[Ultracoin] [Est. Feb 2014] ~ ASIC Resistant & Ultrafast 6 Second Transactions!

[Thirtybird]

I see that ATI cards get around 4 times less than on NF14, but NVIDIA cards go down only 3 times in hashrate, damn wish I had more Nvidias
280X - 1,2 kH/s is OK
290 - 1,4 kH/s is OK

Because you have the wrong AMD cards for high N factors

[tex81]

I see that ATI cards get around 4 times less than on NF14, but NVIDIA cards go down only 3 times in hashrate, damn wish I had more Nvidias
280X - 1,2 kH/s is OK
290 - 1,4 kH/s is OK

Because you have the wrong AMD cards for high N factors

U mean 6-8gb cards?



Or new R9-285?
Or even Firepro?
I dunno other amds.

[Hilux74]

I see that ATI cards get around 4 times less than on NF14, but NVIDIA cards go down only 3 times in hashrate, damn wish I had more Nvidias
280X - 1,2 kH/s is OK
290 - 1,4 kH/s is OK

Because you have the wrong AMD cards for high N factors

U mean 6-8gb cards?



Or new R9-285?
Or even Firepro?
I dunno other amds.

absolutely not.  Looking at the wrong end of the rainbow you are.

[usukan]

This may get kind of interesting if the LTC tsunami washes over UTC

[tex81]

I see that ATI cards get around 4 times less than on NF14, but NVIDIA cards go down only 3 times in hashrate, damn wish I had more Nvidias
280X - 1,2 kH/s is OK
290 - 1,4 kH/s is OK

Because you have the wrong AMD cards for high N factors

U mean 6-8gb cards?
Or new R9-285?
Or even Firepro?
I dunno other amds.

absolutely not.  Looking at the wrong end of the rainbow you are.

Oh, I see. You mean low-power cards with a lot of memory? Like 7850/270X with 4Gb?

I played with miner settings on my rig (4x280X):
- core 1200->1000 MHz: hashrate decreased;
- mem 1500->1125 MHz: same hashrate;
- 2GB-settings -> hashrate decreased.

So... much mem is good, but powerfull core is important too.
Wanna see 290X-8GB hashrates!

[Valpe]

Time to buy UTC 

Cryptsy: UTC buy/sell depth looking good. UTC is going up! 

[tex81]

Ultracoin difficulty, last 360 blocks (~3 hours):



Such waves  
0.25 - PoS?

[MrBlacky]

I get horrible speeds on my R9 290 . About 1 KH/s . The same speed as on my 280X cards.

[sambiohazard]

Someone found good settings for NVIDIA 970 cards?
Autotune makes my rig crash

I am using these configs

GTX 970 @ 2.75-2.85 kh/s: --algo=scrypt-jane:15 -L 8 -i 1 -l t64x4 -C 1 -b 65536
GTX 750ti @ 0.98 kh/s: --algo=scrypt-jane:15 -H 2 -i 0 -m 1 -l t5x24 -L 8 -b 65536

I hope this helps all Nvidia miners. If anyone else has better configs please do share.
These are basically same configs as for nfactor-14 but with lookup gap (-L) at 8 instead of 4.

[Beave162]

Ultracoin difficulty, last 360 blocks (~3 hours):



Such waves  
0.25 - PoS?

Kracko, it is time you address this issue...

There is a strong mining force outside of the advertised pools here. Even at 1-minute block intervals, the orphan rate of utc.tumblingblock.com is over 5%, and the orphan rate is over 2% on top of a 3% fee at utc2.tumblingblock.com! You can easily fix the problem of this coin being the 5% guaranteed inefficiency coin... Consolidate the two pools. It doesn't help to 'balance' the two--in fact, it hurts. There is something which is not 'friendly' to UTC taking advantage of this scenario. It seems to have a hashrate that is at least 3 times both tumblingblock pools combined! You can still charge a 1% fee or what not if that is really important to you--better than 5%. But you need to allow miners from the two pools to consolidate onto one without being punished for it!!! What you have now hurts the coin...

[sambiohazard]

Bitcointalk picked the perfect time to go down, right?

Indeed it is the NF15 affecting the hashrate.  I am currently getting just over a 1/3 of the hashrate that I was before with my 750ti rig.  After about an hour of fiddling with settings I'm at 1.1-1.25 khash/sec per 750ti, still using a lookup gap of 4.  I didn't seem to gain anything when I tried an autotune with a lookup gap of 8.  I still recommend trying autotune with nvidia.

Code:

cudaminer -a scrypt-jane:15 -l auto -L 4 -D -o stratum+tcp://pool.address.com -O user:pass

Here is an example setting that I am currently using with my 6x 750ti rig:

Code:

cudaminer --algo=scrypt-jane:15 -L 4 -D -l t19x5,t75x1,t76x1,t38x2,t5x16,t40x2 -b 1024 -o stratum+tcp://utc2.tumblingblock.com:5555 -O user:pass

Setting the algorithm to scrypt-jane:UTC will not work with autotune does not appear to use the modifier in autotune, use scrypt-jane:15 instead.  As long as you have enough power going to your cards and haven't overclocked them to where stability is an issue, it should be able to run through completion.

ATI folks, check out http://cfg.ultracoin.net to get a baseline setting for your hardware to work off of.

Try not to get discouraged that your hardware seems less efficient than it was before.  Everyone else is going through the same thing and the blocks will continue to be minted at the same rate and those mining will generally get the same share of the total as before.   Those with graphics cards that have more memory will experience slightly more of an edge.

Anyone who is too lazy to look, here are settings for 750ti

[Kracko]

Right.  PoS has a minimum of .25 diff- so generally all the .25 diff blocks are going to be PoS unless we get substantially more miners.

Ultracoin difficulty, last 360 blocks (~3 hours):

Such waves  
0.25 - PoS?

[Kracko]

There is nothing stopping everyone from moving from utc to utc2- or any other pool or going it solo.  If there is truly enough solo mining hash to the amount of three times the aggregate pool hash, it isn't going to make much of a difference having everyone in one pool.  And something to also keep in mind, the Proof of Stake system competes with the Proof of Work system for the next block and has potential to cause orphans as well.  Also, proof of stake is having more of an effect now too now that everyone can actually see their stakes show up in the wallet- more are staking and there is a higher percentage of stake blocks in the chain now.  But that's not to say that there isn't anyone out there that are working the dips for maximum effect; I'm sure there are some out there.  It's not like there are a lot of coins out there that are profitable to GPU mine now.

The problem is that the coin needs to go up in value significantly before it becomes profitable at lower fees.  After I fund the dev team for bounties and promotion, there is barely enough to cover the costs of the utc and utc2.  Basically, when you mine at the UTC pools you are helping to support the coin as the current staff did not get the benefit of the original 2 million UTC that was premined.   And I refuse to put a pool on a cheap VPS like Thiago did.  I have however considered closing UTC to help cut costs, but the problem is that it is also used for infrastructure services such as seeding and a dedicated public node.  At any rate, the fees won't be changing at this time.  

Ultracoin difficulty, last 360 blocks (~3 hours):

Such waves  
0.25 - PoS?

Kracko, it is time you address this issue...

There is a strong mining force outside of the advertised pools here. Even at 1-minute block intervals, the orphan rate of utc.tumblingblock.com is over 5%, and the orphan rate is over 2% on top of a 3% fee at utc2.tumblingblock.com! You can easily fix the problem of this coin being the 5% guaranteed inefficiency coin... Consolidate the two pools. It doesn't help to 'balance' the two--in fact, it hurts. There is something which is not 'friendly' to UTC taking advantage of this scenario. It seems to have a hashrate that is at least 3 times both tumblingblock pools combined! You can still charge a 1% fee or what not if that is really important to you--better than 5%. But you need to allow miners from the two pools to consolidate onto one without being punished for it!!! What you have now hurts the coin!!!

[Beave162]

There is nothing stopping everyone from moving from utc to utc2- or any other pool or going it solo.  If there is truly enough solo mining hash to the amount of three times the aggregate pool hash, it isn't going to make much of a difference having everyone in one pool.  And something to also keep in mind, the Proof of Stake system competes with the Proof of Work system for the next block and has potential to cause orphans as well.  Also, proof of stake is having more of an effect now too now that everyone can actually see their stakes show up in the wallet- more are staking and there is a higher percentage of stake blocks in the chain now.  But that's not to say that there isn't anyone out there that are working the dips for maximum effect; I'm sure there are some out there.  It's not like there are a lot of coins out there that are profitable to GPU mine now.

I'm not making conjectures... you can look at the orphan rate in the past 24 hours and past hour on both tumbling block sites utc and utc2. You are looking at well over 5% orphan on utc and approaching 2% on utc2. If PoS is causing orphans, I think that should be an issue to address. I'll tell you YAC doesn't seem to have that issue.

The problem is that the coin needs to go up in value significantly before it becomes profitable at lower fees.  After I fund the dev team for bounties and promotion, there is barely enough to cover the costs of the utc and utc2.  Basically, when you mine at the UTC pools you are helping to support the coin as the current staff did not get the benefit of the original 2 million UTC that was premined.   And I refuse to put a pool on a cheap VPS like Thiago did.  I have however considered closing UTC to help cut costs, but the problem is that it is also used for infrastructure services such as seeding and a dedicated public node.  At any rate, the fees won't be changing at this time. 

Weigh the costs and the benefits. Sounds like shutting down one would outweigh the cons of keeping it going. Let's say you did do that but kept the 3% fee, then you would really incentivize UltraCoin to be destroyed by massive solo miners. I'm surprised I'm the only one voicing concerned. Take away the fee issue, and you are still looking at huge orphan rates which helps absolutely no one interested in UltraCoin. You are definitely not helping the price. You should really reconsider.

[MrBlacky]

For me it's impossible to mine. Whatever settings I am using, all cards eventually go DEAD using yacminer. It takes them several hours in some cases, but the end result is all the same.

Any alternatives?

[Kracko]

@Beav

I'm not making conjectures... you can look at the orphan rate in the past 24 hours and past hour on both tumbling block sites utc and utc2. You are looking at well over 5% orphan on utc and approaching 2% on utc2. If PoS is causing orphans, I think that should be an issue to address. I'll tell you YAC doesn't seem to have that issue.

You put a majority hash on any pool you will experience orphans.  The effect gets worse as more congregate on one pool until everyone is on that same pool, then it completely disappears.   Even with the longer block times a 2-3% orphan rate is acceptable at our still relatively short block time.  At the worst I've seen it go as high as 20% during the time when one of the UTC pools had a 90% net share with the previous target algorithm.   The only way it will be mitigated is to increase the difficulty to the point to where it becomes very unlikely that two blocks will be found near the same time before it can be accepted by the network.  And we aren't upping the block time any more.

And actually, YAC has had the same effect and it has been observed by others.  All the ppcoin-based PoS implementations that I've looked at experience the same thing.  

https://www.google.com/search?q=yac+pos+causing+orphans&oq=yac+pos+causing+orphans&aqs=chrome..69i57.3717j1j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=91&ie=UTF-8

Weigh the costs and the benefits. Sounds like shutting down one would outweigh the cons of keeping it going. Let's say you did do that but kept the 3% fee, then you would really incentivize UltraCoin to be destroyed by massive solo miners. I'm surprised I'm the only one voicing concerned. Take away the fee issue, and you are still looking at huge orphan rates which helps absolutely no one interested in UltraCoin. You are definitely not helping the price. You should really reconsider.

While it may benefit miners to mine in just one pool, it doesn't help the overall security of the coin.  As the coin goes up in value and it becomes worthwhile, more pools will spring up.  I disagree that closing down the server is the best for the coin.

It's not too surprising at all as it seems that you're the only one with this perceived "concern".   In fact, your only apparent concern seems to be enriching your own mining experience and ironically devaluing Ultracoin as it seems that you've had nothing but criticism and snide commentary for everything Ultracoin.  You add little value here.

[jacobshm]

we need some good news quickly... price slipping away...

this happens everytime i buy. i should consider charging money to sell off all my coin, maybe then it will spike lol

anybody want my 50K bag?

[Beave162]

@Beav

I'm not making conjectures... you can look at the orphan rate in the past 24 hours and past hour on both tumbling block sites utc and utc2. You are looking at well over 5% orphan on utc and approaching 2% on utc2. If PoS is causing orphans, I think that should be an issue to address. I'll tell you YAC doesn't seem to have that issue.

You put a majority hash on any pool you will experience orphans.  The effect gets worse as more congregate on one pool until everyone is on that same pool, then it completely disappears.   Even with the longer block times a 2-3% orphan rate is acceptable at our still relatively short block time.  At the worst I've seen it go as high as 20% during the time when one of the UTC pools had a 90% net share with the previous target algorithm.   The only way it will be mitigated is to increase the difficulty to the point to where it becomes very unlikely that two blocks will be found near the same time before it can be accepted by the network.  And we aren't upping the block time any more.

And actually, YAC has had the same effect and it has been observed by others.  All the ppcoin-based PoS implementations that I've looked at experience the same thing.  

https://www.google.com/search?q=yac+pos+causing+orphans&oq=yac+pos+causing+orphans&aqs=chrome..69i57.3717j1j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=91&ie=UTF-8

Weigh the costs and the benefits. Sounds like shutting down one would outweigh the cons of keeping it going. Let's say you did do that but kept the 3% fee, then you would really incentivize UltraCoin to be destroyed by massive solo miners. I'm surprised I'm the only one voicing concerned. Take away the fee issue, and you are still looking at huge orphan rates which helps absolutely no one interested in UltraCoin. You are definitely not helping the price. You should really reconsider.

While it may benefit miners to mine in just one pool, it doesn't help the overall security of the coin.  As the coin goes up in value and it becomes worthwhile, more pools will spring up.  I disagree that closing down the server is the best for the coin.

It's not too surprising at all as it seems that you're the only one with this perceived "concern".   In fact, your only apparent concern seems to be enriching your own mining experience and ironically devaluing Ultracoin as it seems that you've had nothing but criticism and snide commentary for everything Ultracoin.  You add little value here.

I'm adding value right now by telling you you are devaluing UltraCoin with large fees to 'balance' your pools when you are actually just incentivizing orphans. You don't understand blockchain transaction processing. You don't understand orphans. And I'm waiting for more people to speak up...

[Hilux74]

I don't think there is an issue with orphans worth worrying about in my opinion.

With other coins a high orphan rate is typically linked to low difficulty + lots of hash.  Blocks are easy to solve at low diff so the race to the finish line from different miners is much closer.  Even UTC1 at Tumblingblock with 10% network hash is hitting blocks sometimes seconds apart now.  With block intervals like that there is going to be orphans as one pool (or solo miner) beats the other to the finish line in a photo finish. 

I don't see how consolidating hash power into less pools has a net positive benefit.  It is more healthy to have more pools and solo mining with some orphans than a single dominant pool solving every block (thus no orhpans).  You do not want all the hash in one pool.  Quark for example has that issue with 90%+ hash at one pool and it used by FUDsters as an attack on the currency daily (regardless if it is an actual concern). 

Consolidating all pools is solving one issue that is primarily cosmetic and creating another issue that is real (network centralization).

[funsponge]

I wanted to say that this coin is dead , dead , dead  and i forgot to say tha it is DEADDDDDDDDDDDDDDD!!!!!

Please sell your UTC then. You have always been negative towards UTC apart from your first 3 posts. Your an unwelcome disappointment of a community member.  Go back to your Darkcoin forum please and leave us in peace