11 0.0226 switch: performance +57.3%
------------------------------------------
2014-07-16 12:42:45 Current Rate: x11 0.0091
2014-07-16 12:42:45 NiceHash Best Rate: x13 0.0065
2014-07-16 12:42:45 Best Rate: x13 0.0098 switch: performance +8.6%
------------------------------------------
2014-07-16 12:47:46 Current Rate: x13 0.0129
2014-07-16 12:47:46 NiceHash Best Rate: x13 0.0065
2014-07-16 12:47:46 Best Rate: x13 0.0129 stay: algo still best
------------------------------------------
2014-07-16 12:52:47 Current Rate: x13 0.0088
2014-07-16 12:52:47 NiceHash Best Rate: x13 0.0065
2014-07-16 12:52:47 Best Rate: x13 0.0088 stay: algo still best
How about an API call for raw (non normalized) BTC/Day/Mhash earnings per algorithm?
I'm planning to extend my autoswitcher (currently works with NiceHash) to support TradeMyBit. To make it work correctly I need the non-normalized earnings per algorithm as I factor in hash rates myself to get the best bang for the hash. The "bestalgo" call has the format I want, but it currently has normalized values. If another key/value pair could be added per algorithm for the non-normalized values this would work great.
|
|
|
|
|
|
StuffOfInterest
|
|
July 16, 2014, 12:52:07 PM |
|
Just done the same thing! And I wanted raw earnings as well. All I did was take their settings and divide all values by their normalisation factor. Not so hard, but it is a pain to keep up to date. Raw would be so much better. Simple python dictionary. tmb_n = {}
tmb_n['scrypt'] = 1.000
tmb_n['nscrypt'] = 0.470
tmb_n['x11'] = 5.500
tmb_n['x13'] = 3.800
tmb_n['x15'] = 3.400
tmb_n['nist5'] = 16.500
I check every 5 minutes, then if the difference is more than 5% I will switch. If less than 5% I leave it run. I also added a check against NiceHash with a view to adding code to switch pool if needed but so far NiceHash never beats the reported TMB numbers. For example: ------------------------------------------
2014-07-16 12:22:39 Current Rate: x13 0.0107
2014-07-16 12:22:40 NiceHash Best Rate: x13 0.0063
2014-07-16 12:22:40 Best Rate: x13 0.0107 stay: algo still best
------------------------------------------
2014-07-16 12:27:41 Current Rate: x13 0.0081
2014-07-16 12:27:41 NiceHash Best Rate: x13 0.0064
2014-07-16 12:27:41 Best Rate: x11 0.0083 stay: performance +3.0%
------------------------------------------
2014-07-16 12:32:42 Current Rate: x13 0.0085
2014-07-16 12:32:42 NiceHash Best Rate: x13 0.0065
2014-07-16 12:32:42 Best Rate: x13 0.0085 stay: algo still best
------------------------------------------
2014-07-16 12:37:43 Current Rate: x13 0.0143
2014-07-16 12:37:44 NiceHash Best Rate: x13 0.0065
2014-07-16 12:37:44 Best Rate: x11 0.0226 switch: performance +57.3%
------------------------------------------
2014-07-16 12:42:45 Current Rate: x11 0.0091
2014-07-16 12:42:45 NiceHash Best Rate: x13 0.0065
2014-07-16 12:42:45 Best Rate: x13 0.0098 switch: performance +8.6%
------------------------------------------
2014-07-16 12:47:46 Current Rate: x13 0.0129
2014-07-16 12:47:46 NiceHash Best Rate: x13 0.0065
2014-07-16 12:47:46 Best Rate: x13 0.0129 stay: algo still best
------------------------------------------
2014-07-16 12:52:47 Current Rate: x13 0.0088
2014-07-16 12:52:47 NiceHash Best Rate: x13 0.0065
2014-07-16 12:52:47 Best Rate: x13 0.0088 stay: algo still best
How about an API call for raw (non normalized) BTC/Day/Mhash earnings per algorithm?
I'm planning to extend my autoswitcher (currently works with NiceHash) to support TradeMyBit. To make it work correctly I need the non-normalized earnings per algorithm as I factor in hash rates myself to get the best bang for the hash. The "bestalgo" call has the format I want, but it currently has normalized values. If another key/value pair could be added per algorithm for the non-normalized values this would work great.
De-normalizing will probably be my workaround as well. Unfortunately it means the users have to update those values every time the pool changes the normalization factors. When comparing NiceHash to TMB are you also factoring in the 2% withdrawl fee on TMB? I'm curious myself to see how the two services stack up but it will be a week or two before I have everything wired up as I don't have a lot of time to work on side projects. |
|
|
|
miner256
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 23
Merit: 0
|
|
July 16, 2014, 12:59:50 PM |
|
No, you are correct I do not take into account the 2% withdraw fee. To be honest I was just adding the NiceHash numbers to give me a rough idea of how they are comparing. So far TMB is winning (and the gap is more than 2%). I will factor in that 2% fee from now on. Then next thing to do is to actually record earning properly so that we aren't misled by the stats given to us by the pools!! Having said all that, NiceHash has just overtaken TMB!! I need to get that pool switch code working ------------------------------------------
2014-07-16 13:47:51 Current Rate: nist5 0.0075
2014-07-16 13:47:51 NiceHash Best Rate: x13 0.0070
2014-07-16 13:47:51 Best Rate: nist5 0.0075 stay: algo still best
------------------------------------------
2014-07-16 13:52:52 Current Rate: nist5 0.0068
2014-07-16 13:52:52 NiceHash Best Rate: x13 0.0070
2014-07-16 13:52:52 Best Rate: nist5 0.0068 stay: algo still best
------------------------------------------
2014-07-16 13:57:54 Current Rate: nist5 0.0027
2014-07-16 13:57:54 NiceHash Best Rate: x13 0.0070
2014-07-16 13:57:54 Best Rate: x11 0.0066 switch: performance +138.9%
De-normalizing will probably be my workaround as well. Unfortunately it means the users have to update those values every time the pool changes the normalization factors.
When comparing NiceHash to TMB are you also factoring in the 2% withdrawl fee on TMB? I'm curious myself to see how the two services stack up but it will be a week or two before I have everything wired up.
|
|
|
|
|
juanbond
Member
Offline
Activity: 96
Merit: 17
|
|
July 16, 2014, 03:20:23 PM |
|
Does anyone else notice with sgminer5 that the 4010-4013 multi-multi ports seem to lag considerably behind what coin/algo is in the top profitability spot on the TMB homepage? My sgminer5 seems to switch ports at least 30-60 seconds after the top spot changes on the website... Are there config settings I should be adjusting to make the switches quicker, or is this an issue on the TMB stratum side of things?
Quoted from below the BTC/Hashrate chart: "Hashrate's are a 10minute average, they may be lagged a bit " Yeah, what I'm talking about has nothing to do with the hashrate displays...rather that the multi-multi ports don't seem to open up when they become the most profitable... |
|
|
|
juanbond
Member
Offline
Activity: 96
Merit: 17
|
|
July 16, 2014, 03:23:54 PM |
|
TMB_Multi-Multi_X11 stable for 10 seconds
"failover-switch-delay": "10",
drop that value
Tried that, but this setting isn't having any substantial effect on the timing problem, since it appears that the ports simply aren't opening up in a timely fashion when they become most profitable (according to the homepage). Often times I'll even notice that two or more multi-multi ports are simultaneously open for a minute or more. Something weird is going on... Merc, are you aware of this? |
|
|
|
|
Txslady
|
|
July 16, 2014, 05:21:01 PM |
|
Can I set my own difficulty on X11 or X13 via the password?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pelk
|
|
July 16, 2014, 05:30:36 PM |
|
TMB_Multi-Multi_X11 stable for 10 seconds
"failover-switch-delay": "10",
drop that value
Tried that, but this setting isn't having any substantial effect on the timing problem, since it appears that the ports simply aren't opening up in a timely fashion when they become most profitable (according to the homepage). Often times I'll even notice that two or more multi-multi ports are simultaneously open for a minute or more. Something weird is going on... Merc, are you aware of this? The mainpage is delayed if you want live multimulitport check the irc out, the two or more ports open is a sg5 problem. cheers |
|
|
|
juanbond
Member
Offline
Activity: 96
Merit: 17
|
|
July 16, 2014, 08:07:55 PM |
|
TMB_Multi-Multi_X11 stable for 10 seconds
"failover-switch-delay": "10",
drop that value
Tried that, but this setting isn't having any substantial effect on the timing problem, since it appears that the ports simply aren't opening up in a timely fashion when they become most profitable (according to the homepage). Often times I'll even notice that two or more multi-multi ports are simultaneously open for a minute or more. Something weird is going on... Merc, are you aware of this? The mainpage is delayed if you want live multimulitport check the irc out, the two or more ports open is a sg5 problem. cheers Thanks for that...yeah, so the multi-multi ports switch a bit after what the mainpage shows...I guess the switcher has some time-averaging factored in to smooth things out and avoid switching too frequently. Makes sense, thanks! |
|
|
|
jammer81
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 25
Merit: 0
|
|
July 17, 2014, 01:40:41 AM
Last edit: July 17, 2014, 04:15:09 AM by jammer81 |
|
"pools" : [
{
"name" : "TMB USW X11",
"url" : "stratum+tcp://west01.us.trademybit.com:4010",
"user": "barry.shitpeas",
"pass": "password",
"algorithm" : "darkcoin-mod"
},
{
"name" : "TMB USW X13",
"url" : "stratum+tcp://west01.us.trademybit.com:4011",
"user": "barry.shitpeas",
"pass": "password",
"algorithm" : "marucoin-mod"
},
{
"name" : "TMB USW X15",
"url" : "stratum+tcp://west01.us.trademybit.com:4012",
"user": "barry.shitpeas",
"pass": "password",
"algorithm" : "bitblock"
},
{
"name" : "TMB USW Nist5",
"url" : "stratum+tcp://west01.us.trademybit.com:4013",
"user": "barry.shitpeas",
"pass": "password",
"algorithm" : "talkcoin-mod"
},
{
"name" : "STATIC USW 1 Nist5",
"url" : "stratum+tcp://west01.us.trademybit.com:7770",
"user" : "barry.shitpeas",
"pass" : "password",
"algorithm" : "talkcoin-mod"
},
{
"name" : "STATIC USW 1 X11",
"url" : "stratum+tcp://west01.us.trademybit.com:4440",
"user" : "barry.shitpeas",
"pass" : "password",
"algorithm" : "darkcoin-mod"
},
{
"name" : "STATIC USW 1 X15",
"url" : "stratum+tcp://west01.us.trademybit.com:6660",
"user" : "barry.shitpeas",
"pass" : "password",
"algorithm" : "bitblock"
},
{
"name" : "STATIC USW 1 X13",
"url" : "stratum+tcp://west01.us.trademybit.com:5550",
"user" : "barry.shitpeas",
"pass" : "password",
"algorithm" : "marucoin-mod"
}
],
"intensity" : "20",
"thread-concurrency" : "8192",
"gpu-engine" : "1130",
"gpu-memclock" : "1500",
"gpu-powertune" : "20",
"gpu-threads" : "2",
"vectors" : "1",
"lookup-gap" : "2",
"worksize" : "128",
"shaders" : "2048",
"gpu-fan" : "0-90",
"temp-cutoff" : "95",
"temp-overheat" : "85",
"temp-target" : "72",
"auto-fan" : true,
"log" : "5",
"failover-only" : true,
"failover-switch-delay" : "30",
"no-pool-disable" : true,
"queue" : "1",
"scan-time" : "10",
"expiry" : "120",
"hamsi-expand-big" : "1"
}
I think you are over complicating things guys.... Only one port is open at any given stage. (besides Static Backup pools) No more than around 5 secs overlap delay before old port closes and new port switches. Failover is the only strategy needed. This 'multimultimultimultiport' 'extranonce-subscription' jargon is really screwing up the elegant simplicity that TMB has. (I don't know about nicehash, perhaps they are more complicated) If you are running your own API switching methods, then port 4010-4013 will NOT work correctly, use the static ports 4440,5550,6660,7770. |
|
|
|
|
juanbond
Member
Offline
Activity: 96
Merit: 17
|
|
July 17, 2014, 06:14:24 PM |
|
I'd love to see stats on percentage of time spent on the various 4010-4013 ports!
|
|
|
|
|
bullus
|
|
July 17, 2014, 07:32:27 PM
Last edit: July 17, 2014, 09:12:17 PM by bullus |
|
I'd love to see stats on percentage of time spent on the various 4010-4013 ports!
See dashboard (only x11-x13-(n)-scrypt..)? https://pool.trademybit.com/charts/ |
btc 16LWhms487bzCxQWq5oeW8SMDPmU2rvQjf
|
|
|
ltc_bilic
Member
Offline
Activity: 130
Merit: 10
|
|
July 17, 2014, 11:07:46 PM |
|
How about an API call for raw (non normalized) BTC/Day/Mhash earnings per algorithm?
I'm planning to extend my autoswitcher (currently works with NiceHash) to support TradeMyBit. To make it work correctly I need the non-normalized earnings per algorithm as I factor in hash rates myself to get the best bang for the hash. The "bestalgo" call has the format I want, but it currently has normalized values. If another key/value pair could be added per algorithm for the non-normalized values this would work great.
+1 vote for this request |
|
|
|
|
juanbond
Member
Offline
Activity: 96
Merit: 17
|
|
July 18, 2014, 02:41:37 AM |
|
Yes, I'm aware of the dashboard, but this page doesn't show what % of time each 4010-4013 port was open (which algo was most profitable at the time). |
|
|
|
|
