[XMR] Monero Mining

[macmac__]

Did some testing and writing over the revenues generated by cpu and gpu miners as there has been rumours of "hidden fees"

Writeup at google docs:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xQc_kovI87tORGifkPWWaF7df3SYr-vzv6pEr2U8x9E/edit?usp=sharing

Comments?!

[1714903136]

1714903136

[1714903136]

1714903136

[1714903136]

1714903136

[equipoise]

^https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1MI-ic0Os25hgGUImW54sUIjZY_pUNQNa_W8Se5pRGBs/edit#gid=0

[macmac__]

^https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1MI-ic0Os25hgGUImW54sUIjZY_pUNQNa_W8Se5pRGBs/edit#gid=0

Bit more in-depth writing, if you take a look

[ol92]

I wasn't talking about the idea. I was talking about my implementation (the code). But yeah, you can use it if you want.  

Ok thanks.

I would pay 8 XMR for a script that setup a cryptonote pool for private use.
Every pool I've used has gone down multiple times, but making my own pool for Monero has been troublesome, working on it for weeks now.

Why would you make a private pool for yourself ?
Just solo mine on the same address.

Maybe it is because you can't solomine with the claymore gpu miner. You need  a pool for the mandatory dev fee.
But I am sure there are some private pool. The advantage of being private is a better chance to avoid DDOS attacks...

[azhago]

Hi,
I have 1000~1200 H/s with CPUs
I have 2400~2500 H/s with GPU.

I mine with cpus on minergate, and with GPU on differents pools.

I ran different tests, with several pools (see my msg on claymore threads -  i tested for days now on XMR, QCN, BCN, and Ducknote and noted each time, after some time, how many i did with each)

I SHOULD earn two time more coins with gpus than with CPUs..
In reality, i earned 20% more coin with GPU, not 100% more. There is a huge difference.

Devfee in Claymore is 5%
Fee on minergate is 2.5%

I don't think there is a hidden fee with Claymore, but maybe the way the fee is collected make the mining much less efficient. Or, and i think it is, it's a pool problem (node-cryptonote-pool)
Of course DDOS can affect thoses pool. I believe it for XMR, but for BCN or for ducknote ? I didn't see any downtime and get similar results.

Juste right now, i'm mining BCN with this config (1200H/s CPU ans 2400 H/s gpu)
After 24H : 184K for CPUs and 167K for GPU   (but there is some not arrived yet, waiting for the 60 confirmation i guess)

EDIT : Claymore is ok to make a version compatible with minergate, so we will be able to do a beter comparison soon hopefully

[superresistant]

Hi,
I have 1000~1200 H/s with CPUs
I have 2400~2500 H/s with GPU.
I mine with cpus on minergate, and with GPU on differents pools.
I ran different tests, with several pools (see my msg on claymore threads -  i tested for days now on XMR, QCN, BCN, and Ducknote and noted each time, after some time, how many i did with each)
I SHOULD earn two time more coins with gpus than with CPUs..
In reality, i earned 20% more coin with GPU, not 100% more. There is a huge difference.
Devfee in Claymore is 5%
Fee on minergate is 2.5%
I don't think there is a hidden fee with Claymore, but maybe the way the fee is collected make the mining much less efficient. Or it's a pool problem (node-cryptonote-pool)
Of course DDOS can affect thoses pool. I believe it for XMR, but for BCN or for ducknote ? I didn't see any downtime and get similar results.
Juste right now, i'm mining BCN with this config (1200H/s CPU ans 2400 H/s gpu)
After 24H : 184K for CPUs and 167K for GPU   (but there is some not arrived yet, waiting for the 60 confirmation i guess)

If your stats are true, it means that the displayed Claymore hashrate is completely wrong (or a hidden fee IDK).

[azhago]

Hi,
I have 1000~1200 H/s with CPUs
I have 2400~2500 H/s with GPU.
I mine with cpus on minergate, and with GPU on differents pools.
I ran different tests, with several pools (see my msg on claymore threads -  i tested for days now on XMR, QCN, BCN, and Ducknote and noted each time, after some time, how many i did with each)
I SHOULD earn two time more coins with gpus than with CPUs..
In reality, i earned 20% more coin with GPU, not 100% more. There is a huge difference.
Devfee in Claymore is 5%
Fee on minergate is 2.5%
I don't think there is a hidden fee with Claymore, but maybe the way the fee is collected make the mining much less efficient. Or it's a pool problem (node-cryptonote-pool)
Of course DDOS can affect thoses pool. I believe it for XMR, but for BCN or for ducknote ? I didn't see any downtime and get similar results.
Juste right now, i'm mining BCN with this config (1200H/s CPU ans 2400 H/s gpu)
After 24H : 184K for CPUs and 167K for GPU   (but there is some not arrived yet, waiting for the 60 confirmation i guess)

If your stats are true, it means that the displayed Claymore hashrate is completely wrong (or a hidden fee IDK).

Pools report my hashrate correctly, when the stats works (but not constant.. fluctuating from 500 to 2500 H)

Problem is that the miner connect to mine for us and every x seconds connect for devfee (disconnect mining for user in between?) - maybe there is a waste of mining time in the process.

Claymore should test his miner without the devfee and compare it to the fee version, to see if the difference is more than 5% (but will it do that ? i don't think so..and i don't think he will let someone test a devfee free version of it (Claymore, if you read, i can do the test   )

To see if it's a pool problem, i also will mine for x hours with half of the thread of a cpu on a node-cryptonote-pool and half withe minergate.

EDIT : and with a single 280x on the same pool.
I just launch it: 8 threads on minergate (~330H/s but with merge mining), 8 threads on monero.crypto-pool.fr (~350H/s, Wolf cpu miner) and a R9-280X on crypto-pool.fr too (~328H/s)
I will let them mine for 24h, and i will let some time (12 hours) to be sure all the payments are done by the pool, and i will post the results here.

In theory, i should have approx. the same amount, but we will see if the GPU make only half than cpu, or if it's the pool based on node-cryptonote-pool wich need optimizations.
I would try on Wolf pool, claiming it's the fastest pool with 0% orphan and faster confirmation, but when i tried, it can't connect...

[sammy007]

People, if you are so concerned about gpuminer dev's greed, you can easily test it.

Does GPUminer use the same pool for fees as a miner? Why not run a pool and test it solo? Just calculate shares. It's easy. If there is another pool used, detect this pool and edit hosts file to redirect it to your pool, now you can measure.

[azhago]

People, if you are so concerned about gpuminer dev's greed, you can easily test it.

Does GPUminer use the same pool for fees as a miner? Why not run a pool and test it solo? Just calculate shares. It's easy. If there is another pool used, detect this pool and edit hosts file to redirect it to your pool, now you can measure.

Dev use the same pool as user.
Running a own private pool is easy, maybe, but not for everyone (i don't even know how to use linux)

For my concern, i don't think there is a hidden dev fee, but maybe a performance issue due to the manner that fee is collected.

I stop the miners, i run 2 xeon E5-2687W (one on minergate, one on crypto-pool.fr) and one R9 280x (on crypto-pool.fr)
I'm waiting for the block to be confirmed and paid to give results here.
(in a few hours)

[surfer43]

The dev fee is not completely mandatory, you can create a private pool and disable payments for claymore's address.

[HashInvest]

Claymore GPU Miner 3.1 Beta: 600 h/s on stock 290X.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=638915.0

>>> Join Monero Pool http://xmr.hashinvest.net / EU <<<

Always Latest Monero Builds

With instructions for Linux, Windows and Mac users.

[trip96]

Hey guys, I have a question that I want to run by you.

I have an i7 4700k and a 270x.

If I point both to the same pool does it mess with the stratum connection? I seem to be having weird issues with connectivity and hashrate. I assumed that there is no problem with pointing many miners to the same address and port but I thought I would ask here to make sure that isn't my problem.

Thanks all.

[equipoise]

^No problem to mine to the same address with multiple machines.

[azhago]

Hi,
I have 1000~1200 H/s with CPUs
I have 2400~2500 H/s with GPU.
I mine with cpus on minergate, and with GPU on differents pools.
I ran different tests, with several pools (see my msg on claymore threads -  i tested for days now on XMR, QCN, BCN, and Ducknote and noted each time, after some time, how many i did with each)
I SHOULD earn two time more coins with gpus than with CPUs..
In reality, i earned 20% more coin with GPU, not 100% more. There is a huge difference.
Devfee in Claymore is 5%
Fee on minergate is 2.5%
I don't think there is a hidden fee with Claymore, but maybe the way the fee is collected make the mining much less efficient. Or it's a pool problem (node-cryptonote-pool)
Of course DDOS can affect thoses pool. I believe it for XMR, but for BCN or for ducknote ? I didn't see any downtime and get similar results.
Juste right now, i'm mining BCN with this config (1200H/s CPU ans 2400 H/s gpu)
After 24H : 184K for CPUs and 167K for GPU   (but there is some not arrived yet, waiting for the 60 confirmation i guess)

If your stats are true, it means that the displayed Claymore hashrate is completely wrong (or a hidden fee IDK).

Pools report my hashrate correctly, when the stats works (but not constant.. fluctuating from 500 to 2500 H)

Problem is that the miner connect to mine for us and every x seconds connect for devfee (disconnect mining for user in between?) - maybe there is a waste of mining time in the process.

Claymore should test his miner without the devfee and compare it to the fee version, to see if the difference is more than 5% (but will it do that ? i don't think so..and i don't think he will let someone test a devfee free version of it (Claymore, if you read, i can do the test   )

To see if it's a pool problem, i also will mine for x hours with half of the thread of a cpu on a node-cryptonote-pool and half withe minergate.

EDIT : and with a single 280x on the same pool.
I just launch it: 8 threads on minergate (~330H/s but with merge mining), 8 threads on monero.crypto-pool.fr (~350H/s, Wolf cpu miner) and a R9-280X on crypto-pool.fr too (~328H/s)
I will let them mine for 24h, and i will let some time (12 hours) to be sure all the payments are done by the pool, and i will post the results here.

In theory, i should have approx. the same amount, but we will see if the GPU make only half than cpu, or if it's the pool based on node-cryptonote-pool wich need optimizations.
I would try on Wolf pool, claiming it's the fastest pool with 0% orphan and faster confirmation, but when i tried, it can't connect...

HERE ARE THE RESULTS after 18 hours of mining.
I stop the mining 5 hours ago, to let the blocs on pool to be mature and payouts done. If in the next hours there is more payouts, i will correct.

CPU 1 (xeon 2687W) on minergate (330H/s, merge mining) : 0.533054140795 XMR
CPU 2 (xeon 2687W, Wolf cpuminer) on crypto-pool.fr (~340 to 360H/s) : 0.603162341904 XMR
GPU (R9 280X, Claymore 2.2) on Crypto-pool.fr (325H/s) : 0.438738015254 XMR

Conclusion :
Fisrt, Minergate miner is not as good as Wolf's one, but do merge mining
CPU2 is a little better than the GPU in hashrate (up to 10%), but the difference in earnings is almost 25% (including 5% of fee)

I don't know if there is some sort of hidden fees or simply a performance issue due to the way the devfee is taken.

[superresistant]

HERE ARE THE RESULTS after 18 hours of mining.
I stop the mining 5 hours ago, to let the blocs on pool to be mature and payouts done. If in the next hours there is more payouts, i will correct.
CPU 1 (xeon 2687W) on minergate (330H/s, merge mining) : 0.533054140795 XMR
CPU 2 (xeon 2687W, Wolf cpuminer) on crypto-pool.fr (~340 to 360H/s) : 0.603162341904 XMR
GPU (R9 280X, Claymore 2.2) on Crypto-pool.fr (325H/s) : 0.438738015254 XMR
Conclusion :
Fisrt, Minergate miner is not as good as Wolf's one, but do merge mining
CPU2 is a little better than the GPU in hashrate (up to 10%), but the difference in earnings is almost 25% (including 5% of fee)
I don't know if there is some sort of hidden fees or simply a performance issue due to the way the devfee is taken.

Thanks for posting results. I think that the hashrate displayed on the GPU miner is calculated differently, thus exaggerated.

[Claymore]

Dev fee is taken properly, no additional main mining degradation is involved. Miner shows raw hash rate, but except dev fee there are also "outdated share found - skip" messages:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=638915.msg7212994#msg7212994

Test v3.1, I improved pool-related code, v2.2 has problems with json implementation if pool is loaded heavily, it can skip new jobs in some cases and it will cause a lot of outdated shares.

BTW, I see strange things related to pools in logs and you can check them too. There are two threads in miner - main and devfee, both are connected to the same pool and both must get new job at the same time. However, sometimes new job arrives only to one thread and second thread can get it 10-30 seconds later or don't get it at all. I test stratum+tcp://monero.crypto-pool.fr:6666, I did not test other pools.

[azhago]

Dev fee is taken properly, no additional main mining degradation is involved. Miner shows raw hash rate, but except dev fee there are also "outdated share found - skip" messages:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=638915.msg7212994#msg7212994

Test v3.1, I improved pool-related code, v2.2 has problems with json implementation if pool is loaded heavily, it can skip new jobs in some cases and it will cause a lot of outdated shares.

BTW, I see strange things related to pools in logs and you can check them too. There are two threads in miner - main and devfee, both are connected to the same pool and both must get new job at the same time. However, sometimes new job arrives only to one thread and second thread can get it 10-30 seconds later or don't get it at all. I test stratum+tcp://monero.crypto-pool.fr:6666, I did not test other pools.

Thanks for the infos.
I'm testing 3.1 right now, nice improvement.
Waiting for a version that can mine to minergate with merge mining

[trip96]

Hey everyone! I have another question about Claymores GPU miner.

I am using a 270x and its pumping out ~350 h/s and I just got a 280x now using the same code it's pumping out around ~360 h/s. I am using the setx GPU_ALLOC_PERCENT 100 and have  catalyst 13.12 installed. I have tried version 3.0 and 3.1 of claymores gpu miner and I am no where near the 450 h/s the readme claims. Anyone rocking a 280x? I may try new catalyst version next.

Thanks for the help

[Taxidermista]

HERE ARE THE RESULTS after 18 hours of mining.
I stop the mining 5 hours ago, to let the blocs on pool to be mature and payouts done. If in the next hours there is more payouts, i will correct.

CPU 1 (xeon 2687W) on minergate (330H/s, merge mining) : 0.533054140795 XMR
CPU 2 (xeon 2687W, Wolf cpuminer) on crypto-pool.fr (~340 to 360H/s) : 0.603162341904 XMR
GPU (R9 280X, Claymore 2.2) on Crypto-pool.fr (325H/s) : 0.438738015254 XMR

Conclusion :
Fisrt, Minergate miner is not as good as Wolf's one, but do merge mining
CPU2 is a little better than the GPU in hashrate (up to 10%), but the difference in earnings is almost 25% (including 5% of fee)

I don't know if there is some sort of hidden fees or simply a performance issue due to the way the devfee is taken.

I have 4.5 KH/s from my GPUs. After 60 hours mining at moneropool.com I've observed ~30% less of expected income (all fees included).

[truckythin]

http://moneropool.com/ die again?!