Topic: ### A ChainWorks Industries (CWI) Project - CWIgm | Simple Powerful Stable - page 30. (Read 67732 times)

No problem, appreciate your attention to detail

Hope those idoits go away!


Eagerly awaiting for the miner

two more pages of requests left ...

getting there ...

#crysx

hi crysx,

your pool was registered. waitting your miner..alrady PM you. thanks.

nice ...

we are looking into the issues ... lets see if we cant squash some bugs ...

#crysx

first - much appreciated for testing AND the feedback ...

unlike that person - we dont claim anything except what we are sure of ...

the hashrates and stats of CWIgm are users stats and settings - not ours ... again - unlike Rune - he can claim and post any internal figure he wants ... we are NOT in competition with anyone - even though i let my mouth run with him sometimes ...

if you are using the temp and netdiff parameters at all - remove them from the parameter list ... you will get a much more fluent and uninterrupted mining with the cards ... until we get ddos attacks on the pool of course ( wonder where they are coming from? ) ...

the tribus also is Class B optimized ... what that means for us is simply that the algos have been optimized - but not to the level of the internal private miner we have ... our main goal here is for stability and ease of use of the miner - and i hope we are accomplishing this much more than 'hashrate' ways ...

our farm ( CWI-theFARM ) is being rebuilt with gigabyte aorus 1080ti xtreme cards ... they seem to be running quite well - and are currently on CWI-Pool Signatum ... we will be switching them to CWI-Pool BitCore soon to finalize testing of the bitcore pool ...

errors are always a commonplace issue and can never be removed completely in mining ... but minimizing them is the best ANY developer can do ...

we are also not naive enough to think that miners dont have expenses ... for us - its about testing CWIgm and making it the best possible miner we can make it ... so optimization and hashrate are secondary for the moment - stability and ease of use our primary concern ...

tanx again for your feedback and stats / specs ...

#crysx

Indeed this is working fine like ccminer ^^
For the crash you can reproduce it easily at your side i guess.

@crysx

Thanks for letting me test the miner! Unfortunately I'm not using it at the moment, since profit dropped due to halving, and dropping price for SIGT. Also for DNR it doesnt give me the hashrate I was hoping for (even though it's better than the ccminer). Still holding my SIGT from before the halving, since I believe it could rise a lot in price; also I really want to try mining DNR in case the miner gets more optimized (I think _sp claims his miner to get ~46-47 MH/s with the GTX 1060, but im definetely not paying 0.1 BTC or 300€ for it   ) or the price rises. Also I'd like to go back to mining SIGT when the price is right. But, as I still have to pay off some of my cards, I have to go safe for now and mine the most profitable, which lately is ETH.

Still, I want to be so fair and give my feedback:

-SIGT: Hashrate is really good, best I had so far (dont know whats up with the network problems though, just started the miner for the screenshot):
https://ibb.co/fjb9CF

-DNR: again, just started for the screenshots. Dont know whats going on with the netdiff errors, didnt have them before when testing. But the rejects were there before; might be a problem related to my computer, but I had them on all of my 3 computers (also 1060s). Maybe OC settings wrong, didnt really have the time to play around, got a lot of stuff to do these days.
https://ibb.co/kx3gsF

About my other cards (cant take screenshots right now):
I got 7 more GTX 1060s, all 3GB instead of the 6GB in the screenshots, they are performing a little bit worse, about 1-3 MH/s per card, depending on the brand and the algo. I got 3 Gigabye Minis and 4 EVGA Minis, the EVGAs are a little better (higher clock, better cooling IMO). None of the cards were pushed to the limit (OCwise), since I want to keep it "quiet".

All in all, I really like the miner, especially the nice Interface, and the SIGT hashrate of course.

Also, I'm really looking forward to future versions, will definetely check them out!

Cheers!

ok - we will look into the help 'issue' ...

we are currently in the process of testing the bitcore pool - and timetravel10 is the next slated algorithm thats been chosen for CWIgm ...

CWI-Pool Bitcore is in alpha currently - and will be placed in the pool list shortly ...

being alpha just simply means that the last few days - we have been testing it enough to be able to pass it to beta designation ... it will appear shortly in the pool pull down menu on the pool interface ...

CWI-Pool Denarius will be out of beta tonight also ...

so when CWIgm-.0.9.9 is released for testing - you can choose to mine Bitcore as one of the tests ...

-c btx will be the parameter to use ...

the algo timetravel10 - will be semioptimized ( Class B ) ... but should still be the same - if not more than most miners out there with regards to hashrate ...

#crysx

im going through the messages as quickly as possible ...

but there are a couple of imbeciles that are attacking the pool via ddos ...

the imbeciles and their minions ...

i have over 70 requests for the miner TODAY ...

so bear with us - as i attend to EVERY pm personally and individually - not just skim them ...

#crysx

what about bitcore?
and --help option doesn't work ((

it sure does ...

-c dnr ...

#crysx

I have PM @chrysophylax hope to test the new miner on my 6 x 1070 rig!

is the miner support  DNR now ?

it IS about the monitoring - but also the control of the miner ...

once they are removed - the miner will NOT try and control the heat / netdiff status of the miner ... it will just mine continuously ...

so your power usage should be consistent when removing them ...

being experimental parameters - they are not intended to be used all the time - just to test ... so far we have found that the mean diff is not updated correctly - which is because many users have seen this same issue happen ... removing these parameters 'fixes' the issue ...

#crysx

Ok, seems I get you wrong. From your post above I understand that "the experimental temp control settings - and / or mean net diff setting - then you will always get a see-saw power usage and always start / stop mining ... this is because of the facts i posted earlier ... the miner itself tries to create the 'perfect' scenario for mining IF you have those settings active ... take them off - and you will see that there will be a constant regular power consumption and mining ..."

But it is not about monitoring, yes?

Hey Crysx,

Please check your PM - want to bump the hashrate on the pool

monitoring functions are built into CWIgm - so they will have no major bearing on power consumption ...

but if you show us the commandline you are using - we might be able help ... without you password ...

#crysx

appreciated ...

#crysx

when we are happy with the final release ...

#crysx

link that the testers have ...

pm me with cards and operating system you intend on using - if you dont have the welcome pack ... as im still going through the list now ...

#crysx