[ANN][DCR] Decred - Community Governance | Bitcoin Devs | Lightning Network - page 489.

thefix

legendary

Activity: 1049

Merit: 1001

Quote from: Wolf0 on February 03, 2016, 11:15:16 PM

Quote from: thefix on February 03, 2016, 09:39:00 PM

Very interesting project, unfortunate that Nvidia miners are not getting the same love as AMD

Do we need to crowd fund to get something valid released?

Maybe we just do not have enough Nvidia miners to Justify our existence.

Really, you're not being as picked on as it seems - CUDA is great when it comes to more complex algos, or algos that can benefit from Nvidia-specific optimizations that the compiler is unable to find by itself, but this is not the case for Decred. Really, you're talking about a minor bump I would guess, at most. The algo is dead simple - I've made the miner a few percent faster on AMD - but we're talking single digit percentages... and low digits. The Nvidia OpenCL compiler would really have a hard time fucking it up.

I appreciate the clear explanation

The small percentage gain with AMD will even out with lower power consumption on Nvidia cards.

If AMD gets the power consumption down this year on its new line it may be time to Jump ship or at least diversify my rigs

DanWalker

hero member

Activity: 1960

Merit: 547

Vave.com - Crypto Casino

yes, me too just rejects and (time-to-new)

kcanup

legendary

Activity: 1484

Merit: 1000

me too had so many shares rejected while testing a pool with that same miner in 7950 card, not sure whats wrong.

WilderX

hero member

Activity: 597

Merit: 504

Quote from: ocminer on February 04, 2016, 08:06:37 AM

Quote from: Gunther on February 04, 2016, 06:18:18 AM

Nice, a pool is already up. Rented some hashes to test but pool (suprnova) doesn't seem to work. Probably because it's some new algo, right? It's hard for a pool to implement new features, but i'm sure you will get it done before launch.

You cannot rent hashes for this algo yet.

Suprnova is working perfectly fine

EDIT: OK NVM this from Wolf now works perfect - no rejects at all! -> https://ottrbutt.com/miner/downloads/decred-cgminer/wolf-decred-cgminer-02042016-win64.zip

OCminer any ideas why I have 24% reject ratio of shares after running 30mins? I am using Wolf compiled win64 cgminer from your source code... Is this working perfectly fine? I am pretty sure I will get banned from your pool because of so many rejected shares no?

cgminer version 3.7.2 - Started: [2016-02-05 03:41:57]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5s):8.427G (avg):8.404Gh/s | A:2803 R:898 HW:0 WU:0.0/m
ST: 2 SS: 0 NB: 18 LW: 7464 GF: 2 RF: 0
Connected to dcr.suprnova.cc diff 1 with LP as user ABC
Block: 3bdf1700... Diff:296 Started: [04:12:04] Best share: 9.13K
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[P]ool management [G]PU management ettings [D]isplay options [Q]uit
GPU 0: 57.0C 2915RPM | 2.742G/2.778Gh/s | A:932 R:292 HW:0 WU:0.0/m I:11
GPU 1: 71.0C 2883RPM | 2.815G/2.836Gh/s | A:941 R:300 HW:0 WU:0.0/m I:11
GPU 2: 73.0C 2927RPM | 2.854G/2.806Gh/s | A:941 R:307 HW:0 WU:0.0/m I:11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

:04:13:10
[2016-02-05 04:13:10] Accepted 5c753fb6 Diff 3/1 GPU 1 <-3bdf1700.3d293d59 M:P D:0.999985 G:04:12:45:0.045 C:20.727 (24.318) W:0.050 (0.000) S:0.049 R
:04:13:10
[2016-02-05 04:13:10] Accepted f13de2a2 Diff 1/1 GPU 1 <-3bdf1700.3d293d59 M:P D:0.999985 G:04:12:45:0.045 C:23.681 (24.575) W:0.049 (0.000) S:0.047 R
:04:13:10
[2016-02-05 04:13:10] Accepted a2d354a2 Diff 2/1 GPU 2 <-3bdf1700.3d293d59 M:P D:0.999985 G:04:12:45:0.045 C:23.650 (25.042) W:0.047 (0.000) S:0.049 R
:04:13:10
[2016-02-05 04:13:11] Accepted 07972566 Diff 34/1 GPU 1 <-3bdf1700.3d293d59 M:P D:0.999985 G:04:12:45:0.045 C:23.681 (25.505) W:0.049 (0.000) S:0.049
R:04:13:11
[2016-02-05 04:13:11] Accepted 9ab2f4e5 Diff 2/1 GPU 2 <-3bdf1700.3d293d59 M:P D:0.999985 G:04:12:45:0.045 C:23.317 (25.729) W:0.047 (0.000) S:0.049 R
:04:13:11
[2016-02-05 04:13:12] Accepted 71a2969e Diff 2/1 GPU 2 <-3bdf1700.3d293d59 M:P D:0.999985 G:04:12:45:0.045 C:23.650 (26.345) W:0.047 (0.000) S:0.053 R
:04:13:12
[2016-02-05 04:13:12] Accepted f15e01f9 Diff 1/1 GPU 2 <-3bdf1700.3d293d59 M:P D:0.999985 G:04:12:45:0.045 C:23.650 (26.580) W:0.039 (0.001) S:0.048 R
:04:13:12
[2016-02-05 04:13:12] Accepted 83da0ed8 Diff 2/1 GPU 1 <-3bdf1700.3d293d59 M:P D:0.999985 G:04:12:45:0.045 C:24.477 (26.756) W:0.049 (0.000) S:0.050 R
:04:13:12
[2016-02-05 04:13:12] Accepted f7cf5f90 Diff 1/1 GPU 0 <-3bdf1700.3d293d59 M:P D:0.999985 G:04:12:45:0.045 C:26.328 (26.813) W:0.049 (0.000) S:0.048 R
:04:13:12
[2016-02-05 04:13:12] Accepted 9b3b486d Diff 2/1 GPU 2 <-3bdf1700.3d293d59 M:P D:0.999985 G:04:12:45:0.045 C:26.619 (26.855) W:0.047 (0.000) S:0.048 R
:04:13:12
[2016-02-05 04:13:13] Accepted 3bd9cf7c Diff 4/1 GPU 2 <-3bdf1700.3d293d59 M:P D:0.999985 G:04:12:45:0.045 C:26.619 (27.392) W:0.047 (0.000) S:0.049 R
:04:13:13
[2016-02-05 04:13:13] Rejected bae34375 Diff 1/1 GPU 1 (duplicate) <-3bdf1700.3d293d59 M:P D:0.999985 G:04:12:45:0.045 C:27.530 (27.670) W:0.047 (0.0
01) S:0.048 R:04:13:13
[2016-02-05 04:13:13] Accepted a233595f Diff 2/1 GPU 0 <-3bdf1700.3d293d59 M:P D:0.999985 G:04:12:45:0.045 C:26.328 (27.792) W:0.049 (0.000) S:0.048 R
:04:13:13
[2016-02-05 04:13:13] Accepted b4451826 Diff 1/1 GPU 1 <-3bdf1700.3d293d59 M:P D:0.999985 G:04:12:45:0.045 C:26.631 (28.140) W:0.047 (0.000) S:0.048 R
:04:13:13
[2016-02-05 04:13:14] Accepted ca4e2238 Diff 1/1 GPU 0 <-3bdf1700.3d293d59 M:P D:0.999985 G:04:12:45:0.045 C:26.328 (28.917) W:0.049 (0.000) S:0.049 R
:04:13:14

[2016-02-05 04:13:30]
Summary of runtime statistics:

[2016-02-05 04:13:30] Started at [2016-02-05 03:41:57]
[2016-02-05 04:13:30] Pool: http://dcr.suprnova.cc:9110
[2016-02-05 04:13:30] Runtime: 0 hrs : 31 mins : 32 secs
[2016-02-05 04:13:30] Average hashrate: 8421.0 Megahash/s
[2016-02-05 04:13:30] Solved blocks: 13
[2016-02-05 04:13:30] Best share difficulty: 9.13K
[2016-02-05 04:13:30] Share submissions: 3742
[2016-02-05 04:13:30] Accepted shares: 2842
[2016-02-05 04:13:30] Rejected shares: 900
[2016-02-05 04:13:30] Accepted difficulty shares: 2842
[2016-02-05 04:13:30] Rejected difficulty shares: 900
[2016-02-05 04:13:30] Reject ratio: 24.1%
[2016-02-05 04:13:30] Hardware errors: 0
[2016-02-05 04:13:30] Utility (accepted shares / min): 90.29/min
[2016-02-05 04:13:30] Work Utility (diff1 shares solved / min): 0.00/min

[2016-02-05 04:13:30] Stale submissions discarded due to new blocks: 0
[2016-02-05 04:13:30] Unable to get work from server occasions: 2
[2016-02-05 04:13:30] Work items generated locally: 7522
[2016-02-05 04:13:30] Submitting work remotely delay occasions: 0
[2016-02-05 04:13:30] New blocks detected on network: 18

[2016-02-05 04:13:30] Summary of per device statistics:

[2016-02-05 04:13:30] GPU0 | (5s):2.742G (avg):2.778Gh/s | A:942 R:292 HW:0 WU:0.0/m
[2016-02-05 04:13:30] GPU1 | (5s):2.813G (avg):2.836Gh/s | A:950 R:301 HW:0 WU:0.0/m
[2016-02-05 04:13:30] GPU2 | (5s):2.838G (avg):2.806Gh/s | A:950 R:307 HW:0 WU:0.0/m

Wolf0

member

Activity: 81

Merit: 1002

It was only the wind.

Quote from: sambiohazard on February 04, 2016, 09:21:04 AM

Quote from: Wolf0 on February 04, 2016, 07:10:08 AM

Quote from: sambiohazard on February 04, 2016, 06:25:47 AM

Quote from: Wolf0 on February 03, 2016, 11:15:16 PM

Quote from: thefix on February 03, 2016, 09:39:00 PM

Very interesting project, unfortunate that Nvidia miners are not getting the same love as AMD

Do we need to crowd fund to get something valid released?

Maybe we just do not have enough Nvidia miners to Justify our existence.

Really, you're not being as picked on as it seems - CUDA is great when it comes to more complex algos, or algos that can benefit from Nvidia-specific optimizations that the compiler is unable to find by itself, but this is not the case for Decred. Really, you're talking about a minor bump I would guess, at most. The algo is dead simple - I've made the miner a few percent faster on AMD - but we're talking single digit percentages... and low digits. The Nvidia OpenCL compiler would really have a hard time fucking it up.

@wolf I tried the cgminer & ccminer both & they give me

970 1.52 GH/s on ccminer & 1.11GH/s on cgminer
750ti 530MH/s in ccminer & 431 MH/s on cgminer

so there is 75-80% loss in hashrate. Also as i remember, ccminer was running at much lower TDP% as shown in Afterburner, ~80% while cgminer was using 98-100% power. Considering all this i think there is a big disadvantage & some potential for optimizing ccminer for decred, unless the modification required for decred somehow lower the hashrate. But i guess ccminer devs are too busy taking potshots at each other, so we will have to make do with what we have or wait for decred team to release something.

Dude, of COURSE there is. That's 8 round Blake, this is 14 round Blake. Try to understand what the PoW is before benchmarking.

Since 14 is 75% more than 8... you're DEAD ON.

Nope that is for 14 round blake. On 8 round blake i get 2.5GH/s & 920 MH/s. I am mining VNL right now. I am a noob but not that much.

*facepaw* VNL is 8 round.

Videodrome

hero member

Activity: 588

Merit: 503

Free Julian Assange

Quote from: Wolf0 on February 04, 2016, 06:04:27 PM

Everyone using my builds should update to the latest one here for Win64:
https://ottrbutt.com/miner/downloads/decred-cgminer/wolf-decred-cgminer-02042016-win64.zip
https://ottrbutt.com/miner/downloads/decred-cgminer/wolf-decred-cgminer-02042016-win64.zip.sig
These are based off of the official Decred CGMiner GitHub sources found at https://github.com/decred/cgminer - branch 3.7, commit c172a7a62455fae62afdc7995021f5c046aab9d7 with small modifications to get it to build with my set of Win64 tools. As before, it should require no DLLs other than what ships with Windows to function. Failure to upgrade may result in rejected/duplicate shares when pool mining, and/or other bugs.

Thanks!

Abiky

legendary

Activity: 3220

Merit: 1363

www.Crypto.Games: Multiple coins, multiple games

Quote from: Bitcoin_Delivery on February 04, 2016, 10:14:22 AM

Nice Java GUI wallet beta released by SG-O, for those that don't like to work in command line

https://forum.decred.org/threads/java-gui-wallet.382/

Some of features implemented are:
- Show balance
- Show a certain number of transactions
- Lock and unlock wallet
- Sending Decreds to an address

This version has only been tested on Windows 7
Tanks to SG-O for the effort, users community rocks and i'm already loving this coin Wink

Pretty cool effort. I like the idea, especially when I could use it on any operating system that supports Java (which makes it kinda like portable) Decred just keeps on giving and giving. I can't wait for the mainnet launch. Cheesy

MarSas

hero member

Activity: 574

Merit: 500

Yet

zsnorbi

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 500

Quote from: Gunther on February 04, 2016, 02:35:34 PM

Ok, so I can just rent a standard Blake256 rig on launchday, right? 8 or 14, who cares anyway?

Please give me some tips. How do I mine at launch day. I'm getting a bit frustrated and i'm kinda drooling all over my fucking keyboard of excitement and anger.

You can't rent to mine decred. There are no rentals that would support decred mining.

Gunther

legendary

Activity: 840

Merit: 1000

Ok, so I can just rent a standard Blake256 rig on launchday, right? 8 or 14, who cares anyway?

Please give me some tips. How do I mine at launch day. I'm getting a bit frustrated and i'm kinda drooling all over my fucking keyboard of excitement and anger.

Wolf0

member

Activity: 81

Merit: 1002

It was only the wind.

Quote from: sambiohazard on February 04, 2016, 06:25:47 AM

Quote from: Wolf0 on February 03, 2016, 11:15:16 PM

Quote from: thefix on February 03, 2016, 09:39:00 PM

Very interesting project, unfortunate that Nvidia miners are not getting the same love as AMD

Do we need to crowd fund to get something valid released?

Maybe we just do not have enough Nvidia miners to Justify our existence.

Really, you're not being as picked on as it seems - CUDA is great when it comes to more complex algos, or algos that can benefit from Nvidia-specific optimizations that the compiler is unable to find by itself, but this is not the case for Decred. Really, you're talking about a minor bump I would guess, at most. The algo is dead simple - I've made the miner a few percent faster on AMD - but we're talking single digit percentages... and low digits. The Nvidia OpenCL compiler would really have a hard time fucking it up.

@wolf I tried the cgminer & ccminer both & they give me

970 1.52 GH/s on ccminer & 1.11GH/s on cgminer
750ti 530MH/s in ccminer & 431 MH/s on cgminer

so there is 75-80% loss in hashrate. Also as i remember, ccminer was running at much lower TDP% as shown in Afterburner, ~80% while cgminer was using 98-100% power. Considering all this i think there is a big disadvantage & some potential for optimizing ccminer for decred, unless the modification required for decred somehow lower the hashrate. But i guess ccminer devs are too busy taking potshots at each other, so we will have to make do with what we have or wait for decred team to release something.

Dude, of COURSE there is. That's 8 round Blake, this is 14 round Blake. Try to understand what the PoW is before benchmarking.

Since 14 is 75% more than 8... you're DEAD ON.

sambiohazard

hero member

Activity: 840

Merit: 1000

Thanks Theloser106 Grin

Also, someone said that SFR has 14 round blake, i tested on that too & got similar results. and AFAIK sp_ also integrated 14 round blake in his rel78. He also posted some numbers on his thread.

EDIT: you asked me how i was testing 8 round blake so i told you i am mining VNL. I think you really meant 14 round blake back there.

Bitcoin_Delivery

hero member

Activity: 952

Merit: 500

Quote from: DanWalker on February 04, 2016, 12:51:13 PM

Is there a executable windows wallet? Sry I don't know how to build.

At the moment the only windows exe wallet available is an unofficial java version, in some days (for sure before the official launch) dev's will release some resources that will make easier all the process.
You can refer to this thread or in the official forum https://forum.decred.org Wink

DanWalker

hero member

Activity: 1960

Merit: 547

Vave.com - Crypto Casino

Is there a executable windows wallet? Sry I don't know how to build.

theLosers106

member

Activity: 72

Merit: 10

Quote from: Wolf0 on February 04, 2016, 12:45:45 PM

Quote from: sambiohazard on February 04, 2016, 11:59:48 AM

Quote from: Wolf0 on February 04, 2016, 11:38:45 AM

Quote from: sambiohazard on February 04, 2016, 10:23:55 AM

Quote from: Wolf0 on February 04, 2016, 10:05:11 AM

Quote from: sambiohazard on February 04, 2016, 09:21:04 AM

Quote from: Wolf0 on February 04, 2016, 07:10:08 AM

Quote from: sambiohazard on February 04, 2016, 06:25:47 AM

Quote from: Wolf0 on February 03, 2016, 11:15:16 PM

Quote from: thefix on February 03, 2016, 09:39:00 PM

Very interesting project, unfortunate that Nvidia miners are not getting the same love as AMD

Do we need to crowd fund to get something valid released?

Maybe we just do not have enough Nvidia miners to Justify our existence.

Really, you're not being as picked on as it seems - CUDA is great when it comes to more complex algos, or algos that can benefit from Nvidia-specific optimizations that the compiler is unable to find by itself, but this is not the case for Decred. Really, you're talking about a minor bump I would guess, at most. The algo is dead simple - I've made the miner a few percent faster on AMD - but we're talking single digit percentages... and low digits. The Nvidia OpenCL compiler would really have a hard time fucking it up.

@wolf I tried the cgminer & ccminer both & they give me

970 1.52 GH/s on ccminer & 1.11GH/s on cgminer
750ti 530MH/s in ccminer & 431 MH/s on cgminer

so there is 75-80% loss in hashrate. Also as i remember, ccminer was running at much lower TDP% as shown in Afterburner, ~80% while cgminer was using 98-100% power. Considering all this i think there is a big disadvantage & some potential for optimizing ccminer for decred, unless the modification required for decred somehow lower the hashrate. But i guess ccminer devs are too busy taking potshots at each other, so we will have to make do with what we have or wait for decred team to release something.

Dude, of COURSE there is. That's 8 round Blake, this is 14 round Blake. Try to understand what the PoW is before benchmarking.

Since 14 is 75% more than 8... you're DEAD ON.

Nope that is for 14 round blake. On 8 round blake i get 2.5GH/s & 920 MH/s. I am mining VNL right now. I am a noob but not that much.

*facepaw* VNL is 8 round.

@wolf exactly 8 round blake on VNL is giving me 2.5 GH/s & 920 MH/s and 14 round gives me 1.5GH/s & 520MH/s on ccminer. What is facepalm about it? still cgminer is 80% less than what i get on ccminer for 14 round blake. Also 14 round blake is 60% of 8 round blake on ccminer so there is some room for improvement if as you say it should be 80% of 8 round blake. Dude you totally taking me for a moron or am i really missing something here?

I don't get it - how are you testing an 8 round Blake-256 on ccminer when it's not implemented?

Its implemented for VNL for sure & i guess for blakecoin as well, although i am not sure, in tpruvot's ccminer fork. I am using that.

See, when you say things like that, it makes me think you misunderstand. You see, VNL uses eight round Blake-256. Blakecoin uses 8 round Blake-256. Decred is the only one I know of using 14-round Blake-256, and it doesn't have a CCMiner implementation yet as far as I know, so I'm unsure as to how you've benchmarked it.

Not to pissed anyone.. but Wolf0, I'm assuming he is using this: https://github.com/tpruvot/ccminer/blob/windows/ccminer.cpp#L1833 to benchmark..

sambiohazard

hero member

Activity: 840

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Wolf0 on February 04, 2016, 11:38:45 AM

Quote from: sambiohazard on February 04, 2016, 10:23:55 AM

Quote from: Wolf0 on February 04, 2016, 10:05:11 AM

Quote from: sambiohazard on February 04, 2016, 09:21:04 AM

Quote from: Wolf0 on February 04, 2016, 07:10:08 AM

Quote from: sambiohazard on February 04, 2016, 06:25:47 AM

Quote from: Wolf0 on February 03, 2016, 11:15:16 PM

Quote from: thefix on February 03, 2016, 09:39:00 PM

Very interesting project, unfortunate that Nvidia miners are not getting the same love as AMD

Do we need to crowd fund to get something valid released?

Maybe we just do not have enough Nvidia miners to Justify our existence.

Really, you're not being as picked on as it seems - CUDA is great when it comes to more complex algos, or algos that can benefit from Nvidia-specific optimizations that the compiler is unable to find by itself, but this is not the case for Decred. Really, you're talking about a minor bump I would guess, at most. The algo is dead simple - I've made the miner a few percent faster on AMD - but we're talking single digit percentages... and low digits. The Nvidia OpenCL compiler would really have a hard time fucking it up.

@wolf I tried the cgminer & ccminer both & they give me

970 1.52 GH/s on ccminer & 1.11GH/s on cgminer
750ti 530MH/s in ccminer & 431 MH/s on cgminer

so there is 75-80% loss in hashrate. Also as i remember, ccminer was running at much lower TDP% as shown in Afterburner, ~80% while cgminer was using 98-100% power. Considering all this i think there is a big disadvantage & some potential for optimizing ccminer for decred, unless the modification required for decred somehow lower the hashrate. But i guess ccminer devs are too busy taking potshots at each other, so we will have to make do with what we have or wait for decred team to release something.

Dude, of COURSE there is. That's 8 round Blake, this is 14 round Blake. Try to understand what the PoW is before benchmarking.

Since 14 is 75% more than 8... you're DEAD ON.

Nope that is for 14 round blake. On 8 round blake i get 2.5GH/s & 920 MH/s. I am mining VNL right now. I am a noob but not that much.

*facepaw* VNL is 8 round.

@wolf exactly 8 round blake on VNL is giving me 2.5 GH/s & 920 MH/s and 14 round gives me 1.5GH/s & 520MH/s on ccminer. What is facepalm about it? still cgminer is 80% less than what i get on ccminer for 14 round blake. Also 14 round blake is 60% of 8 round blake on ccminer so there is some room for improvement if as you say it should be 80% of 8 round blake. Dude you totally taking me for a moron or am i really missing something here?

I don't get it - how are you testing an 8 round Blake-256 on ccminer when it's not implemented?

Its implemented for VNL for sure & i guess for blakecoin as well, although i am not sure, in tpruvot's ccminer fork. I am using that.

Bitcoin_Delivery

hero member

Activity: 952

Merit: 500

Quote from: favdesu on February 04, 2016, 10:50:42 AM

Quote from: Bitcoin_Delivery on February 04, 2016, 10:14:22 AM

Nice Java GUI wallet beta released by SG-O, for those that don't like to work in command line

https://forum.decred.org/threads/java-gui-wallet.382/

Some of features implemented are:
- Show balance
- Show a certain number of transactions
- Lock and unlock wallet
- Sending Decreds to an address

This version has only been tested on Windows 7
Tanks to SG-O for the effort, users community rocks and i'm already loving this coin Wink

Source? Github? x Be careful @everyone!

I'm not the developer....
The source refer to a thread on the Official Decred Forum, where is possible to read also a comment from one of Decred developers....
If the source of the wallet was untrastable, i think the developer had locked thread or warned users....instead he say thank to the user for the contribution
By the way...everyone is free to use at his own risk Wink

favdesu

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Bitcoin_Delivery on February 04, 2016, 10:14:22 AM

Nice Java GUI wallet beta released by SG-O, for those that don't like to work in command line

https://forum.decred.org/threads/java-gui-wallet.382/

Some of features implemented are:
- Show balance
- Show a certain number of transactions
- Lock and unlock wallet
- Sending Decreds to an address

This version has only been tested on Windows 7
Tanks to SG-O for the effort, users community rocks and i'm already loving this coin Wink

Source? Github? x Be careful @everyone!

sambiohazard

hero member

Activity: 840

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Wolf0 on February 04, 2016, 10:05:11 AM

Quote from: sambiohazard on February 04, 2016, 09:21:04 AM

Quote from: Wolf0 on February 04, 2016, 07:10:08 AM

Quote from: sambiohazard on February 04, 2016, 06:25:47 AM

Quote from: Wolf0 on February 03, 2016, 11:15:16 PM

Quote from: thefix on February 03, 2016, 09:39:00 PM

Very interesting project, unfortunate that Nvidia miners are not getting the same love as AMD

Do we need to crowd fund to get something valid released?

Maybe we just do not have enough Nvidia miners to Justify our existence.

Really, you're not being as picked on as it seems - CUDA is great when it comes to more complex algos, or algos that can benefit from Nvidia-specific optimizations that the compiler is unable to find by itself, but this is not the case for Decred. Really, you're talking about a minor bump I would guess, at most. The algo is dead simple - I've made the miner a few percent faster on AMD - but we're talking single digit percentages... and low digits. The Nvidia OpenCL compiler would really have a hard time fucking it up.

@wolf I tried the cgminer & ccminer both & they give me

970 1.52 GH/s on ccminer & 1.11GH/s on cgminer
750ti 530MH/s in ccminer & 431 MH/s on cgminer

so there is 75-80% loss in hashrate. Also as i remember, ccminer was running at much lower TDP% as shown in Afterburner, ~80% while cgminer was using 98-100% power. Considering all this i think there is a big disadvantage & some potential for optimizing ccminer for decred, unless the modification required for decred somehow lower the hashrate. But i guess ccminer devs are too busy taking potshots at each other, so we will have to make do with what we have or wait for decred team to release something.

Dude, of COURSE there is. That's 8 round Blake, this is 14 round Blake. Try to understand what the PoW is before benchmarking.

Since 14 is 75% more than 8... you're DEAD ON.

Nope that is for 14 round blake. On 8 round blake i get 2.5GH/s & 920 MH/s. I am mining VNL right now. I am a noob but not that much.

*facepaw* VNL is 8 round.

@wolf exactly 8 round blake on VNL is giving me 2.5 GH/s & 920 MH/s and 14 round gives me 1.5GH/s & 520MH/s on ccminer. What is facepalm about it? still cgminer is 80% less than what i get on ccminer for 14 round blake. Also 14 round blake is 60% of 8 round blake on ccminer so there is some room for improvement if as you say it should be 80% of 8 round blake. Dude you totally taking me for a moron or am i really missing something here?

Bitcoin_Delivery

hero member

Activity: 952

Merit: 500

Nice Java GUI wallet beta released by SG-O, for those that don't like to work in command line

https://forum.decred.org/threads/java-gui-wallet.382/

Some of features implemented are:
- Show balance
- Show a certain number of transactions
- Lock and unlock wallet
- Sending Decreds to an address

This version has only been tested on Windows 7
Tanks to SG-O for the effort, users community rocks and i'm already loving this coin Wink

Topic: [ANN][DCR] Decred - Community Governance | Bitcoin Devs | Lightning Network - page 489. (Read 1201332 times)