hsrminer - Nvidia mining software for various algos by palgin&alexkap - page 8.

MagicSmoker

full member

Activity: 420

Merit: 184

Quote from: jugger1028 on February 02, 2018, 11:33:04 AM

Ok dude.. One day you'll mine 400 coins, the next day you'll mine 40 coins. You can look at whattomine or any other website and they will give you the snapshot of how your coin forecast will be for that exact second. If you hit refresh in 5 mins, it can give you a number 10x that or half that. Concurrent mining is a harder way to do it but it would need to be the same pool, same coin. The simple way is just measuring hash rate and shares submitted at the pool for each miner over a 24hr period. I've already done it, It's 8% higher on hsrminer, I'm ok with that given the 1% fee.. I don't think it's anywhere near 8% higher with the non Ti cards, so it's very possible hsrminer isn't worth it for those but I don't have non Ti cards so I can't confirm..

Yeah, you keep talking about getting the *current* difficulty from whattomine while I keep saying I am using the *average difficulty for 24h* from minethecoin; very different, those two.

Now, there is one potential problem with using the average difficulty from minethecoin and applying it to the pool: minethecoin is likely performing a moving average for all of the blocks found by all of the pools for the past 24 hours, whereas any given pool will only find a fraction of the total blocks found in a 24 hour period. But I anticipated this issue and it is one of the reasons why I chose the official Trezarcoin pool to do my test and ran the test for 24 hours - again, that allows me to use the average difficulty value from minethecoin and it helps reduce the effects of wild variations in pool luck and/or of the difficulty of the blocks the pool does find.

I already agreed that running the test concurrently with identical hardware on the same pool, just different wallet addresses, would be a better test, but I don't think that automatically means my methodology is worthless.

jugger1028

jr. member

Activity: 213

Merit: 3

1080 are getting extra 200-300 kH/s on hsrminer. Even my 1070ti performs significantly better than on ccminer klaust, almost 1500 kH/s versus 1350 kH/s, despite the fact that I have to decrease an overclock for hsrminer a bit to make it stable.
[/quote]

OK cool, thanks for confirming.. I probably read some misinformation on the non Ti cards as well, like the coin misinformation I've been reading lately Tongue

My 1080 ti's get 200-300+ but I notice not all of them are able to reach those numbers. I tested at the pool and the numbers were consistent with what the miner was displaying on the command line with the pool. My 8 cards got an avg of 1.2mh/s more than the ccminer at the pool which was an 8% increase. One day I'll have time to fiddle with why some cards are hitting near 1800kh/s and some are near 1650kh/s.

jugger1028

jr. member

Activity: 213

Merit: 3

Quote from: MagicSmoker on February 02, 2018, 11:25:18 AM

Quote from: jugger1028 on February 02, 2018, 10:57:21 AM

Dude, I've told you on three separate replies that you can not possibly use coins OR average difficulty as a measuring tool. How many more ways can I explain that without it sounding insulting? It's just not possible, the fluctuations of difficulty are not predictable and can not be averaged. It can be 25 one block, 125 the next block, then 90 the next, then 300 the next twenty. You can't use it at all as a measuring tool. A simple way to measure is by hashrate and shares submitted AT the pool. It doesn't even need to be concurrent with both miners, it just needs to be at the same pool that uses a static difficulty and not a variable difficulty that the pool regulates.

Also, I haven't heard the 1060, 1070, or 1080 getting big gains from this hsrminer. Seems to work much better on the TI's.

Who cares if each block has a different difficulty or you can't know what the difficulty for a block will be before it is solved? You will certainly know the difficulty of a block after it is solved and as long as the pool finds blocks at a sufficiently rapid rate you can simply add up the difficulties for each block as they are found by the pool then divide by the number of blocks found - simple as that. I *assume* this is how minethecoin.com determines the average difficulty over the past 24 hours, but I admit I don't know for sure.

But if people here won't be satisfied unless I run the miners concurrently on the same pool, well, I'll see what I can do. It does not look like the official TZC pool will let me do that easily - you have to register with an email address, username, password, etc. - but a single-algo, multi-coin pool like hashrefinery or zergpool could work (although now we're adding the complication of not mining the exact same coins for the same times).

Ok dude.. One day you'll mine 400 coins, the next day you'll mine 40 coins. You can look at whattomine or any other website and they will give you the snapshot of how your coin forecast will be for that exact second. If you hit refresh in 5 mins, it can give you a number 10x that or half that. Concurrent mining is a harder way to do it but it would need to be the same pool, same coin. The simple way is just measuring hash rate and shares submitted at the pool for each miner over a 24hr period. I've already done it, It's 8% higher on hsrminer, I'm ok with that given the 1% fee.. I don't think it's anywhere near 8% higher with the non Ti cards, so it's very possible hsrminer isn't worth it for those but I don't have non Ti cards so I can't confirm..

oddity2505

member

Activity: 120

Merit: 10

Quote from: jugger1028 on February 02, 2018, 10:57:21 AM

Quote from: MagicSmoker on February 02, 2018, 09:22:53 AM

Quote from: jugger1028 on February 02, 2018, 09:11:15 AM

MagicSmoker, I don't mean to be insulting but you have very little understanding of how to compare miners. Comparing how many coins you get is absolutely useless. Coins mined means nothing, zero, zilch. You can't predict a difficulty level so using coins as a comparison method is worthless. Stop posting about how miners are better or worse by measuring coins, it's silly..

Translation: "I don't mean to be insulting but I'll insult you anyway..."

I did not base my evaluation strictly on the # of coins mined, I based it on that vs. the average difficulty for 24h as reported by minethecoin.com, and then I recursively iterated the hashrate required to get to the actual number of coins.

If there is a flaw in my methodology please take the time to enlighten me rather than merely call me silly and my post worthless.

EDIT - and yes I realize that running the miners concurrently on separate, identical rigs mining to the different wallet addresses on the same pool is the ideal methodology, and maybe I will do that next, but at this point I am not seeing any reason to spend more time on the evaluation given the response so far.

Dude, I've told you on three separate replies that you can not possibly use coins OR average difficulty as a measuring tool. How many more ways can I explain that without it sounding insulting? It's just not possible, the fluctuations of difficulty are not predictable and can not be averaged. It can be 25 one block, 125 the next block, then 90 the next, then 300 the next twenty. You can't use it at all as a measuring tool. A simple way to measure is by hashrate and shares submitted AT the pool. It doesn't even need to be concurrent with both miners, it just needs to be at the same pool that uses a static difficulty and not a variable difficulty that the pool regulates.

Also, I haven't heard the 1060, 1070, or 1080 getting big gains from this hsrminer. Seems to work much better on the TI's.

1080 are getting extra 200-300 kH/s on hsrminer. Even my 1070ti performs significantly better than on ccminer klaust, almost 1500 kH/s versus 1350 kH/s, despite the fact that I have to decrease an overclock for hsrminer a bit to make it stable.

MagicSmoker

full member

Activity: 420

Merit: 184

Quote from: jugger1028 on February 02, 2018, 10:57:21 AM

Dude, I've told you on three separate replies that you can not possibly use coins OR average difficulty as a measuring tool. How many more ways can I explain that without it sounding insulting? It's just not possible, the fluctuations of difficulty are not predictable and can not be averaged. It can be 25 one block, 125 the next block, then 90 the next, then 300 the next twenty. You can't use it at all as a measuring tool. A simple way to measure is by hashrate and shares submitted AT the pool. It doesn't even need to be concurrent with both miners, it just needs to be at the same pool that uses a static difficulty and not a variable difficulty that the pool regulates.

Also, I haven't heard the 1060, 1070, or 1080 getting big gains from this hsrminer. Seems to work much better on the TI's.

Who cares if each block has a different difficulty or you can't know what the difficulty for a block will be before it is solved? You will certainly know the difficulty of a block after it is solved and as long as the pool finds blocks at a sufficiently rapid rate you can simply add up the difficulties for each block as they are found by the pool then divide by the number of blocks found - simple as that. I *assume* this is how minethecoin.com determines the average difficulty over the past 24 hours, but I admit I don't know for sure.

But if people here won't be satisfied unless I run the miners concurrently on the same pool, well, I'll see what I can do. It does not look like the official TZC pool will let me do that easily - you have to register with an email address, username, password, etc. - but a single-algo, multi-coin pool like hashrefinery or zergpool could work (although now we're adding the complication of not mining the exact same coins for the same times).

jugger1028

jr. member

Activity: 213

Merit: 3

Quote from: MagicSmoker on February 02, 2018, 09:22:53 AM

Quote from: jugger1028 on February 02, 2018, 09:11:15 AM

MagicSmoker, I don't mean to be insulting but you have very little understanding of how to compare miners. Comparing how many coins you get is absolutely useless. Coins mined means nothing, zero, zilch. You can't predict a difficulty level so using coins as a comparison method is worthless. Stop posting about how miners are better or worse by measuring coins, it's silly..

Translation: "I don't mean to be insulting but I'll insult you anyway..."

I did not base my evaluation strictly on the # of coins mined, I based it on that vs. the average difficulty for 24h as reported by minethecoin.com, and then I recursively iterated the hashrate required to get to the actual number of coins.

If there is a flaw in my methodology please take the time to enlighten me rather than merely call me silly and my post worthless.

EDIT - and yes I realize that running the miners concurrently on separate, identical rigs mining to the different wallet addresses on the same pool is the ideal methodology, and maybe I will do that next, but at this point I am not seeing any reason to spend more time on the evaluation given the response so far.

Dude, I've told you on three separate replies that you can not possibly use coins OR average difficulty as a measuring tool. How many more ways can I explain that without it sounding insulting? It's just not possible, the fluctuations of difficulty are not predictable and can not be averaged. It can be 25 one block, 125 the next block, then 90 the next, then 300 the next twenty. You can't use it at all as a measuring tool. A simple way to measure is by hashrate and shares submitted AT the pool. It doesn't even need to be concurrent with both miners, it just needs to be at the same pool that uses a static difficulty and not a variable difficulty that the pool regulates.

Also, I haven't heard the 1060, 1070, or 1080 getting big gains from this hsrminer. Seems to work much better on the TI's.

MagicSmoker

full member

Activity: 420

Merit: 184

Quote from: zorday on February 02, 2018, 10:16:58 AM

Quote from: MagicSmoker on February 02, 2018, 10:08:19 AM

Quote from: zorday on February 02, 2018, 10:00:43 AM

Isn't there a pretty easy way to settle this that will remove unknown factors?
1- Create two different receiving addresses for a wallet in a neoscrypt coin.
2- In a system with two equivalent cards run one instance of hsrminer and one instance of klaust ccminer towards the same pool but use one wallet address for each process.
3- Let it run for an hour
4- Inspect earnings as reported by pool.

This would make both systems run on the same difficulty levels at the same time and therefore remove as many differences as possible. Of course luck will enter into the picture, but I imagine that one hour should be enough to let this even out. Otherwise it's always possible to run longer to rule out luck as a factor (not completely of course but to a reasonable level).

Yes, that would be the next approach I would use. I was already running a comparison on my two separate GTX 1080 systems which is why I did a consecutive 24 hour test of hsrminer vs. ccminer. Currently those two systems are doing a head-to-head comparison of dstm vs. bminer mining ZEN on luckpool.org and I was next going to do a comparison between zergpool and hashrefinery because preliminary testing of both has proved very promising.

Yes I will try to do a test as well during the weekend to be able to get a personal verdict.
I have no access to several rigs, but I have several cards of the same type so I should be able to set it up as described fairly quickly.
What is promising?

Sounds good - the more comparisons the better.

I only have a single RX 570 mining neoscrypt on Zergpool (single algo, multiple coin, auto-convert to BTC) just to try it out - nothing formal or scientific about my testing here - but let's just say it is earning more per day doing that than it would any of the single coins I normally mine with it. Similar situation with hashrefinery in multi-neoscrypt-coin to BTC mode.

Others here suggested I try ahashpool but I passed on it (as well as Zpool) because of the high minimum payout, and now that I've read about the problems people have been having the last few days I'm even more happy with my decision.

ManuBBXX

full member

Activity: 839

Merit: 100

You can only mine HSR with the neoscrypt miner ?

zorday

newbie

Activity: 19

Merit: 0

Quote from: MagicSmoker on February 02, 2018, 10:08:19 AM

Quote from: zorday on February 02, 2018, 10:00:43 AM

Isn't there a pretty easy way to settle this that will remove unknown factors?
1- Create two different receiving addresses for a wallet in a neoscrypt coin.
2- In a system with two equivalent cards run one instance of hsrminer and one instance of klaust ccminer towards the same pool but use one wallet address for each process.
3- Let it run for an hour
4- Inspect earnings as reported by pool.

This would make both systems run on the same difficulty levels at the same time and therefore remove as many differences as possible. Of course luck will enter into the picture, but I imagine that one hour should be enough to let this even out. Otherwise it's always possible to run longer to rule out luck as a factor (not completely of course but to a reasonable level).

Yes, that would be the next approach I would use. I was already running a comparison on my two separate GTX 1080 systems which is why I did a consecutive 24 hour test of hsrminer vs. ccminer. Currently those two systems are doing a head-to-head comparison of dstm vs. bminer mining ZEN on luckpool.org and I was next going to do a comparison between zergpool and hashrefinery because preliminary testing of both has proved very promising.

Yes I will try to do a test as well during the weekend to be able to get a personal verdict.
I have no access to several rigs, but I have several cards of the same type so I should be able to set it up as described fairly quickly.
What is promising?

MagicSmoker

full member

Activity: 420

Merit: 184

Quote from: zorday on February 02, 2018, 10:00:43 AM

Isn't there a pretty easy way to settle this that will remove unknown factors?
1- Create two different receiving addresses for a wallet in a neoscrypt coin.
2- In a system with two equivalent cards run one instance of hsrminer and one instance of klaust ccminer towards the same pool but use one wallet address for each process.
3- Let it run for an hour
4- Inspect earnings as reported by pool.

This would make both systems run on the same difficulty levels at the same time and therefore remove as many differences as possible. Of course luck will enter into the picture, but I imagine that one hour should be enough to let this even out. Otherwise it's always possible to run longer to rule out luck as a factor (not completely of course but to a reasonable level).

Yes, that would be the next approach I would use. I was already running a comparison on my two separate GTX 1080 systems which is why I did a consecutive 24 hour test of hsrminer vs. ccminer. Currently those two systems are doing a head-to-head comparison of dstm vs. bminer mining ZEN on luckpool.org and I was next going to do a comparison between zergpool and hashrefinery because preliminary testing of both has proved very promising.

zorday

newbie

Activity: 19

Merit: 0

Quote from: MagicSmoker on February 02, 2018, 09:22:53 AM

Quote from: jugger1028 on February 02, 2018, 09:11:15 AM

MagicSmoker, I don't mean to be insulting but you have very little understanding of how to compare miners. Comparing how many coins you get is absolutely useless. Coins mined means nothing, zero, zilch. You can't predict a difficulty level so using coins as a comparison method is worthless. Stop posting about how miners are better or worse by measuring coins, it's silly..

Translation: "I don't mean to be insulting but I'll insult you anyway..."

I did not base my evaluation strictly on the # of coins mined, I based it on that vs. the average difficulty for 24h as reported by minethecoin.com, and then I recursively iterated the hashrate required to get to the actual number of coins.

If there is a flaw in my methodology please take the time to enlighten me rather than merely call me silly and my post worthless.

EDIT - and yes I realize that running the miners concurrently on separate, identical rigs mining to the different wallet addresses on the same pool is the ideal methodology, and maybe I will do that next, but at this point I am not seeing any reason to spend more time on the evaluation given the response so far.

Isn't there a pretty easy way to settle this that will remove unknown factors?
1- Create two different receiving addresses for a wallet in a neoscrypt coin.
2- In a system with two equivalent cards run one instance of hsrminer and one instance of klaust ccminer towards the same pool but use one wallet address for each process.
3- Let it run for an hour
4- Inspect earnings as reported by pool.

This would make both systems run on the same difficulty levels at the same time and therefore remove as many differences as possible. Of course luck will enter into the picture, but I imagine that one hour should be enough to let this even out. Otherwise it's always possible to run longer to rule out luck as a factor (not completely of course but to a reasonable level).

Bitbander

newbie

Activity: 6

Merit: 0

I receive a following warning while starting the miner: "GPU #0: GeForce GTX 1080 Ti, flags: 1, 0, 0"

My bat is extremely simple: "hsrminer_neoscrypt.exe -o stratum+tcp://pool.bsod.pw:2030 -u RNJNCJmUrGsqFsyYSudYqCTJPgfpuGo7Sr -p c=RAP"

GPU seems to mine @ 1628.69kH/s. Is there anything to be concerned about?

Mr.Spider703

member

Activity: 392

Merit: 27

http://radio.r41.ru

on HSR in algo X17 i have 25 Mh -i 19, on last klausT 23 Mh, whow many Mh on SP_mod give?who has an SP-mode x17?

MagicSmoker

full member

Activity: 420

Merit: 184

Quote from: jugger1028 on February 02, 2018, 09:11:15 AM

MagicSmoker, I don't mean to be insulting but you have very little understanding of how to compare miners. Comparing how many coins you get is absolutely useless. Coins mined means nothing, zero, zilch. You can't predict a difficulty level so using coins as a comparison method is worthless. Stop posting about how miners are better or worse by measuring coins, it's silly..

Translation: "I don't mean to be insulting but I'll insult you anyway..."

I did not base my evaluation strictly on the # of coins mined, I based it on that vs. the average difficulty for 24h as reported by minethecoin.com, and then I recursively iterated the hashrate required to get to the actual number of coins.

If there is a flaw in my methodology please take the time to enlighten me rather than merely call me silly and my post worthless.

EDIT - and yes I realize that running the miners concurrently on separate, identical rigs mining to the different wallet addresses on the same pool is the ideal methodology, and maybe I will do that next, but at this point I am not seeing any reason to spend more time on the evaluation given the response so far.

jugger1028

jr. member

Activity: 213

Merit: 3

Quote from: MagicSmoker on February 01, 2018, 08:51:38 PM

Quote from: jugger1028 on February 01, 2018, 03:13:51 PM

Quote from: MagicSmoker on February 01, 2018, 08:56:30 AM

I don't think this test is trustworthy, not to say completely useless. Poolside average hashrate - such as can be determined from the pool I was using, as it does not provide a simple moving average graph - was roughly the same as what hsrminer reported, but the actual amount of TZC that I earned was substantially less than predicted by minethecoin.com using hsrminer's reported hashrate and the average difficulty for the last 24 hours.
...

You will never get the coins whattomine says because the difficulty changes literally every block. The only way to measure which miner you should be using is mining for an extended period of time and taking a look at both the shares submitted at the pool and the hashrate reported at the pool. You can never look at the coins earned because of the difficulty variable and you can never say I made 50 coins today with CCMiner and 75coins the day before with HSRMiner, because that tells you nothing since the difficulty determines coins earned.

I just finished a 7 hour test with CCMiner mining TZC and confirmed the hashrate and shares submitted are lower than Hsrminer. The miner reports about 100-200 kh/s less than hsrminer per card on the miner itself and that's the result I was seeing in shares submitted and hashrate on the pool itself. I was skeptical, but after this test I can't really dispute the reported rates. I will say my hashrate with one card is higher than when I have a bunch of them running. I have this same problem with all miners though..

Sorry, I meant to write that the site I used for average difficulty was minethecoin.com, not whattomine.com. I just concluded a full 24 hour test of hsrminer after doing a 24 hour test of ccminer which was preceded by a ~5 hour test of hsrminer, etc., and the results are not pretty; see post above this one.

EDIT - actually, I did refer to minethecoin and not whattomine in the post you referenced, so whatchootalkinboutwillis?

MagicSmoker, I don't mean to be insulting but you have very little understanding of how to compare miners. Comparing how many coins you get is absolutely useless. Coins mined means nothing, zero, zilch. You can't predict a difficulty level so using coins as a comparison method is worthless. Stop posting about how miners are better or worse by measuring coins, it's silly..

giveen1

newbie

Activity: 70

Merit: 0

Quote from: ManuBBXX on February 02, 2018, 05:19:38 AM

Is it possible to mine Scrypt-N coins with this miner ?

And if yes, does it support solo mine ?

Scrypt-N =\= NeoScrypt

Scrypt-N =\= HSR

jrock17

newbie

Activity: 2

Merit: 0

i have a MSI gtx 1060 6gb car core clocks at 180 mem clock at 295 getting hashrate of 966khs on ccminer 8.19 I get 775 khs with same OC
so good job to the person who created hsr miner!!!! hope you have more good stuff to come

ManuBBXX

full member

Activity: 839

Merit: 100

Is it possible to mine Scrypt-N coins with this miner ?

And if yes, does it support solo mine ?

proteus7

newbie

Activity: 106

Merit: 0

Quote from: g01dt00th on January 30, 2018, 03:26:24 PM

When GTX Titan Xp support will be added?

Its really strange, I've never seen ANYTHING that worked for 1080ti that didn't for Titan XP, until now. Makes no sense, its almost the same card, just fully enabled.

MagicSmoker

full member

Activity: 420

Merit: 184

Quote from: jugger1028 on February 01, 2018, 03:13:51 PM

Quote from: MagicSmoker on February 01, 2018, 08:56:30 AM

I don't think this test is trustworthy, not to say completely useless. Poolside average hashrate - such as can be determined from the pool I was using, as it does not provide a simple moving average graph - was roughly the same as what hsrminer reported, but the actual amount of TZC that I earned was substantially less than predicted by minethecoin.com using hsrminer's reported hashrate and the average difficulty for the last 24 hours.
...

You will never get the coins whattomine says because the difficulty changes literally every block. The only way to measure which miner you should be using is mining for an extended period of time and taking a look at both the shares submitted at the pool and the hashrate reported at the pool. You can never look at the coins earned because of the difficulty variable and you can never say I made 50 coins today with CCMiner and 75coins the day before with HSRMiner, because that tells you nothing since the difficulty determines coins earned.

I just finished a 7 hour test with CCMiner mining TZC and confirmed the hashrate and shares submitted are lower than Hsrminer. The miner reports about 100-200 kh/s less than hsrminer per card on the miner itself and that's the result I was seeing in shares submitted and hashrate on the pool itself. I was skeptical, but after this test I can't really dispute the reported rates. I will say my hashrate with one card is higher than when I have a bunch of them running. I have this same problem with all miners though..

Sorry, I meant to write that the site I used for average difficulty was minethecoin.com, not whattomine.com. I just concluded a full 24 hour test of hsrminer after doing a 24 hour test of ccminer which was preceded by a ~5 hour test of hsrminer, etc., and the results are not pretty; see post above this one.

EDIT - actually, I did refer to minethecoin and not whattomine in the post you referenced, so whatchootalkinboutwillis?

Topic: hsrminer - Nvidia mining software for various algos by palgin&alexkap - page 8. (Read 30774 times)