CCminer(SP-MOD) Modded GPU kernels.

[t-nelson]

Solo was broken by https://github.com/sp-hash/ccminer/commit/97a9ef1e34f782932a15866e38fce60daba094a0.

data was expanded from 32 to 64 uint32_t's, there are several places that use sizeof(work->data) blindly.  In the submit work case we wind up with a shitload of extra zeros at the end of the work string.  99% positive I have a fix.  PR incoming.

[1714687602]

1714687602

[1714687602]

1714687602

[1714687602]

1714687602

[1714687602]

1714687602

[qqqq]

SECURECOIN BLOCK FOUND--

I took my saved copy of sp_'s CCminer release dot 54 a began solo-mining with it against my SecureCoin wallet (v9.0) across my LAN.  I successfully found a block within an hour:


Linux 6x 750ti FTW 40Mh/s rig finds SRC block (Quark algo).

The "securecoin.conf" file, for the wallet:

==============cut line=================

rpcuser=yourname
rpcpassword=x
rpcallowip=192.168.1.*
rpcport=12568
daemon=1
server=1
addnode=24.222.191.37
addnode=71.187.248.95
addnode=71.77.233.192
addnode=54.234.172.139
addnode=86.2.171.203
addnode=208.77.217.7
addnode=208.77.217.8
addnode=us-east1.nodes.mywl.lt
addnode=us-ny1.nodes.mywl.lt
addnode=178.237.35.34:12567
addnode=209.188.16.220:12567
addnode=5.9.120.80:12567
ddnode=62.24.83.120:12567
addnode=78.27.191.182:12567
addnode=64.251.188.62:12567
addnode=108.53.178.39:12567
addnode=207.12.89.221:12567
addnode=193.87.209.44:12567
addnode=198.199.70.224:12567

==============cut line=================

The securecoin wallet is found (Win 7) in "...appdata/roaming/securecoin" under the login user's name.

My launch command line (Linux):

"./ccminer -a quark -i 23.9 -o http://192.168.1.111:12568 -u yourname -p x"

where the IP address matches the LAN IP of the Win 7 computer with the wallet.

I may move up to sp_ release dot 56, but the performance is so much better with release dot 68.  I hope the bug is squashed.

--scryptr

Found a block with 54 rel. Thanks for the working release number.

[t-nelson]

https://github.com/sp-hash/ccminer/pull/56

[scryptr]

SOLO-MINE FeatherCoin (FTC)--

I set-up sp_ release dot 54 to mine FTC on my Win 7 computer with my GTX 960.  I should get three blocks of 80 coins a day.  CCminer launches and communicates with the wallet.  However, although I get the blue block number reports, I do not get the card hash reports.  I have set "quiet" : "false" and "debug" : "true" in my configuration file, and the commas are in the proper places.

Is this normal for FTC?  The other mining instances report card hashing rates.       --scryptr

EDIT:  

I may have crashed my driver with a control-c exit, and did not realise this had happened.  I will go back to FTC again later. I may also need to reduce the intensity on FTC, now at default, to a lower value of 10-12. Just now, I pointed my GTX 960 at my SRC wallet and it is mining Quark algo properly.  I am using sp_ release dot 54.


First 3 blocks of SRC found, mining Quark algo with Linux 6x 750ti FTW rig and Win 7 x64 GTX 960 SSC card.
SRC takes 40 block confirmations to mature.  SP_ CCminer release dot 54 used all around.

--scryptr

[qqqq]

Btw lyra2v2 algo doesn't work in ver 54, that marked as lyra2 - VTC in help. As we know VTC is lyra2v2 now. So waiting for the solo fix in next release.

[sp_]

Yeah, no. If you can solo mine Ethereum right now you have a pretty big mining operation. Things balance out over the long term, but I tried mining it solo for a few days and never hit a block... That was before it took off and all the AMD miners hopped on it.

The chinese farms get free electrix from the government.. Etherum will bleeed.

[djm34]

Does anyone have a list of coins where soloing is known to be broken?  Maybe one with low diff?

SecureCoin (SRC) was suggested.  It is a Quark coin. Another miner posted that it has the same error message on finding a block (crashing) as VertCoin (VTC).  CCminer will generate Quark hash with SRC; SRC has very rapid blocks at low difficulty.

Currently, I do not think solo-mining will work with any algo using CCminer. 

please precise ccminer from sp... my releases have no problem, tpruvot releases neither... so please don't generalize to every ccminer release.
That's in part why I am rather unhappy about the situation. myself and other have busted our asses on ccminer while the most publicised version which mostly uses the code we developed gets broken on a daily basis, feature gets removed, not even possible to run in debug mod without recompiling etc...).

no offence sp, it is time you get your shit together and stop releasing 4 untested releases a day...

PRECISE--

OK, you have a point, DJ.  I was posting in sp_'s thread, however.  I DO try to be clear about OS, version, hash rates, clock rates, spelling and punctuation, etc.  I've groaned about the bleeding edge speed before, myself, but sp_ has brought my 750ti cards from 5.5+ Mh/s to 6.1Mh/s mining Quark within the last 20 releases.

Maybe a few releases should focus on code clean-up and standardization rather than speed.  Future improvements would then be on a stronger base.       --scryptr

Considering DJM doesn't release anything, he doesn't really offer an alternative. I'd rather take a buggy and sometimes glitchy version with speed over one that's getting steamrolled by the private miners (usually released by the same person).

Also, everyone is getting their panties in a knot about solo mining. Who even solo mines now days? Only people who do have to have a relatively large farm for that to actually work (on the profitable coins). Perhaps consider charging them for a solo mining version. The amount of shits I have for this issue are about 0 as it is I'm sure for the majority of miners as we're all on pools... because, you know, we can't magic 5% of the network hashrate out of our asses.

Seems as though people are on SP's balls because profits are tight and he's offering a open source-public miner, which hurts the private miner business. For instance, DJM's toted L2V2 rewrite isn't even worthwhile anymore compared to Quark or other alternatives.

Without downplaying what sp_ has bring to us, the nvidia maxwell "small" miners communauty, he has built on top of what others like djm, truvot, tsiv,and before KlausT cbuchner had already built. Without them ccminer wouldn't be what it is.
On the other hand solomining is important for small miners : this allow us to benefit from recently launched coins or low profiles ones, often more profitable. Moreover, ethereum (rather shift, exp which have lower difficulties) mining is more profitable in solo, due to very fast blocks which penalized pools mining if you have not low latency network between your rig and the pool.
 

Yeah, no. If you can solo mine Ethereum right now you have a pretty big mining operation. Things balance out over the long term, but I tried mining it solo for a few days and never hit a block... That was before it took off and all the AMD miners hopped on it.

As far as new coins... I guess. If .61 for instance still works, you're not losing much by going back to it, especially for a low difficulty coin you're prospect mining. Usually coins get pools before they ever get an exchange. It doesn't take long. Still makes this a non-issue.

He definitely has built on top of what other coders have done, but that's part of being open source. You open source your ancient miner that is a year and a half old and someone builds off of it, you don't get to bitch about someone 'misusing' your code. It's always your decision to open source a miner and contribute. Some of the aforementioned names have contributed a lot more to the continued development of CCminer and I think they've also gained recognition for it (You're missing Pallas for instance).

The whole reason CCminer is so popular is because it gets love and attention from continued development. If other developers are jealous of this, maybe they should pull their dick out of their ass and try a different payment model - like donations or a % based fee. Or partner up with SP and work towards group donation or a % miner fee. It's all deserved. I've seen 'partners' in this thread receive donations too, much like SP, although I'm sure in a smaller amount.

I don't think the private miner coders get to bitch about SP having bugs in his release and what a 'terrible' version of their code it makes. Oh god, the humanity.

second: stop accusing other devs. to release private miners all the time, which is your excuse for everything
(you know very well it isn't true at least for me since you contacted me to have my private neoscrypt and I told you no.
I release only very rarely private miners and mostly on a trust basis (if the fee is large enough, I could trust you more... yeah well...  ))

Pretty much sums it up. You just reiterated everything I just said.

Sure, L2V2 was profitable for awhile, then it's not anymore after you decided to go private with the miner (which I'm sure you still ended up selling). No improvements to L2V2 speed happened afterwards, the only change was the difficulty change and some bug improvements. Neither of which effected me.

No... I think you just don't read what other people write... (even when you respond to them...)
You are sure that I still ended up selling it.... well you are just dead wrong (as usual, I must say).
Also I didn't decided to go private, whatever that means, I just didn't publish it.
Also I remind you that tsiv has also a non public version, and it isn't in my habit to screw other devs by opensourcing
while they are trying to sell their miner... so as far as I am concerned there is no hurry

Regarding the non improvement to lyra2rev2, the thing you fail to understand is that code hasn't been rushed into release, but benefit from the various rounds of optimization I did on lyra2re (classics), so instead of releasing every days half broken stuff, I release once the work is over, has been tested and which I consider as stable. So beside fiddling with kernel parameter more than I did already there isn't much to do to optimise it. (new optimization are found by rethinking the code and rewriting in full or in part the logic... fiddling with kernel param is ok, but at one point you have to decide for one over an other...).
So yes you didn't see improvement. Must add when a team ask me to write an algo for their coin, I try to release something which works and is stable no some half optimized broken stuff which wouldn't be very professional...

[djm34]

I am usually paid for what I develop and open-source...

And after you open source it, somebody works for free and optimize your work and get a few beers in donations. I don't understand your problem.. Miners needs the software to be up do date to earn money. Old kernals are not profitable any more.

I have no problem with you optimizing my work, as long as an actual optimization takes place which hasn't always been the case lately (I tested what you did on lyra2rev2 side algorithms (blake,bmw,cubehash) and I found absolutely no difference while the numbers you reported were by itself equivalent to half what you would get if you had removed these algos (minus cubehash...), which from my stand point  is more or less equivalent as saying that what I release isn't optimized. So at least make sure it is true before saying it... (especially when you say it almost every days... hey I understand that you need to motivate donators, but please don't do it repeatedly on my back  )
ps: I don't deny that you did a good job with quark and x11

Every small change I do might not do any difference, but when you add all the small changes they matter. The changes in blake,bmw,cubehash was so small compared to the lyra2v2 algo that it was almost not messurable, but my implementation use less assembly instructions. After I changed the lyra2v2 algo to use less registers my version is mining at around 4,4MHASH on the 750ti on standard clocks. I can overclock stable to 5,150.

Your version does 3,950.  (750ti) (4,6 with overclocking.) My modded kernal is 10% faster...

I do the tests in windows(x86)
You need to merge all the modded kernals together and adjust/increase the intensity to get the speedup...

hmm, here the measurement I did with my budget 750ti gainward:
no OC: 4.2~4.3MH/s
mild OC +150/+150 ~4.7MH/s
extrem OC +200/200 ~4.85MH/s
ultra at 250/200 ~5000MH/s followed ny a crash because the card is a bit smal to handle all that.

Assuming the number you claimed rae correct, you have at most a 200kh/s differece which is still far from the 10% you are claiming

[sp_]

hmm, here the measurement I did with my budget 750ti gainward:
no OC: 4.2~4.3MH/s
mild OC +150/+150 ~4.7MH/s
extrem OC +200/200 ~4.85MH/s
ultra at 250/200 ~5000MH/s followed ny a crash because the card is a bit smal to handle all that.

Assuming the number you claimed rae correct, you have at most a 200kh/s differece (I'll will trust you on parole, I

If your kernal was profitable people will use it. But they don't. You have already been payed.....

[sp_]

Regarding the non improvement to lyra2rev2, the thing you fail to understand is that code hasn't been rushed into release, but benefit from the various rounds of optimization I did on lyra2re (classics), so instead of releasing every days half broken stuff, I release once the work is over, has been tested and which I consider as stable. So beside fiddling with kernel parameter more than I did already there isn't much to do to optimise it. (new optimization are found by rethinking the code and rewriting in full or in part the logic... fiddling with kernel param is ok, but at one point you have to decide for one over an other...).
So yes you didn't see improvement. Must add when a team ask me to write an algo for their coin, I try to release something which works and is stable no some half optimized broken stuff which wouldn't be very professional...

Your work is really good. I am a cuda student in crypto. 0.1 BTZ

[sp_]

hmm, here the measurement I did with my budget 750ti gainward:
no OC: 4.2~4.3MH/s
mild OC +150/+150 ~4.7MH/s
extrem OC +200/200 ~4.85MH/s
ultra at 250/200 ~5000MH/s followed ny a crash because the card is a bit smal to handle all that.
Assuming the number you claimed rae correct, you have at most a 200kh/s differece which is still far from the 10% you are claiming

I don't Claim. I mine

[scryptr]

I MINE--

I mine, I contribute, and others also contribute.  All of the code authors should get a share.

Please clean up the code.  Please contribute to the code authors.

--scryptr

[chrysophylax]

I MINE--

I mine, I contribute, and others also contribute.  All of the code authors should get a share.

Please clean up the code.  Please contribute to the code authors.

--scryptr

i totally agree scryptr - and do the same also ...

the donation by mining ( dbm ) services are setup here - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1089744 - if mining for the devs is what people prefer to do ...

of course - any way of donation to all the devs is what we are aiming for - so that all the developers benefit from the collection of code and skills they all contribute ...

#crysx

[scryptr]

I MINE--

I mine, I contribute, and others also contribute.  All of the code authors should get a share.

Please clean up the code.  Please contribute to the code authors.

--scryptr

i totally agree scryptr - and do the same also ...

the donation by mining ( dbm ) services are setup here - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1089744 - if mining for the devs is what people prefer to do ...

of course - any way of donation to all the devs is what we are aiming for - so that all the developers benefit from the collection of code and skills they all contribute ...

#crysx

HAMPSTER WHEEL MINING--

A few pages back we joked about mining on a hamster wheel for better code.  I only have a couple rigs, but mining for the devs is what we meant.  I still think it is good idea.  I had a mouse that would run on the OUTSIDE of a wheel for exercise, and I think that I have a picture somewhere.  If I find it, it will be posted.  In the meantime, anyone can contribute by minining on the developer links for an hour or two.

--scryptr

[zTheWolfz]

SECURECOIN BLOCK FOUND--

I took my saved copy of sp_'s CCminer release dot 54 a began solo-mining with it against my SecureCoin wallet (v9.0) across my LAN.  I successfully found a block within an hour:


Linux 6x 750ti FTW 40Mh/s rig finds SRC block (Quark algo).

The "securecoin.conf" file, for the wallet:

==============cut line=================

rpcuser=yourname
rpcpassword=x
rpcallowip=192.168.1.*
rpcport=12568
daemon=1
server=1
addnode=24.222.191.37
addnode=71.187.248.95
addnode=71.77.233.192
addnode=54.234.172.139
addnode=86.2.171.203
addnode=208.77.217.7
addnode=208.77.217.8
addnode=us-east1.nodes.mywl.lt
addnode=us-ny1.nodes.mywl.lt
addnode=178.237.35.34:12567
addnode=209.188.16.220:12567
addnode=5.9.120.80:12567
ddnode=62.24.83.120:12567
addnode=78.27.191.182:12567
addnode=64.251.188.62:12567
addnode=108.53.178.39:12567
addnode=207.12.89.221:12567
addnode=193.87.209.44:12567
addnode=198.199.70.224:12567

==============cut line=================

The securecoin wallet is found (Win 7) in "...appdata/roaming/securecoin" under the login user's name.

My launch command line (Linux):

"./ccminer -a quark -i 23.9 -o http://192.168.1.111:12568 -u yourname -p x"

where the IP address matches the LAN IP of the Win 7 computer with the wallet.

I may move up to sp_ release dot 56, but the performance is so much better with release dot 68.  I hope the bug is squashed.

--scryptr

Found a block with 54 rel. Thanks for the working release number.

Thanks --scryptr

R55 works as well found a block pretty fast after starting, 11 mins. til 1st block using only the 960GTX.

[t-nelson]

SECURECOIN BLOCK FOUND--

I took my saved copy of sp_'s CCminer release dot 54 a began solo-mining with it against my SecureCoin wallet (v9.0) across my LAN.  I successfully found a block within an hour:

-- SNIP --

Linux 6x 750ti FTW 40Mh/s rig finds SRC block (Quark algo).

The "securecoin.conf" file, for the wallet:

==============cut line=================

-- SNIP --

==============cut line=================

The securecoin wallet is found (Win 7) in "...appdata/roaming/securecoin" under the login user's name.

My launch command line (Linux):

"./ccminer -a quark -i 23.9 -o http://192.168.1.111:12568 -u yourname -p x"

where the IP address matches the LAN IP of the Win 7 computer with the wallet.

I may move up to sp_ release dot 56, but the performance is so much better with release dot 68.  I hope the bug is squashed.

--scryptr

Found a block with 54 rel. Thanks for the working release number.

Thanks --scryptr

R55 works as well found a block pretty fast after starting, 11 mins. til 1st block using only the 960GTX.

-- SNIP --

The commit I pointed out as the likely culprit was between 55 and 56.

[zTheWolfz]

SECURECOIN BLOCK FOUND--

I took my saved copy of sp_'s CCminer release dot 54 a began solo-mining with it against my SecureCoin wallet (v9.0) across my LAN.  I successfully found a block within an hour:

-- SNIP --

Linux 6x 750ti FTW 40Mh/s rig finds SRC block (Quark algo).

The "securecoin.conf" file, for the wallet:

==============cut line=================

-- SNIP --

==============cut line=================

The securecoin wallet is found (Win 7) in "...appdata/roaming/securecoin" under the login user's name.

My launch command line (Linux):

"./ccminer -a quark -i 23.9 -o http://192.168.1.111:12568 -u yourname -p x"

where the IP address matches the LAN IP of the Win 7 computer with the wallet.

I may move up to sp_ release dot 56, but the performance is so much better with release dot 68.  I hope the bug is squashed.

--scryptr

Found a block with 54 rel. Thanks for the working release number.

Thanks --scryptr

R55 works as well found a block pretty fast after starting, 11 mins. til 1st block using only the 960GTX.

-- SNIP --

The commit I pointed out as the likely culprit was between 55 and 56.

Yes the blue readout ends with 55 about the block being worked. I just did a quick test up to 61 with each, then jumped a few numbers here and there up to 67. None I tested after 55 have the blue readout or anything about the block its working that I seen so far.

EDIT: anyone with older hardware this version will work securechain and other algo: ccMiner release 1.6.5-C11 (Jul 2015) "Special for Chaincoin C11"
I've only tested this with 660Ti/760GTX
ccminer-1.6.6-tpruvot works also

[Slava_K]

SOLO WORK on git 1095!

[Epsylon3]

where do you see these "git numbers" ? git is not svn...

[Slava_K]

where do you see these "git numbers" ? git is not svn...

Commit...