Topic: [ANN][BLC] Blakecoin Blake-256 for GPU/FPGA With Merged Mined Pools Stable Net - page 156. (Read 409569 times)

ok mining again

the pool is ok now

Is this the issue that there are no rewards, just "Orphaned" transactions?

Turned my mining off for now

i was afraid the wallet was the forked one since i am solo
but we have no indication that it is actually a fork, have we?

Issues as in pool is forked?
No payouts and wasted hashpower for me.   

Right now:
Wallet block: 42313 at diff 3800
Pool block: 42325 at diff 2200

I want my 3% fee back from the time the pool worked, would cover about <1% of the wasted electricity, but better than nothing.

past 24hrs I have seen a few issues on the pool and might need some more looking at by kr105!

just thought I would let everyone know

Many thanks, it works. Getting 240 MH/s (surprise for me, heh).

try adding this to the cgminer.conf it should force platform 1 which is your nvidia card

"gpu-platform" : "1",

Thanks for clarifying, guys. I made the conf file edits and now cgminer runs without errors. How can I set it up for the nvidia card to see how it performs? In reaper I was getting around 250 MH/s, but I fear that cgminer will be much slower.

cgminer is not working for me.
I downloaded it from pool web page. At first it complained about missing "libgcc_s_dw2-1.dll" which I downloaded from the net and put it in program directory, then cgminer succeeded to open. I ran it with command line arguments as described on the pool page like
(I created the worker previously via pool page).
I am getting repeated errors "pool 0 JSON stratum auth failed: (null)". I think something is not working, how to fix it?
Also, it is always mining on my slow GPU "Intel(R) HD Graphics 4000". But my computer also has an NVIDIA card which is much faster (well, at least was in reaper). I cannot seem to get cgminer switch to the nvidia card - the "-g" command line switch is not working.
cgminer -ndev says:
What should I do to mine on the nvidia card?

yeah the broadcasts of blocks does take time to get to all nodes/wallets on the network and the pool server is likely in a data-center plus it is working on new blocks  

Edit:
could be issue with pool server I will ask kr105 to have a look

yes, diff is the same but the pool is still 2 or 3 blocks ahead,
or the wallet is behind. i think it is not a big deal

I think the pool has some issue atm I have asked kr105 to take a look

Edit: Should be working fine now

in my wallet i see:

{
"version" : 80900,
"protocolversion" : 70001,
"walletversion" : 60000,
"balance" : 30.00183031,
"blocks" : 41927,
"timeoffset" : -10,
"connections" : 4,
"proxy" : "",
"difficulty" : 1884.01392316,
"testnet" : false,
"keypoololdest" : 1387981174,
"keypoolsize" : 90,
"paytxfee" : 0.00000000,
"unlocked_until" : 0,
"errors" : ""
}

in the pool i see:
Current Difficulty   3137.48393601
Est. Next Difficulty   2790.12679628 (Change in 2790.12679628 Blocks)
Est. Avg. Time per Round (Network)   3 minutes 22 seconds
Est. Avg. Time per Round (Pool)   4 minutes 30 seconds
Est. Shares this Round   1569 (done: 4761.89%)
Next Network Block   41944    (Current: 41943)
Last Block Found   41883
Time Since Last Block   7 hours 50 minutes 21 seconds

why such difference? i have downloaded all the blocks!

reaper submits a lot of stales on the pool which cgminer does not, reaper is best for solo mining but use cgminer on the pool will get you more accepted shares

I am using reaper to solo-mine BLC. All the posts here are dealing with cgminer. Is there a way to set up reaper for pool mining?

I had the question of why faster hash rate is better

fast hashing is not the same thing as more coins or faster rounds, the wallet will always want to retarget the difficulty to get a result on average of 3 minutes per block

the higher hash rate should make for better averages for block finds (larger set) e.g more guesses of block hash at a given difficulty should give more chances of a random block find

also the speed from the Blake-256 algorithm does not mean that it uses more power in fact the modified Blake-256 uses less than scrypt and about the same for SHA-256 on the GPU and on the FPGA again Blake is very close to SHA-256 about 3w less but the external power adapter could account for this difference

Blake-256 has much better parallelism than SHA-256 and with Scrypt it is almost a linear hash function very little parallel structure

watch the youtube presentation to see how it works (the modified Blake-256 used in Blakecoin only uses 8 rounds - 64G function calls)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgpJNRnx6eY  

so it just does more hashing per watt than Scrypt/SHA-256, more shares on a pool should give everyone a better average

what the wallet does not like is huge spikes in the hashing which can lead to long rounds but with a quick 20 block retarget it never lasts that long

Hope that makes things clear