CCminer(SP-MOD) Modded GPU kernels.

[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

[hashbrown9000]

any of the X algos are less than half as profitable as quark or lyra2re

[chrysophylax]

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

i see that - and the mining on quark continues ...

what we seems to find with nicehash is the extranonce2 size issue - and that issue is a regular thing ...

for the pool to accept shares - the miner needs to mine for a little bit in order for the nicehash stratums to do what they do ...

but again - this seems to be an issue with most of the algos at the moment ... this does not seem to be much of an issue with most other pools - with exception of yaamp on occasion ...

GKarB5 - is mining quite nicely of quark at the moment - but the initial 30seconds or so were rejected shares ...

https://www.westhash.com/index.jsp?p=miners&a=12&addr=1CTiNJyoUmbdMRACtteRWXhGqtSETYd6Vd ...

im not sure if nicehash force that to happen while the stratum adjusts or it takes longer with more shares with teh other algos ... same happens with yaamp - though not as much for some reason ...

all the donation algos are connected to nicehash on the US stratum - except x15 which is completely down on the US stratum altogether ...

today ill be testing the other algos over a small period of time with the test miner we have here ... 2 x gigabyte 750ti oc cards ( one card is the lp edition ) and see how they react ...

it does seem strange that the previous versions 'worked' on the other algos while the latest didnt for you ...

we will be testing with the latest git clone today ...

#crysx

[chrysophylax]

any of the X algos are less than half as profitable as quark or lyra2re

maybe so at the moment - ( and currently you are spot on ) but thats not really what its all about with the donation links ...

its about giving some choice of algo to those who wish to mine to donate ...

these are obviously test systems currently ... but this testing will help build a more stable system - with a larger variety of algos for choice of mining ...

join in and help donate to sp ...

the other servers are coming soon - so to give more choice of donation to various devs using various algos ...

your ideas and results are most welcome - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1089744 ...

#crysx

[hashbrown9000]

maybe so at the moment - ( and currently you are spot on ) but thats not really what its all about with the donation links ...

well, i was just thinking, mining quark could give SP_ a larger sized beer as opposed to any X algo.