CCminer(SP-MOD) Modded GPU kernels.

[CapnBDL]

Its more of a link but anyways good for your mood. Have a good day.

Sheesh...and I'm almost never like that. It's just been lately he has gotten to me. My mood is much calmer now...thankx!  


on /w the parade!

[bensam1231]

Whoops, found something in my inbox I figure you guys should also see...

FUCK WAD...you do know how to read, don't you. Go back and reread what I wrote and explain where I said you wanted something for nothing. You really are as big a dick as I was told. Nobody likes you. Go home.

That was the context of your reply. Things aren't going my way because I'm not getting them for free.

"I'm really pissed off at the ppl that do nothing to help, but have a bunch of whining to do because they want it their way."

"To the devs...I'm apologizing for the leeches."

I guess I don't intend on having a thorough bout with someone who doesn't even comprehend what they write, let alone what I do.


I'm turning off email notifications for PMs, so if you want to be annoying, find some other way of doing it.

[chrysophylax]

just popping to have a read for a FEW MINUTES - and WOW! ...

a lot has been going on ... ...

allow me to clarify something here ... and speaking on my behalf - and the farm ...

it is the mere mention of closed source that sp made earlier that has sparked my response ...

closed source 'usually' means linux lockout ...

most things in linux NEED to be used under one of the licenses - or a derivation of the gpl ...

obviously there are ways around that - but generally - that is what its about ... which is why almost everything in linux IS open sourced ...

that really is one of the points ...

moreso - closed source is against ANY of the reasons we are here in the first place in crypto ...

anyone can argue one point or another but the very basis that all this is built on IS open source ...

i can go on to MANY other points - but it will be useless ...

the devs can do what they want with THEIR code ... i have said this many a time before - have backed it - and always will ...

BUT - i will say this ... we own a farm ... not one nvidia card that is mining ... we own a farm ... and that farm is growing ALL the time ...

does this mean i WANT the farm to be the one that is hammering more than anyone else on a card by card basis with the latest of all optimizations? ... not on your life ...

YES - i do buy some of the kernels and optimized miners ... YES - i believe that these optimizations would do the farm better ... YES - i like to dabble in many things crypto ...

but ...

NO - we do not buy all optimizations out there ... NO - i do not think that its a great idea ... NO - i do not believe it is fair to continue this form of payment ...

i personally have 'purchased' the optimized miners of a few devs that have only ever released windows versions - which we CANNOT use in the farm ... yes - that includes sp ...

why? ... because devs like sp put a shit load of work into the miner / optimizations and that was one way of us helping with the development - especially with the promise that a linux version would be forthcoming ...

but even that was not the main reason i personally am against closed source ...

the reason? ... fairness - openness - and clarity of situation ...

it is EASY for us to buy the latest and most optimized miner ( even thoguh a lot of our btc is in trades - which we can cash out and use of course ) - as it is easy for us to mash the 'small' miner in hashrate by doing so ...

but that is NOT why we started the farm - and NOT why i personally started in crypto ( or continue in crypto for that matter ) ...

i started in crypto for the whole reason i started with linux ...  fairness - openness - and clarity of situation ...

opensource is FAIR ... everyone has access ...

opensource is - well - open ... for all to see - code and all ...

open source is pure clarity of situation ... there is nothing hidden in opensource ... NOTHING ...

there will never be a situation in opensource that will be malicious or against the community in any way shape or form ...

IF for any reason it there is code that is - it will found out and alerted to the general public and the community at large ...

i am NOT ( i mean by a long shot ) saying that ANY of these devs are doing anything remotely malicious ... they are not ...

what i am saying is simply that it goes against ALL that we stand for here ...

it is NOT about money that the farm continues to grow - even though we NEED money ( fiat ) to make it grow ( and run ) ...

it is about the freedom that we can exchange services and goods WITHOUT the control of the 'powers' that be ...

i also started out with two video cards side by side - and WAS one of the 'small' players ... i KNOW what is was like to struggle with mining and doing it while the 'big' players got their optimizations and coins while we struggled to understand it all ... now a little bit bigger than a 'small' player - i still have the same ideals ...

closed source will crush that ... no matter which way you look at it ...

maybe im a little too outspoken over this - and can crawkl back in the shadows and watch - like i used to ... but i have been in the network and infrastructure industry for over 27years ... what that has taught me is simple ...

that when you let closed source come in - and let it take over - it will bind you in ways that you will never imagine ... like microsoft did way back ...

hence the reason i got out of 'that' industry and into a free and open world ... linux brought that world to life ...

i have ONE windows machine - just ONE ... and that is purely to support those that need real HELP ... and i do it for free ...

thats what closed source does ... in the bigger picture of course ...

even though closed source does not necessarily mean 'not free' - it does mean that we are at the whim of the next release from the 'owner' ...

with or without improvement - with or without anyone elses input ( eg - from other devs or the the community ) ...

this is something that the devs have the RIGHT to - after all its their code ... we just use it ...

but i wont be a part of a closed source system ever again ...

our farm WILL continue to grow ... even if you never hear from me here again ... it will continue to develop and the farm will continue to become a force to be reckoned with - BUT - it will NOT be slave to the closed source system ... ever ... this is the reason i will never have windows on ANY of the miners - unless microsoft release the code as open source ... simple ...

its an ideal and principle - not a paycheck ... at least for us here ...

devs - you all have our respect as well as mine ... so there MUST be other ways that YOU can benefit from the hard long hours that you do - for the benefit of the community ... there must be ...

i have yet to think of one ... but there will be a way ... an option needs to be sought - or we will just end up in the ways that once was - before satoshi and all that 'he' worked for ...

we will be doing our bit by supporting the facilitation of mining donations to you by way of providing the general community via donation mining portals ...

paid by us - maintained by us - for the you the devs who continue to support us the community of miners ...

this obviously still depends on the community at large to donate this way - but there are many that do - and many that still will ...

sp - ill work with you as best as i am capable of - as will the rest of the community - as i think your fork of ccminer is one of the best ... but i have said my piece on closed source apps and optimizations ...

in any case - there are my ramblings ... off to business again ... back in another day or so ...

#crysx

[CapnBDL]

If we can somehow manage, without the side-line interference, to get back on thread topic...that would be wonderful. Otherwise, there must be another thread to take the conversation concerning open/closed source too. Thanx

Now....sp_...dude, where ya at? Need anything? I'm gettin ready for bed...it's only 2:30am here..so sleep might be in the works. Let me know in the morning.
Later-

[sp_]

submitted a small speedup in quark. Merged 2 kernals.

[rednoW]

submitted a small speedup in quark. Merged 2 kernals.

Just tested it. It shows <= hashrate compares to #52  (gtx750)

[CapnBDL]

submitted a small speedup in quark. Merged 2 kernals.

@sp_ Does this only apply to quark?

edit: TESTED. Compiled from latest git D/L. Noted that the speed difference, if any, is very small & unable to be determined due to quark mining, yaamp pool network speeds. However, the vRam was measurable /w latest code being 4k less than previous. Ran on ASUS GTX750Ti_Df_series 2G /w 6pin connect. My meter is busted so I can't give you any power usage read-outs. Compile size difference; Old: 17985kb New: 17926kb

Let me know when further testing is needed. Please give me link to your quark_yaamp pool address for testing/donation purposes.

Thank You

[djm34]

submitted a small speedup in quark. Merged 2 kernals.

@sp_ Does this only apply to quark?

 Compile size difference; Old: 17985kb New: 17926kb

pretty useful information 

[chrysophylax]

hi all ...

we would like to promote the start of the donation site we are setting up for devs utilizing nicehash as the initial test ( and eventually permanent ) mining site with sp as the initial dev ...

failover to other sites will eventually occur - but for the moment - the US stratum servers are the ones being used for the donation links ...

we have just started a new topic regarding this ...

we will also be updating as much and as best as we can ...

the new topic link is here - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1089744.0 ...

tanx ...

#crysx

[joblo]

I don't think the next kernals will be Opensource. I try my best to keep high standards, but you have quality coders like djm34 and wolf0 who push the standards.. The current quark implementation is good, but djm34 hash pushed it more than 10% faster after a few afternoons of work. Take a look at the neoscrypt kernal. It is really good... 300% faster than the opencl is insane...

I added another 50% by rewriting the blake implementation. but the sp-mod is only 7% faster than the djm34 mod.

and the Wolf0.. He is good. He is like me when I was 20..

Many have interpreted this as meaning you will go closed source. To me it looks more like you think
you won't be able to compete with the devs of private kernels in the next round of optimizations for Pascal.
I hope this is just a temporary lack of confidence because your contribution to Maxwell has been
invaluable and would be equally welcomed on Pascal.

The problem with miner development is it's extremely competitive. If I build a better miner it is in
my selfish interest to keep it to myself. I can mine at higher efficiency while facing less competition
from other miners. If I give it away I lose my competitive advantage. If I sell it I still lose my mining
advantage but I can still profit from my work.

Open source miner developers should be commended for their generosity. Not only do they forgo profit
for themselves they make the mining environment better for everyone. Their continued presence also
keeps the closed source devs honest.

An alternative funding scheme I would like to propose is that coin devs and rental services get more involved
in funding open source development. Coin devs would have an interest in keeping the mining environment
for their coin fair. An elitest environment where only those who pay get good mining performance would
be seen as unfair and would discourage many miners. Rental services like Nicehash would also have an
interest in promoting more efficient miners to their users. In both cases there is no incentive to keep better
miners secret.

I would like to give a shout out to chrysophylax who is a coin dev, farm operator and major donator to
open source ccminer. If other coin devs would get similarly involved it might be enough to get some of the
closed source miners opened.

[djm34]

I don't think the next kernals will be Opensource. I try my best to keep high standards, but you have quality coders like djm34 and wolf0 who push the standards.. The current quark implementation is good, but djm34 hash pushed it more than 10% faster after a few afternoons of work. Take a look at the neoscrypt kernal. It is really good... 300% faster than the opencl is insane...

I added another 50% by rewriting the blake implementation. but the sp-mod is only 7% faster than the djm34 mod.

and the Wolf0.. He is good. He is like me when I was 20..

Many have interpreted this as meaning you will go closed source. To me it looks more like you think
you won't be able to compete with the devs of private kernels in the next round of optimizations for Pascal.
I hope this is just a temporary lack of confidence because your contribution to Maxwell has been
invaluable and would be equally welcomed on Pascal.

The problem with miner development is it's extremely competitive. If I build a better miner it is in
my selfish interest to keep it to myself. I can mine at higher efficiency while facing less competition
from other miners. If I give it away I lose my competitive advantage. If I sell it I still lose my mining
advantage but I can still profit from my work.

Open source miner developers should be commended for their generosity. Not only do they forgo profit
for themselves they make the mining environment better for everyone. Their continued presence also
keeps the closed source devs honest.

An alternative funding scheme I would like to propose is that coin devs get more involved
in funding open source development.

They are already doing it, that's how you got: lyra2re, coinshield, yescrypt (Yglobalboost), pluck, ziftr,creditcurrency and others

[bensam1231]

I don't think the next kernals will be Opensource. I try my best to keep high standards, but you have quality coders like djm34 and wolf0 who push the standards.. The current quark implementation is good, but djm34 hash pushed it more than 10% faster after a few afternoons of work. Take a look at the neoscrypt kernal. It is really good... 300% faster than the opencl is insane...

I added another 50% by rewriting the blake implementation. but the sp-mod is only 7% faster than the djm34 mod.

and the Wolf0.. He is good. He is like me when I was 20..

Many have interpreted this as meaning you will go closed source. To me it looks more like you think
you won't be able to compete with the devs of private kernels in the next round of optimizations for Pascal.
I hope this is just a temporary lack of confidence because your contribution to Maxwell has been
invaluable and would be equally welcomed on Pascal.

The problem with miner development is it's extremely competitive. If I build a better miner it is in
my selfish interest to keep it to myself. I can mine at higher efficiency while facing less competition
from other miners. If I give it away I lose my competitive advantage. If I sell it I still lose my mining
advantage but I can still profit from my work.

Open source miner developers should be commended for their generosity. Not only do they forgo profit
for themselves they make the mining environment better for everyone. Their continued presence also
keeps the closed source devs honest.

An alternative funding scheme I would like to propose is that coin devs and rental services get more involved
in funding open source development. Coin devs would have an interest in keeping the mining environment
for their coin fair. An elitest environment where only those who pay get good mining performance would
be seen as unfair and would discourage many miners. Rental services like Nicehash would also have an
interest in promoting more efficient miners to their users. In both cases there is no incentive to keep better
miners secret.

I would like to give a shout out to chrysophylax who is a coin dev, farm operator and major donator to
open source ccminer. If other coin devs would get similarly involved it might be enough to get some of the
closed source miners opened.

I don't know why a miner fee isn't just used. 1-2% would be perfectly acceptable for all but the scroogest of miners. It keeps the development going and he gets paid for his work. Given how wide spread the miner is, this would be a pretty acceptable amount of income. This has worked for Claymore quite well.

If there is more then one developer working on the miner they can share profits or use whatever model they want to distribute funding. Miners should be seen as a product not a 'donation'. They could even make a company to support this with working developers. Miner fees scale so it's acceptable to everyone mining (except for mega miners, who are reaping most of the profits anyway).

I do agree, there needs to be some background support for the miner developers though to keep them all on the same page and it doesn't turn into the AMD shit show again where everyone gets screwed who doesn't have the money.

[joblo]

An alternative funding scheme I would like to propose is that coin devs get more involved
in funding open source development.

They are already doing it, that's how you got: lyra2re, coinshield, yescrypt (Yglobalboost), pluck, ziftr,creditcurrency and others

True, a coin that is first to use an algorithm needs to have a functioning miner but the coin devs don't
seem very interested in optimized miners. Their fear of ASICs, and to a lesser extent GPUs means
they choose algos that are particularly difficult to optimize, which in turn means only the most talented
coders can implement those optimizations. I'm not suggesting coin devs lead the charge to ASICS but
they should try to keep open source miners at optimum to discourage the development of
private kernels and ASICs which tilt the playing field.

[bensam1231]

An alternative funding scheme I would like to propose is that coin devs get more involved
in funding open source development.

They are already doing it, that's how you got: lyra2re, coinshield, yescrypt (Yglobalboost), pluck, ziftr,creditcurrency and others

True, a coin that is first to use an algorithm needs to have a functioning miner but the coin devs don't
seem very interested in optimized miners. Their fear of ASICs, and to a lesser extent GPUs means
they choose algos that are particularly difficult to optimize, which in turn means only the most talented
coders can implement those optimizations. I'm not suggesting coin devs lead the charge to ASICS but
they should try to keep open source miners at optimum to discourage the development of
private kernels and ASICs which tilt the playing field.

That's funny in and of itself because a optimized miner is essentially the equivalent of what ASICs brought to market for sha256 and then scrypt. It makes all other tech irrelevant when it starts spreading. Initially it doesn't make a big impact, but with enough bulk it pushes everything else down. It's the same thing.

[joblo]

An alternative funding scheme I would like to propose is that coin devs get more involved
in funding open source development.

They are already doing it, that's how you got: lyra2re, coinshield, yescrypt (Yglobalboost), pluck, ziftr,creditcurrency and others

True, a coin that is first to use an algorithm needs to have a functioning miner but the coin devs don't
seem very interested in optimized miners. Their fear of ASICs, and to a lesser extent GPUs means
they choose algos that are particularly difficult to optimize, which in turn means only the most talented
coders can implement those optimizations. I'm not suggesting coin devs lead the charge to ASICS but
they should try to keep open source miners at optimum to discourage the development of
private kernels and ASICs which tilt the playing field.

That's funny in and of itself because a optimized miner is essentially the equivalent of what ASICs brought to market for sha256 and then scrypt. It makes all other tech irrelevant when it starts spreading. Initially it doesn't make a big impact, but with enough bulk it pushes everything else down. It's the same thing.

Not quite. Everyone has a CPU, many have a GPU, few have an ASIC miner. As you go up the ladder you shrink
the user base. Optimizing the lower end slows that arms race. Whether it can stop it can be argued but 1 1/2
years later there is still no x11 ASIC AFAIK.

[Grout]

SP, the latest commit reports even less hashrate on quark than the previous version. On my 4 750 Tis, it stabilizes around 22650 kH/s when actually mining on a pool, 22620 in benchmark mode. Version 1.5.50 used to report 23040 kH/s which was close to the real value.

The actual hashrate is better on this version, but the reported one seems wrong.

[bathrobehero]

I don't get some of you guys who are deeming closed source miners being unfair. By that logic cheap electricity or owning more than average amount of mining hardware could also be considered unfair.
If anything, expecting devs to work for the occasional few beers donation for their work especially when hundreds if not thousands of people are using their work is unfair.

Devs, miners, pool operators, exchanges, websites they're all for profit.

Sure, I prefer open source but if buying closed source miners is how I could get ahead of others while paying $0.14 kWh then I'm fine with it.
Besides, those open source optimizations will also reach the big farms and at the end of the day cheap electricity,
deep pockets or private kernels really doesn't matter; big farms will always make the most and the small guys will be forced to get out first if things take a turn for the worst (like bitcoin price).

I don't know why a miner fee isn't just used. 1-2% would be perfectly acceptable for all but the scroogest of miners. It keeps the development going and he gets paid for his work. Given how wide spread the miner is, this would be a pretty acceptable amount of income. This has worked for Claymore quite well.

If there is more then one developer working on the miner they can share profits or use whatever model they want to distribute funding. Miners should be seen as a product not a 'donation'. They could even make a company to support this with working developers. Miner fees scale so it's acceptable to everyone mining (except for mega miners, who are reaping most of the profits anyway).

I do agree, there needs to be some background support for the miner developers though to keep them all on the same page and it doesn't turn into the AMD shit show again where everyone gets screwed who doesn't have the money.

Myagui told you: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=826901.msg11594243#msg11594243

Fee doesn't necessarily mean closed source. Afaik you can have code that mines for you a few percent as long as you also provide the source code. Sure, in reality most miners would disable it but considering how many people use these miners the profits I believe would still be significant from the rest. Of course there would be some asshats renaming the thing and distributing it with their donation address/pool plugged.

That's funny in and of itself because a optimized miner is essentially the equivalent of what ASICs brought to market for sha256 and then scrypt. It makes all other tech irrelevant when it starts spreading. Initially it doesn't make a big impact, but with enough bulk it pushes everything else down. It's the same thing.

Except in this case optimized miners are free while ASICs are certainly not. If ASICs would become free the next day they'd turn into useless junk.

[joblo]

I don't get some of you guys who are deeming closed source miners being unfair.

Fee doesn't necessarily mean closed source.

For the record I'm not against a fee of some sort but I do prefer open source. The problem with
combining the two is, as wolf0 pointed out, that anyone can code out the fee.

[joblo]

I don't get some of you guys who are deeming closed source miners being unfair.

Fee doesn't necessarily mean closed source.

For the record I'm not against a fee of some sort but I do prefer open source. The problem with
combining the two is, as wolf0 pointed out, that anyone can code out the fee.

Actually, that's not the actual biggest problem. Most people simply would be too lazy to figure out how to remove it if they don't know already, and some people would even support it.

The real problem with a GPL'd miner is that anyone can edit it out and then redistribute it.

Yikes, even worse distribute with their own fee replacing the dev's. That's really low.

[Angora]

I just tried testing version 1.5.52 with the donation settings....
 ONLY quark worked.  All others were giving 99% reject.   I tried the Lyra2 on 2 pools I use (IPO Miner & Verters) and there again 99% reject.
 
However, when I tried with version 06.15,  Lyra2,quark & neoscrypt worked. None of the X series did. Got 99% reject.

Card is EGA GTX 750ti running @ stock