Pages:
Author

Topic: [ANN] lolMiner-mnx, Mining MinexCoin(MNX) New version: v0.4 (July 22) - page 10. (Read 30771 times)

jr. member
Activity: 36
Merit: 4
Hi

I keep getting "Bus error".  I get the same error if I run with all available GPUs or just with a single one.  I have tried all the available options but always get the same error.

Code:
-------------------------------------------------
         Welcome to lolMiner-mnx 0.33

   This software is only meant for pool mining
    with the Equihash 96/5 algorithm (MARS)

For usage instructions add -h to the commandline.
   For support visit our bitcointalk thread.

          Made by Lolliedieb, March 2018
-------------------------------------------------
No Argument given - Switching to Benchmark mode
Auto selecting platform with id 0: NVIDIA CUDA
Auto selecting all GPU in platform.
Using device with id 0 (GeForce GTX 1050)
Using device with id 1 (GeForce GTX 1050)
Using device with id 2 (GeForce GTX 1050)
Using device with id 3 (GeForce GTX 1050)
Using device with id 4 (GeForce GTX 1050)
Using device with id 5 (GeForce GTX 960)
Using device with id 6 (GeForce GTX 1050)
Using device with id 7 (GeForce GTX 1050)
Using device with id 8 (GeForce GTX 1050)
Using device with id 9 (GeForce GTX 1050)
Using device with id 10 (GeForce GTX 1050)
Selected work-batch for device 0: 22
Selected work-batch for device 1: 22
Selected work-batch for device 2: 22
Selected work-batch for device 3: 22
Selected work-batch for device 4: 22
Selected work-batch for device 5: 14
Selected work-batch for device 6: 22
Selected work-batch for device 7: 22
Selected work-batch for device 8: 22
Selected work-batch for device 9: 22
Selected work-batch for device 10: 22
Bus error

I read through the entire history and see memory mentioned a few times.  Is that related?

Can you point me in the right direction to diagnose whats wrong?

Thanks
member
Activity: 433
Merit: 48
I think I am now 100% sure that there is no switch to the primary pool from the fall-back pool not 30 min later, not 10 (which I set in --set-reconnection-timer 10), not at all.


So, I gave it a check and it worked as it should.
What did I do for a try? Well I uses this config:

Code:
--server eu.minexpool.nl,optiminer.eu           
--port 9998,9999                         
--user XQZoBeGPZJoLhTdkcF8bScsNH5Wyesd9g4.W033,XQZoBeGPZJoLhTdkcF8bScsNH5Wyesd9g4.W033       
--pass x,x           
                 
--max-connection-attempts 5      
--set-reconnection-timer 10      
               
--set-short-stats-interval 30       
--set-long-stats-interval 120 

So you see I reduced stats output a bit and set the reconnection timer to 10 minutes.

And then got this output:
Code:
Stratum connection not reacting for too long time.
Lost connection to stratum server eu.minexpool.nl:9998 or server not reachable.
Trying to connect in 5 seconds
Stratum connection not reacting for too long time.
Lost connection to stratum server eu.minexpool.nl:9998 or server not reachable.
Trying to connect in 5 seconds
Stratum connection not reacting for too long time.
Lost connection to stratum server eu.minexpool.nl:9998 or server not reachable.
Trying to connect in 5 seconds
Stratum connection not reacting for too long time.
Lost connection to stratum server eu.minexpool.nl:9998 or server not reachable.
Trying to connect in 5 seconds
Stratum connection not reacting for too long time.
Lost connection to stratum server eu.minexpool.nl:9998 or server not reachable.
Trying to connect in 5 seconds
Too many attempts. Switching to failover pool optiminer.eu:9999
Connected to optiminer.eu:9999
Subscribed to stratum server
New target received: 0000333333333333340000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
New job received: cf6f
Authorized worker: XQZoBeGPZJoLhTdkcF8bScsNH5Wyesd9g4.W033
Start Mining...
[Device 0] Average speed (30s): 1211.59 sol/s
Submitting share
Share accepted
New job received: cf70
Submitting share
Share accepted
[Device 0] Average speed (30s): 1203.9 sol/s
[Device 0] Average speed (30s): 1159.75 sol/s
New job received: cf71
---------------------------------------------
Average speed (120s): 1180.03 sol/s
---------------------------------------------
[Device 0] Average speed (30s): 1143.1 sol/s
[Device 0] Average speed (30s): 1128.57 sol/s
[Device 0] Average speed (30s): 1082.13 sol/s
[Device 0] Average speed (30s): 1108.65 sol/s
Submitting share
Share accepted
---------------------------------------------
Average speed (120s): 1112.11 sol/s
---------------------------------------------
[Device 0] Average speed (30s): 1128.52 sol/s
[Device 0] Average speed (30s): 1100.85 sol/s
New target received: 0001051eb854a875700000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
New job received: cf72
New job received: cf73
[Device 0] Average speed (30s): 1124.74 sol/s
Submitting share
Share accepted
[Device 0] Average speed (30s): 1114.01 sol/s
Submitting share
Share accepted
---------------------------------------------
Average speed (120s): 1113.44 sol/s
---------------------------------------------
[Device 0] Average speed (30s): 1112.48 sol/s
[Device 0] Average speed (30s): 1113.21 sol/s
[Device 0] Average speed (30s): 1106.15 sol/s
Submitting share
Share accepted
[Device 0] Average speed (30s): 1142.23 sol/s
---------------------------------------------
Average speed (120s): 1121.17 sol/s
---------------------------------------------
[Device 0] Average speed (30s): 1121.42 sol/s
[Device 0] Average speed (30s): 1100.78 sol/s
[Device 0] Average speed (30s): 1121.37 sol/s
[Device 0] Average speed (30s): 1139.7 sol/s
Trying to reconnect to original pool.
Lost connection to stratum server optiminer.eu:9999 or server not reachable.
Trying to connect in 5 seconds
Stratum connection not reacting for too long time.
Lost connection to stratum server eu.minexpool.nl:9998 or server not reachable.
Trying to connect in 5 seconds
Too many attempts. Switching to failover pool optiminer.eu:9999
Connected to optiminer.eu:9999
Subscribed to stratum server
New target received: 0000333333333333340000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
New job received: cf73
Authorized worker: XQZoBeGPZJoLhTdkcF8bScsNH5Wyesd9g4.W033
[Device 0] Average speed (30s): 1102.12 sol/s
[Device 0] Average speed (30s): 1107.46 sol/s
New job received: cf74
New job received: cf75
[Device 0] Average speed (30s): 1068.84 sol/s

You see that of cause the first connection to minexpool.nl failed because I configured the wrong port. After 5 attempts it connected to optiminer.eu and started mining. After about 10 minutes it tried to reconnect to minexpool.nl, but failed again (because the port is still not valid) and therefore swaped back to the first failover.

Overall this is exactly what it should do. Test system is an AMD A10 7850K integrated graphics, running Windows 10 Pro.
member
Activity: 433
Merit: 48
I think I am now 100% sure that there is no switch to the primary pool from the fall-back pool not 30 min later, not 10 (which I set in --set-reconnection-timer 10), not at all.

I will give that a check.


[Device 0] Average speed (5s): 9188.96 sol/s
[Device 1] Average speed (5s): 9918.42 sol/s
[Device 2] Average speed (5s): 10140.2 sol/s
[Device 3] Average speed (5s): 10173.8 sol/s
[Device 4] Average speed (5s): 9941.01 sol/s
[Device 5] Average speed (5s): 10024.8 sol/s
[Device 6] Average speed (5s): 6902.02 sol/s
[Device 7] Average speed (5s): 6636.27 sol/s
[Device 8] Average speed (5s): 6775.64 sol/s
[Device 9] Average speed (5s): 6401.12 sol/s
[Device 10] Average speed (5s): 7138.37 sol/s
[Device 11] Average speed (5s): 6737.25 sol/s
[Device 12] Average speed (5s): 6953.81 sol/s

Maybe a overall high CPU load? This seems to me that the runtime can not fill the cards fast enough with new work. What can help is increasing --set-work-batch. I hope to get is less demanding on CPU side timing in next major version.
newbie
Activity: 14
Merit: 0

[Device 0] Average speed (5s): 9188.96 sol/s
[Device 1] Average speed (5s): 9918.42 sol/s
[Device 2] Average speed (5s): 10140.2 sol/s
[Device 3] Average speed (5s): 10173.8 sol/s
[Device 4] Average speed (5s): 9941.01 sol/s
[Device 5] Average speed (5s): 10024.8 sol/s
[Device 6] Average speed (5s): 6902.02 sol/s
[Device 7] Average speed (5s): 6636.27 sol/s
[Device 8] Average speed (5s): 6775.64 sol/s
[Device 9] Average speed (5s): 6401.12 sol/s
[Device 10] Average speed (5s): 7138.37 sol/s
[Device 11] Average speed (5s): 6737.25 sol/s
[Device 12] Average speed (5s): 6953.81 sol/s


@nguyenkhoj93, give it another shot as follows:

Bat1 : --device 0,1,6,7,8
Bat2 : --device 2,3,9,10
Bat3 : --device 4,5,11,12

Good luck!

I tried config 3 batch file but i can't run it. Because if Bat1 running after that Bat2 running.  Lolminer will be crashed.

How much virtual memory you set to that rig? And what is that cards, 3 or 6GB?
Try to add this command when you opening more then one bat file: --use-alt-mine-thread
newbie
Activity: 54
Merit: 0
I think I am now 100% sure that there is no switch to the primary pool from the fall-back pool not 30 min later, not 10 (which I set in --set-reconnection-timer 10), not at all.
sr. member
Activity: 367
Merit: 250

What about fact that optiminer does not support all graphic cards (for example vega cards) and that for some cards it does supports it is not optimized (for example 1080ti gives hashrate which is only about 20% higher than hashrate for 1060 3gb, so 20% more hashrate for card that cost 400% more).
Im talking about optiminer on Linux.

That's a legitimate reason to want a miner that supports those cards, however, the Linux version of lolminer proves Windows wasn't needed. Optiminer lost market share to lolminer due to not meeting consumer demand, which is fair. But while you're need is legitimate, in my opinion,  I'm more talking about others that wanted a Windows miner simply because they didn't want to take the time to setup a Linux OS and learn some Linux commands. That's just lazy, imo.
newbie
Activity: 84
Merit: 0
I tried config 3 batch file but i can't run it. Because if Bat1 running after that Bat2 running.  Lolminer will be crashed.
How did you managed to run that much gpus on 1 mb? Do you use some 1 to many PCIe adapter or your mb have that number of pcie slots?
newbie
Activity: 84
Merit: 0
I believe GPL means that any source code that is borrowed from another source under GPL must be made available as well. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhyUseGPL

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public? (#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic)
The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.

But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL.

Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Personally, I use both linux and windows miners and have used both lolminer and optiminer. Aside from this post, I'm not getting into this drama and appreciate the work of both miners, however, it does seem those demanding a Windows miner are lazy. Linux distributions are generally free and running a miner on them is not too difficult at all (though more involved), especially with many tutorials available or bitcointalkers willing to assist. Just create a dual boot disk and you're good to go.




What about fact that optiminer does not support all graphic cards (for example vega cards) and that for some cards it does supports it is not optimized (for example 1080ti gives hashrate which is only about 20% higher than hashrate for 1060 3gb, so 20% more hashrate for card that cost 400% more).
Im talking about optiminer on Linux.
newbie
Activity: 5
Merit: 0

[Device 0] Average speed (5s): 9188.96 sol/s
[Device 1] Average speed (5s): 9918.42 sol/s
[Device 2] Average speed (5s): 10140.2 sol/s
[Device 3] Average speed (5s): 10173.8 sol/s
[Device 4] Average speed (5s): 9941.01 sol/s
[Device 5] Average speed (5s): 10024.8 sol/s
[Device 6] Average speed (5s): 6902.02 sol/s
[Device 7] Average speed (5s): 6636.27 sol/s
[Device 8] Average speed (5s): 6775.64 sol/s
[Device 9] Average speed (5s): 6401.12 sol/s
[Device 10] Average speed (5s): 7138.37 sol/s
[Device 11] Average speed (5s): 6737.25 sol/s
[Device 12] Average speed (5s): 6953.81 sol/s


@nguyenkhoj93, give it another shot as follows:

Bat1 : --device 0,1,6,7,8
Bat2 : --device 2,3,9,10
Bat3 : --device 4,5,11,12

Good luck!

I tried config 3 batch file but i can't run it. Because if Bat1 running after that Bat2 running.  Lolminer will be crashed.
newbie
Activity: 49
Merit: 0

[Device 0] Average speed (5s): 9188.96 sol/s
[Device 1] Average speed (5s): 9918.42 sol/s
[Device 2] Average speed (5s): 10140.2 sol/s
[Device 3] Average speed (5s): 10173.8 sol/s
[Device 4] Average speed (5s): 9941.01 sol/s
[Device 5] Average speed (5s): 10024.8 sol/s
[Device 6] Average speed (5s): 6902.02 sol/s
[Device 7] Average speed (5s): 6636.27 sol/s
[Device 8] Average speed (5s): 6775.64 sol/s
[Device 9] Average speed (5s): 6401.12 sol/s
[Device 10] Average speed (5s): 7138.37 sol/s
[Device 11] Average speed (5s): 6737.25 sol/s
[Device 12] Average speed (5s): 6953.81 sol/s


@nguyenkhoj93, give it another shot as follows:

Bat1 : --device 0,1,6,7,8
Bat2 : --device 2,3,9,10
Bat3 : --device 4,5,11,12

Good luck!
sr. member
Activity: 367
Merit: 250
I believe GPL means that any source code that is borrowed from another source under GPL must be made available as well. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhyUseGPL

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public? (#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic)
The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.

But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL.

Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Personally, I use both linux and windows miners and have used both lolminer and optiminer. Aside from this post, I'm not getting into this drama and appreciate the work of both miners, however, it does seem those demanding a Windows miner are lazy. Linux distributions are generally free and running a miner on them is not too difficult at all (though more involved), especially with many tutorials available or bitcointalkers willing to assist. Just create a dual boot disk and you're good to go.


newbie
Activity: 5
Merit: 0
i have 13 GTX 1060. Why GPU 1 --> 6 ~ 9k Sol/s but  GPU 7 --> 13 ~ 7k Sol/s. Please help me T_T

[Device 0] Average speed (5s): 9382.12 sol/s
[Device 1] Average speed (5s): 9522.9 sol/s
[Device 2] Average speed (5s): 9543.41 sol/s
[Device 3] Average speed (5s): 9518.32 sol/s
[Device 4] Average speed (5s): 9527.48 sol/s
[Device 5] Average speed (5s): 9473.32 sol/s
[Device 6] Average speed (5s): 7309.84 sol/s
[Device 7] Average speed (5s): 7378.34 sol/s
[Device 8] Average speed (5s): 7459.38 sol/s
[Device 9] Average speed (5s): 7189.37 sol/s
[Device 10] Average speed (5s): 7461.77 sol/s
[Device 11] Average speed (5s): 7315.41 sol/s
[Device 12] Average speed (5s): 7324.77 sol/s

Try to set these options in bat file: --set-work-batch 2G --optim STD
If not help try to set 6 cards to run in one cmd miner and 7 in other, so command should be like this: --device 0,1,2,3,4,5 in first bat, and --device 6,7,8,9,10,11,12 (not sure will miner have options to reconize command for --device like is number of card with two decimals..)

I tried all your suggestions. But it does not work T_T

[Device 0] Average speed (5s): 9188.96 sol/s
[Device 1] Average speed (5s): 9918.42 sol/s
[Device 2] Average speed (5s): 10140.2 sol/s
[Device 3] Average speed (5s): 10173.8 sol/s
[Device 4] Average speed (5s): 9941.01 sol/s
[Device 5] Average speed (5s): 10024.8 sol/s
[Device 6] Average speed (5s): 6902.02 sol/s
[Device 7] Average speed (5s): 6636.27 sol/s
[Device 8] Average speed (5s): 6775.64 sol/s
[Device 9] Average speed (5s): 6401.12 sol/s
[Device 10] Average speed (5s): 7138.37 sol/s
[Device 11] Average speed (5s): 6737.25 sol/s
[Device 12] Average speed (5s): 6953.81 sol/s

newbie
Activity: 49
Merit: 0
For lolMiner-mnx' sake, here's my two cents:

@Lolliedieb,

1. You do not have to do any thing to prove this is GPL code-free to him (optiminer).
2. Miners over here (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/optiminerequihash-210-supporting-zcash-bitcoin-gold-minexcoin-zero-2390070) have been waiting for months
    for his windows version since 11/02/2017 as he promised from the get going.  He never did!
3. Oh, look! Here comes he! after your windows version and starting to complain about GPL code-free.
    The bottom line, being jealous is his biggest problems.
4. if the question is being asked is: will you or someone out there go after his code to check GPL code-free?
full member
Activity: 209
Merit: 100
Join Cashbery Coin!
Ah okay, so you claim it to be GPL code-free. That's fine. I do not have the code available so I cannot say much about that. But for parts of the opencl kernel it's obvious that you started from GPLed code and modified it from there (probably a lot). Just try this: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22occupy+the+high+32+bits+of+the+second+ulong+word%22

Hi-

This isn't constructive.

He proposed you to check the code:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.33126032

AFAIK, optiminer is for linux? Did you make a Windows miner? What's the problem?

Nobody here know what you want "optiminer", aren't concerned, and can't do anything about this. We don't understand insinuations.

Please use PM, and better, find a way in between both 2. Why don't you you both make a perfect miner for Windows and Linux?

Optiminer, you seem to be putting a lot of effort into trying to discredit this project (I'm assuming you are feeling the drop in usage on your miner), but as I said before, you have had people asking you to do a Windows version for MONTHS now, why not just spend that effort on making a better miner rather than attacking this one?
member
Activity: 433
Merit: 48
Interesting... you decompiled  or extracted my code I see ... so we get Nvidia update for your miner soon?

To open it up: my OpenCL code uses the Blake2B routine from older ZCash miner zogminer. You can find the code here:
https://github.com/nginnever/zogminer/blob/master/src/libzogminer/kernels/cl_zogminer_kernel.cl

There you also find the comment snipped you cited. This miner is under MIT license, so I think I am fine to use it. But you are right the nheqminer has same comment in, but is CUDA and not OpenCL.

Since you should not be only one to see it, here is the full blake2b code of lolMiner 0.33:
Code:
void round0(ulong8 blake_state, __global uint4 *results, __local uint *counter, uint tid, uint gId) {
if (tid > 26214) return;

        ulong               v[16];
   
// shift "i" to occupy the high 32 bits of the second ulong word in the
// message block. The lower will be used to modify the nounce
ulong word1 = ((ulong)tid << 32) | gId;
// init vector v
v[0] = blake_state.s0;
v[1] = blake_state.s1;
v[2] = blake_state.s2;
v[3] = blake_state.s3;
v[4] = blake_state.s4;
v[5] = blake_state.s5;
v[6] = blake_state.s6;
v[7] = blake_state.s7;
v[8] =  blake_iv[0];
v[9] =  blake_iv[1];
v[10] = blake_iv[2];
v[11] = blake_iv[3];
v[12] = blake_iv[4];
v[13] = blake_iv[5];
v[14] = blake_iv[6];
v[15] = blake_iv[7];
// gFunc in length of data
v[12] ^= 144 /* length of "i" */;
// last block
v[14] ^= (ulong)-1;

// round 1
gFunc(v[0], v[4], v[8],  v[12], 0, word1);
gFunc(v[1], v[5], v[9],  v[13], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[2], v[6], v[10], v[14], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[3], v[7], v[11], v[15], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[0], v[5], v[10], v[15], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[1], v[6], v[11], v[12], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[2], v[7], v[8],  v[13], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[3], v[4], v[9],  v[14], 0, 0);
// round 2
gFunc(v[0], v[4], v[8],  v[12], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[1], v[5], v[9],  v[13], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[2], v[6], v[10], v[14], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[3], v[7], v[11], v[15], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[0], v[5], v[10], v[15], word1, 0);
gFunc(v[1], v[6], v[11], v[12], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[2], v[7], v[8],  v[13], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[3], v[4], v[9],  v[14], 0, 0);
// round 3
gFunc(v[0], v[4], v[8],  v[12], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[1], v[5], v[9],  v[13], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[2], v[6], v[10], v[14], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[3], v[7], v[11], v[15], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[0], v[5], v[10], v[15], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[1], v[6], v[11], v[12], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[2], v[7], v[8],  v[13], 0, word1);
gFunc(v[3], v[4], v[9],  v[14], 0, 0);
// round 4
gFunc(v[0], v[4], v[8],  v[12], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[1], v[5], v[9],  v[13], 0, word1);
gFunc(v[2], v[6], v[10], v[14], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[3], v[7], v[11], v[15], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[0], v[5], v[10], v[15], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[1], v[6], v[11], v[12], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[2], v[7], v[8],  v[13], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[3], v[4], v[9],  v[14], 0, 0);
// round 5
gFunc(v[0], v[4], v[8],  v[12], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[1], v[5], v[9],  v[13], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[2], v[6], v[10], v[14], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[3], v[7], v[11], v[15], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[0], v[5], v[10], v[15], 0, word1);
gFunc(v[1], v[6], v[11], v[12], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[2], v[7], v[8],  v[13], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[3], v[4], v[9],  v[14], 0, 0);
// round 6
gFunc(v[0], v[4], v[8],  v[12], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[1], v[5], v[9],  v[13], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[2], v[6], v[10], v[14], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[3], v[7], v[11], v[15], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[0], v[5], v[10], v[15], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[1], v[6], v[11], v[12], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[2], v[7], v[8],  v[13], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[3], v[4], v[9],  v[14], word1, 0);
// round 7
gFunc(v[0], v[4], v[8],  v[12], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[1], v[5], v[9],  v[13], word1, 0);
gFunc(v[2], v[6], v[10], v[14], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[3], v[7], v[11], v[15], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[0], v[5], v[10], v[15], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[1], v[6], v[11], v[12], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[2], v[7], v[8],  v[13], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[3], v[4], v[9],  v[14], 0, 0);
// round 8
gFunc(v[0], v[4], v[8],  v[12], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[1], v[5], v[9],  v[13], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[2], v[6], v[10], v[14], 0, word1);
gFunc(v[3], v[7], v[11], v[15], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[0], v[5], v[10], v[15], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[1], v[6], v[11], v[12], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[2], v[7], v[8],  v[13], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[3], v[4], v[9],  v[14], 0, 0);
// round 9
gFunc(v[0], v[4], v[8],  v[12], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[1], v[5], v[9],  v[13], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[2], v[6], v[10], v[14], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[3], v[7], v[11], v[15], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[0], v[5], v[10], v[15], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[1], v[6], v[11], v[12], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[2], v[7], v[8],  v[13], word1, 0);
gFunc(v[3], v[4], v[9],  v[14], 0, 0);
// round 10
gFunc(v[0], v[4], v[8],  v[12], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[1], v[5], v[9],  v[13], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[2], v[6], v[10], v[14], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[3], v[7], v[11], v[15], word1, 0);
gFunc(v[0], v[5], v[10], v[15], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[1], v[6], v[11], v[12], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[2], v[7], v[8],  v[13], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[3], v[4], v[9],  v[14], 0, 0);
// round 11
gFunc(v[0], v[4], v[8],  v[12], 0, word1);
gFunc(v[1], v[5], v[9],  v[13], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[2], v[6], v[10], v[14], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[3], v[7], v[11], v[15], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[0], v[5], v[10], v[15], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[1], v[6], v[11], v[12], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[2], v[7], v[8],  v[13], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[3], v[4], v[9],  v[14], 0, 0);
// round 12
gFunc(v[0], v[4], v[8],  v[12], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[1], v[5], v[9],  v[13], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[2], v[6], v[10], v[14], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[3], v[7], v[11], v[15], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[0], v[5], v[10], v[15], word1, 0);
gFunc(v[1], v[6], v[11], v[12], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[2], v[7], v[8],  v[13], 0, 0);
gFunc(v[3], v[4], v[9], v[14], 0, 0);

        v[0] = v[0] ^ blake_state.s0 ^ v[8];
        v[1] = v[1] ^ blake_state.s1 ^ v[9];
        v[2] = v[2] ^ blake_state.s2 ^ v[10];
        v[3] = v[3] ^ blake_state.s3 ^ v[11];
        v[4] = v[4] ^ blake_state.s4 ^ v[12];
        v[5] = v[5] ^ blake_state.s5 ^ v[13];
        v[6] = v[6] ^ blake_state.s6 ^ v[14];
v[7] = v[7] ^ blake_state.s7 ^ v[15];

uint4 output;
uint bucket; uint pos;

output.s0 = 5*tid;
output.s1 = (v[0] & 0xFFFFFFFF);
output.s2 = (v[0] >> 32);
output.s3 = (v[1] & 0xFFFFFFFF);


getBucket(bucket, output.s1);
getRem(output.s1, output.s1);
pos = atomic_inc(&counter[bucket]);
if (pos < bSize) results[bucket*bSize + pos] = output;

output.s0 = 5*tid+1;
output.s1 = (v[1] >> 32);
output.s2 = (v[2] & 0xFFFFFFFF); 
output.s3 = (v[2] >> 32);


getBucket(bucket, output.s1);
getRem(output.s1, output.s1);
pos = atomic_inc(&counter[bucket]);
if (pos < bSize) results[bucket*bSize + pos] = output;

output.s0 = 5*tid+2;
output.s1 = (v[3] & 0xFFFFFFFF);
output.s2 = (v[3] >> 32);
output.s3 = (v[4] & 0xFFFFFFFF);

if (output.s0 < 131072) {
getBucket(bucket, output.s1);
getRem(output.s1, output.s1);
pos = atomic_inc(&counter[bucket]);
if (pos < bSize) results[bucket*bSize + pos] = output;
}

output.s0 = 5*tid+3;
output.s1 = (v[4] >> 32);
output.s2 = (v[5] & 0xFFFFFFFF); 
output.s3 = (v[5] >> 32);

if (output.s0 < 131072) {
getBucket(bucket, output.s1);
getRem(output.s1, output.s1);
pos = atomic_inc(&counter[bucket]);
if (pos < bSize) results[bucket*bSize + pos] = output;
}

output.s0 = 5*tid+4;
output.s1 = (v[6] & 0xFFFFFFFF);
output.s2 = (v[6] >> 32);
output.s3 = (v[7] & 0xFFFFFFFF);

if (output.s0 < 131072) {
getBucket(bucket, output.s1);
getRem(output.s1, output.s1);
pos = atomic_inc(&counter[bucket]);
if (pos < bSize) results[bucket*bSize + pos] = output;
}
}

I hope you see that this is taken from Zogminer but modified for Minex. Also nheqminer has a similar phrase in also under MIT. To other sources I did not look.

By the way, how do you like my round code? That one is due to my own and I like its simplicity Cheesy

Question is now what should I do with you. I do not like binary kernels as you use because they make the miners incompatible, i.e. I could not support Vega with binary kernels. But if you found a simple way of extracting my OpenCL text form code I must come up with some more hiding... Was this really nessesary?
full member
Activity: 187
Merit: 100
Under what license is this miner distributed?

Is the source available? It seems to use GPLed code, so I would expect it to be.

Hi there,
Can you be more specific which code under GPL you think I am using?  The only external libraries I use and link at the moment are the boost library and the g++/mingw64 runtimes. Well and OpenCL of cause. I hope I am not wrong here, so if you found somethink I use that I am not allowed to I will remove it immidiately.  I wrote most of this from scratch - don't even have the external equihashverify code from node code in here. Beeing a bit more specific could help clarifying this.


Ah okay, so you claim it to be GPL code-free. That's fine. I do not have the code available so I cannot say much about that. But for parts of the opencl kernel it's obvious that you started from GPLed code and modified it from there (probably a lot). Just try this: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22occupy+the+high+32+bits+of+the+second+ulong+word%22

If that's still covered by the GPL or not I don't know.
newbie
Activity: 8
Merit: 0
>That pool is currently reporting 672.72 k sols.  The network is currently 198594.56 ksols. 

Sure it's low - it was 2.5 Msols 2 days ago.

>The page itself lists the current luck at 0.661.

Yes - but it's not zero for 3 days.

>Is it possible that the pool recently lost some mining power to explain why the returns have gone down? 

It went from 2.5 M to 0.7 M because nothing is coming in, no block.

But on the other points, like the global difficulty going down?

Sorry if anyone caught my first reply. I misread the block explorer so my numbers were wrong. 

xplorer.com/?r=explorer/address&hash=XRPQoGJqrXwGLuAL8RVuWkX7PHNdUR2bVg]https[Suspicious link removed]xplorer.com/?r=explorer/address&hash=XRPQoGJqrXwGLuAL8RVuWkX7PHNdUR2bVg
It looks like they have found 5 blocks in roughly 5 days.  There was a two and a half day gap, but random chance does that especially with really low chances. 

If the miner wasn't providing correct solutions then the pool should show them as invalid shares or something similar. 
newbie
Activity: 84
Merit: 0
I am not saying anything yet, this could be a coincidence.

Soon will be visible.

Wait until diff go high as it was 2-3 days ago, and pool hash drop as it was in that period and then you will see if you theory is correct Cheesy
Most probablyhttp:// not, just diff was too high and hash was too small. In last 2 days for one block supr had luck more than 700%, and supr is big pool, when to small pool this bad luck happens...
http://i64.tinypic.com/2i9qp0g.jpg
member
Activity: 204
Merit: 10
Mining is our Passion! Join us!
I am not saying anything yet, this could be a coincidence.

Soon will be visible.
member
Activity: 204
Merit: 10
Mining is our Passion! Join us!
Grin Grin Grin

Even so, 120 minutes after we switched versions and voila... block found  Grin Grin Grin
Around the same time diff gone down...
https://minexexplorer.com/
And the hashrate rised a lot:) Ring a bell? Hollow mining...
Pages:
Jump to: