Topic: [ANN]Bminer: a fast Equihash/Ethash/Cuckaroo29z miner for AMD/NVIDIA GPUs 16.4.9 - page 111. (Read 148347 times)

Yes, but I can not use it outside the same network? I can not look at the dashboard from another city?

Agreed - it's funny how they don't realize this....
unless...

wait for it...

They are all made from the same dev!
 

Try changing the `api` parameters to


Change 1880 to whatever port you want to listen on. 0.0.0.0 should mean that it binds to all available network interfaces/IPs, or at least it does usually.

Could someone explain to me how to use the API? I have tried and I can only see the dashboard of the api from the same miner that is running the .bat, but from another computer I can not see it

6.0.0 has released.

• Failover server supports. Supply multiple uris (separated by commas) via the -uri option to enable the failover support.
• A launcher GUI for Windows.
• Reduce reject rate caused by stale shares.
• 0.3-0.5% performance improvement depending on card models.
• Fix inaccurate metrics at the start of Bminer.
• Reduce CPU usage the start of bminer.
• Support miner.reconnect().
• Experimental support for miningrigrentals.
• A new option -no-runtime-info to disable runtime information collection.

Happy mining!

Hi everyone! New user in bitcoin talk and fairly new mining too as been doing it only for a month or so. After reading 55 pages of conversations and discussions about Bminer I still haven´t made up my mind wheter to use it or not. To many concerns about security and background connections to Bminer servers and too many others related to its improvements over DSTM.

So far I use DSTM on my rig.

I have 6 GTX 1070 Ti, 3 of them MSI gaming and the other 3 EVGA SC and can not complain about their performance: average 3090 sols/s, 4.10 sols/w and 11.5 shares normally ( sometimes 10.80 and others 12.10) all cards on same settings, 70% TDP, +200 clock, +700 memory running stable at 50º C with fans on manual control between 25% an 37% depending on its position in the rig and the time of the day.



Any suggestions on how to improve this performance a bit more is always welcome.

The reason of my post and why I quoted philipma1957 is because I would like to ask a question from a newbie perspective so please be kind jeje

Looking at the pictures of your test philipma1957 I have noticed one thing: As you said, Bminer income is higher at the end of both tests by looking at the total amount nonetheless if we look in all your pics, on the Profitability (BTC/Day) is the same for both miners (0.0004/day) but the Total USD amount is always higher for DSTM (3.08/day VS 2.92 on the first picture and 4.36/day vs 3.86/day on the second). Besides on the right green box ´´payout amount´´ it is higher for Bminer ( on everything, daily, weekly and monthly) on the first to pictures but if we look at the second ones, everything is higher on DSTM though it is supposed to be performing worse than Bminer.

I want to understand how is this possible?

Do not take me wrong  philipma1957, I am not complaining about your test results or the way you have done them, I couldn´t have done them better myself but I do not undertand how, if Bminer is better and getting better payout it is not consistent all the time and is not always ahead of DSTM.

Thank you in advance

Thank you very much! It's works.

Please drop your dev fee to 0.5% or less and I will switch.
Hell, pool operators have to manage servers and pay for hosting etc and they take less than what dev takes away.
Actualy if you drop your dev fee many people would switch from DSTM or EWBF and you would gain more money.

In BAT file
bminer -uri stratum+ssl://t1Uxqks8udc8KpgdYvsngm2LWFA78CqhvCd.%computername%%%2fantipov%%40yandex.ru:[email protected]:6633

Hi,

 I just start to use Bminer.Everything work greats but only in top of my console it shows "Remove dead screens with 'screen -wipe'." all the time.I couldnt figure out why it says like that.Did anybody experience same error?

Hello everybody. I have a problem with email settings on nanopool. On bminer.me said :"You can follow RFC 1738 to escape special characters (e.g., @, /) in the URI. This is useful when the mining pool requires you to specify email address as part of the username."
My BAT-file is
 bminer -uri stratum+ssl://t1Uxqks8udc8KpgdYvsngm2LWFA78CqhvCd.%computername%2fantipov%40yandex.ru:[email protected]:6633
But on nanopool my worker-name is DESKTOP-7B2JM762fantipov0yandex.ru
My correct email [email protected]
Who can helps me?

Win 10, afterburner both yes, I would like to continue work with celeron, if it will not bring me new troubles, well let’s see how Linux will work for me, btw dstm works fine😑🤫. Thanks for advise

is that pos celeron replaceable?

if it is not  bminer may not work well for you.

next question  do you run win 10?

if you run win 10 do you use msi afterburner?


cheap shitty cpus  like the celeron   really should be on a linux based piece of gear

I would try to run that rig on smos  simplemining.net

Dear users of bminer, I need your help😅 i was starting mining month ago, so pretty much newbie👏👏
Met a problem with my 12gpu rig
-Armor msi 1060 6gb
-b250 12 slots (China model)
-intel celeron 2930
-ssd 60gb
-ddr4 4gb
Bminer properly work with 10gpu if I use command -devices 0,1....10, anyway it takes a wild to start work😓😢😢
But when I am trying to put all of 12, it show me 0 hashrates, and did not finish starting, i was waiting about 30 minutes and it is still not benchmark the last 2, Do you have any solutions?!
P.s There are no errors, seems like bminer need more time, but I do not have so much passion so the maximum of waiting 30-40min
Thanks in advise!

Thanks for your work on this Phil. 99% of readers appreciate it and will learn something.

@ yankees  kill-a-watt  on thurs.

My wife had a dental emergency so I have been busy with real world stuff.

So far I think Bminer is a little better then dstm.

My real  issue with all of these zec miners  is not which is better  it is that all developers stay at 2%  for the fee.

2%  is way too high of a fee.   But with only a few programs to pick  the developers simply match  each other's fee.

I would love to see one of them do 1%  just to shake the game up.

hint hint.  

zec is 250 usd a coin


pretend  ebwf dstm claymore bminer

 mine 80%  combined

or 20% each  do the math

market cap is  860 million x 20% = 176 million x 2% = 3.52 million in fees


now that is not true  since most coins were mined at less then 250usd a coin

but   a 2% fee  is price fixing on developers part.  they all set it there and don't compete .

If bminer is 1-3% better then dstm  as I think it is.

and bminer reduced its fee to 1%  he would make out and be a leader  in the zec software sector.

Only morons would mine other zec software. I would think he would 3x his share  which would indeed make money for him.

But he won't  and this is my gripe with software developers not a lot of them and they price fix fees.

They don't ever have to say a single word or talk to each other to fix the fees.  Simply read each other's thread  and match each other's fees.

Phil  looks like bminer is 1-2% better.  Did you do the kill-a-watt yet?

dude  I certainly am not a sock puppet and my tests clearly show bminer  is doing better then dstm on identical machines pointed to the same pool.


this is  a realtime screen shot



as is this one taken today

1. Yes, something like "GeForce GTX 1080 Ti"
2. The whole uri path would be sufficient, but it would be easier to handle if you parse the user part and the pool part, like:
User : "t1ZBtpkUy1y1deYsNJnzdW4tk7HiJEcfUzr.worker"
Pool : "zec.coinfoundry.org:3036"

Thanks for your efforts

This is not a bad idea. I would still prefer to find a non-confusing way to show devfee shares, which are more transparent than times. Maybe I will consider print difficulties together with shares so that people can calculate normalized shares.

Realistically, this probably will not happen in the next version. I want to release 6.0 in the next few days and I do not want any further delay. So I would love to collect as many suggestions as possible before I go ahead and implement this.