What is the calculation for diff when mining X11?
For example. .. if I've got 10MH/sec of X11 hashing ... what would be the recommended?
d=??? in the password?
Topic: [ANN] NiceHash.com - sell & buy hash rate cloud mining service / multipool - page 311. (Read 794394 times)
May 14, 2014, 05:21:09 PM
May 14, 2014, 05:09:38 PM
So what are people using to mine here with their Gridseed GC3355-Q64 55nm ASICs 
Last night I started running a side-by-side comparison of Hashra Mini Controlla vs Minera
Results so far:
Hashra--RPI with qty ten 5-chip Gridseeds, no d= or p= settings
https://nicehash.com/?p=miners&a=0&addr=192wH2yhWVyjiUkzf2qppnATSvmQkuMsxA
Minera--RPI with qty ten 5-chip Gridseeds, no d= or p= settings
https://nicehash.com/?p=miners&a=0&addr=1AmREReHNLec9EaW7gLRdW31LNSDA9SGR1
I have been using Hashra for quite a while with good success.
May 14, 2014, 05:06:40 PM
I have verified with kano that I am running cgminer v4.3.2a commit 85fcf0c ... what version is ckolivas saying this is fixed in?
I want to get my Ant farm over on NiceHash ... but with this bug it keeps leaving my Ants not mining anything! :-(
I want to get my Ant farm over on NiceHash ... but with this bug it keeps leaving my Ants not mining anything! :-(
This is the commit:
https://github.com/ckolivas/cgminer/commit/3b387ca67f226edccb3cf13cc827d7b57b2282aa
https://github.com/ckolivas/cgminer/pull/581
Not sure which build version includes this commit, please ask ckolivas or kano.
Kano replied and linked to those exact fixes being in his cgminer ... he's maintaining it exactly.
https://github.com/kanoi/cgminer/blob/ants1-4.3.2a-85fcf0c/util.c#L2048
There must be some other bug. :-(
My two test AntMiners ran fine on the pool ... switched to the backups when the thresholds were too high ... but then at some point the NiceHash pool went Active again, but nothing was mining.
Crap!
May 14, 2014, 04:47:38 PM
quote: "Hashing power sellers are paid at the current weighted average price. Current price is displayed on the NiceHash.com front page."
Wrong, no profitable=no statistic. It's gone two days ago. From top of any nicehash page...
img deleted
But you can still see statistic on first page:
May 14, 2014, 04:44:24 PM
quote: "Hashing power sellers are paid at the current weighted average price. Current price is displayed on the NiceHash.com front page."
Wrong, no profitable=no statistic. It's gone two days ago. From top of any nicehash page...
May 14, 2014, 04:25:04 PM
Why is in line8 of your new sgminer showing diff 0.000 and switching to diff -0.000 and back?
https://hostr.co/nYof167MwlKj
+1 Seeing this as well.
X11 or Scrypt? Do you set diff param in password?
X11. It doesn't matter if you set diff or not, it's the same result.
Even more, every diff value (except network) I have is (-)0.000...
Diff "d=0.01" is set in password.
Code:
sgminer 4.1.0-nicehash-2 - Started: [2014-05-14 13:12:42]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5s):784.9K (avg):737.4Kh/s | A:6 R:0 HW:0 WU:0.010/m
ST: 1 SS: 2 NB: 928 LW: 40958 GF: 4 RF: 0
Connected to Pool 0 (stratum) diff 0.000 as user 1xxx
Block: 56e97338... Diff:815 Started: [23:12:24] Best share: -0.000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[P]ool management [G]PU management [S]ettings [D]isplay options [Q]uit
GPU 0: 68.0C 2087RPM | 772.5K/737.4Kh/s | R: 0.2% HW:0 WU:0.010/m I:15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[23:12:37] Stratum from Pool 0 requested work restart
[23:12:40] Accepted 35e17290 Diff 0.000/0.000 GPU 0
[23:12:50] Accepted 39a0caff Diff 0.000/0.000 GPU 0
[23:12:51] Stratum from Pool 0 requested work restart
[23:12:52] Stratum from Pool 0 requested work restart
[23:12:53] Stratum from Pool 0 requested work restart
[23:12:55] Pool 0 extranonce change requested
[23:12:55] Stratum from Pool 0 requested work restart
[23:12:58] Accepted 185949df Diff 0.000/0.000 GPU 0
[23:13:19] Stratum from Pool 0 requested work restart
[23:13:20] Stratum from Pool 0 requested work restart
[23:13:21] Stratum from Pool 0 requested work restart
[23:13:26] Stratum from Pool 0 requested work restart
[23:13:26] Stratum from Pool 0 requested work restart
Edit: This is the win32 build of sph-sgminer.
May 14, 2014, 03:45:35 PM
Why is in line8 of your new sgminer showing diff 0.000 and switching to diff -0.000 and back?
https://hostr.co/nYof167MwlKj
+1 Seeing this as well.
X11 or Scrypt? Do you set diff param in password?
X11. It doesn't matter if you set diff or not, it's the same result.
May 14, 2014, 03:37:11 PM
Is there a good place to get support on script-n? I get nothing but hardware errors when it runs. Cards run fine on conventional scrypt...
Probably not a good place
Have you adjusted your config for Scrypt-N? Typically it needs different thread-concurrency settings. Google up some config samples for your card model.
May 14, 2014, 03:04:00 PM
Is there a good place to get support on script-n? I get nothing but hardware errors when it runs. Cards run fine on conventional scrypt...
May 14, 2014, 02:52:39 PM
GAW. Not sure exaclty what SW they use(That is why I have them hosted 
)
But I do know GAW announced last week they now support NiceHash..
) But I do know GAW announced last week they now support NiceHash..
True, GAW hosted miners should work flawlessly with NiceHash. One thing is for sure d=2048 is too high for GridSeeds, especially for the small 1st gen GridSeeds ... try to use d=512. Also, can you please ask GAW where exactly are those miners hosted (which part of the world, eu, usa, china?). Please, report this also to GAW, maybe they have to check if your miner really has the latest software installed.
Well.. So far changing it to d=512 seems to have no effect.. I am still missing or not seeing about 15% to 30% of my hash rate.. Just last week I was running on NiceHash and it worked great and reported all my Hash rate correct probably 95% of the time I checked it.. So have no clue what changed from last week to now. I will watch my payouts for the next day or so to see if maybe it’s just the reported hash rate I am seeing on NiceHash is not correct or something.. Not blaming NiceHash.. Just have no clue where the issue would be and why it would have worked fine last week but not now..
It might be on my hosted side but when I was running against another pool just a day and a half ago it was working fine in that pool.. Oh the joys of having your miners hosted.. Makes it harder to figure out where the issue is when something is going wrong... But I like the free hosting so will deal with it..
If I discover anything I will report back here but probably will have to switch pools in a day or so if I don’t figure it out and my payounts match what is being reported..
Thanks!
May 14, 2014, 12:37:08 PM
Would be nice if you combined Scrypt/Scrypt-N/SHA256/X11 rewards before payout 
They are combined together. You just don't see that on graph.
I had this exact same suggestion a while back -- remember aggregated payout that I mentioned?
The key thing here is that the payout mechanism should check the sum payout total of all the algorithms and check whether that meets the threshold of 0.002btc instead of checking each one individually.
For example, say I have pending balance of the following for each of these algor: scrypt 0.0017, scrypt-n 0.00006865, x11 0.00046600. Even though scrypt-n is below the 0.002 threshold, that will still get payed out on the next payout because the sum total of all three is 0.00223465btc. I don't believe the current system is doing that is it?
Payments are issued four times a day if your unpaid balance is greater than 0.01 BTC. Every fourth payment (once per day) is issued if balance is greater than 0.002 BTC. We will do payments for balances greater than 0.0001 BTC once every few days.
Payment threshold is checked for each algorithm even if you use the same BTC address for different algorithms. Each algorithm balance must correspond to the criteria above to be included in the payment. All balances for the same BTC address, matching the criteria above, will be combined into single payment.
Example:
User under BTC adress "xxx" has such balances:
a) Scrypt: 0.11
b) Scrypt-Adaptive-Nfactor: 0.04
c) X11: 0.0001
At the next payment round, total balance will be 0.11 + 0.04 = 0.15 BTC since a) and b) matches the criteria, however c) doesn't. User will receive 0.15 BTC in a single transaction. The X11 balance from c) will be paid in one of the next rounds, when it reaches the criteria above.
Note: We will implement a combined summarized threshold checking in the future upgrades to allow aggregated payout. It's in our TODO list we just haven't got time to implement it yet - it is not a trivial task since we have to do QA testing to make sure payments are 100% correct and exact.
May 14, 2014, 12:16:21 PM
Would be nice if you combined Scrypt/Scrypt-N/SHA256/X11 rewards before payout
They are combined together. You just don't see that on graph.
I had this exact same suggestion a while back -- remember aggregated payout that I mentioned?
The key thing here is that the payout mechanism should check the sum payout total of all the algorithms and check whether that meets the threshold of 0.002btc instead of checking each one individually.
For example, say I have pending balance of the following for each of these algor: scrypt 0.0017, scrypt-n 0.00006865, x11 0.00046600. Even though scrypt-n is below the 0.002 threshold, that will still get payed out on the next payout because the sum total of all three is 0.00223465btc. I don't believe the current system is doing that is it?
May 14, 2014, 11:51:29 AM
X11 or Scrypt? Do you set diff param in password?
Seeing this with X11 using Nicehash compiled sphminer. Also, Yes I am setting diff manually using pw. Thanks for your help!
May 14, 2014, 11:31:26 AM
GAW. Not sure exaclty what SW they use(That is why I have them hosted )
But I do know GAW announced last week they now support NiceHash..
) But I do know GAW announced last week they now support NiceHash..
True, GAW hosted miners should work flawlessly with NiceHash. One thing is for sure d=2048 is too high for GridSeeds, especially for the small 1st gen GridSeeds ... try to use d=512. Also, can you please ask GAW where exactly are those miners hosted (which part of the world, eu, usa, china?). Please, report this also to GAW, maybe they have to check if your miner really has the latest software installed.
Will do and thanks for the suggestions..
I am pretty sure they are hosted on the East Coast of the US.. Around NY area..
May 14, 2014, 11:29:14 AM
GAW. Not sure exaclty what SW they use(That is why I have them hosted )
But I do know GAW announced last week they now support NiceHash..
) But I do know GAW announced last week they now support NiceHash..
True, GAW hosted miners should work flawlessly with NiceHash. One thing is for sure d=2048 is too high for GridSeeds, especially for the small 1st gen GridSeeds ... try to use d=512. Also, can you please ask GAW where exactly are those miners hosted (which part of the world, eu, usa, china?). Please, report this also to GAW, maybe they have to check if your miner really has the latest software installed.
May 14, 2014, 11:21:57 AM
Bummer. There are still some strange issues going on with my AntMiner S1s working against the pool with "price" thresholds.
I just came home and found my two test AntMiner S1s hung ... they *said* the NiceHash pool was alive ... but they were NOT mining it ... and they were NOT mining my backup pools.
Both were mining earlier in the day, and then when the 0.06 contracts expired, they fell back to the backup pools. That is where they were when I left the house. I come home and realized they were in some strange state ... not mining NiceHash nor the backup pools.
I had to restart the miners, and then they immediately jumped back to the backup pools as there are no 0.06 contracts.
Something is broken ...
I just came home and found my two test AntMiner S1s hung ... they *said* the NiceHash pool was alive ... but they were NOT mining it ... and they were NOT mining my backup pools.
Both were mining earlier in the day, and then when the 0.06 contracts expired, they fell back to the backup pools. That is where they were when I left the house. I come home and realized they were in some strange state ... not mining NiceHash nor the backup pools.
I had to restart the miners, and then they immediately jumped back to the backup pools as there are no 0.06 contracts.
Something is broken ...
ckolivas informed me, that idlebug is fixed in latest cgminer. Do you use latest cgminer?
I have verified with kano that I am running cgminer v4.3.2a commit 85fcf0c ... what version is ckolivas saying this is fixed in?
I want to get my Ant farm over on NiceHash ... but with this bug it keeps leaving my Ants not mining anything! :-(
This is the commit:
https://github.com/ckolivas/cgminer/commit/3b387ca67f226edccb3cf13cc827d7b57b2282aa
https://github.com/ckolivas/cgminer/pull/581
Not sure which build version includes this commit, please ask ckolivas or kano.
May 14, 2014, 11:12:16 AM
Does this miner establish single connection to the NiceHash? If there are mutliple connections, then diff 2048 may be a bit high and you should reduce it.
Not sure I understand what your asking.. I have several miners.. 4 Blades and couple 10 packs..
What questions should I ask GAW Hosting Support?
May 14, 2014, 11:10:49 AM
All my miners are hosted and all my miners are Gridspeeds.
You mean GridSeeds? Where are you hosting them? Which software (and version) are you (or your hosting provider) using?
GAW. Not sure exaclty what SW they use(That is why I have them hosted
) But I do know GAW announced last week they now support NiceHash..
May 14, 2014, 11:06:02 AM
Does this miner establish single connection to the NiceHash? If there are mutliple connections, then diff 2048 may be a bit high and you should reduce it.
May 14, 2014, 10:57:42 AM
Bummer. There are still some strange issues going on with my AntMiner S1s working against the pool with "price" thresholds.
I just came home and found my two test AntMiner S1s hung ... they *said* the NiceHash pool was alive ... but they were NOT mining it ... and they were NOT mining my backup pools.
Both were mining earlier in the day, and then when the 0.06 contracts expired, they fell back to the backup pools. That is where they were when I left the house. I come home and realized they were in some strange state ... not mining NiceHash nor the backup pools.
I had to restart the miners, and then they immediately jumped back to the backup pools as there are no 0.06 contracts.
Something is broken ...
I just came home and found my two test AntMiner S1s hung ... they *said* the NiceHash pool was alive ... but they were NOT mining it ... and they were NOT mining my backup pools.
Both were mining earlier in the day, and then when the 0.06 contracts expired, they fell back to the backup pools. That is where they were when I left the house. I come home and realized they were in some strange state ... not mining NiceHash nor the backup pools.
I had to restart the miners, and then they immediately jumped back to the backup pools as there are no 0.06 contracts.
Something is broken ...
ckolivas informed me, that idlebug is fixed in latest cgminer. Do you use latest cgminer?
I have verified with kano that I am running cgminer v4.3.2a commit 85fcf0c ... what version is ckolivas saying this is fixed in?
I want to get my Ant farm over on NiceHash ... but with this bug it keeps leaving my Ants not mining anything! :-(
Jump to: