Topic: CCminer(SP-MOD) Modded NVIDIA Maxwell / Pascal kernels. - page 809. (Read 2347664 times)

Is there a new x15 coin I missed?

That's an interesting approach to slow the arms race, choose an algo developpers don't like to work on.

It seems now we urgently need faster x15 miner.
Ready to donate 0.01 btc for my poor gtx750)))

It's a pretty insignificant coin mining profitability-wise; the total daily coins that can be mined worth a total of ~0.04 BTC.
Edit: I have no info on 2016Coin. 2016Coin's daily total emission is also worth ~0.04 BTC.
Edit#2: There's also OPES which also have a daily emission curently worth of ~0.035 BTC.
So all 3 of these Argon2 miners share a total of 0.115 BTC a day. It's up to the developers if they see that enough to try implementing it but I have a suspicion they won't, because scrypt-jane is not a particularily liked algo between devs.

I'm over it since yesterday.
Currently I'm getting about 1 milliBTC per cpu/day.
The usual cpu mining non-profit ;-)

About the algo: most of the time is spent doing standard scrypt-jane, I don't think there is a lot to optimise.

A new opportunity may have come. Is anyone working on an argon2 miner? It just showed up on hashpower
at the top of their profitability.

If I could code cuda I'd be all over it.

Once again getting down into the dirty bits here. There was a lawyer that was in the thread earlier that said everything was a mess anyway (some parts you can sell and that's good and other parts you were't supposed to be able to, but people do it anyway). You can pretend you're doing everything appropriately, then sell copies through PMs and still pretend that you haven't violated anything. Not that that's what you do, but that's what the majority of the people do around here. It's still selling it and you still have to give source with it, depending on the license.

It doesn't matter. Assuming it's all for the greater good anyway, everyone would benefit from a well supported miner that uses a % to fund itself. A % fund is no different then selling copies through PMs as far as GPL licensing is concerned as well. A miner fee doesn't violate GPL licensing anymore then selling it in the first place does and people are already doing that. It's not specifically unique to a 'miner fee'.

I think this really all comes down to 'who gets paid'. People that still work on the code definitely should be the ones making the majority of the money, especially if stuff becomes depreciated. I mean open source miners are great and everything, but we all (devs and miners) know that's not cutting it and there is no uniform method for devs to earn money. A miner fee continually supports the developers for their work. Miners need to have work continually updated to in order to stay competitive with farms with private kernel devs.

Sorta sounds like you guys need someone to come along and act as arbitrary for determining who makes what. Ideally though, all the developers that still want to work for something more 'public' and make something back should be working on it and share code with each other so they can continually build a better miner. I don't know enough about coding to be able to tell what's going on, Nicehash might be a good candidate for that, depending on their end goals, which right now just seem to be making sure everyone can earn money and continue to hash on their service.

I'm not even sure why you'd want a .01BTC donation in the first place SP... A fee will earn you support as long as the miner is relevant. While maybe there are some people that would tear it apart and tear out the code, there are a lot of people that would use a 2% fee miner, myself included as long as it's continually supported and competitive. If someone releases their own 2% miner and it's faster, of course I'll switch... that's just the way it goes, it's competition.

please put you effort on git or svn so we can pull request it ;-)

in the mean time i've added a lot of features to the script and some of them even revealed useless, therefore it became bloated and bug prone...
i'll rewrite it from scratch beginning with nicehash switching and slowly re-adding profit switching pools (there's just hashpower atm), local wallets switching and so on...
but please, don't hold your breath, i'm very busy and just mining with my desktop's gpu, therefore it will be a free spare time task.

hmmmm well... "available for free": if you sell a private miner to a single person, he can request the sources and he has the rights to re-distribute them for free.
business around opensource works in a different way than that.

for info GPL licence doesn't mean 'free', you can request payment for a software even if it is published within GPL licence
(see the definition of the licence).  The GPL licence only means that the source has to be available (as far as I have understood)

But if I sell private kernals for 0.01Btc in donation and a 2% fee then I might be not breaking anything. What do you think bensam?

A 10% faster quark/x11 miner. Who wants it?

I've been an opensource supporter for more than 20 years. I don't break the GPL, I use and support it.

No one cares about GPL violations in the crypto world. As long as you never form a legitimate business that makes million you'll never be worth suing. No one is going to send the coppers after you. It happens allll the time in the crypto world as well. Generally speaking it happens a LOT in the real world and usually nothing is ever done because the people who make GPL code don't have the resources to sue someone.

If this is your shiny suit of armor you're wearing things aren't going to go anywhere. If the 'business' ever gets big enough, you'll be able to get someone to rewrite everything that you haven't yet and pay them BTC.

I'm not saying it's a great idea to break 'laws', but in this case it really doesn't matter and no one gives two flips about it. That argument was just a easy way out to avoid actually doing something meaningful here.

Thank You Skunk--

I have tried with the version of your script that you posted earlier.  I did get it to mine, but not  in a stable, reliable fashion.  Several of the pools that it was customized for shut down.  I discovered while toying with your script that "BASH" and "SH" were not equivalent commands, by the way.

I'll try to work with your original scrypt again.  I tried before to trim out the inactive pools and damaged the script.  A simplified version for NiceHash only would be a really attractive piece of code.     --scryptr

This has been discussed before.

Without rewrites you get gpl violations.

You got my backing on this!

i'm using an on the fly coded bash script for that, it works but it's very messy and it will unlikely fit for someone without bash coding skills...
if i manage to clean it up a little i'll let you know...

You know you guys would make more money if you worked together instead of competing and remaking the wheel to 'prove' what you're selling is yours for some epeen contest. You guys should be building off eachothers work or we're going to end up in a situation where everyone is behind everyone else and they don't want to work on something that they haven't already optimized. If I understand things right, I'm sure SP has done some changes in Quark that may be useful in other algos as well...

This isn't far from a business. Although I don't know how fast you guys work, so the best thing for right now is what Nicehash is doing.

X11 definitely could still use some love. There are quite a few big x11 coins and it hasn't been openly improved for quite some time.


Something you guys have to consider. Small miners make dick for income. .1 BTC means a lot to them because they'll barely make that in a week or two (just income, not counting electricity cost). They need a better miner for a better ROI. So a bigger improvement. Yes ROI matters.

'Farms' already have private devs working for them that make kernels on hand because they can employ them. So they don't care what you're making and wont purchase them from you.

We need a in between option. Miner fees accomplish that, which is why I push for them every now and then. It scales for everyone, big or small. You always get a piece of the pie. You guys can divy that up whatever way you want too. If DJM is doing the majority of the work on Neo, then it mainly goes to him. You could split it up based on speed increases compared to base speed as well. It's really the best possible method of supplying income to developers.

Seriously consider a miner fee and work together. This works out for everyone. If you're worried about security stop being lazy and code something for it. I'll use it as I've mentioned before as long as it has continued support and it has a reasonable fee like 2%.