How about an API call for raw (non normalized) BTC/Day/Mhash earnings per algorithm?
I'm planning to extend my autoswitcher (currently works with NiceHash) to support TradeMyBit. To make it work correctly I need the non-normalized earnings per algorithm as I factor in hash rates myself to get the best bang for the hash. The "bestalgo" call has the format I want, but it currently has normalized values. If another key/value pair could be added per algorithm for the non-normalized values this would work great.
Topic: [ANN][MULTI][VARDIFF] TradeMyBit MULTIALGO Profit Swap w/ Optional Auto-exchange - page 11. (Read 153100 times)
July 16, 2014, 07:07:24 AM
July 16, 2014, 04:58:26 AM
Does anyone else notice with sgminer5 that the 4010-4013 multi-multi ports seem to lag considerably behind what coin/algo is in the top profitability spot on the TMB homepage? My sgminer5 seems to switch ports at least 30-60 seconds after the top spot changes on the website... Are there config settings I should be adjusting to make the switches quicker, or is this an issue on the TMB stratum side of things?
Quoted from below the BTC/Hashrate chart:
"Hashrate's are a 10minute average, they may be lagged a bit
" 
July 16, 2014, 04:55:23 AM
Re:
2014-07-15 at 09:28pm EST: Normalization values have been updated as follows (compared to scrypt) X11=5.5, X13=3.8, X15=3.4, Nist5=16.5
It would be really nice if we could input our own ratios or actual hashrates at each algo because this will vary wildly from person to person and will depend on their hardware and tweaking abilities. Without that we have no idea if we are mining what is actually most profitable for us.
2014-07-15 at 09:28pm EST: Normalization values have been updated as follows (compared to scrypt) X11=5.5, X13=3.8, X15=3.4, Nist5=16.5
It would be really nice if we could input our own ratios or actual hashrates at each algo because this will vary wildly from person to person and will depend on their hardware and tweaking abilities. Without that we have no idea if we are mining what is actually most profitable for us.
July 16, 2014, 03:47:29 AM
TMB_Multi-Multi_X11 stable for 10 seconds
"failover-switch-delay": "10",
drop that value
"failover-switch-delay": "10",
drop that value
July 16, 2014, 12:20:17 AM
Does anyone else notice with sgminer5 that the 4010-4013 multi-multi ports seem to lag considerably behind what coin/algo is in the top profitability spot on the TMB homepage? My sgminer5 seems to switch ports sometimes up to two minutes after the top spot changes on the website... Are there config settings I should be adjusting to make the switches quicker, or is this an issue on the TMB stratum side of things?
EDIT: I'm now noticing lag of up to two minutes between when an algo goes into the top profitability spot and when its multi-multi port opens up.
EDIT: I'm now noticing lag of up to two minutes between when an algo goes into the top profitability spot and when its multi-multi port opens up.
July 15, 2014, 11:20:12 AM
Hi Guys,
I have written a little bit of code to check the different algorithm profits on TradeMyBit and then to switch my ccminer accordingly. I use GTX 750 Ti so I have to use ccminer and so the need to right my own code.
I check the profit every 5 minutes, like this. First value is 'normalized' profit from TMB API, second value is my corrected profit taking into account my rig's hash rate and power consumption.
When it says 'switch' it will kill the running ccminer and start a new one to the new port/algorithm. However I think it is switching too frequently as my profits are not so good in testing.
Can someone who understands this better than me (wouldn't be hard) comment on some logic on when to switch algorithms to maximise profit. Too quickly and you lose shares? Too slow and you stay in the less profitable algorithm.
The profits seem to fluctuate a lot. Maybe I need a rolling average? What about difficulty??
Thanks
I have written a little bit of code to check the different algorithm profits on TradeMyBit and then to switch my ccminer accordingly. I use GTX 750 Ti so I have to use ccminer and so the need to right my own code.
I check the profit every 5 minutes, like this. First value is 'normalized' profit from TMB API, second value is my corrected profit taking into account my rig's hash rate and power consumption.
Code:
nist5 0.00022 0.00589
x13 0.00072 0.00532
x11 0.00051 0.00481
nscrypt 0.00269 0.00129
scrypt 0.00068 0.00068
x15 0.00007 0.00034
2014-07-15 08:54:34 Best Rate: nist5 0.00589 switch
x13 0.00102 0.00754
nist5 0.00016 0.00431
x11 0.00039 0.00372
nscrypt 0.00248 0.00119
scrypt 0.00080 0.00080
x15 0.00007 0.00034
2014-07-15 08:59:35 Best Rate: x13 0.00754 switch
When it says 'switch' it will kill the running ccminer and start a new one to the new port/algorithm. However I think it is switching too frequently as my profits are not so good in testing.
Can someone who understands this better than me (wouldn't be hard) comment on some logic on when to switch algorithms to maximise profit. Too quickly and you lose shares? Too slow and you stay in the less profitable algorithm.
The profits seem to fluctuate a lot. Maybe I need a rolling average? What about difficulty??
Thanks
July 15, 2014, 11:06:24 AM
https://github.com/sgminer-dev/sgminer/blob/v5_0/doc/configuration.md
no such option exists
"no-extranonce":false - by default
no such option exists
"no-extranonce":false - by default
I have it in my config
Code:
"extranonce-subscription" : true
July 15, 2014, 10:41:15 AM
TMB needs no-extranonce true right?
"extranonce-subscription" : true
I think
Oh so TMB supports it? It was something NichHash has.
July 15, 2014, 05:25:55 AM
https://github.com/sgminer-dev/sgminer/blob/v5_0/doc/configuration.md
no such option exists
"no-extranonce":false - by default
no such option exists
"no-extranonce":false - by default
July 15, 2014, 02:20:00 AM
TMB needs no-extranonce true right?
"extranonce-subscription" : true
I think
July 14, 2014, 10:24:00 PM
TMB needs no-extranonce true right?
July 14, 2014, 10:23:19 PM
Hey buddy, sgminer 4.1.2 does use nist5.cl and 4.2.2 does use talkcoin-mod.cl
For some odd reason it didn't want to work 1.5 hours ago, now I just did the SAME exact thing, and downloaded the same exact build from nicehash and its running now. Sometimes I wanna throw my ATi cards into a lava pit
For some odd reason it didn't want to work 1.5 hours ago, now I just did the SAME exact thing, and downloaded the same exact build from nicehash and its running now. Sometimes I wanna throw my ATi cards into a lava pit
Gremlins eh?
Glad its working for you. July 14, 2014, 10:21:20 PM
Ahdamn okay. Only real difference then is that I'm running 4.1.2 of SGminer. I can't get 4.2.2 running on my rig, Keep getting compiling error when it tries to build the .bin for the cards, then in the log posts up the .cl error in Appdata/Local/temp
I am not sure...
Make sure you are using the correct kernel. I am using 'talkcoin-mod.cl' kernel. I believe SGMiner 4.1.2 uses 'nist5.cl' correct?
Just a stab in the dark.
Hey buddy, sgminer 4.1.2 does use nist5.cl and 4.2.2 does use talkcoin-mod.cl
For some odd reason it didn't want to work 1.5 hours ago, now I just did the SAME exact thing, and downloaded the same exact build from nicehash and its running now. Sometimes I wanna throw my ATi cards into a lava pit
July 14, 2014, 10:19:10 PM
Thanks, that was left over from x15 i think because it wasn't stable.
This is also my main desktop so yeah.
I set both engine and memory up 100mhz and that did it. ~8.37Mh/s
At first I did just engine but driver crashed pretty quicky. I get a lot of driver crashes with auto switch.
This is also my main desktop so yeah.
I set both engine and memory up 100mhz and that did it. ~8.37Mh/s
At first I did just engine but driver crashed pretty quicky. I get a lot of driver crashes with auto switch.
July 14, 2014, 10:18:24 PM
Is ~6MH/s okay for a R9 270X?
I am also getting
R7 240 1.6MH
R7 250 353K/s (Which is odd, it should be higher than 240. Maybe Int is too high)
Edit: Int 14 helped a bit instead of 15. But should be higher hmm.
I am also getting
R7 240 1.6MH
R7 250 353K/s (Which is odd, it should be higher than 240. Maybe Int is too high)
Edit: Int 14 helped a bit instead of 15. But should be higher hmm.
Which algo on the 270X? I get 8.4 MH/s on NIST5
NIST5, dang really. What settings?
"intensity" : "18,17,17,17",
"lookup-gap" : "2",
"thread-concurrency" : "8192,6401,6401,6401",
"gpu-threads" : "2",
"worksize" : "64,64,64,64",
"expiry" : "1",
"queue" : "1",
"gpu-engine" : "1130,1120,1120,1110",
"gpu-memclock" : "1450,1350,1350,1350",
"gpu-fan" : "80,65,65,65",
"kernel" : "nist5",
"scan-time" : "3"
The last 3 are my 270. I don't have the 270X. The first settings are my 280X so don't use those for the 270X lol
Wow, tiny worksize. I was trying 256 right now and it helped, trying your settings now.
Wish I had the kill-a-watt still connected, its on my Fury rack.
Edit: Thanks!!! So much better! Wish I had spent the time playing with it sooner but I probably would of never tried 64.
Code:
"gpu-threads" : "2",
"gpu-engine" : "1200,950,950,1000",
"gpu-fan" : "45",
"gpu-memclock" : "1350,1000,1000,1400",
"gpu-powertune" : "10,10,10,20",
"intensity" : "17,14,14,17",
"temp-target" : "75",
"temp-overheat" : "80",
"temp-cutoff" : "95",
"worksize" : "64,64,64,64",
Strange that the 240's do better than the 250. Which makes them more efficient since they use hardly any power.
You can definitely set your core clock to 1100 on the 270X and get much higher hash rate too.
July 14, 2014, 10:09:11 PM
Ahdamn okay. Only real difference then is that I'm running 4.1.2 of SGminer. I can't get 4.2.2 running on my rig, Keep getting compiling error when it tries to build the .bin for the cards, then in the log posts up the .cl error in Appdata/Local/temp
I am not sure...
Make sure you are using the correct kernel. I am using 'talkcoin-mod.cl' kernel. I believe SGMiner 4.1.2 uses 'nist5.cl' correct?
Just a stab in the dark.
July 14, 2014, 10:04:46 PM
Is ~6MH/s okay for a R9 270X?
I am also getting
R7 240 1.6MH
R7 250 353K/s (Which is odd, it should be higher than 240. Maybe Int is too high)
Edit: Int 14 helped a bit instead of 15. But should be higher hmm.
I am also getting
R7 240 1.6MH
R7 250 353K/s (Which is odd, it should be higher than 240. Maybe Int is too high)
Edit: Int 14 helped a bit instead of 15. But should be higher hmm.
Which algo on the 270X? I get 8.4 MH/s on NIST5
NIST5, dang really. What settings?
"intensity" : "18,17,17,17",
"lookup-gap" : "2",
"thread-concurrency" : "8192,6401,6401,6401",
"gpu-threads" : "2",
"worksize" : "64,64,64,64",
"expiry" : "1",
"queue" : "1",
"gpu-engine" : "1130,1120,1120,1110",
"gpu-memclock" : "1450,1350,1350,1350",
"gpu-fan" : "80,65,65,65",
"kernel" : "nist5",
"scan-time" : "3"
The last 3 are my 270. I don't have the 270X. The first settings are my 280X so don't use those for the 270X lol
Wow, tiny worksize. I was trying 256 right now and it helped, trying your settings now.
Wish I had the kill-a-watt still connected, its on my Fury rack.
Edit: Thanks!!! So much better! Wish I had spent the time playing with it sooner but I probably would of never tried 64.
Code:
"gpu-threads" : "2",
"gpu-engine" : "1200,950,950,1000",
"gpu-fan" : "45",
"gpu-memclock" : "1350,1000,1000,1400",
"gpu-powertune" : "10,10,10,20",
"intensity" : "17,14,14,17",
"temp-target" : "75",
"temp-overheat" : "80",
"temp-cutoff" : "95",
"worksize" : "64,64,64,64",
Strange that the 240's do better than the 250. Which makes them more efficient since they use hardly any power.
July 14, 2014, 10:03:51 PM
I'm curious myself how you're getting 13.6 MH/s with your 280X, I'm pretty much capping out at 12.86MH/s on my 280X on NIST5
Am actually getting 13.8MH/s each now. Latest SGMiner v5 with 14.6 Beta (rev.1) drivers. 1X 280X Sapphire Dual-X and 2X Gigabyte 280X OC. I also have a Sapphire Vapor-X running in another machine at similar speeds.
My config (not including my auto switch/pool settings)
Code:
"intensity" : "20",
"thread-concurrency" : "8192",
"gpu-engine" : "1120",
"gpu-memclock" : "1500-1500",
"gpu-threads" : "2",
"vectors" : "1",
"lookup-gap" : "2",
"worksize" : "128",
"shaders" : "2048",
"gpu-fan" : "0-90",
"temp-cutoff" : "95",
"temp-overheat" : "85",
"temp-target" : "70",
"auto-fan" : true,
"log" : "5",
"failover-only" : true,
"failover-switch-delay" : "30",
"no-pool-disable" : true,
"queue" : "1",
"scan-time" : "10",
"expiry" : "120",
"hamsi-expand-big" : "1"
}
Ahdamn okay. Only real difference then is that I'm running 4.1.2 of SGminer. I can't get 4.2.2 running on my rig, Keep getting compiling error when it tries to build the .bin for the cards, then in the log posts up the .cl error in Appdata/Local/temp
July 14, 2014, 10:01:46 PM
Is ~6MH/s okay for a R9 270X?
I am also getting
R7 240 1.6MH
R7 250 353K/s (Which is odd, it should be higher than 240. Maybe Int is too high)
Edit: Int 14 helped a bit instead of 15. But should be higher hmm.
I am also getting
R7 240 1.6MH
R7 250 353K/s (Which is odd, it should be higher than 240. Maybe Int is too high)
Edit: Int 14 helped a bit instead of 15. But should be higher hmm.
Which algo on the 270X? I get 8.4 MH/s on NIST5
NIST5, dang really. What settings?
"intensity" : "18,17,17,17",
"lookup-gap" : "2",
"thread-concurrency" : "8192,6401,6401,6401",
"gpu-threads" : "2",
"worksize" : "64,64,64,64",
"expiry" : "1",
"queue" : "1",
"gpu-engine" : "1130,1120,1120,1110",
"gpu-memclock" : "1450,1350,1350,1350",
"gpu-fan" : "80,65,65,65",
"kernel" : "nist5",
"scan-time" : "3"
The last 3 are my 270. I don't have the 270X. The first settings are my 280X so don't use those for the 270X lol
July 14, 2014, 09:59:54 PM
Got the 250 to 447k/s with Int 12. Should be like 2MH
Jump to: