So here is the first part of report, i have run EWBF with --fee 0 for ~28 hrs. on 6x1080 rig. Little exploanation:
On the right there is flypool stats with highlightet 24 hrs window start, below is miner screen at earlyest time i was able to scroll to (2018-01-28 ~11:00)
On the left same flypool but end of test highlighted + screen from miner at test end.
Dont look at miner heading it is coming from bat file naming istance, so i just forgot to change to flypool.
So even with --fee 0 real hashrate is ~2% less then reported.
Now DSTM will run for good amount of time and i check it somwhere on saturday.
Screen:
https://imageking.eu/images/ewbfcoknk.png
It is big screen actually, so i leave full link https://imageking.eu/images/ewbfcompar.png
BTW --fee 0 or --fee 0.0 switch is working? I mean --fee 0 could not work? Or it is working but miner trottling de to --fee 0 is used?
On the right there is flypool stats with highlightet 24 hrs window start, below is miner screen at earlyest time i was able to scroll to (2018-01-28 ~11:00)
On the left same flypool but end of test highlighted + screen from miner at test end.
Dont look at miner heading it is coming from bat file naming istance, so i just forgot to change to flypool.
So even with --fee 0 real hashrate is ~2% less then reported.
Now DSTM will run for good amount of time and i check it somwhere on saturday.
Screen:
https://imageking.eu/images/ewbfcoknk.png
It is big screen actually, so i leave full link https://imageking.eu/images/ewbfcompar.png
BTW --fee 0 or --fee 0.0 switch is working? I mean --fee 0 could not work? Or it is working but miner trottling de to --fee 0 is used?
I don't understand what You are trying to convince all of us here. You spent some time stitching 4 different screenshots. --fee 0 is working for me and there is no single devfee share with it. It is not "throttling" because GPU usage curves in Afterburner are same with or without switch. I believe You will find that with zm miner You have time window with 2% higher pool average hashrate than reported by miner.
I concur with chup. I'm runing two rigs, one on Windows 10 and the other on Ubuntu 16.04. I'm using "--fee 0.0" on both and I'm watching TCP connections as well as I've verified with the EWBM MITM that I'm not submitting any dev shares. I wonder if folks who are reporting 10% or some other amount and are using --fee 0.0 (or --fee 0) got a modded version? Make sure you check signatures! I don't know how else to explain these problems - but it's working as documented for me on both Win 10 and Ubuntu 16.04.
Yesterday I did my own test on each OS for 1000 shares - both Windows and Linux only submitted 1% of my shares for devfee (not 2%).
ALL OF THAT SAID: If the dev's do come back and start working on and improving the miners - I do pledge to pay FULL devfee royalties - but since both developers are long gone - I don't see the need to keep paying royalties "just cuz". They gave me the option to use --fee 0.0 - so I'm exercising that option for now.
That being said, I did briefly consider running the MITM to get the extra 2% - but it doesn't do connection failover to different servers - AND - it goes against the spirit of what the developers want - so for now I'll stick w/ using miner.cfg and --fee 0.0.
