|
sgi02
|
 |
May 14, 2014, 02:18:32 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transactions must be included in a block to be properly completed. When you send a transaction, it is broadcast to miners. Miners can then optionally include it in their next blocks. Miners will be more inclined to include your transaction if it has a higher transaction fee.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
kwaaak
|
|
May 14, 2014, 02:18:49 PM |
|
Would be nice if you combined Scrypt/Scrypt-N/SHA256/X11 rewards before payout  |
|
|
|
|
|
hash77away
|
|
May 14, 2014, 02:58:08 PM |
|
Has this problem been fixed?
---
when nicehash falls below my set price in the password.
sgminer doesnt go to next pool, it stays stuck in waiting for nicehash and seems to still be submitting shares, therefore never failing over.
|
|
|
|
|
nicehashdev
|
|
May 14, 2014, 03:10:38 PM |
|
Has this problem been fixed?
---
when nicehash falls below my set price in the password.
sgminer doesnt go to next pool, it stays stuck in waiting for nicehash and seems to still be submitting shares, therefore never failing over.
Yes. https://nicehash.com/software/Would be nice if you combined Scrypt/Scrypt-N/SHA256/X11 rewards before payout They are combined together. You just don't see that on graph. X11 or Scrypt? Do you set diff param in password? |
|
|
|
|
|
hash77away
|
|
May 14, 2014, 03:16:39 PM |
|
Has this problem been fixed?
---
when nicehash falls below my set price in the password.
sgminer doesnt go to next pool, it stays stuck in waiting for nicehash and seems to still be submitting shares, therefore never failing over.
Yes. https://nicehash.com/software/For X11 also? I still see "waiting for work.." message with the downloaded nicehash sgminer if I set the price threshold. |
|
|
|
|
kenshirothefist (OP)
|
|
May 14, 2014, 03:29:43 PM |
|
This might only be a display problem with rounding the numbers. Can you check, if you can find string "0.000" in your sph-miner logs? If you're not using logs, please start sph-miner with logging: "sgminer ...your-parameters... 2>>sph-miner.log" And then monitor your log ... if you'll find string "0.000" in the logs please send the logs to nicehashdev. |
|
|
|
|
|
nicehashdev
|
|
May 14, 2014, 03:30:45 PM |
|
Yes. sph-miner is fixed and does not have idlebug. And the bug was the one where miner falls into idle state and DOES NOT submit shares - it doesn't perform any work at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
kenshirothefist (OP)
|
|
May 14, 2014, 03:31:32 PM |
|
Has this problem been fixed?
---
when nicehash falls below my set price in the password.
sgminer doesnt go to next pool, it stays stuck in waiting for nicehash and seems to still be submitting shares, therefore never failing over.
Yes. https://nicehash.com/software/For X11 also? I still see "waiting for work.." message with the downloaded nicehash sgminer if I set the price threshold. Yes, it has been fixed for X11 too -> https://www.nicehash.com/software/#sph-miner ... are you 100% sure you're using a downloaded version from this site? Are you using windows or linux version? Please double check this and if the problem still persist please send me your pool config. |
|
|
|
|
JHammer
Member
 Offline
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
|
|
May 14, 2014, 03:36:20 PM |
|
I have missing Hash rate that I just can’t tell where it’s going to.. And it bothers me.. Maybe the OP of NiceHash can tell me.. I have 29+ MH’s I am pointing to NiceHash. But every time I check my Mining stats on NiceHash it seems my reported MH’s swings all over the place.. But what has me concerned is it Averages like 19 to 24 MH’s most of the time I check it(Where is the other 5 to 10 MH’s going?  ??) .. It does on occasion, report 28 to 29 MH’s on NaceHash where is should be.. But not very often.. I check it about once every 20 min. AND I do not see very much activity on my Backup pool so it’s NOT going there.. Just nickels going there if that much. I am not using the p= option(As this seems to cause even more of the above) and all I have it set to is d=2048. Mining as Scrypt. I have NiceHash set up as my Primary pool and then a backup pool.. All my miners are hosted and all my miners are Gridspeeds. So all I can figure out is it’s either: 1. The Stats reported on NiceHash are not very accurate. (I know they swing around a lot and never stay steady) 2. I am losing a lot of my hashing due to when NiceHash switches us to new orders(This is what I suspect it is) 3. My Fail over is not working correctly.. (Don’t really believe this is it as its been working well in other situations) |
|
|
|
|
|
kenshirothefist (OP)
|
|
May 14, 2014, 03:50:59 PM |
|
All my miners are hosted and all my miners are Gridspeeds.
You mean GridSeeds? Where are you hosting them? Which software (and version) are you (or your hosting provider) using? |
|
|
|
|
Humancell
Member
Offline
Activity: 63
Merit: 10
|
|
May 14, 2014, 03:57:42 PM |
|
Bummer. There are still some strange issues going on with my AntMiner S1s working against the pool with "price" thresholds.
I just came home and found my two test AntMiner S1s hung ... they *said* the NiceHash pool was alive ... but they were NOT mining it ... and they were NOT mining my backup pools.
Both were mining earlier in the day, and then when the 0.06 contracts expired, they fell back to the backup pools. That is where they were when I left the house. I come home and realized they were in some strange state ... not mining NiceHash nor the backup pools.
I had to restart the miners, and then they immediately jumped back to the backup pools as there are no 0.06 contracts.
Something is broken ...
ckolivas informed me, that idlebug is fixed in latest cgminer. Do you use latest cgminer? I have verified with kano that I am running cgminer v4.3.2a commit 85fcf0c ... what version is ckolivas saying this is fixed in? I want to get my Ant farm over on NiceHash ... but with this bug it keeps leaving my Ants not mining anything! :-( |
|
|
|
|
|
nicehashdev
|
|
May 14, 2014, 04:06:02 PM |
|
Does this miner establish single connection to the NiceHash? If there are mutliple connections, then diff 2048 may be a bit high and you should reduce it.
|
|
|
|
|
JHammer
Member
Offline
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
|
|
May 14, 2014, 04:10:49 PM |
|
All my miners are hosted and all my miners are Gridspeeds.
You mean GridSeeds? Where are you hosting them? Which software (and version) are you (or your hosting provider) using? GAW. Not sure exaclty what SW they use(That is why I have them hosted  ) But I do know GAW announced last week they now support NiceHash.. |
|
|
|
|
JHammer
Member
Offline
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
|
|
May 14, 2014, 04:12:16 PM |
|
Does this miner establish single connection to the NiceHash? If there are mutliple connections, then diff 2048 may be a bit high and you should reduce it.
Not sure I understand what your asking.. I have several miners.. 4 Blades and couple 10 packs.. What questions should I ask GAW Hosting Support? |
|
|
|
|
|
kenshirothefist (OP)
|
|
May 14, 2014, 04:21:57 PM |
|
Bummer. There are still some strange issues going on with my AntMiner S1s working against the pool with "price" thresholds.
I just came home and found my two test AntMiner S1s hung ... they *said* the NiceHash pool was alive ... but they were NOT mining it ... and they were NOT mining my backup pools.
Both were mining earlier in the day, and then when the 0.06 contracts expired, they fell back to the backup pools. That is where they were when I left the house. I come home and realized they were in some strange state ... not mining NiceHash nor the backup pools.
I had to restart the miners, and then they immediately jumped back to the backup pools as there are no 0.06 contracts.
Something is broken ...
ckolivas informed me, that idlebug is fixed in latest cgminer. Do you use latest cgminer? I have verified with kano that I am running cgminer v4.3.2a commit 85fcf0c ... what version is ckolivas saying this is fixed in? I want to get my Ant farm over on NiceHash ... but with this bug it keeps leaving my Ants not mining anything! :-( This is the commit: https://github.com/ckolivas/cgminer/commit/3b387ca67f226edccb3cf13cc827d7b57b2282aahttps://github.com/ckolivas/cgminer/pull/581Not sure which build version includes this commit, please ask ckolivas or kano. |
|
|
|
|
|
kenshirothefist (OP)
|
|
May 14, 2014, 04:29:14 PM |
|
GAW. Not sure exaclty what SW they use(That is why I have them hosted ) But I do know GAW announced last week they now support NiceHash.. True, GAW hosted miners should work flawlessly with NiceHash. One thing is for sure d=2048 is too high for GridSeeds, especially for the small 1st gen GridSeeds ... try to use d=512. Also, can you please ask GAW where exactly are those miners hosted (which part of the world, eu, usa, china?). Please, report this also to GAW, maybe they have to check if your miner really has the latest software installed. |
|
|
|
|
JHammer
Member
Offline
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
|
|
May 14, 2014, 04:31:26 PM |
|
GAW. Not sure exaclty what SW they use(That is why I have them hosted ) But I do know GAW announced last week they now support NiceHash.. True, GAW hosted miners should work flawlessly with NiceHash. One thing is for sure d=2048 is too high for GridSeeds, especially for the small 1st gen GridSeeds ... try to use d=512. Also, can you please ask GAW where exactly are those miners hosted (which part of the world, eu, usa, china?). Please, report this also to GAW, maybe they have to check if your miner really has the latest software installed. Will do and thanks for the suggestions.. I am pretty sure they are hosted on the East Coast of the US.. Around NY area.. |
|
|
|
|
|
sgi02
|
|
May 14, 2014, 04:51:29 PM |
|
X11 or Scrypt? Do you set diff param in password?
Seeing this with X11 using Nicehash compiled sphminer. Also, Yes I am setting diff manually using pw. Thanks for your help! |
|
|
|
|
|
greatwolf
|
|
May 14, 2014, 05:16:21 PM |
|
Would be nice if you combined Scrypt/Scrypt-N/SHA256/X11 rewards before payout They are combined together. You just don't see that on graph. I had this exact same suggestion a while back -- remember aggregated payout that I mentioned? The key thing here is that the payout mechanism should check the sum payout total of all the algorithms and check whether that meets the threshold of 0.002btc instead of checking each one individually. For example, say I have pending balance of the following for each of these algor: scrypt 0.0017, scrypt-n 0.00006865, x11 0.00046600. Even though scrypt-n is below the 0.002 threshold, that will still get payed out on the next payout because the sum total of all three is 0.00223465btc. I don't believe the current system is doing that is it? |
|
|
|
|
|
kenshirothefist (OP)
|
|
May 14, 2014, 05:37:08 PM |
|
Would be nice if you combined Scrypt/Scrypt-N/SHA256/X11 rewards before payout They are combined together. You just don't see that on graph. I had this exact same suggestion a while back -- remember aggregated payout that I mentioned? The key thing here is that the payout mechanism should check the sum payout total of all the algorithms and check whether that meets the threshold of 0.002btc instead of checking each one individually. For example, say I have pending balance of the following for each of these algor: scrypt 0.0017, scrypt-n 0.00006865, x11 0.00046600. Even though scrypt-n is below the 0.002 threshold, that will still get payed out on the next payout because the sum total of all three is 0.00223465btc. I don't believe the current system is doing that is it? Payments are issued four times a day if your unpaid balance is greater than 0.01 BTC. Every fourth payment (once per day) is issued if balance is greater than 0.002 BTC. We will do payments for balances greater than 0.0001 BTC once every few days. Payment threshold is checked for each algorithm even if you use the same BTC address for different algorithms. Each algorithm balance must correspond to the criteria above to be included in the payment. All balances for the same BTC address, matching the criteria above, will be combined into single payment. Example: User under BTC adress "xxx" has such balances: a) Scrypt: 0.11 b) Scrypt-Adaptive-Nfactor: 0.04 c) X11: 0.0001 At the next payment round, total balance will be 0.11 + 0.04 = 0.15 BTC since a) and b) matches the criteria, however c) doesn't. User will receive 0.15 BTC in a single transaction. The X11 balance from c) will be paid in one of the next rounds, when it reaches the criteria above. Note: We will implement a combined summarized threshold checking in the future upgrades to allow aggregated payout. It's in our TODO list we just haven't got time to implement it yet - it is not a trivial task since we have to do QA testing to make sure payments are 100% correct and exact. |
|
|
|
|
|
