CCminer(SP-MOD) Modded GPU kernels.

[Liquid71]

Your statement about merge mined coins being leech coins is flat out false.

You're an advocate therefore not objective. In an open market you can't dictate how people will
react to any given situation. You'd like it to go a certain way but that never happens. People
will always try to get an edge over everyone else, either by legitimate means or therwise.
The fact you don't like how people react doens't make you rigtht and them wrong. It's just
the way it is. You can try to lobby people to think your way but they will always look out for
number 1. Deal with it.

There's nothing wrong with being opinionated, life would be boring otherwise. But opinion
is not fact and don't make it personal when some don't agree with yours.

You should really be more polite, it helps your argument not to insult people in the process.

And, again you're misrepresenting what I said. I said merged mining wasn't worth it because
their value is such a small fraction of the host coin. So what if it's free it's a fraction of a %.
There's virtually nothing it in for the host coin or miners. Only the leech coin, and I stand
by that characterization,  benefits from the merge. yet another point of mine you took out
of context.

Now get your head out of your ass.

That was sarcasm, it's time to lighten up.

The host coin has NOTHING to do with the merge mined coin. In fact you can't stop a coin from being merge mined. The purpose of a merge mined coin isn't for the "host coin" or the miner. Bitcoin wasn't invented to serve miners.
MBL (mobile cash) is a Lyra2REv2 merge mined coin and can be mined on both Vertcoin and Mona. Doge can be merge mined on any scrypt coin. The coins aren't leeches, they just don't force miners to mine ONLY their blockchain, so in a way they are benefiting miners. The fact that the prices suck, well that doesn't make free merge mined coins bad or leeching off the "host" coin.
I also wish more people would mine promising coins when multipools are paying so low and then sell when the coin pumps. I held VTC until the recent pump and made a lot more than had I just been mining on Nice Hash or whatever multi algo multi pool. I used p2pool to mine VTC and also merge mined MBL for free and have a stack of MBL which most likely will end up another failed shitcoin but it cost me nothing.

Anyway I just think you misunderstand merge mined coins. They are mostly worthless but they cost nothing and leech nothing. Also these forums used to be about mining coins people believed in and it's depressing now that it's all gone to straight mining for BTC and then everyone complains coins are being dumped and prices are low. Guess I miss the old days.
If I came off harsh, well it's the bitcointalk and with so many trolls it's hard to know who you're replying to sometimes so I can get an attitude without knowing lol 
Anyway cheers and happy mining to all 

[1714753611]

1714753611

[1714753611]

1714753611

[1714753611]

1714753611

[joblo]

Your statement about merge mined coins being leech coins is flat out false.

You're an advocate therefore not objective. In an open market you can't dictate how people will
react to any given situation. You'd like it to go a certain way but that never happens. People
will always try to get an edge over everyone else, either by legitimate means or therwise.
The fact you don't like how people react doens't make you rigtht and them wrong. It's just
the way it is. You can try to lobby people to think your way but they will always look out for
number 1. Deal with it.

There's nothing wrong with being opinionated, life would be boring otherwise. But opinion
is not fact and don't make it personal when some don't agree with yours.

You should really be more polite, it helps your argument not to insult people in the process.

And, again you're misrepresenting what I said. I said merged mining wasn't worth it because
their value is such a small fraction of the host coin. So what if it's free it's a fraction of a %.
There's virtually nothing it in for the host coin or miners. Only the leech coin, and I stand
by that characterization,  benefits from the merge. yet another point of mine you took out
of context.

Now get your head out of your ass.

That was sarcasm, it's time to lighten up.

The host coin has NOTHING to do with the merge mined coin. In fact you can't stop a coin from being merge mined. The purpose of a merge mined coin isn't for the "host coin" or the miner. Bitcoin wasn't invented to serve miners.
MBL (mobile cash) is a Lyra2REv2 merge mined coin and can be mined on both Vertcoin and Mona. Doge can be merge mined on any scrypt coin. The coins aren't leeches, they just don't force miners to mine ONLY their blockchain, so in a way they are benefiting miners. The fact that the prices suck, well that doesn't make free merge mined coins bad or leeching off the "host" coin.
I also wish more people would mine promising coins when multipools are paying so low and then sell when the coin pumps. I held VTC until the recent pump and made a lot more than had I just been mining on Nice Hash or whatever multi algo multi pool. I used p2pool to mine VTC and also merge mined MBL for free and have a stack of MBL which most likely will end up another failed shitcoin but it cost me nothing.

Anyway I just think you misunderstand merge mined coins. They are mostly worthless but they cost nothing and leech nothing. Also these forums used to be about mining coins people believed in and it's depressing now that it's all gone to straight mining for BTC and then everyone complains coins are being dumped and prices are low. Guess I miss the old days.
If I came off harsh, well it's the bitcointalk and with so many trolls it's hard to know who you're replying to sometimes so I can get an attitude without knowing lol 
Anyway cheers and happy mining to all 

You raised a very interesting point about BTC vs altcoins. BTC is the only one that is used as currency to any significant
degree but is not mineable by normal people. On the other hand altcoins are still mienable but aren't accepted as currency
by anyone. It's only natural that in that environment autoexchange to BTC would be popular. I've looked for other coins
to collect but haven't found any that are both tradeable as currency and mineable. The only way to get both is auto exchange.
It's a dilema with a market engineered solution. Unfortunately that solution doesn't satisfy many people.

I repeat that I believe it's the problem of the coin devs theselves They engineered their coin a certain way that included
a predicted supply of new coins. I doubt any are even close to their desired supply increment. They could not have anticipated
profit switching and autoexchange would result in wild fluctuations in network hash rate and throw their supply algorithm
out of what. I would expect the new coins would have learned from this and be more resilient to large hash rate fluctuations
but it seems not.

[djm34]

Your statement about merge mined coins being leech coins is flat out false.

You're an advocate therefore not objective. In an open market you can't dictate how people will
react to any given situation. You'd like it to go a certain way but that never happens. People
will always try to get an edge over everyone else, either by legitimate means or therwise.
The fact you don't like how people react doens't make you rigtht and them wrong. It's just
the way it is. You can try to lobby people to think your way but they will always look out for
number 1. Deal with it.

There's nothing wrong with being opinionated, life would be boring otherwise. But opinion
is not fact and don't make it personal when some don't agree with yours.

You should really be more polite, it helps your argument not to insult people in the process.

And, again you're misrepresenting what I said. I said merged mining wasn't worth it because
their value is such a small fraction of the host coin. So what if it's free it's a fraction of a %.
There's virtually nothing it in for the host coin or miners. Only the leech coin, and I stand
by that characterization,  benefits from the merge. yet another point of mine you took out
of context.

Now get your head out of your ass.

That was sarcasm, it's time to lighten up.

The host coin has NOTHING to do with the merge mined coin. In fact you can't stop a coin from being merge mined. The purpose of a merge mined coin isn't for the "host coin" or the miner. Bitcoin wasn't invented to serve miners.
MBL (mobile cash) is a Lyra2REv2 merge mined coin and can be mined on both Vertcoin and Mona. Doge can be merge mined on any scrypt coin. The coins aren't leeches, they just don't force miners to mine ONLY their blockchain, so in a way they are benefiting miners. The fact that the prices suck, well that doesn't make free merge mined coins bad or leeching off the "host" coin.
I also wish more people would mine promising coins when multipools are paying so low and then sell when the coin pumps. I held VTC until the recent pump and made a lot more than had I just been mining on Nice Hash or whatever multi algo multi pool. I used p2pool to mine VTC and also merge mined MBL for free and have a stack of MBL which most likely will end up another failed shitcoin but it cost me nothing.

Anyway I just think you misunderstand merge mined coins. They are mostly worthless but they cost nothing and leech nothing. Also these forums used to be about mining coins people believed in and it's depressing now that it's all gone to straight mining for BTC and then everyone complains coins are being dumped and prices are low. Guess I miss the old days.
If I came off harsh, well it's the bitcointalk and with so many trolls it's hard to know who you're replying to sometimes so I can get an attitude without knowing lol  
Anyway cheers and happy mining to all  

You raised a very interesting point about BTC vs altcoins. BTC is the only one that is used as currency to any significant
degree but is not mineable by normal people. On the other hand altcoins are still mienable but aren't accepted as currency
by anyone. It's only natural that in that environment autoexchange to BTC would be popular. I've looked for other coins
to collect but haven't found any that are both tradeable as currency and mineable. The only way to get both is auto exchange.
It's a dilema with a market engineered solution. Unfortunately that solution doesn't satisfy many people.

I repeat that I believe it's the problem of the coin devs theselves They engineered their coin a certain way that included
a predicted supply of new coins. I doubt any are even close to their desired supply increment. They could not have anticipated
profit switching and autoexchange would result in wild fluctuations in network hash rate and throw their supply algorithm
out of what. I would expect the new coins would have learned from this and be more resilient to large hash rate fluctuations
but it seems not.

I don't want to be that guy...  ,  but can you move this discussion elsewhere... clearly off topic since a couple of pages...

[AzzAz]

Your statement about merge mined coins being leech coins is flat out false.

I don't want to be that guy...  ,  but can you move this discussion elsewhere... clearly off topic since a couple of pages...

Yes, stop it guys

[bensam1231]

Oh yeah, that's why BTC is still being mined? Not every coin switches to PoS. It's only a 'phase' for some coins, for others it'll last the entirety of the coin. Not sure you guys understand what a race to the bottom is and definitely doesn't apply here, much like pump and dump does not apply to mining.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pump_and_dump

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/a-race-to-or-for-the-bottom

I prefer the wikipedia take on the same expression, both on the economics/efficiency standpoint as well as the banana example, but I agree that my interpretation might be too liberal for some.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_to_the_bottom

I would summarize by stating that the mining competition naturally drives the overall profit opportunity downwards.
This happens both quantitatively (with more miners competing, there's less profits for each/all of them) as well as qualitatively (each new miner improvement - hardware or software - further denies profits to all the existing miners that do not enjoy the same improvement).

Perhaps, but increases in say efficiency in a kernel, will increase profits for those who have it. It also does not inherently reduce the value of a coin simply by having a more efficient kernel, because coin distribution is set. Usually a race to the bottom, means services and whatever sort of product offered will eventually reduce in quality in a effort to produce it as cheaply as possible... In this case there is no such thing. All else being equal, it's entirely possible for profits to increase as well as coin value rises, as higher hashrate does not mean more coins will be produced.

Miners generally speaking aren't supporters, they keep a coin alive.

That's an oxymoron bensam. If miners are keeping a coin alive, they are most definitely supporters.

Generally speaking, it's quite funny how all this mining talk casually ignores the fact that PoW is a race to the bottom. People complaining about small mining profits, would do better to just stop mining, and focus their energies elsewhere. Ah well, I'm probably just at the wrong thread...

Sure and it was meant to sound that way. Because they are a drain on the coin, but at the same time they make sure the network doesn't fall apart. It's a bought service. Miners are a oxymoron. XD

Not sure how GPU mining is characterized by a 'race to the bottom'. Just like miners aren't responsible for 'pump and dumps'. Coins can become more profitable while still minting the same amount of coins per day (relatively speaking). Minting is a controlled release.

Since you're here only for greed, and complain about how little you make, maybe you should get a job flipping burgers  

Perhaps because you're only here to help us out, you should make kernels for free? Oh... wait... double standards... Ah yeah... Miners are the only ones that can't make money. XD

Christ, you're stupid - mining will still be done, but only by those with the lowest costs. Secondly, P & D applies to mining because as soon as the price goes up, multipools and manual switch miners pile right onto it until it goes down again, or difficulty goes up again.

There isn't a drop in quality in order to offer lower costs and lower costs are relative and can only relate to electricity (which is still fixed depending on where you live). In the case of GPUs, the GPUs are a fixed cost and don't change unless you have some sort of insider connection with a GPU manufacturer. Efficiency of miners can increase, but of course you have to pay for development, which arguably is quality, unless you're asserting your masterpieces are shit-drivel that's pumped out of factories in china for cheap?

You're just operating under the assumption that because miners make less, it's a race to the bottom as more miners compete together. They don't lower the standards of their service and on the contrary, more miners means a raise in difficulty of whatever they're mining, therefore they're actually providing higher quality service the more of them there are. Myagui had the closest use and it was a metaphor. Nice try though.

Pump and Dump refers to putting a excessive amount of money into a market and then as other people are buying it up, the person who pumps it dumps for higher prices, essentially taking money of people who bought in during the pump. This is impossible for miners to do as mining income for a coin is fixed relatively speaking. They take part of someone else's pie, but that has nothing to do with a pump and dump. You're thinking of a literal interpretation of a 'pump and dump' rather then the actual definition, which may be confusing as miners throw the term around the forums randomly and they get misconstrued. Once again, completely wrong.

From my side of the coin, you're the one that's fucking retarded... But you know, anyone can fling around insults, just like they can act like they know what they're talking about.

do we really care about merge mining in anyway

You do if you want to help small coins out without the inherent problems of a small network due to no one mining it (because of low value). Basically everything I said, no one read and then Liquid said the same thing only while insulting someone else.

I don't want to be that guy...  ,  but can you move this discussion elsewhere... clearly off topic since a couple of pages...

Coming from someone who does this all the time... Yeah... and I believe we're talking about merged mining, which pertains to mining, which pertains to us mining with... say... CCminer...

[djm34]

Oh yeah, that's why BTC is still being mined? Not every coin switches to PoS. It's only a 'phase' for some coins, for others it'll last the entirety of the coin. Not sure you guys understand what a race to the bottom is and definitely doesn't apply here, much like pump and dump does not apply to mining.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pump_and_dump

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/a-race-to-or-for-the-bottom

I prefer the wikipedia take on the same expression, both on the economics/efficiency standpoint as well as the banana example, but I agree that my interpretation might be too liberal for some.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_to_the_bottom

I would summarize by stating that the mining competition naturally drives the overall profit opportunity downwards.
This happens both quantitatively (with more miners competing, there's less profits for each/all of them) as well as qualitatively (each new miner improvement - hardware or software - further denies profits to all the existing miners that do not enjoy the same improvement).

Perhaps, but increases in say efficiency in a kernel, will increase profits for those who have it. It also does not inherently reduce the value of a coin simply by having a more efficient kernel, because coin distribution is set. Usually a race to the bottom, means services and whatever sort of product offered will eventually reduce in quality in a effort to produce it as cheaply as possible... In this case there is no such thing. All else being equal, it's entirely possible for profits to increase as well as coin value rises, as higher hashrate does not mean more coins will be produced.

Miners generally speaking aren't supporters, they keep a coin alive.

That's an oxymoron bensam. If miners are keeping a coin alive, they are most definitely supporters.

Generally speaking, it's quite funny how all this mining talk casually ignores the fact that PoW is a race to the bottom. People complaining about small mining profits, would do better to just stop mining, and focus their energies elsewhere. Ah well, I'm probably just at the wrong thread...

Sure and it was meant to sound that way. Because they are a drain on the coin, but at the same time they make sure the network doesn't fall apart. It's a bought service. Miners are a oxymoron. XD

Not sure how GPU mining is characterized by a 'race to the bottom'. Just like miners aren't responsible for 'pump and dumps'. Coins can become more profitable while still minting the same amount of coins per day (relatively speaking). Minting is a controlled release.

Since you're here only for greed, and complain about how little you make, maybe you should get a job flipping burgers  

Perhaps because you're only here to help us out, you should make kernels for free? Oh... wait... double standards... Ah yeah... Miners are the only ones that can't make money. XD

Christ, you're stupid - mining will still be done, but only by those with the lowest costs. Secondly, P & D applies to mining because as soon as the price goes up, multipools and manual switch miners pile right onto it until it goes down again, or difficulty goes up again.

There isn't a drop in quality in order to offer lower costs and lower costs are relative and can only relate to electricity (which is still fixed depending on where you live). In the case of GPUs, the GPUs are a fixed cost and don't change unless you have some sort of insider connection with a GPU manufacturer. Efficiency of miners can increase, but of course you have to pay for development, which arguably is quality, unless you're asserting your masterpieces are shit-drivel that's pumped out of factories in china for cheap?

You're just operating under the assumption that because miners make less, it's a race to the bottom as more miners compete together. They don't lower the standards of their service and on the contrary, more miners means a raise in difficulty of whatever they're mining, therefore they're actually providing higher quality service the more of them there are. Myagui had the closest use and it was a metaphor. Nice try though.

Pump and Dump refers to putting a excessive amount of money into a market and then as other people are buying it up, the person who pumps it dumps for higher prices, essentially taking money of people who bought in during the pump. This is impossible for miners to do as mining income for a coin is fixed relatively speaking. They take part of someone else's pie, but that has nothing to do with a pump and dump. You're thinking of a literal interpretation of a 'pump and dump' rather then the actual definition, which may be confusing as miners throw the term around the forums randomly and they get misconstrued. Once again, completely wrong.

From my side of the coin, you're the one that's fucking retarded... But you know, anyone can fling around insults, just like they can act like they know what they're talking about.

do we really care about merge mining in anyway

You do if you want to help small coins out without the inherent problems of a small network due to no one mining it (because of low value). Basically everything I said, no one read and then Liquid said the same thing only while insulting someone else.

I don't want to be that guy...  ,  but can you move this discussion elsewhere... clearly off topic since a couple of pages...

Coming from someone who does this all the time... Yeah... and I believe we're talking about merged mining, which pertains to mining, which pertains to us mining with... say... CCminer...

lol was wondering who would react to that... you are the winner, you'll get a free neoscrypt miner  

[s7icky]

I had bacon for breakfast!!!!

[joblo]

Quote from: djm34 on Today at 05:26:27 AM
I don't want to be that guy...  Grin

First of all, you're confusing WHY a pump and dump matters - you're correct that the act itself has nothing to do with them. You're not seeing that it has an effect on OTHER SHIT. If the price goes up, miners will jump to that coin until the dump. Do I need to draw it in crayon?

As for costs only relating to electricity, you're being narrow minded. First, GPU mining will end for any successful coin, moving onto ASIC mining, at which point the people manufacturing the best ASICs at the lowest cost and having cheap power will dominate... it IS a race to the bottom, at the end of which you have a few companies who can manufacture these devices and operate private farms.

I feel obligated to respond as it seems to be in direct response to my comment that it was a race to the center. A race to
the bottom means everyone loses. In a P&D  or any disruptive event (new miner doubles speed, major changes in law, etc)
there are always woinners and losers. The key is finding the spot on the map for the new center and be the first one there.
Those who adapt quickly are the iwnners. Those who hold on to ideals while the world changes around them are the losers.

 I don't want to be that guy.

[hashbrown9000]

I had a bagel for breakfast!

[djm34]

I had a bagel for breakfast!

I'll have a chocolate donut

[bathrobehero]

While you where trolling my thread I added another 0.4% in the decred algo.
I will try to do 5% and include it in my donation miner.

How are things going, will we get decred support before launch?

[tbearhere]

I had a bagel for breakfast!

I'll have a chocolate donut

[tbearhere]

While you where trolling my thread I added another 0.4% in the decred algo.
I will try to do 5% and include it in my donation miner.

How are things going, will we get decred support before launch?

Hi bathrobehero.......what coin is that for plz?  Thx

[bathrobehero]

While you where trolling my thread I added another 0.4% in the decred algo.
I will try to do 5% and include it in my donation miner.

How are things going, will we get decred support before launch?

Hi bathrobehero.......what coin is that for plz?  Thx

Hey, it's Decred which will launch on Monday 12 PM CST.

It uses 14 rounds of blake256 but it has a different block header. There probably won't even be stratum support right away for it but there are getwork pools already on the testnet.

R9 280x and GTX 970 does 1.3 Ghs both at stock (as per cryptomining-blog) with cgminer but it would be nice to have ccminer support.

[sp_]

ccminer -a blake --benchmark (14 rounds of blake) is giving(on stock clocks) : (sp-mod @git)

gtx 980ti 2,4GHASH
gtx 980 1,8GHASH
gtx 970 1,52GHASH
gtx 960 0.98MHASH
gtx 750ti  0.53MHASH


So if I implement the blockheader change, the NVIDIA miners could get a 17% boost from the cgminer version.

[djm34]

I had a bagel for breakfast!

I'll have a chocolate donut

actually I got it

[Beave162]

Can someone please post results for the 750TI at NF17? hash/s and total power usage of the rig.

750Ti 2Gb overcloced to 1400 - 120 h/s
750Ti 1Gb overcloced - 60 h/s

6 x 750Ti 2Gb rig - 720 h/s, ~360 watt from wall (PS 80+ bronze)

750Ti 4Gb same as 2Gb , - make jane conditions more powerfull than for 2Gb appear error in blake512 function

using tpruvot ccminer or last cudaminer with     -l t64x1  -L 16

Forgot to thank you for this post... thank you! It seems AMD cards (R7 240 4GB) is actually the best for NF17. I wonder if other NVidia cards are performing well with YAC...

[djm34]

ccminer -a blake --benchmark (14 rounds of blake) is giving(on stock clocks) : (sp-mod @git)

gtx 980ti 2,4GHASH
gtx 980 1,8GHASH
gtx 970 1,52GHASH
gtx 960 0.98MHASH
gtx 750ti  0.53MHASH


So if I implement the blockheader change, the NVIDIA miners could get a 17% boost from the cgminer version.

ccminer -a blake --benchmark (14 rounds of blake) is giving(on stock clocks) : (sp-mod @git)

gtx 980ti 2,4GHASH
gtx 980 1,8GHASH
gtx 970 1,52GHASH
gtx 960 0.98MHASH
gtx 750ti  0.53MHASH


So if I implement the blockheader change, the NVIDIA miners could get a 17% boost from the cgminer version.

hmm.... may-be you should start by implementing the blockheader (technically the other part has been there for ages)

[tbearhere]

While you where trolling my thread I added another 0.4% in the decred algo.
I will try to do 5% and include it in my donation miner.

How are things going, will we get decred support before launch?

Hi bathrobehero.......what coin is that for plz?  Thx

Hey, it's Decred which will launch on Monday 12 PM CST.

It uses 14 rounds of blake256 but it has a different block header. There probably won't even be stratum support right away for it but there are getwork pools already on the testnet.

R9 280x and GTX 970 does 1.3 Ghs both at stock (as per cryptomining-blog) with cgminer but it would be nice to have ccminer support.

Thx bathrobehero ... got it marked on my calendar.

[sp_]

hmm.... may-be you should start by implementing the blockheader (technically the other part has been there for ages)

Not for Blake-256. Can be mined with fpga's. It's a loosers game. A 17% faster kernal will not be profitable.