Topic: [1050 TH] BitMinter.com [1% PPLNS,Pays TxFees +MergedMining,Stratum,GBT,vardiff] - page 327. (Read 837101 times)
sr. member
Activity: 266
Merit: 250
The king and the pawn go in the same box @ endgame
February 02, 2012, 03:19:43 PM
We need luck.This block is starting to p**s me off!
February 02, 2012, 02:10:46 PM
IN may difficulty was roughly 1/10th what it is now. You were extremely lucky then, youd have to be extraordinary lucky now.
February 02, 2012, 01:59:51 PM
Are there any GPU which are economical that get less than say 100 MH/s?
My fanless HD 5450 does 15 Mhash/s.. Don't make fun of it -- when it found a block in May, it paid for itself many times! Perhaps I should go back to mining solo on that one. Luck may strike again! 
February 02, 2012, 01:34:05 PM
Welcome to our new king of the hill
1 michaelmclees 33,117
33GH, thats some serious hashing power!
1 michaelmclees 33,117
33GH, thats some serious hashing power!
looks like he left early
February 02, 2012, 10:44:13 AM
Welcome to our new king of the hill
1 michaelmclees 33,117
33GH, thats some serious hashing power!
1 michaelmclees 33,117
33GH, thats some serious hashing power!
February 02, 2012, 09:15:58 AM
I’ve actually gotten security warnings twice from Symantec on cgMiner.exe now. So apparently cgminer is being used form something malicious out there.
its used to run on botnets. Its old news, most AVs have been warning about most miner apps for some time now, for this reason. The better AVs give a correct warning, stating the app is potentially unwanted (which would be the case if your machine was infected by a trojan and running a miner without your knowledge). Unfortunately most just call it malware or a trojan, even though cgminer by itself demonstrably is not.
Hopefully with cgminer dropping CPU support this will go away.
February 02, 2012, 04:12:54 AM
I’ve actually gotten security warnings twice from Symantec on cgMiner.exe now. So apparently cgminer is being used form something malicious out there.
its used to run on botnets. Its old news, most AVs have been warning about most miner apps for some time now, for this reason. The better AVs give a correct warning, stating the app is potentially unwanted (which would be the case if your machine was infected by a trojan and running a miner without your knowledge). Unfortunately most just call it malware or a trojan, even though cgminer by itself demonstrably is not.
February 02, 2012, 03:48:38 AM
I’ve actually gotten security warnings twice from Symantec on cgMiner.exe now. So apparently cgminer is being used form something malicious out there.
sr. member
Activity: 266
Merit: 250
The king and the pawn go in the same box @ endgame
February 01, 2012, 11:37:07 PM
I would point out the 3850 APU get 60 MH/s. Any GPU (or CPU for that matter) with speed fast enough to complete 2x nonce range between average LP is unlikely to have a very low efficiency. Even w/ 3 LP per block that is only 40 MH/s. For those with speeds > 1x nonce range per LP and 2x nonce range per LP efficiency is kinda hard to guestimate because a lot might depend on variance.
Still we are more concerned with botnets consist of everything from Pentium III to modern CPU and some of those CPU get <1MH/s. Thus their efficiency is something like 2%-5% range. No modern rig should have a 5% efficiency, or even 10% or even 50%.
Still we are more concerned with botnets consist of everything from Pentium III to modern CPU and some of those CPU get <1MH/s. Thus their efficiency is something like 2%-5% range. No modern rig should have a 5% efficiency, or even 10% or even 50%.
Understood. However, it is also my understanding from an underground site I occasionally peruse, that some botmasters have figured out remote GPU mining. They set up the drivers and APP SDK to auto download on update, get the python or other dependencies, and run a dumbed down daemon to hash away after system has been idle for x-time. They troll sites where gamers hang out bragging about their hardware, and if they have an ATI card, they just ping the ip from the forums, and go to town. That is another reason I like Doc Haribos Java. It dont hide from you.
February 01, 2012, 08:11:20 PM
I would point out the 3850 APU get 60 MH/s. Any GPU (or CPU for that matter) with speed fast enough to complete 2x nonce range between average LP is unlikely to have a very low efficiency. Even w/ 3 LP per block that is only 40 MH/s. For those with speeds > 1x nonce range per LP and 2x nonce range per LP efficiency is kinda hard to guestimate because a lot might depend on variance.
Still we are more concerned with botnets consist of everything from Pentium III to modern CPU and some of those CPU get <1MH/s. Thus their efficiency is something like 2%-5% range. No modern rig should have a 5% efficiency, or even 10% or even 50%.
Still we are more concerned with botnets consist of everything from Pentium III to modern CPU and some of those CPU get <1MH/s. Thus their efficiency is something like 2%-5% range. No modern rig should have a 5% efficiency, or even 10% or even 50%.
February 01, 2012, 07:34:28 PM
Ahhh... I stand corrected 
sr. member
Activity: 266
Merit: 250
The king and the pawn go in the same box @ endgame
February 01, 2012, 07:32:23 PM
why bother? academics lad, academics!
February 01, 2012, 07:27:09 PM
ASUS F1A75-V EVO has three PCIE slots.
Still, the board and APU are more expensive and far less flexible than the epic MSI 890fxa-gd70 and a Sempron 145.
The strongest Llano is still weaker than a hd 6570 which itself is by no means a card suitable for mining.
Why bother?
Still, the board and APU are more expensive and far less flexible than the epic MSI 890fxa-gd70 and a Sempron 145.
The strongest Llano is still weaker than a hd 6570 which itself is by no means a card suitable for mining.
Why bother?
sr. member
Activity: 266
Merit: 250
The king and the pawn go in the same box @ endgame
February 01, 2012, 07:18:01 PM
I recall seeing a board that supported the processor, that also had 3 well spaced PCIe 2.1 X16 slots, and 6 RAM slots DDR3. I think is was made by MSI?
February 01, 2012, 07:15:34 PM
What about AMD's APU processors?
Your point being?Those APUs do support OpenCL but there are no good boards for them - being targeted at the econo crowd, the mobos are low-cost microATX devices.
It makes no sense whatsoever to use one in a mining rig, especially since the integrated GPU is pathetically weak.
sr. member
Activity: 266
Merit: 250
The king and the pawn go in the same box @ endgame
February 01, 2012, 06:37:52 PM
What about AMD's APU processors? Cant one of those puppies pull about 30 Mhash/s due to their Radeon core?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Fusion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Fusion
The Reference is near the bottom of the CPU section
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Fusion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Fusion
The Reference is near the bottom of the CPU section
February 01, 2012, 05:38:52 PM
Are there any GPU which are economical that get less than say 100 MH/s?
6670... not really economical but they need no extra power.
February 01, 2012, 04:59:27 PM
We'd need a coalition of major pools setting a deadline and removing CPU-mining support "for the sake of server loads"
That sounds like a great idea to me. Does anybody here have authoritative contacts at other pools that we could ask to hop on board with phasing out CPU mining?
WP
Without a proxy it isn't possible for CPU miners to avoid a low efficiency. You can simply ban (with full payment) users who fail to meet a minimum efficiency (shares / getworks).
Now botnets CAN use a proxy to combine multiple CPU to have higher or even perfect efficiency. From the pool's point of view this "virtual" miner is a single very fast miner with high efficiency. Of course if they did that they wouldn't be slamming the servers so it is win-win.
February 01, 2012, 04:56:20 PM
We'd need a coalition of major pools setting a deadline and removing CPU-mining support "for the sake of server loads"
That sounds like a great idea to me. Does anybody here have authoritative contacts at other pools that we could ask to hop on board with phasing out CPU mining?
WP
February 01, 2012, 04:56:01 PM
It's obvious that CPU miners require a whole damned lot of getworks to mercifully complete one before it's gone stale.
I just wish to see them shot. Either you are able to achieve reasonable efficiency or the pools aren't interested in talking to you.
My guess is "reasonable" could be as low as 10% to allow for really slow GPUs.
OTOH, it's not that easy for one pool to fight against botnets - the owners retaliated to previous attempts with DDoS attacks which they can freely perform at will.
We'd need a coalition of major pools setting a deadline and removing CPU-mining support "for the sake of server loads", without even explicitly mentioning botnets.
Remember that cyber-thugs are still nothing more than thugs when push comes to shove.
I just wish to see them shot. Either you are able to achieve reasonable efficiency or the pools aren't interested in talking to you.
My guess is "reasonable" could be as low as 10% to allow for really slow GPUs.
OTOH, it's not that easy for one pool to fight against botnets - the owners retaliated to previous attempts with DDoS attacks which they can freely perform at will.
We'd need a coalition of major pools setting a deadline and removing CPU-mining support "for the sake of server loads", without even explicitly mentioning botnets.
Remember that cyber-thugs are still nothing more than thugs when push comes to shove.
Even the slowest GPU should be much faster.
Average time between LP is ~300 seconds. Lets me conservative and say 200 seconds. If you can complete 4 billion hashes in 200 seconds you will on average have 1 share per LP. Now some LP may be shorter but an equal number will be longer. You are look at lower bound of 50% efficiency (2 getworks per share) in the long run.. 4 billion / 200 = 20 MH/s. A 6750 is what 130 MH/s.
Are there any GPU which are economical that get less than say
On edit: looks like there are some options between 40 MH/s & 100 MH/s. However even 40 MH/s should be able to stay above 50 efficiency. If some worker account is <50% efficiency over a large period of time it likely a botnet. The less efficiency an account is the more load it puts (in terms of getworks) compared to a "normal" account with similar hashrate.
Jump to: