GPUMAX | The Bitcoin Mining Marketplace

[rjk]

FWIW, I have never been able to get a BFL with ufasoft to work on GPUMAX at all. It starts and runs and reports 100% rejects. The same software and miner works on other pools, and I tested with a working login from another rig, so I'm not sure why it rejects everything.

[1714044017]

1714044017

[1714044017]

1714044017

[1714044017]

1714044017

[QuantumFoam]

Public work has ceased it seems. I guess there's still work being done with the migration.

[e21]

I'm getting public work, but ~35% (!) rejects. Anyone else experiencing this?

One of my rigs with 1.7 GH/s running Phoenix 2 is getting 90-100% rejects, also tried phoenix 1.7.5 which got 100% rejects. On a rig with 235MH/s, phoenix 2.0 is running fine, but on newer drivers... Rig with 1.7GH/s is using 5870s/5970s, so if I update the driver I will lose a signifcant amount of MH/s. Also, I am not convinced this is driver related.
 
Have a rig with 1.5GH/s running DiabloMiner 11.12 drivers, which is getting an acceptable amount of rejects, but GPU usage is all over the board, jumping between 0 and 100% usage, and everywhere in between, in no particular order on all of my GPUs, this is resulting in about a 20% decrease in hashrate  

Have a rig with 2.3GHs, using 7970's and DiabloMiner, which also has GPU usage problem, but much worse, resulting in about 50% decreased hashrate.

About a day ago, my rig with 1.5GH/s was working just fine offline, since public work resumed over the past however many hours, this problem started occurring.


I am curious why DiabloMiner, which is not listed as supported by GPUmax, works better than Phoenix 1.7.5 and 2, which are listed as compatible...

are you using BAMT? i had many issues with BAMT with phoenix and phoenix2 until i started using cgminer

but it looks like you have more experience building mining rigs than me so what do i know

Sorry, I guess that information probably would have helped  

No, I am using Windows 7 64bit on all of my rigs.. I just checked my 1.5GHs rig, which has stabilized somewhat after being connected to GPUmax for a while.. hashrate is still about 8-10% below normal though due to drops in GPU usage.

Phoenix 2.0 is now working on my 1.7 GH/s rig for some strange reason.. I went back to run it, so I could grab the error message I was getting and post it here, but now it's working   previously, it was hashing, and trying to submit work, but was returning something about the work submitted being wrong or something.

2.3GH/s rig still is having major drops in GPU usage, I had heard that Tahiti has issues with GPUmax for some reason; has anyone else heard this, or can confirm this? I'm part of the 1% who doesn't typically use cgminer, for various reasons, however I do have a copy downloaded and configured on my 2.3GH/s rig, which I have not tested yet, I will post back with the results of that...

EDIT:

Public work has ceased it seems. I guess there's still work being done with the migration.

Lol.. that is probably why my rigs are working just fine now.. Problem for me seemed to be with public shares only..

[jjiimm_64]

I had heard that Tahiti has issues with GPUmax for some reason;

Tahiti does not have problems with gpumax... diablo miner does.

I have a few 7970 crunching away public and private shares at gpumax using cgminer.

[TheSeven]

FWIW, I have never been able to get a BFL with ufasoft to work on GPUMAX at all. It starts and runs and reports 100% rejects.

I could probably make MPBM compatible, to have another BFL and GPUMAX compatible miner, also opening GPUMAX's route to other FPGA boards at the same time, if I would finally get that damn invite! (have been waiting for several weeks now)

[slider1978]

I had heard that Tahiti has issues with GPUmax for some reason;

Tahiti does not have problems with gpumax... diablo miner does.

I have a few 7970 crunching away public and private shares at gpumax using cgminer.

+1, I have 3 7970's on cgminer and GPUMax with no trouble.

[imsaguy]

I had heard that Tahiti has issues with GPUmax for some reason;

Tahiti does not have problems with gpumax... diablo miner does.

I have a few 7970 crunching away public and private shares at gpumax using cgminer.

+1, I have 3 7970's on cgminer and GPUMax with no trouble.

Me too.  Cgminer crashes out on project #2 while running the 7970s, but gpumax runs them fine.

[RoloTonyBrownTown]

The BFL's run fine on GPUMAX with cgminer if that helps.

I haven't tried Ufasoft at all to be honest.

And yes, no paid work at the moment unfortunately (although there was a nice burst for a while last night)

[ummas]

I dont wont to be rud, but in my opinion, if GPUMAX will keep prize of purschases so high, they will loose all customers.
difficulty rises, pize should be going down...

I dont mind staying, but it`s unprofitable ATM.
using gpumax, i must use deepbit for example, and i get more stales (aprox 0.5%)

using P2Pool, i get no fee, less stales = more BTC.

reminder: deepbit pays now aproox 0.0000304sommethink per share. who will buy share for 0.000055 or (oh GOD) for 0.00006??
this prize was ok, when deepbit was paying 0.00004 per share. (it was a time, when i was joining gpumax)ed

@RoloTonyBrownTown
THX for that, i payed for 3 of them. cant tell bought.... :/ you know the 4-6 weeks rule ?

[hashking]

Anyone getting any public shares yet.

[marks1976]

Anyone getting any public shares yet.

No public work for me.  Was a little last night. 

[pirateat40]

We're working out a couple more bugs and purchases will resume.

[jjiimm_64]

I dont wont to be rud, but in my opinion, if GPUMAX will keep prize of purschases so high, they will loose all customers.
difficulty rises, pize should be going down...

I dont mind staying, but it`s unprofitable ATM.
using gpumax, i must use deepbit for example, and i get more stales (aprox 0.5%)

using P2Pool, i get no fee, less stales = more BTC.

reminder: deepbit pays now aproox 0.0000304sommethink per share. who will buy share for 0.000055 or (oh GOD) for 0.00006??
this prize was ok, when deepbit was paying 0.00004 per share. (it was a time, when i was joining gpumax)ed

@RoloTonyBrownTown
THX for that, i payed for 3 of them. cant tell bought.... :/ you know the 4-6 weeks rule ?

Then go to P2P pool...  bye bye!

[BinaryMage]

I dont wont to be rud, but in my opinion, if GPUMAX will keep prize of purschases so high, they will loose all customers.
difficulty rises, pize should be going down...

I dont mind staying, but it`s unprofitable ATM.
using gpumax, i must use deepbit for example, and i get more stales (aprox 0.5%)

using P2Pool, i get no fee, less stales = more BTC.

reminder: deepbit pays now aproox 0.0000304sommethink per share. who will buy share for 0.000055 or (oh GOD) for 0.00006??
this prize was ok, when deepbit was paying 0.00004 per share. (it was a time, when i was joining gpumax)ed

@RoloTonyBrownTown
THX for that, i payed for 3 of them. cant tell bought.... :/ you know the 4-6 weeks rule ?

No offense, but if you're buying shares on GPUMAX and sending them to PPS pools, you're kinda missing the point.

In any case, leave if you want, more BTC for the rest of us!

[rjk]

No offense, but if you're buying shares on GPUMAX and sending them to PPS pools, you're kinda missing the point.

In any case, leave if you want, more BTC for the rest of us!

Derpbit offers proportional, btw.

[P4man]

No offense, but if you're buying shares on GPUMAX and sending them to PPS pools, you're kinda missing the point.

But wherever else you send them, how can you achieve a positive ROI?

Since you cant time the purchases precisely (AFAIK), its rather useless for hopping. YOu might try hopping with purchased shares by sending them to your own proxy and hop from there, but aside from the stales I suspect that would cause, and your proxy that would have to withstand such massive spikes, AFAIK gpumax doesnt even let you send them to any pool other than the ones they approved. Even if you could, good luck getting >160% PPS from hopping these days.

So I guess Im missing the point too. Who is buying at 160% PPS and what for?

[Glasswalker]

FWIW, I have never been able to get a BFL with ufasoft to work on GPUMAX at all. It starts and runs and reports 100% rejects.

I could probably make MPBM compatible, to have another BFL and GPUMAX compatible miner, also opening GPUMAX's route to other FPGA boards at the same time, if I would finally get that damn invite! (have been waiting for several weeks now)

FYI: I'm running MPBM Testing branch with my Icarus FPGA cluster, and it's mining on GPUMax right now just fine.

[BinaryMage]

No offense, but if you're buying shares on GPUMAX and sending them to PPS pools, you're kinda missing the point.

In any case, leave if you want, more BTC for the rest of us!

Derpbit offers proportional, btw.

Yeah, but he was specifically talking about PPS.

No offense, but if you're buying shares on GPUMAX and sending them to PPS pools, you're kinda missing the point.

But wherever else you send them, how can you achieve a positive ROI?

Since you cant time the purchases precisely (AFAIK), its rather useless for hopping. YOu might try hopping with purchased shares by sending them to your own proxy and hop from there, but aside from the stales I suspect that would cause, and your proxy that would have to withstand such massive spikes, AFAIK gpumax doesnt even let you send them to any pool other than the ones they approved. Even if you could, good luck getting >160% PPS from hopping these days.

So I guess Im missing the point too. Who is buying at 160% PPS and what for?

My guesses are private pools, volume testing (of mining proxies or whatnot) and sheer bets that a proportional pool will get lucky.

There is supposedly some secret reason that no one will reveal (see the thread a while back), but I have not managed to figure out what it is.

[jjiimm_64]

No offense, but if you're buying shares on GPUMAX and sending them to PPS pools, you're kinda missing the point.

In any case, leave if you want, more BTC for the rest of us!

Derpbit offers proportional, btw.

Yeah, but he was specifically talking about PPS.

No offense, but if you're buying shares on GPUMAX and sending them to PPS pools, you're kinda missing the point.

But wherever else you send them, how can you achieve a positive ROI?

Since you cant time the purchases precisely (AFAIK), its rather useless for hopping. YOu might try hopping with purchased shares by sending them to your own proxy and hop from there, but aside from the stales I suspect that would cause, and your proxy that would have to withstand such massive spikes, AFAIK gpumax doesnt even let you send them to any pool other than the ones they approved. Even if you could, good luck getting >160% PPS from hopping these days.

So I guess Im missing the point too. Who is buying at 160% PPS and what for?

My guesses are private pools, volume testing (of mining proxies or whatnot) and sheer bets that a proportional pool will get lucky.

There is supposedly some secret reason that no one will reveal (see the thread a while back), but I have not managed to figure out what it is.

I have mined at gpumax with 40g for a while now.... 

I have made 7 separate purchases,   its fun

[guruvan]

If that's the case, preaching about a "dangerous" service to bitcoin doesn't seem like the right way to go about fixing this. Even if you can convince pirate to not provide the service, it'd be fairly simple for someone shady to do the same thing, in a different community, for more nefarious purposes. If bitcoin's security fundamentally depends on convincing people to do the right thing, then that seems like a bug in bitcoin that should be addressed. You might be able to convince upstanding community members to introduce simple safeguards to workaround known protocol issues, but as interest grows, so will people doing things like this.

I welcome "fixes", but they really aren't possible.  Bitcoin is a decentralized system— but it's not decentralized anymore if you put control of it up for grabs in real-time by the highest bidder.  This is true for _any_ decentralized system.

Some of the security of bitcoin comes from the fact that it's economically more sensible to cooperate than to defect— that doing nasty things to the system will _lose_ money for the people who have the ability to do it (e.g. blockchain bloating attacks, and transaction prohibition attacks).  But a key element in that is educating people about whatever is in their best interests.  As a miner, it's not in your interest to cause increased centralization or enable attacks.  

There are many techniques which can be applied to resist centralization. Bitcoin is more than a piece of software. More than a protocol. It's an ecosystem, an economy. And education is part of our defenses.

Here is a more scary and concrete example.

Lets imagine that meta-pool services with open mining policies became very popular and together represented >50% of the hash power.    I, the evil attacker, setup a copy of bitcoin to perform the timewarp attack:  I will lie about the timestamps in my blocks in such a way to drive down the difficulty to 1 while massively cranking up the block rate.    I then go to the mining loan services and purchase all the hash power they have available offering 0.0001 BTC/share.  This astronomical rate will get me all the hash power I need, and I'll easily be able to pay for it because I'll be making 0.02 BTC/share once I get the difficulty down to 1.

Normally we're resistant to the timewarp attack because anyone who controlled >50% of the hash power would find it not in their best interest to blow up bitcoin. But in this case, my investment would only be the funds I needed to front to start the attack. The miners themselves wouldn't get a chance to disagree with this policy because I will have bought their mining on the open market, and carried out my attack before they even noticed— perhaps I could even manage to cash out some of the spoils of the attack before bitcoin collapsed completely, making it all quite profitable for me... and leaving miners with a bunch of worthless gpus.

(which is also why the fact that I could go out and buy lots of hash power isn't a problem)

All this is also an argument why any consolidation is bad— but in the case of pools they see substantial continued income by sitting back and not being evil compared to being evil and potentially getting a lot of money quickly but then being out of the game.. The incentives are not the same for market purchases. There is no harm in trying a little evil, even if you're not sure you'll be successful... because you'll only lose the small premium you had to pay to try.

Of course, if the service is more conservative about where the hash power can go— then thats a big improvement. And I'd withdraw most of my objections there. (though not all— the service is itself more consolidation that we don't really need)

While I do, in fact, want to purchase hashing power in this way, I have had the same sentiment as gmaxwell. There is a distinct possibility of an entity contracting for a majority of power. (through shell companies, and all kinds of obfuscation so no one noticed the consolidation even if the mining community is vigilant.

Other than this type of peer pressure, I'm not really sure that there's anyway to prevent it - consolidation is a natural process in the free market. Maybe general gentleman's agreement to not sell any one entity too much hash power at any one time is a good start?

I have to wonder if, in the process of consolidation, the (individual) people (rather than the banks, tx processors, miners, etc) will feel it necessary to mine regardless of the personal expense to protect their investment from big business. p2pool (or similar such solutions) could make a huge dent in the consolidation, especially the consolidation by contract - if solominers made up a majority of the network, the consolidation by the rest wouldn't be as dangerous.

In the moment, I think there are enough unconsolidated entities that want to purchase hashing power, that services like GPUMax are a necessity. An example business plan might include guarantees of minimum hashing power, and requires purchase of spot hash power to fill in for offline equipment or wants to ramp up despite delivery delays, etc. There's lots of reasons this will happen.