Have just started trying out bminer and have found it definitely squeezes out some additional hashrate.
One request would be to honor CUDA_VISIBLE_DEVICES, or to allow "-devices" to take the GPU's UUID.
I use some scripts to manage the miner processes and have mappings to what miners should be running on which GPUs. One annoyances with the index based settings of "0,1,2" is that the ID used does not match the ID from nvidia-smi. I found this the hard way and it isn't well documented. I could find a simple way to find out what the order was, but did find that CUDA_VISIBLE_DEVICES supports a comma-separated list of the GPU's UUID, so that was my solution.
With bminer, I had the env var set to the UUIDs, but it was trying to use all GPUs. When I used -devices, it was the same thing of IDs not matching the ordering in nvidia-smi or the order the NVML API returns them in.
Thanks!
Topic: [ANN]Bminer: a fast Equihash/Ethash/Cuckaroo29z miner for AMD/NVIDIA GPUs 16.4.9 - page 134. (Read 148347 times)
February 01, 2018, 06:41:38 PM
February 01, 2018, 06:36:21 PM
It seems Bminer initialize the cards on my 14 GPU rigs very slowly ( minutes ).
I have experienced this "issue" with ccminer too, but a "--cuda-schedule 12" command solve the problem without high CPU usage (if I use any other number as 12 my CPU usages go to the moon but with 12, it's ok).
Any idea for that? realbminer?
Thanks!
I have experienced this "issue" with ccminer too, but a "--cuda-schedule 12" command solve the problem without high CPU usage (if I use any other number as 12 my CPU usages go to the moon but with 12, it's ok).
Any idea for that? realbminer?
Thanks!
This is expected -- The Linux version does not have this issue.
The reason is that I have to insert some delays to work around the bugs in the NVIDIA drivers under Windows. Without the delay the drivers will just hang.
However, I think there might be some opportunities to make it work better. Will look into it.
Thanks for your answer and explanation.
February 01, 2018, 06:04:01 PM
It is difficult to explain in short statements, but I'll try.
1. Bminer reports total hashrates for your GPUs. It includes all shares (accepted, rejected and the devfee). As a result, turning on / off devfee does not affect the numbers the disabled optimization on various places does affect the payout, which you might see less hashrate on the pool side.
2. The pool estimate the hashrate based on the number of accepted shares and the *difficulties* of the shares. Essentially hashrate = the number of accepted shares * difficulty. Pools control the number of RPCs sent to the pools by varying the difficulties. Therefore, it is quite normal to see that all miners report roughly the same number of the shares to the pool, but due to the differences in difficulties the payout could be very different.
3. Bminer right now does submit some invalid shares. My understanding is that there are benign and will not affect the payout. I got good results on nanopool / miningpoolhub, but at the same time I suspect that there are times that the pools are penalizing it. I'm looking into it in more details.
4. There is no points for miners developers (at least that's my view) to cheat / scam or whatsoever, as it is relatively straightforward to verify the payouts and to migrate between different miners. Cheating will not go far. My mission is to develop the most efficient miner available to help the users to get more hashrates from their GPUs.
Since the questions have come up from time to time I might spend some time to write out how the whole thing works. Stay tuned!
1. Bminer reports total hashrates for your GPUs. It includes all shares (accepted, rejected and the devfee). As a result, turning on / off devfee does not affect the numbers the disabled optimization on various places does affect the payout, which you might see less hashrate on the pool side.
2. The pool estimate the hashrate based on the number of accepted shares and the *difficulties* of the shares. Essentially hashrate = the number of accepted shares * difficulty. Pools control the number of RPCs sent to the pools by varying the difficulties. Therefore, it is quite normal to see that all miners report roughly the same number of the shares to the pool, but due to the differences in difficulties the payout could be very different.
3. Bminer right now does submit some invalid shares. My understanding is that there are benign and will not affect the payout. I got good results on nanopool / miningpoolhub, but at the same time I suspect that there are times that the pools are penalizing it. I'm looking into it in more details.
4. There is no points for miners developers (at least that's my view) to cheat / scam or whatsoever, as it is relatively straightforward to verify the payouts and to migrate between different miners. Cheating will not go far. My mission is to develop the most efficient miner available to help the users to get more hashrates from their GPUs.
Since the questions have come up from time to time I might spend some time to write out how the whole thing works. Stay tuned!
thanks for the explanation and i think it would be great if you took the time to write out how it all works and put it in your first post so everyone understands it when they download it.
i would love to switch over to bminer full time and ditch dstm, but i have a few concerns first:
1) accepted/invalid share/rejected share clarification would be great. confirmation if sending invalid shares penalizes, thats a big deal. test on flypool since its the largest?
2) if the total reported hashrate from bminer includes the dev fee, perhaps adding an addition line of just the dev fee hashrate so we aren't seeing as big of dependencies between miner and pool hashrate.
3) you still haven't detailed why Bminer contacting 104.31.68.221:443/104.31.69.221:443 regularly. runtime and licensing information is too vague to mean anything to us.
February 01, 2018, 05:05:39 PM
It seems Bminer initialize the cards on my 14 GPU rigs very slowly ( minutes ).
I have experienced this "issue" with ccminer too, but a "--cuda-schedule 12" command solve the problem without high CPU usage (if I use any other number as 12 my CPU usages go to the moon but with 12, it's ok).
Any idea for that? realbminer?
Thanks!
I have experienced this "issue" with ccminer too, but a "--cuda-schedule 12" command solve the problem without high CPU usage (if I use any other number as 12 my CPU usages go to the moon but with 12, it's ok).
Any idea for that? realbminer?
Thanks!
This is expected -- The Linux version does not have this issue.
The reason is that I have to insert some delays to work around the bugs in the NVIDIA drivers under Windows. Without the delay the drivers will just hang.
However, I think there might be some opportunities to make it work better. Will look into it.
February 01, 2018, 05:03:27 PM
1. Pardon me my friends; I don't mean to make any conclusion right now. In my case : I still cannot conclusively say which one is more profitable.
Right now, I just want to (sincerely and without any prejudice) query for explanation from the developer (RealBminer). :-)
2. In my case : rejected shares is merely the same between both. Once again : I just want to (sincerely and without any prejudice) query for explanation from the developer (RealBminer). :-)
Thank you all. Happy mining!
In the end, all that matters is accepted shares. Which is why a few people, me included, is a little skeptical of this miner hashrate.
Can you try to mine with devfee off and see if your hashrate or accepted shares or payout changes?
In my newbie opinion; there is nothing wrong for people to receive rewards for his/her good effort. :-)
I don't mind paying some fee for the developer (it's one's intellectual property right), as long as :
1. The fee is fair and honest. and,
2. The result / benefit is greater then the cost / fee.
Thanks anyway for your suggestion. :-)
@RealBminer : Back to my question; I just want to know your explanation about Hashrate and Accepted shares on Bminer. Thank you. :-)
It is difficult to explain in short statements, but I'll try.
1. Bminer reports total hashrates for your GPUs. It includes all shares (accepted, rejected and the devfee). As a result, turning on / off devfee does not affect the numbers the disabled optimization on various places does affect the payout, which you might see less hashrate on the pool side.
2. The pool estimate the hashrate based on the number of accepted shares and the *difficulties* of the shares. Essentially hashrate = the number of accepted shares * difficulty. Pools control the number of RPCs sent to the pools by varying the difficulties. Therefore, it is quite normal to see that all miners report roughly the same number of the shares to the pool, but due to the differences in difficulties the payout could be very different.
3. Bminer right now does submit some invalid shares. My understanding is that there are benign and will not affect the payout. I got good results on nanopool / miningpoolhub, but at the same time I suspect that there are times that the pools are penalizing it. I'm looking into it in more details.
4. There is no points for miners developers (at least that's my view) to cheat / scam or whatsoever, as it is relatively straightforward to verify the payouts and to migrate between different miners. Cheating will not go far. My mission is to develop the most efficient miner available to help the users to get more hashrates from their GPUs.
Since the questions have come up from time to time I might spend some time to write out how the whole thing works. Stay tuned!
February 01, 2018, 02:14:23 PM
It seems Bminer initialize the cards on my 14 GPU rigs very slowly ( minutes ).
I have experienced this "issue" with ccminer too, but a "--cuda-schedule 12" command solve the problem without high CPU usage (if I use any other number as 12 my CPU usages go to the moon but with 12, it's ok).
Any idea for that? realbminer?
Thanks!
I have experienced this "issue" with ccminer too, but a "--cuda-schedule 12" command solve the problem without high CPU usage (if I use any other number as 12 my CPU usages go to the moon but with 12, it's ok).
Any idea for that? realbminer?
Thanks!
February 01, 2018, 12:56:11 PM
1. Pardon me my friends; I don't mean to make any conclusion right now. In my case : I still cannot conclusively say which one is more profitable.
Right now, I just want to (sincerely and without any prejudice) query for explanation from the developer (RealBminer). :-)
2. In my case : rejected shares is merely the same between both. Once again : I just want to (sincerely and without any prejudice) query for explanation from the developer (RealBminer). :-)
Thank you all. Happy mining!
In the end, all that matters is accepted shares. Which is why a few people, me included, is a little skeptical of this miner hashrate.
Can you try to mine with devfee off and see if your hashrate or accepted shares or payout changes?
In my newbie opinion; there is nothing wrong for people to receive rewards for his/her good effort. :-)
I don't mind paying some fee for the developer (it's one's intellectual property right), as long as :
1. The fee is fair and honest. and,
2. The result / benefit is greater then the cost / fee.
Thanks anyway for your suggestion. :-)
@RealBminer : Back to my question; I just want to know your explanation about Hashrate and Accepted shares on Bminer. Thank you. :-)
I think you and the other guy is misunderstanding me. I don't mind devfee at all. I'm using DSTM where you can't turn off devfee.
I'm asking people to try out the no devfee option to see if they see any change in hashrate/share/payout.
February 01, 2018, 11:07:41 AM
1. Pardon me my friends; I don't mean to make any conclusion right now. In my case : I still cannot conclusively say which one is more profitable.
Right now, I just want to (sincerely and without any prejudice) query for explanation from the developer (RealBminer). :-)
2. In my case : rejected shares is merely the same between both. Once again : I just want to (sincerely and without any prejudice) query for explanation from the developer (RealBminer). :-)
Thank you all. Happy mining!
In the end, all that matters is accepted shares. Which is why a few people, me included, is a little skeptical of this miner hashrate.
Can you try to mine with devfee off and see if your hashrate or accepted shares or payout changes?
In my newbie opinion; there is nothing wrong for people to receive rewards for his/her good effort. :-)
I don't mind paying some fee for the developer (it's one's intellectual property right), as long as :
1. The fee is fair and honest. and,
2. The result / benefit is greater then the cost / fee.
Thanks anyway for your suggestion. :-)
@RealBminer : Back to my question; I just want to know your explanation about Hashrate and Accepted shares on Bminer. Thank you. :-)
February 01, 2018, 10:57:43 AM
1. Pardon me my friends; I don't mean to make any conclusion right now. In my case : I still cannot conclusively say which one is more profitable.
Right now, I just want to (sincerely and without any prejudice) query for explanation from the developer (RealBminer). :-)
2. In my case : rejected shares is merely the same between both. Once again : I just want to (sincerely and without any prejudice) query for explanation from the developer (RealBminer). :-)
Thank you all. Happy mining!
In the end, all that matters is accepted shares. Which is why a few people, me included, is a little skeptical of this miner hashrate.
Can you try to mine with devfee off and see if your hashrate or accepted shares or payout changes?
February 01, 2018, 10:54:56 AM
[/quote]
I don"t know what is the issue with BMiner, but we are many people to see what you wrote (on same pool and same hardware) :
1 - the miner hashrate is bigger with BMiner than DSTM, but the number of share is bigger with DSTM than BMiner : in my case, DSTM is more profitable than BMiner
2 - dstm has lowest rejected shares than bminer.
[/quote]
1. Pardon me my friends; I don't mean to make any conclusion right now. In my case : I still cannot conclusively say which one is more profitable.
Right now, I just want to (sincerely and without any prejudice) query for explanation from the developer (RealBminer). :-)
2. In my case : rejected shares is merely the same between both. Once again : I just want to (sincerely and without any prejudice) query for explanation from the developer (RealBminer). :-)
Thank you all. Happy mining!
I don"t know what is the issue with BMiner, but we are many people to see what you wrote (on same pool and same hardware) :
1 - the miner hashrate is bigger with BMiner than DSTM, but the number of share is bigger with DSTM than BMiner : in my case, DSTM is more profitable than BMiner
2 - dstm has lowest rejected shares than bminer.
[/quote]
1. Pardon me my friends; I don't mean to make any conclusion right now. In my case : I still cannot conclusively say which one is more profitable.
Right now, I just want to (sincerely and without any prejudice) query for explanation from the developer (RealBminer). :-)
2. In my case : rejected shares is merely the same between both. Once again : I just want to (sincerely and without any prejudice) query for explanation from the developer (RealBminer). :-)
Thank you all. Happy mining!
February 01, 2018, 10:07:55 AM
@RealBminer :
I noticed the increase Hashrate of using Bminer (521,67 Sol/s) instead of DSTM 0.58 (505 Sol/s) on my GTX 1070 Ti. That's very good. Good job!
But I also noticed that Accepted shares per minutes of DSTM is higher than of Bminer.
Could you kindly explain what does it mean?
Which impact more on Profit : Better Hashrate or better Accepted shares ?
Thank you.
I don"t know what is the issue with BMiner, but we are many people to see what you wrote (on same pool and same hardware) :I noticed the increase Hashrate of using Bminer (521,67 Sol/s) instead of DSTM 0.58 (505 Sol/s) on my GTX 1070 Ti. That's very good. Good job!
But I also noticed that Accepted shares per minutes of DSTM is higher than of Bminer.
Could you kindly explain what does it mean?
Which impact more on Profit : Better Hashrate or better Accepted shares ?
Thank you.
1 - the miner hashrate is bigger with BMiner than DSTM, but the number of share is bigger with DSTM than BMiner : in my case, DSTM is more profitable than BMiner
2 - dstm has lowest rejected shares than bminer.
February 01, 2018, 08:46:31 AM
And dstm has lowest rejected shares than bminer. (on same pool and same hardware)
Could you add in telemetry page reject statistic per card, how much each card accept shares and how much reject ?
Could you add in telemetry page reject statistic per card, how much each card accept shares and how much reject ?
February 01, 2018, 08:33:24 AM
@RealBminer :
I noticed the increase Hashrate of using Bminer (521,67 Sol/s) instead of DSTM 0.58 (505 Sol/s) on my GTX 1070 Ti. That's very good. Good job!
But I also noticed that Accepted shares per minutes of DSTM is higher than of Bminer.
Could you kindly explain what does it mean?
Which impact more on Profit : Better Hashrate or better Accepted shares ?
Thank you.
I noticed the increase Hashrate of using Bminer (521,67 Sol/s) instead of DSTM 0.58 (505 Sol/s) on my GTX 1070 Ti. That's very good. Good job!
But I also noticed that Accepted shares per minutes of DSTM is higher than of Bminer.
Could you kindly explain what does it mean?
Which impact more on Profit : Better Hashrate or better Accepted shares ?
Thank you.
February 01, 2018, 04:47:34 AM
What you did is flawed on multiple levels. You did two tests consecutively, and then also looked at the payout. The difficulty of the algo you mine will have changed in the meantime, making the 2nd run easier/harder to mine, but never the same. You also looked at payouts but never mention what currency, because if it is anything other than the coin you mine, and it looks like you are talking about BTC, then the market will also have fluctuated the price by the time of the 2nd run. Shortly put: don't trust what you just did ...
It was Zclassic. I infered difficulty from estimated rewards on Zclassic which shows how much of that specific coin you may get based on the difficulty at the time. Yes, I understand this is estimated. Difficulty goes up and down all day so you take a 24 hour average. During the test, estimated rewards differences were less than 5%.
Also, no one has yet to dispute my other point about hash rate when dev fee is on/off. There is no difference between the two option in hash rate shown and actual rewards despite documentation that optimizations are disabled.
Someone else please try disabling devfee.
February 01, 2018, 12:20:26 AM
EWBF: https://zcash.flypool.org/miners/t1fJuHWrfcWnYMYyP9VAF96vRnvND2NziMG
DSTM: https://zcash.flypool.org/miners/t1NEpmfunewy9z5TogCvAhCuS3J8VWXoJNv
Claymore is making millions per month.
Fair point...I should change of job
February 01, 2018, 12:10:05 AM
Any comments on Bminer contacting 104.31.68.221:443/104.31.69.221:443 regularly?
Quoting myself so perhaps this gets a response from the developer.
Well, I'm not the dev but pretty sure I have your answer.
nslookup bminer.me
Name: bminer.me
Address: 104.31.68.221
Name: bminer.me
Address: 104.31.69.221
Also, my connection sucks so sometimes I get the following, purportedly because I lose connection to the internets all the time):
Checking updates
Failed to read from the network: Get https://api.bminer.me/v1/init/zec/520: net/http: request canceled while waiting for connection (Client.Timeout exceeded while awaiting headers)
Checking updates
Navigating to that link gives us the following content:
stratum+ssl://[email protected]:6633/
-----BEGIN CERTIFICATE-----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-----END CERTIFICATE-----
So I can only suspect it connects to that IP regularly to update the software and relay the connection string for the dev fee in case he wants to change it.
It could also be used for some nefarious purpose like transferring all your files and private keys to his server, who knows. That's the risk with closed source.
If you check on nanopool the address it's sending the "2%" dev fee, it generates 144,594SOL/s!!!! If it was only 2%, it would mean 7,229,700 sols total...which is a LOT of people using bminer, looks very fishy.
It's about 1000$ per day of revenue, nice to be a developer
DSTM: https://zcash.flypool.org/miners/t1NEpmfunewy9z5TogCvAhCuS3J8VWXoJNv
Claymore is making millions per month.
February 01, 2018, 12:07:34 AM
Any comments on Bminer contacting 104.31.68.221:443/104.31.69.221:443 regularly?
Quoting myself so perhaps this gets a response from the developer.
Well, I'm not the dev but pretty sure I have your answer.
nslookup bminer.me
Name: bminer.me
Address: 104.31.68.221
Name: bminer.me
Address: 104.31.69.221
Also, my connection sucks so sometimes I get the following, purportedly because I lose connection to the internets all the time):
Checking updates
Failed to read from the network: Get https://api.bminer.me/v1/init/zec/520: net/http: request canceled while waiting for connection (Client.Timeout exceeded while awaiting headers)
Checking updates
Navigating to that link gives us the following content:
stratum+ssl://[email protected]:6633/
-----BEGIN CERTIFICATE-----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-----END CERTIFICATE-----
So I can only suspect it connects to that IP regularly to update the software and relay the connection string for the dev fee in case he wants to change it.
It could also be used for some nefarious purpose like transferring all your files and private keys to his server, who knows. That's the risk with closed source.
If you check on nanopool the address it's sending the "2%" dev fee, it generates 144,594SOL/s!!!! If it was only 2%, it would mean 7,229,700 sols total...which is a LOT of people using bminer, looks very fishy.
It's about 1000$ per day of revenue, nice to be a developer
January 31, 2018, 08:55:50 PM
This is definitly a SCAM MINER.
It overreports its hashrate, just take a look at the reports of experienced users.
Even worse realbminer or his buddies constantly spam this thread, this forum, reddit and so on with fake reports.
This was noticed on the official Zcash forum where realbminer got banned.
https://forum.z.cash/t/new-miner-bminer-a-fast-equihash-miner-for-cuda-gpus-5-1-0/26197?page=2
That's what the Zcash forum admin states.
It overreports its hashrate, just take a look at the reports of experienced users.
Even worse realbminer or his buddies constantly spam this thread, this forum, reddit and so on with fake reports.
This was noticed on the official Zcash forum where realbminer got banned.
https://forum.z.cash/t/new-miner-bminer-a-fast-equihash-miner-for-cuda-gpus-5-1-0/26197?page=2
That's what the Zcash forum admin states.
Code:
Beware: OP has been Banned for creating multiple sock-puppet accounts to promote this miner.
I wouldn’t trust software from someone who uses deceptive techniques. Links have been removed from original post.
Sock puppet accounts are against the Code of Coduct: https://forum.z.cash/faq
Thread is closed.
Nice try.
Bminer reports the hashrates of the GPUs which include the devfee portions as well.
There are many users that consistently report that the miner produces more hashrates for other miners.
You're welcome to give it a try yourself to see whether this is a scam or not.
I was considering it.
I definitely won't do it after googling for bminer.
January 31, 2018, 08:46:02 PM
Any comments on Bminer contacting 104.31.68.221:443/104.31.69.221:443 regularly?
Quoting myself so perhaps this gets a response from the developer.
It's for runtime and licensing information.
That's much too vague, unconvincing, and very suspicious!
Those look like https ports, so you're sending over encrypted information. I'm happy for you to send your devfee shares over an encrypted connection because I can verify that the IPs you submit to belong to a pool I trust, but in this case you are sending _OTHER_ information to an unknown IP.
You expect us to trust you that you are not sending over anything else.
I don't see the point for this. What runtime and licensing information? You are getting your huge 2% devfee as it is, why this stuff as well?
Will bminer refuse to start/work properly if I block those ports/IPs? If yes, that will be it for me. Much too shady, sorry.
January 31, 2018, 08:37:48 PM
5.3.0 has released. Several issues have been addressed:
Happy mining!
- Experimental support for EthOS / Ubuntu 14.04.
- Support AMD K10 CPUs.
- Automatically restart hanged network connections.
- Improve compatibilities with mining rigs with more than 8 cards.
Happy mining!
Jump to: