CCminer(SP-MOD) Modded GPU kernels.

[bensam1231]

DRM is more or less a time-lock - the more work you put into it, the longer you get before it's useless.

Looking at old blockchains I'm almost sure that Quark version of Smelter got hacked. Well, time to do licensing server.

Encryption, authentication, verification, and updates... I guess developers actually have to try at what they're doing and make a actual program. Maybe even make a company. You know, take shit seriously.

There is and never will be a 100% effective DRM. You just make it not worth someones time to break it. That means fair pricing (1-2% mining fee) for a fair product. In addition to this people DO actually buy software and use legal software, even around here. This is why software companies still exist in real life, even though pirated copies are so easy to come by.

What you are asking is ridiculous (as usual).
If we were to make such program/company considering the work involved, I would not price it below 15btc per copy (which actually isn't bad  )
Would you buy it ? Guess not
And "fair mining" in the 1%-2% yeah right   fee rather 5~15% you are kinda cheap...

Stop asking people to make stuff, you would never buy unless it is free

As usual you have no idea about anything besides the algos you 'optimize' and have no idea what sort of volume goes through the crypto networks. 15BTC per copy is $7500~ per copy. How many do you plan on selling? 2?

Quark alone JUST on Nicehash has 60GH. At 2% that's 1.2GH. That's .48BTC per day, for Quark alone and that's a smaller one. That's $18,144 per month at current BTC prices. This doesn't include ANY pools outside of Nicehash and we all know those don't exist.

At your 15% you'd be getting 3.6 BTC per day. You'd have 108 BTC at the end of the month for just Quark. I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about. This is why miners with 15% mining fees get neutered, because that level of greed no one puts up with.

I don't think paying someone .48 BTC per day is giving someone something 'for free'. I would be paying the 1-2% just like everyone else.

CCMiner already does pretty much every algo, almost everyone with a Nvidia card is using it. That is A LOT of hashrate and 1-2% doesn't sound like a lot, but it definitely adds up and you definitely could make a company built on this sort of thing. This could also be expanded to AMD cards, essentially every last bit of hashrate for altcoins would be going through this miner. That is a metric FUCKTON of money at 1-2%.

All of this could be done with a handful of programmers, probably 5-10 and overhead. There are already that many big names in the community. 6 working algos, 2 working features, 2 working security. For a small company that is a lot of income.

You guys aren't thinking about the shear scale of cryptos and what such a project encompasses. This is no different then starting a company to make ASICs, only the product already exists, there are no startup costs, and there is NO competition once things get going. Freelance devs wont be able to keep up with a actual company as long as the talent is decent.


DRM isn't a user feature, just to make sure you understand that. That's for your security. Users don't want DRM. It's a negative quality when it comes to selling software.

And then mining would be totally unprofitable. 2% mining fee, 2% pool fee, 2% trading fee, 2% BTC fee. = sell all my cards and don't mine anymore...can't afford to give hash away and it costs me to do so.    Well you get the point.

If 8% makes you unprofitable for top to bottom then you probably should sell your cards as that's a huge investment for really long term risky ROI. You can get 5% on certain CDs.

You don't know how much you're losing due to private miners as well. For AMD cards, this made them completely unprofitable unless you had said private miner. So your loses would be much higher then 2%.

[djm34]

DRM is more or less a time-lock - the more work you put into it, the longer you get before it's useless.

Looking at old blockchains I'm almost sure that Quark version of Smelter got hacked. Well, time to do licensing server.

Encryption, authentication, verification, and updates... I guess developers actually have to try at what they're doing and make a actual program. Maybe even make a company. You know, take shit seriously.

There is and never will be a 100% effective DRM. You just make it not worth someones time to break it. That means fair pricing (1-2% mining fee) for a fair product. In addition to this people DO actually buy software and use legal software, even around here. This is why software companies still exist in real life, even though pirated copies are so easy to come by.

What you are asking is ridiculous (as usual).
If we were to make such program/company considering the work involved, I would not price it below 15btc per copy (which actually isn't bad  )
Would you buy it ? Guess not
And "fair mining" in the 1%-2% yeah right   fee rather 5~15% you are kinda cheap...

Stop asking people to make stuff, you would never buy unless it is free

As usual you have no idea about anything besides the algos you 'optimize' and have no idea what sort of volume goes through the crypto networks. 15BTC per copy is $7500~ per copy. How many do you plan on selling? 2?

7500$ yeah may-be last year  
If your math are as good as your argumentation, I am done with you

and regarding your quark example, I wouldn't get what you say because it is already open-sourced and as you say yourself, most of the algo are already open-sourced...
So a whole company (5~10 dev  ) making a decent %age only on new algo... well good luck with that... hope they know how to hunt so they can eat  

hiring gpu dev: foraging and hunting is a plus

[UserAlter]

15BTC per copy is $7500~ per copy. How many do you plan on selling? 2?

Quark alone JUST on Nicehash has 60GH. At 2% that's 1.2GH. That's .48BTC per day, for Quark alone and that's a smaller one. That's $18,144 per month at current BTC prices. This doesn't include ANY pools outside of Nicehash and we all know those don't exist.

15BTC= $7,500
0.48BTC/day * 30= 14.4BTC= $18,144 per month
Wow 

  7500$ yeah may-be last year  
 

[bathrobehero]

hiring gpu dev: foraging and hunting is a plus

Oh man, almost spilled my coffee. 
"The position provides required business equipment, such as company laptop, a spear and a basket."


Anyway, I think if there was a group of very talented coders creating some amazing miners they wouldn't sell it publicly.
Setting up their own farms or selling it to one or two huge farm owners would probably yield more profit long term.
Also less risk of the software leaking or DRM being circumvented.

[djm34]

15BTC per copy is $7500~ per copy. How many do you plan on selling? 2?

Quark alone JUST on Nicehash has 60GH. At 2% that's 1.2GH. That's .48BTC per day, for Quark alone and that's a smaller one. That's $18,144 per month at current BTC prices. This doesn't include ANY pools outside of Nicehash and we all know those don't exist.

15BTC= $7,500
0.48BTC/day * 30= 14.4BTC= $18,144 per month
Wow  

  7500$ yeah may-be last year  
 

(wish I knew the exchanges he uses...)
  I guess I won't hire him as accountant (marketing may-be...)

[CapnBDL]

         <<NEWS FLASH>>                                                     <<NEWS FLASH>>                                             <<NEWS FLASH>>

  YAAMP POOL OWNER CALLS IT QUITS                      YAAMP POOL OWNER CALLS IT QUITS                    YAAMP POOL OWNER CALLS IT QUITS

        <<NEWS FLASH>>                                                      <<NEWS FLASH>>                                             <<NEWS FLASH>>


   This has been a special announcement by CapnBDL


                                                                                                                                                                        

[djm34]

         <<NEWS FLASH>>                                                     <<NEWS FLASH>>                                             <<NEWS FLASH>>

  YAAMP POOL OWNER CALLS IT QUITS                      YAAMP POOL OWNER CALLS IT QUITS                    YAAMP POOL OWNER CALLS IT QUITS

        <<NEWS FLASH>>                                                      <<NEWS FLASH>>                                             <<NEWS FLASH>>


   This has been a special announcement by CapnBDL


                                                                                                                                                                                

and we care because ?

[Fuzzbawls]

I think this thread needs a fork of it's own

[CapnBDL]

Sorry djm34...thought some might. Are there any mult-algo trading pools out there I can quark mine on & trade for x11?

[djm34]

Sorry djm34...thought some might. Are there any mult-algo trading pools out there I can quark mine on & trade for x11?

no idea, I am not much into multipool... so I guess I lost my chance to make 18k$ in fee 

[scryptr]

RELEASE 1.53--

I haven't posted in a while, I was disapointed with releases 1.51 and 1.52.  Both would run, but crash over time on both my Linux and Win 7 machines.  Release 1.53 runs smoothly enough on my Win 7 GTX 960, mining Quark.  However, I don't see any significant change in hashing speed since v1.50, my fallback.

I think it was the reduction in default intensity that made things better.  Perhaps SP_ could provide default intensity info for the different algos, and we could each find the top intensity for our own rigs by adjusting from the default.

Another thing, in mining Lyra2 my GTX 960 cards mine more slowly than a 750ti.  I don't understand it.  I think there may have been another post on this 10-20 pages back, but this thread is getting long.                  --scryptr

[joblo]

Another thing, in mining Lyra2 my GTX 960 cards mine more slowly than a 750ti.  I don't understand it.  I think there may have been another post on this 10-20 pages back, but this thread is getting long.                  --scryptr

It seems lyra2 is memory bound. Unless the 960 has more memory I wouldn't expect a big increase, but I
wouldn't expect a decrease either.

[bathrobehero]

Another thing, in mining Lyra2 my GTX 960 cards mine more slowly than a 750ti.  I don't understand it.  I think there may have been another post on this 10-20 pages back, but this thread is getting long.                  --scryptr

It seems lyra2 is memory bound. Unless the 960 has more memory I wouldn't expect a big increase, but I
wouldn't expect a decrease either.

It seems to be memory bandwidth bound, not memory amount bound:



Although a 960 should surely be faster than a 750 Ti.

[scryptr]

Another thing, in mining Lyra2 my GTX 960 cards mine more slowly than a 750ti.  I don't understand it.  I think there may have been another post on this 10-20 pages back, but this thread is getting long.                  --scryptr

It seems lyra2 is memory bound. Unless the 960 has more memory I wouldn't expect a big increase, but I
wouldn't expect a decrease either.

I have a 4GB GTX 960 FTW and a 2GB GTX 960 SSC, both run lame compared to a 750ti when mining Lyra2.       --scryptr

[sp_]

RELEASE 1.53--
I haven't posted in a while, I was disapointed with releases 1.51 and 1.52.  Both would run, but crash over time on both my Linux and Win 7 machines.  Release 1.53 runs smoothly enough on my Win 7 GTX 960, mining Quark.  However, I don't see any significant change in hashing speed since v1.50, my fallback.
I think it was the reduction in default intensity that made things better.  Perhaps SP_ could provide default intensity info for the different algos, and we could each find the top intensity for our own rigs by adjusting from the default.
Another thing, in mining Lyra2 my GTX 960 cards mine more slowly than a 750ti.  I don't understand it.  I think there may have been another post on this 10-20 pages back, but this thread is getting long.                  --scryptr

I have 2 970 test cards. 1 gigabyte windforce oc (8pin + 6pin power), and one zotec

The zotec have 2 6pins power connectors, and only 2 fans. (almost half the size of the gigabyte card.

The gigabyte does 15.8 MHASH with -i 24
the zotec starts at 14.5 MHASH and after a while the gpu is trottleing (to hot) and the speed is reduced to 13.7 MHASH..

in the latest on github I have reduced the default intensity to 22.9 for compute 5.2. Seems to be a mistake, since I am loosing 300kHASH on the gigabyte card. On the zotec card it seems to improve a bit with lower intensity (less trottleing)

[scryptr]

RELEASE 1.53--

I get 10.45Mh/s on my GTX 960 SSC mining quark.  This is with the intensity at 24, and an overclock of +80/240, core/mem. Intensities of 24.1 or higher fail on launch, and most often crash the driver.

I was getting 10.6Mh/s with -i 23.7, and OC of +100/300, core/mem, but it became unstable in the last few versions.

The Lyra2 perfomance really puzzles me, though.  It should run faster than a 750ti.       --scryptr

[djm34]

RELEASE 1.53--

I get 10.45Mh/s on my GTX 960 SSC mining quark.  This is with the intensity at 24, and an overclock of +80/240, core/mem. Intensities of 24.1 or higher fail on launch, and most often crash the driver.

I was getting 10.6Mh/s with -i 23.7, and OC of +100/300, core/mem, but it became unstable in the last few versions.

The Lyra2 perfomance really puzzles me, though.  It should run faster than a 750ti.       --scryptr

you should monitor FB usage (Frame Buffer) with msi ab, if it is too high, then you should decrease the intensity.
A rule of thumb for the intensity is to get it to 99~100% gpu usage (starting with lower value obviously) and stops when you reach 99% there is no point in pushing it higher.

Some progress with neoscrypt:
750ti: 186kh/s (was 150~160)
780ti: 430kh/s (was ~350)
980    735kh/s (was ~650)

[antonio8]

RELEASE 1.53--

I get 10.45Mh/s on my GTX 960 SSC mining quark.  This is with the intensity at 24, and an overclock of +80/240, core/mem. Intensities of 24.1 or higher fail on launch, and most often crash the driver.

I was getting 10.6Mh/s with -i 23.7, and OC of +100/300, core/mem, but it became unstable in the last few versions.

The Lyra2 perfomance really puzzles me, though.  It should run faster than a 750ti.       --scryptr

I have the same issue. I have a Evga GTX960 SSC 4GB and it is slower than my 750ti SC 2GB. I am on Windows 7 64 bit.

[bathrobehero]

RELEASE 1.53--

I get 10.45Mh/s on my GTX 960 SSC mining quark.  This is with the intensity at 24, and an overclock of +80/240, core/mem. Intensities of 24.1 or higher fail on launch, and most often crash the driver.

I was getting 10.6Mh/s with -i 23.7, and OC of +100/300, core/mem, but it became unstable in the last few versions.

The Lyra2 perfomance really puzzles me, though.  It should run faster than a 750ti.       --scryptr

Does the memory overclock help at all?

[scryptr]

RELEASE 1.53--

I get 10.45Mh/s on my GTX 960 SSC mining quark.  This is with the intensity at 24, and an overclock of +80/240, core/mem. Intensities of 24.1 or higher fail on launch, and most often crash the driver.

I was getting 10.6Mh/s with -i 23.7, and OC of +100/300, core/mem, but it became unstable in the last few versions.

The Lyra2 performance really puzzles me, though.  It should run faster than a 750ti.       --scryptr

Does the memory overclock help at all?

Lyra2 and GTX960--

My Lyra2 rig has 5x 750ti SC, and one GTX 960 FTW (4GB).  I can overclock all cards with nVidia Inspector and get bigger numbers, on Win 8.0, but the rig isn't stable.  At stock clocks, the 750ti cards get 725kh/s, and the 960 gets 500-600kh/s.  Memory overclock helped some, but the rig would not run more than a few hours.  The 960 runs like a lame dog either way.

With stock clocks, the rig runs for days on Lyra2.       --scryptr