Hi
I have been using bminer on 2x 12 1070ti rigs with no issue.
I have setup another rig with 9x 1080tis. The miner constantly restarts every 30mins or so. The last line in the console is "killed".
Previously when I had a riser fail while running bminer, it stated exactly which gpu/riser it could not get temperature from.
The restarts do not happen with other softwares.
I am using simple mining and mining on nicehash.
Topic: [ANN]Bminer: a fast Equihash/Ethash/Cuckaroo29z miner for AMD/NVIDIA GPUs 16.4.9 - page 112. (Read 148347 times)
March 19, 2018, 01:22:55 PM
March 19, 2018, 02:23:43 AM
It seems that more people have tested bminer and got same results as I got in the past: Bminer is 2-3% faster than dstm. Unfortunately, the recent ZEC price drops significantly and it is now more profitable for me to mine ETH instead. If ZEC price goes back, I think I will use Bminer again. BTW, I still think 2% devfee is too high for all those equihash miners.
It is so funny that every three days there will be some new-account posts like this with no serious test and no data just asserting dstm is better. Thanks, I can do my own test and math. And seriously, if dstm wants more user, he should improve its miner performance or lower its devfee, not hire those trolls.
6x1063 hynix, test 48h
bminer: local 1960hs flypool average: 1790
dstm: local 1900hs flypool average: 1860
bminer not honest
bminer: local 1960hs flypool average: 1790
dstm: local 1900hs flypool average: 1860
bminer not honest
I think this miner total scam, use dstm inside.
dstm performance different as ewbf, dstm more faster on 1060 little faster on 1080ti compare to ewbf.
bminer on all gpu always same difference compare to dstm.
dstm performance different as ewbf, dstm more faster on 1060 little faster on 1080ti compare to ewbf.
bminer on all gpu always same difference compare to dstm.
It is so funny that every three days there will be some new-account posts like this with no serious test and no data just asserting dstm is better. Thanks, I can do my own test and math. And seriously, if dstm wants more user, he should improve its miner performance or lower its devfee, not hire those trolls.
No troll, I did test.
Here data for you, lot people did test with same result.
https://miningclub.info/threads/polzujus-bminer-dlja-zec.35286/
Why you say different I don't know.
March 19, 2018, 02:20:41 AM
To Developer: It would be very useful to see in statistic how many shares were send to developer too. And we need to see an exact time of working miner, because when the miner work about 20 hours the API report "a day" but not 21h 20min for example. Is it possible to add it in the future update?
Thank you for your suggestions. I will consider making those changes in future.
It is a good idea to make devfee collection transparent, however simply counting devfee shares might not be an ideal solution. Because devfee shares might be at a different difficulty than the normal shares, simply dividing the number of devfee shares by the number of normal shares will not be the devfee ratio. Anyone can suggest a simple but non-confusing way to show the devfee collection information?
March 19, 2018, 01:57:47 AM
To Developer: It would be very useful to see in statistic how many shares were send to developer too. And we need to see an exact time of working miner, because when the miner work about 20 hours the API report "a day" but not 21h 20min for example. Is it possible to add it in the future update?
Thank you for your suggestions. I will consider making those changes in future.
It is a good idea to make devfee collection transparent, however simply counting devfee shares might not be an ideal solution. Because devfee shares might be at a different difficulty than the normal shares, simply dividing the number of devfee shares by the number of normal shares will not be the devfee ratio. Anyone can suggest a simple but non-confusing way to show the devfee collection information?
March 18, 2018, 10:05:27 PM
It seems that more people have tested bminer and got same results as I got in the past: Bminer is 2-3% faster than dstm. Unfortunately, the recent ZEC price drops significantly and it is now more profitable for me to mine ETH instead. If ZEC price goes back, I think I will use Bminer again. BTW, I still think 2% devfee is too high for all those equihash miners.
It is so funny that every three days there will be some new-account posts like this with no serious test and no data just asserting dstm is better. Thanks, I can do my own test and math. And seriously, if dstm wants more user, he should improve its miner performance or lower its devfee, not hire those trolls.
6x1063 hynix, test 48h
bminer: local 1960hs flypool average: 1790
dstm: local 1900hs flypool average: 1860
bminer not honest
bminer: local 1960hs flypool average: 1790
dstm: local 1900hs flypool average: 1860
bminer not honest
I think this miner total scam, use dstm inside.
dstm performance different as ewbf, dstm more faster on 1060 little faster on 1080ti compare to ewbf.
bminer on all gpu always same difference compare to dstm.
dstm performance different as ewbf, dstm more faster on 1060 little faster on 1080ti compare to ewbf.
bminer on all gpu always same difference compare to dstm.
It is so funny that every three days there will be some new-account posts like this with no serious test and no data just asserting dstm is better. Thanks, I can do my own test and math. And seriously, if dstm wants more user, he should improve its miner performance or lower its devfee, not hire those trolls.
March 18, 2018, 09:04:26 PM
I think this miner total scam, use dstm inside.
dstm performance different as ewbf, dstm more faster on 1060 little faster on 1080ti compare to ewbf.
bminer on all gpu always same difference compare to dstm.
dstm performance different as ewbf, dstm more faster on 1060 little faster on 1080ti compare to ewbf.
bminer on all gpu always same difference compare to dstm.
March 18, 2018, 08:39:34 PM
6x1063 hynix, test 48h
bminer: local 1960hs flypool average: 1790
dstm: local 1900hs flypool average: 1860
bminer not honest
bminer: local 1960hs flypool average: 1790
dstm: local 1900hs flypool average: 1860
bminer not honest
please show your screenshots otherwise I don't believe any words from you whose account is totally new.
i find your short post history to be pro bminer biased. you did a test of 6 hours each (not running at the same time so different difficulty) and you have been cheerleading since. sorry but i prefer to see large enough hashrate rigs side by side mining with both miners to see a real comparision. i've ran my 1070ti rigs with both dstm and bminer and have seen a much higher reported hashrate in console yet the same average hashrate pool side as dstm. dstm hashrate seems more stable where bminer's hashrate is all over the place on flypool.
i'm no fan of either dstm or bminer, but with bminers history of using sock puppet accounts on other forums to promote his miner...and seeing your post history, you look more suspicious than someone that posts the obvious that bminer reports a higher hashrate at the console than whats reported at the pool. theres no denying that.
March 18, 2018, 02:44:39 AM
BTW, did anybody conduct tests regarding power consumption between bminer and EWBF 0,3,4 miner? Or ~roughly the same?
March 17, 2018, 11:00:49 PM
6x1063 hynix, test 48h
bminer: local 1960hs flypool average: 1790
dstm: local 1900hs flypool average: 1860
bminer not honest
bminer: local 1960hs flypool average: 1790
dstm: local 1900hs flypool average: 1860
bminer not honest
please show your screenshots otherwise I don't believe any words from you whose account is totally new.
March 17, 2018, 09:55:49 PM
6x1063 hynix, test 48h
bminer: local 1960hs flypool average: 1790
dstm: local 1900hs flypool average: 1860
bminer not honest
bminer: local 1960hs flypool average: 1790
dstm: local 1900hs flypool average: 1860
bminer not honest
March 17, 2018, 06:45:23 PM
My rig, 4 1060 6 GB core + 100 mem + 600
2 1070 core + 125 mem 450
2 1080 core + 100
2 1080 Ti core + 100 ( all 10 cards at 65 % )
Dtsm = avg of 1480 watts
Bminer = avg of 1440 watts with the same settings.
I used it also with other Clocks, for me B miner allways was lower in watts in compare to Dtsm.
Only thing funny with B miner is the big difference in Hashrate on the console in comparison to the Flypool stats, but even then it's higher then Dtsm.
2 1070 core + 125 mem 450
2 1080 core + 100
2 1080 Ti core + 100 ( all 10 cards at 65 % )
Dtsm = avg of 1480 watts
Bminer = avg of 1440 watts with the same settings.
I used it also with other Clocks, for me B miner allways was lower in watts in compare to Dtsm.
Only thing funny with B miner is the big difference in Hashrate on the console in comparison to the Flypool stats, but even then it's higher then Dtsm.
March 17, 2018, 05:26:45 PM
how do i run the gpu devices individually? Can someone give me an example? Thanks
March 17, 2018, 04:22:44 PM
Now I flipped pc's
and bminer did better on both pc's
not much but better. say 2.4% more payment from nicehash 8.83 for bminer vs 8.62 for dstm
next week I will do power tests
same meter on each machine 10 minute test should show between 330 watts to 410 watts
Maybe I will post it on thurs.
so if bminer uses 2 or 3 % more power it is still better. if it uses 20% it is not better.
based on temp and fan readings it will be around 1-4% more power for bminer
https://i.imgur.com/iQyEfcg.png
and bminer did better on both pc's
not much but better. say 2.4% more payment from nicehash 8.83 for bminer vs 8.62 for dstm
next week I will do power tests
same meter on each machine 10 minute test should show between 330 watts to 410 watts
Maybe I will post it on thurs.
so if bminer uses 2 or 3 % more power it is still better. if it uses 20% it is not better.
based on temp and fan readings it will be around 1-4% more power for bminer
https://i.imgur.com/iQyEfcg.png
There is something strange with the time on your screenshots.
It says during your first test the workers were active for
dtsm 1449 minutes = 24h
bminer 842 minutes = 14h
and for the second test
dtsm 1925 minutest = 32h
bminer 2048 minutes = 34h
Haven't you stated you're running each test for 24h? This doesn't make sense to me.
March 17, 2018, 09:18:42 AM
so if bminer uses 2 or 3 % more power it is still better. if it uses 20% it is not better.
based on temp and fan readings it will be around 1-4% more power for bminer
Thanks, very interesting, please keep us updated about WATT results!
March 17, 2018, 08:12:55 AM
Now I flipped pc's
and bminer did better on both pc's
not much but better. say 2.4% more payment from nicehash 8.83 for bminer vs 8.62 for dstm
next week I will do power tests
same meter on each machine 10 minute test should show between 330 watts to 410 watts
Maybe I will post it on thurs.
so if bminer uses 2 or 3 % more power it is still better. if it uses 20% it is not better.
based on temp and fan readings it will be around 1-4% more power for bminer
and bminer did better on both pc's
not much but better. say 2.4% more payment from nicehash 8.83 for bminer vs 8.62 for dstm
next week I will do power tests
same meter on each machine 10 minute test should show between 330 watts to 410 watts
Maybe I will post it on thurs.
so if bminer uses 2 or 3 % more power it is still better. if it uses 20% it is not better.
based on temp and fan readings it will be around 1-4% more power for bminer
March 17, 2018, 04:51:39 AM
bminer looking the best for equihash! just start testing 1070ti, the result is impressive
https://preview.ibb.co/dVYEqH/bminer.png
https://preview.ibb.co/dVYEqH/bminer.png
March 16, 2018, 07:35:31 AM
If it is to believed pool hashrate is correct, then Bminer does overstate hashrate in console by a big margin...
11 038 in console, but just 10 094 on the pool...
11 038 in console, but just 10 094 on the pool...
I can tell from my tests so far that Bminer is a little better then dstm.
And I can tell from my tests that Bminer reports more hash then dstm
1294 for 2 1080ti's = Bminer
1257 for 2 1080ti's = Dstm
these numbers are what smos reports and what can be seen if I attach a monitor to either pc
so 1294 /1257 = 1.0294 that means Bminer is 2.94% faster then Dstm on identical machines with the same settings
nicehash has reported $5.37 in earning for dstm and $5.48 in earns for bminer
so 548/537 = 1.0204 which is 2.04 % faster for bminer
so 2.94 vs 2.04 both show Bminer to be faster and the variance between 2.94 and 2.04 is small enough to be luck.
Bottom line shows that bminer would earn more.
I will continue testing but so far bminer shows better hashrates at the pc and the pool then dstm.
I still need to test power draw those test will be next week.
March 16, 2018, 07:24:18 AM
If it is to believed pool hashrate is correct, then Bminer does overstate hashrate in console by a big margin...
https://image.ibb.co/fpAACx/scr1.jpg
https://image.ibb.co/k5vcsx/scr2.jpg
https://image.ibb.co/dvDfCx/scr3.jpg
11 038 in console, but just 10 094 on the pool...
https://image.ibb.co/fpAACx/scr1.jpg
https://image.ibb.co/k5vcsx/scr2.jpg
https://image.ibb.co/dvDfCx/scr3.jpg
11 038 in console, but just 10 094 on the pool...
there is a really detailed answer to this problem here.
https://www.bminer.me/faq/#why-the-reported-hashrate-of-bminer-is-higher-than-the-reported-hashrate-from-mining-pools
March 16, 2018, 06:59:17 AM
Hi everybody! 
Dear developer,
please, do something about permanent "updating" at the start of miner.
[INFO] [2018-03-15T23:11:01+06:00] Checking updates
[WARN] [2018-03-15T23:11:31+06:00] Failed to read from the network: Get : net/http: request canceled while waiting for connection (Client.Timeout exceeded while awaiting headers)
and so on.
bminer.me and bminercontents.com are unreachable because of provider block or something similar - downloading somewhere.
i suppose that is the key to the problem!
really many people got the problem with this "updating" feature.
its a problem because when "updating" finished, mining simply could not start with probable error. you waiting 5+ minutes - then an error. and starting over with config changes.
thank you!
Dear developer,
please, do something about permanent "updating" at the start of miner.
[INFO] [2018-03-15T23:11:01+06:00] Checking updates
[WARN] [2018-03-15T23:11:31+06:00] Failed to read from the network: Get : net/http: request canceled while waiting for connection (Client.Timeout exceeded while awaiting headers)
and so on.
bminer.me and bminercontents.com are unreachable because of provider block or something similar - downloading somewhere.
i suppose that is the key to the problem!
really many people got the problem with this "updating" feature.
its a problem because when "updating" finished, mining simply could not start with probable error. you waiting 5+ minutes - then an error. and starting over with config changes.
thank you!
We will address this issue in next time. For example, shorten the wait time and retry time.
March 16, 2018, 06:57:55 AM
Hi Bminer team,
is it possible for you to include some more information in the API response? Maybe in the next update?
I think it would be nice to get the GPU name, the pool and the user in the response.
Let me know what you think about it.
is it possible for you to include some more information in the API response? Maybe in the next update?
I think it would be nice to get the GPU name, the pool and the user in the response.
Let me know what you think about it.
We would love to help:
Just understand your requests, you want to include the following two information in REST API response:
1.Device name: Something like "GTX 1080 Ti"?
2.Pool/User: We can put the whole uri path in REST API. This should contain all information include pool address and the user name. Is it enough?
Jump to: