EWBF's CUDA Zcash miner - page 15. | Bitcointalksearch.org

chup

sr. member

Activity: 736

Merit: 262

Me, Myself & I

Quote from: Vispilio on January 19, 2018, 11:01:52 AM

bro your English sounds a bit weird, I don't know what you are objecting to, but the discussion was about profitability and efficiency, not fairy tales of pseudo morality from 17th century...

My English teacher was telling me the same, so I left English classes. Nobody's perfect... Roll Eyes

chup

sr. member

Activity: 736

Merit: 262

Me, Myself & I

Quote from: CryptoWatcher420 on January 19, 2018, 02:21:14 PM

no it doesn't do the same as mitm, in windows that --devfee 0 is broke its something within windows has to do with how windows looks at it. in Linux though the --devfee 0 DOES work correctly as its supposed too, not to mention everyone knows the miners do take a little more than there advertised 2 percent, claymores miner does, so pretty safe to assume other miner programs do as well

Yeah, joke rimes with broke... You mean broke like this:

Win7 MITM EWBF with --devfee 0.
Should I wait some weeks before devfee share appear?

fecker

jr. member

Activity: 30

Merit: 3

Quote from: CryptoWatcher420 on January 19, 2018, 02:21:14 PM

no it doesn't do the same as mitm, in windows that --devfee 0 is broke its something within windows has to do with how windows looks at it. in Linux though the --devfee 0 DOES work correctly as its supposed too, not to mention everyone knows the miners do take a little more than there advertised 2 percent, claymores miner does, so pretty safe to assume other miner programs do as well

Quote from: fecker on January 13, 2018, 11:06:16 PM

Hi.
I just registered to confirm something.
I just set --fee to 60, that should mean 60%, and I got many messages like this
INFO 03:54:46: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share

however when set to 0, I dont see any of these.

Does this mean, with --fee 0, there are no fees, as we dont see any of these "INFO 03:54:46: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share" ? Not sure...

I saw a post once where they suggested to use 0.1 (0.1%) to see some difference.I also saw a post saying that if that is set to 0, then it will just generate some random number instead of 0. Idk if true, but like I said I dont see any "INFO 03:54:46: GPU0 DevFee Accepted share" with fee 0 but on the other side, idk if this is a good enough proof that proves that there are no fees.... Huh

(I am using Windows 10 and 0.3.4b miner)

Read my post above and tell me what u think

fecker

jr. member

Activity: 30

Merit: 3

Quote from: crypper on January 17, 2018, 06:25:16 AM

Quote from: fecker on January 16, 2018, 08:12:28 AM

Quote from: NameTaken on January 16, 2018, 05:05:40 AM

EWBF devfee address: https://zcash.flypool.org/miners/t1fJuHWrfcWnYMYyP9VAF96vRnvND2NziMG

Having said all, he should come back and support us. He gets tons of money and dont support us which is a shame.
Also...I see him active on the forums, but he just seems to be avoiding us Huh

Under what nick do you see him on forums? His most recent post is dated July-2017

I see him online ...but not posting

CryptoWatcher420

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 258

Small Time Miner, Rig Builder, Crypto Trader

Quote from: chup on January 19, 2018, 04:33:31 AM

Quote from: Vispilio on January 18, 2018, 01:46:45 PM

just out of curiousity, if the 2% fee or custom fee arguments are never respected, what is the effective fee we are paying when we just use EWBF regularly (ie when we don't use the suggested MITM solution) ?.. I suspect the MITM would bring its own stability problems into the mix, although I've never tried that as a workaround before. We know for a fact that for example Claymore's effective fees are also higher than the alleged 2 %, or the miner ends up mining less than an effective 98% because of all the interruptions...

Don't bother, --devfee 0 will have the very same result as MITM. Can't You recognize trolls repeating same things without single screenshot confirming?
BTW Looking in someone else pocket is bad habit. Speaking about is even worse. Can't help, but some things person is learning up to 7 years...

no it doesn't do the same as mitm, in windows that --devfee 0 is broke its something within windows has to do with how windows looks at it. in Linux though the --devfee 0 DOES work correctly as its supposed too, not to mention everyone knows the miners do take a little more than there advertised 2 percent, claymores miner does, so pretty safe to assume other miner programs do as well

Vispilio

legendary

Activity: 2128

Merit: 1657

Quote from: chup on January 19, 2018, 04:33:31 AM

Quote from: Vispilio on January 18, 2018, 01:46:45 PM

just out of curiousity, if the 2% fee or custom fee arguments are never respected, what is the effective fee we are paying when we just use EWBF regularly (ie when we don't use the suggested MITM solution) ?.. I suspect the MITM would bring its own stability problems into the mix, although I've never tried that as a workaround before. We know for a fact that for example Claymore's effective fees are also higher than the alleged 2 %, or the miner ends up mining less than an effective 98% because of all the interruptions...

Don't bother, --devfee 0 will have the very same result as MITM. Can't You recognize trolls repeating same things without single screenshot confirming?
BTW Looking in someone else pocket is bad habit. Speaking about is even worse. Can't help, but some things person is learning up to 7 years...

bro your English sounds a bit weird, I don't know what you are objecting to, but the discussion was about profitability and efficiency, not fairy tales of pseudo morality from 17th century...

chup

sr. member

Activity: 736

Merit: 262

Me, Myself & I

Quote from: Vispilio on January 18, 2018, 01:46:45 PM

just out of curiousity, if the 2% fee or custom fee arguments are never respected, what is the effective fee we are paying when we just use EWBF regularly (ie when we don't use the suggested MITM solution) ?.. I suspect the MITM would bring its own stability problems into the mix, although I've never tried that as a workaround before. We know for a fact that for example Claymore's effective fees are also higher than the alleged 2 %, or the miner ends up mining less than an effective 98% because of all the interruptions...

Don't bother, --devfee 0 will have the very same result as MITM. Can't You recognize trolls repeating same things without single screenshot confirming?
BTW Looking in someone else pocket is bad habit. Speaking about is even worse. Can't help, but some things person is learning up to 7 years...

crypper

member

Activity: 239

Merit: 12

Quote from: strike101 on January 18, 2018, 04:50:15 PM

1070's and 1060's

1070:
Core: +100
Mem: +500
Raising core and mem further may or may not increase hashrate. Core +200, mem +800 is probably the limit for most cards. Just try it with your cards and find the optimum settings. Power should usually be 65-70%, but that again depends on your cards.

lemonforest

newbie

Activity: 18

Merit: 0

Quote from: strike101 on January 18, 2018, 04:50:15 PM

1070's and 1060's

just a little zcash benchmarky site that might help show things to under and over I'll leave here. some entries are a little silly in that it's not single card hashrates but might help nonetheless.

http://www.zcashbenchmarks.info/

strike101

newbie

Activity: 12

Merit: 0

1070's and 1060's

QuintLeo

legendary

Activity: 1498

Merit: 1030

Depends on the model of GPU and sometimes the specific card.

strike101

newbie

Activity: 12

Merit: 0

i'm new with this.. just came from eth , Which is better with it
higher memory speed or gpu core speed ?

_pepe_

newbie

Activity: 18

Merit: 0

Indeed, like Claymore the fees are almost always over the one announced.

Vispilio

legendary

Activity: 2128

Merit: 1657

Quote from: _pepe_ on January 18, 2018, 12:16:37 PM

As it seems that Terraman didn't support EWBF dev anymore.

And apparently he's quite rich now (in zcash at least)...
https://zec.nanopool.org/account/t1fJuHWrfcWnYMYyP9VAF96vRnvND2NziMG
(361519 EUR/month)
https://zcashnetwork.info/address/t1fJuHWrfcWnYMYyP9VAF96vRnvND2NziMG
Total received: 16521 ZEC (~8.2Million EUR)

You can do a MITM attack on our own rig (no scam as you do it yourself)...
thanks to this contributor (not myself):
https://github.com/Mcracker/EWBF-dev-fee-to-myWallet

This MITM will also help you to verify that the announced 2%fee (or custom one from --fee argument) is never respected...

Enjoy!

just out of curiousity, if the 2% fee or custom fee arguments are never respected, what is the effective fee we are paying when we just use EWBF regularly (ie when we don't use the suggested MITM solution) ?.. I suspect the MITM would bring its own stability problems into the mix, although I've never tried that as a workaround before. We know for a fact that for example Claymore's effective fees are also higher than the alleged 2 %, or the miner ends up mining less than an effective 98% because of all the interruptions...

_pepe_

newbie

Activity: 18

Merit: 0

As it seems that Terraman didn't support EWBF dev anymore.

And apparently he's quite rich now (in zcash at least)...
https://zec.nanopool.org/account/t1fJuHWrfcWnYMYyP9VAF96vRnvND2NziMG
(361519 EUR/month)
https://zcashnetwork.info/address/t1fJuHWrfcWnYMYyP9VAF96vRnvND2NziMG
Total received: 16521 ZEC (~8.2Million EUR)

You can do a MITM attack on our own rig (no scam as you do it yourself)...
thanks to this contributor (not myself):
https://github.com/Mcracker/EWBF-dev-fee-to-myWallet

This MITM will also help you to verify that the announced 2%fee (or custom one from --fee argument) is never respected...

Enjoy!

Biodom

legendary

Activity: 3892

Merit: 4331

Quote from: RoadStress on January 13, 2018, 05:16:02 PM

What driver is the most stable driver?

Ubuntu Linux 16.04 with the recent kernel, EWBF 0.3.4, nvidia 375= working for 3-4 wks (or more) at the time with no interruption.

Vispilio

legendary

Activity: 2128

Merit: 1657

Quote from: NameTaken on January 16, 2018, 05:05:40 AM

EWBF devfee address: https://zcash.flypool.org/miners/t1fJuHWrfcWnYMYyP9VAF96vRnvND2NziMG

wow thanks for this interesting share, EWBF makes 800k+ USD / month on dev fees; gives a lot of clues as to overall miners in ZCASH, and obviously how insanely profitable writing a competitive miner program is !!

crypper

member

Activity: 239

Merit: 12

Quote from: fecker on January 16, 2018, 08:12:28 AM

Quote from: NameTaken on January 16, 2018, 05:05:40 AM

EWBF devfee address: https://zcash.flypool.org/miners/t1fJuHWrfcWnYMYyP9VAF96vRnvND2NziMG

Having said all, he should come back and support us. He gets tons of money and dont support us which is a shame.
Also...I see him active on the forums, but he just seems to be avoiding us Huh

Under what nick do you see him on forums? His most recent post is dated July-2017

fecker

jr. member

Activity: 30

Merit: 3

Quote from: NameTaken on January 16, 2018, 05:05:40 AM

EWBF devfee address: https://zcash.flypool.org/miners/t1fJuHWrfcWnYMYyP9VAF96vRnvND2NziMG

Having said all, he should come back and support us. He gets tons of money and dont support us which is a shame.
Also...I see him active on the forums, but he just seems to be avoiding us Huh

crypper

member

Activity: 239

Merit: 12

Quote from: NameTaken on January 16, 2018, 05:05:40 AM

EWBF devfee address: https://zcash.flypool.org/miners/t1fJuHWrfcWnYMYyP9VAF96vRnvND2NziMG

Well he did a great job. So he deserves it.
Great job because: he has not updated the miners in months and it run faultless with any cards in any rigs on any OS. The number of complaints is minuscule (ignore those noobs who cannot set it up properly). And now consider claymores miner: yes it's full of features, but the amount of bugs and complaints is enormous. He released 4 updates in just a couple of weeks; and they were not speed improvements but bugs fixes. So I prefer something simple but solid (I don't need all those features claymore offers). EWBF runs solid for weeks/months (I think I only restart rigs when I decided to do so, occasionally). TBH EWBF is the best miner I ever used.

Topic: EWBF's CUDA Zcash miner - page 15. (Read 2164326 times)