NiceHash Benchmark mining wallet address

PanneKopp

sr. member

Activity: 391

Merit: 250

aka ...

I´m glad 2 have something 2 compare different Hardware
under different conditions.

4 sure, with every step in Version
you get / loose different things.
(e.g. v1.3.03 / 1.4.0.1 / 1.5.1.0 / 1.6.1.4 / 1.7.3.12 /1.7.4.2 as majors here)

... maybe somewhen I get someone, 2 put the screenshots in an *.ods .

I do not care about the benchmark adress, because I mostly felt rewarded in my stats,
and with 24x7x365 I do not mind, evtl. wasting an 1/4 hour of benchmark at a 4 GPU-Rig.

Grin

alucard20724

sr. member

Activity: 703

Merit: 272

Quote from: Scorpers on January 28, 2017, 07:02:28 PM

Quote from: alucard20724 on January 28, 2017, 03:49:35 PM

I did a search in the 1.7.4.1 folder and their address popped up 3 times. i swapped their address with my address and reran the benchmarks... it still benched with their btc address. Angry

it is probably coded into the application, what you changed were probably the logs.

as for the 44BTC and the account not showing movement, as i haven't gone back to check on older versions, i don`t know if that is the only address they used(not blaming they did), but i have only their word as this is hidden most of the time and only by looking at the logs i found out by chance that the address is still used when the users has already been entered, in any case this should not be happening at all or come with stricter notification that ALL benchmark time goes to nicehash at the very least, it is not hard to change in the code at all, so arguing against such change should have a proper explanation.

one was a log file, the other two are configurations files.. i.e. user.. password.. the normal stuff.

at one time, they benchmarks sent any btc earned to the user's address entered in their app. It stopped about the same time their "benchmark stability" address became active. I only starting using their's NiceHashMiner in may when i started bringing my stuff back online, and theirs was simple to use. I used to use CGWatcher a couple years ago, but they are no longer active.

I noticed that they stopped benchmarking into the user's address back then, but i didn't pay any attention to it til someone posted a couple days ago about it and nicehash just brushed it off with an almost plausible excuse.

Scorpers

newbie

Activity: 3

Merit: 0

Quote from: alucard20724 on January 28, 2017, 03:49:35 PM

I did a search in the 1.7.4.1 folder and their address popped up 3 times. i swapped their address with my address and reran the benchmarks... it still benched with their btc address. Angry

it is probably coded into the application, what you changed were probably the logs.

as for the 44BTC and the account not showing movement, as i haven't gone back to check on older versions, i don`t know if that is the only address they used(not blaming they did), but i have only their word as this is hidden most of the time and only by looking at the logs i found out by chance that the address is still used when the users has already been entered, in any case this should not be happening at all or come with stricter notification that ALL benchmark time goes to nicehash at the very least, it is not hard to change in the code at all, so arguing against such change should have a proper explanation.

alucard20724

sr. member

Activity: 703

Merit: 272

I did a search in the 1.7.4.1 folder and their address popped up 3 times. i swapped their address with my address and reran the benchmarks... it still benched with their btc address. Angry

TXSteve

sr. member

Activity: 342

Merit: 250

Awhile back, when BTC was near it's lows and going lower Nicehash raised their fee from 2% TO 3%, saying if the price rallied they would lower back to 2%. Well, BTC rallied back to it's all time highs and is still almost 4x higher than it was, but they are still charging 3%

Now they are stealing from the Benchmarking??

bet they are making a lot more than 44 btc off that extra 1% they promised to roll back

bathrobehero

legendary

Activity: 2002

Merit: 1051

ICO? Not even once.

Quote from: Eyedol-X on January 28, 2017, 02:16:37 PM

Quote from: bathrobehero on January 28, 2017, 01:54:24 PM

I'm not sure what to say, I was obviously being sarcastic.

Across all their users they made $4.42. Whoop-de-doo.

Well I want to be clear here that I'm not accusing NH of any wrong doing, I'm just of the opinion that benchmarked shares should go to the miners.

I agree its not much but to the OP point, they weren't very clear as to what they were doing with these benchmarked shares and the information(not sure if true) that says they once did provide those shares to the miners but then they changed it without clearly putting that information out there seems like an opportunity to NH either make a change or make the information about where benchmarked shares go, more clear.

I spent an hour the other day trying to get a multi-rig system to finish a benchmark on RX480s with 1.7.4.2 because it kept crashing at different points prompting me to re-run the entire benchmark. I'm sure it wasn't very many shares but the reason my system was crashing is due to an issue with the new SGminer thats documented over on Github.

That's fair, my point was that they didn't make 44 BTC or anything significant off of users this way.

alucard20724

sr. member

Activity: 703

Merit: 272

Quote from: Eyedol-X on January 28, 2017, 02:16:37 PM

Quote from: bathrobehero on January 28, 2017, 01:54:24 PM

I'm not sure what to say, I was obviously being sarcastic.

Across all their users they made $4.42. Whoop-de-doo.

Well I want to be clear here that I'm not accusing NH of any wrong doing, I'm just of the opinion that benchmarked shares should go to the miners.

I agree its not much but to the OP point, they weren't very clear as to what they were doing with these benchmarked shares and the information(not sure if true) that says they once did provide those shares to the miners but then they changed it without clearly putting that information out there seems like an opportunity to NH either make a change or make the information about where benchmarked shares go, more clear.

I spent an hour the other day trying to get a multi-rig system to finish a benchmark on RX480s with 1.7.4.2 because it kept crashing at different points prompting me to re-run the entire benchmark. I'm sure it wasn't very many shares but the reason my system was crashing is due to an issue with the new SGminer thats documented over on Github.

i switched over to MiningPoolHub and using multipoolminer. it does way more than NiceHashMiner does. it's benched all supported algorithms for each of my cards from HD5850 to RX480 without a glitch or BSOD and my GTX1070 in a mixed system that has a RX470 and two 290X. it does the most profitable coin for each card. It's using the lastest 3rd party mods also. except for cpu. I'm sticking with standalone claymore's cryptonight for cpu.

alucard20724

sr. member

Activity: 703

Merit: 272

Quote from: bathrobehero on January 28, 2017, 01:54:24 PM

Quote from: alucard20724 on January 28, 2017, 01:36:57 PM

Quote from: bathrobehero on January 28, 2017, 01:23:54 PM

Quote from: alucard20724 on January 28, 2017, 12:07:49 PM

Here's the address making money.

https://www.nicehash.com/index.jsp?p=miners&addr=34HKWdzLxWBduUfJE9JxaFhoXnfC6gmePG

https://blockchain.info/address/34HKWdzLxWBduUfJE9JxaFhoXnfC6gmePG

so far they've made 44 btc

I dislike nicehash a lot but come on guys, at least check shit out before accusing them.

Here are all the incoming transactions to that address (reverse chronological order):
a bunch of btc
The address was inactive for almost 17 months after the 3.94 BTC transaction so they made exactly 0.003254 BTC since then from all the benchmarks with 0.00157894 BTC unpaid balance so they ripped you guys off with a total of
0.00483294 BTC.

they ripped you guys off

exactly. Shocked

I'm not sure what to say, I was obviously being sarcastic.

Across all their users they made $4.42. Whoop-de-doo.

at one point, they used to benchmark into the user's entered address, before the alleged date back in september, so it wasn't "allegedly" stolen power. Now they do it into their own address allegedly. You're just looking at the btc made, you're not taking into account of the user's cost. it's 100% profit for Nicehash, and 100% loss for user... allegedly.

Everyone seems to have missed that they have also added a TOS to their latest NiceHashminer software within the last couple of weeks.

Eyedol-X

hero member

Activity: 952

Merit: 508

Quote from: bathrobehero on January 28, 2017, 01:54:24 PM

I'm not sure what to say, I was obviously being sarcastic.

Across all their users they made $4.42. Whoop-de-doo.

Well I want to be clear here that I'm not accusing NH of any wrong doing, I'm just of the opinion that benchmarked shares should go to the miners.

I agree its not much but to the OP point, they weren't very clear as to what they were doing with these benchmarked shares and the information(not sure if true) that says they once did provide those shares to the miners but then they changed it without clearly putting that information out there seems like an opportunity to NH either make a change or make the information about where benchmarked shares go, more clear.

I spent an hour the other day trying to get a multi-rig system to finish a benchmark on RX480s with 1.7.4.2 because it kept crashing at different points prompting me to re-run the entire benchmark. I'm sure it wasn't very many shares but the reason my system was crashing is due to an issue with the new SGminer thats documented over on Github.

bathrobehero

legendary

Activity: 2002

Merit: 1051

ICO? Not even once.

Quote from: alucard20724 on January 28, 2017, 01:36:57 PM

Quote from: bathrobehero on January 28, 2017, 01:23:54 PM

Quote from: alucard20724 on January 28, 2017, 12:07:49 PM

Here's the address making money.

https://www.nicehash.com/index.jsp?p=miners&addr=34HKWdzLxWBduUfJE9JxaFhoXnfC6gmePG

https://blockchain.info/address/34HKWdzLxWBduUfJE9JxaFhoXnfC6gmePG

so far they've made 44 btc

I dislike nicehash a lot but come on guys, at least check shit out before accusing them.

Here are all the incoming transactions to that address (reverse chronological order):

0.00020728 BTC
0.00020707 BTC
0.00041969 BTC
0.00021641 BTC
0.00021065 BTC
0.00021423 BTC
0.00021226 BTC
0.00020601 BTC
0.00020922 BTC
0.00021408 BTC
0.0002092 BTC
0.00020454 BTC
0.00016164 BTC
0.00018588 BTC
0.00017548 BTC
3.94271301 BTC
14.30226584 BTC
8 BTC
8 BTC
0.28751105 BTC
9.71248895 BTC
0.1 BTC

The address was inactive for almost 17 months after the 3.94 BTC transaction so they made exactly 0.003254 BTC since then from all the benchmarks with 0.00157894 BTC unpaid balance so they ripped you guys off with a total of
0.00483294 BTC.

they ripped you guys off

exactly. Shocked

I'm not sure what to say, I was obviously being sarcastic.

Across all their users they made $4.42. Whoop-de-doo.

alucard20724

sr. member

Activity: 703

Merit: 272

Quote from: bathrobehero on January 28, 2017, 01:23:54 PM

Quote from: alucard20724 on January 28, 2017, 12:07:49 PM

Here's the address making money.

https://www.nicehash.com/index.jsp?p=miners&addr=34HKWdzLxWBduUfJE9JxaFhoXnfC6gmePG

https://blockchain.info/address/34HKWdzLxWBduUfJE9JxaFhoXnfC6gmePG

so far they've made 44 btc

I dislike nicehash a lot but come on guys, at least check shit out before accusing them.

Here are all the incoming transactions to that address (reverse chronological order):

0.00020728 BTC
0.00020707 BTC
0.00041969 BTC
0.00021641 BTC
0.00021065 BTC
0.00021423 BTC
0.00021226 BTC
0.00020601 BTC
0.00020922 BTC
0.00021408 BTC
0.0002092 BTC
0.00020454 BTC
0.00016164 BTC
0.00018588 BTC
0.00017548 BTC
3.94271301 BTC
14.30226584 BTC
8 BTC
8 BTC
0.28751105 BTC
9.71248895 BTC
0.1 BTC

The address was inactive for almost 17 months after the 3.94 BTC transaction so they made exactly 0.003254 BTC since then from all the benchmarks with 0.00157894 BTC unpaid balance so they ripped you guys off with a total of
0.00483294 BTC.

they ripped you guys off

exactly. Shocked

bathrobehero

legendary

Activity: 2002

Merit: 1051

ICO? Not even once.

Quote from: alucard20724 on January 28, 2017, 12:07:49 PM

Here's the address making money.

https://www.nicehash.com/index.jsp?p=miners&addr=34HKWdzLxWBduUfJE9JxaFhoXnfC6gmePG

https://blockchain.info/address/34HKWdzLxWBduUfJE9JxaFhoXnfC6gmePG

so far they've made 44 btc

I dislike nicehash a lot but come on guys, at least check shit out before accusing them.

Here are all the incoming transactions to that address (reverse chronological order):

0.00020728 BTC
0.00020707 BTC
0.00041969 BTC
0.00021641 BTC
0.00021065 BTC
0.00021423 BTC
0.00021226 BTC
0.00020601 BTC
0.00020922 BTC
0.00021408 BTC
0.0002092 BTC
0.00020454 BTC
0.00016164 BTC
0.00018588 BTC
0.00017548 BTC
3.94271301 BTC
14.30226584 BTC
8 BTC
8 BTC
0.28751105 BTC
9.71248895 BTC
0.1 BTC

The address was inactive for almost 17 months after the 3.94 BTC transaction so they made exactly 0.003254 BTC since then from all the benchmarks with 0.00157894 BTC unpaid balance so they ripped you guys off with a total of
0.00483294 BTC.

alucard20724

sr. member

Activity: 703

Merit: 272

Quote from: Eyedol-X on January 28, 2017, 12:12:44 PM

Quote from: alucard20724 on January 28, 2017, 12:07:49 PM

Here's the address making money.

https://www.nicehash.com/index.jsp?p=miners&addr=34HKWdzLxWBduUfJE9JxaFhoXnfC6gmePG

https://blockchain.info/address/34HKWdzLxWBduUfJE9JxaFhoXnfC6gmePG

so far they've made 44 btc

Ouch, the plot thickens

I don't think this is a situation of fraud or anything but its definitely a situation where their communication wasn't the best regarding how benchmarked shares work and it seems questionable that they would make such a change without being upfront about it.

it could be taken either way. The address became inactive back in may2015, but then became active in Sept 2016. I would accept that it was a test address just for benchmarking if the coins since Sept 2016 stayed there, except they have been actively withdrawing BTC since then. So in essence, they are charging a 100% mining fee to run their benchmarking. Now that i look at it that way, i'm dumping their services.

Eyedol-X

hero member

Activity: 952

Merit: 508

Quote from: alucard20724 on January 28, 2017, 12:07:49 PM

Here's the address making money.

https://www.nicehash.com/index.jsp?p=miners&addr=34HKWdzLxWBduUfJE9JxaFhoXnfC6gmePG

https://blockchain.info/address/34HKWdzLxWBduUfJE9JxaFhoXnfC6gmePG

so far they've made 44 btc

Ouch, the plot thickens

I don't think this is a situation of fraud or anything but its definitely a situation where their communication wasn't the best regarding how benchmarked shares work and it seems questionable that they would make such a change without being upfront about it.

alucard20724

sr. member

Activity: 703

Merit: 272

Here's the address making money.

https://www.nicehash.com/index.jsp?p=miners&addr=34HKWdzLxWBduUfJE9JxaFhoXnfC6gmePG

https://blockchain.info/address/34HKWdzLxWBduUfJE9JxaFhoXnfC6gmePG

so far they've made 44 btc

alucard20724

sr. member

Activity: 703

Merit: 272

Quote from: Scorpers on January 28, 2017, 10:07:29 AM

@bathrobehero, you are required to benchmark with every update as miners change, if u have 3 mining tools, each takes about 10 minutes, thats 30 minutes roughly every week for all the users, that adds up.

@Eyedol-X, im still discussing this with one of the devs, maybe if others weighed in on the discussion it would have more of an effect.

https://github.com/nicehash/NiceHashMiner/issues/556

you can skip the benchmarks if you drop the config folder from the older version into the newer version.

Depending on what the update is, i'll normally just benchmark anyways, and i currently have 8 systems.

But after this had come to light, i yanked all my systems that require a benchmark and moved most of my systems over to miningpoolhub and started using multipoolminer.

alucard20724

sr. member

Activity: 703

Merit: 272

Quote from: Eyedol-X on January 28, 2017, 08:24:25 AM

Quote from: Scorpers on January 27, 2017, 08:07:37 PM

NiceHash is using the CPU&GPU time of our benchmark testing with every new version with their own wallet, as one of their devs claimed, out of convenience, although a simple pop-up would have sufficed in case no BTC address is given, this is not changed if there is an address given by the user.

personally i wont benchmark until this is changed to at least warn the users, one pop-up to remind the user to enter an address or to simply ASK his permission to mine to your account would have sufficed at least to a point of proper legal conduct.

this is the address shown in the logs 34HKWdzLxWBduUfJE9JxaFhoXnfC6gmepg

https://www.nicehash.com/?p=miners&addr=34HKWdzLxWBduUfJE9JxaFhoXnfC6gmePG

as it is clearly making an income from all the users this is a second source of income for NiceHash, one which is not upfront with its user base.

this is the reply of one of the devs on github to a ticket on the matter, i found the reply rather lacking as a simple pop-up or if/while function would suffice and so claiming complexity and convenience looks more like an excuse.

S74nk0 commented 3 hours ago
@netswalker1 @Scorpers that is the DEMO user address. It is used for convenience, most new users don't have a BTC address and since some miners need a direct connection to do a benchmark this address is used because it is always known, no need for handling and prompting the users to first enter the address to do a benchmark it reduces unneeded complexity.
Closing issue...

Yeah I wondered about that for a while now but never looked into it. On my multi-GPU Rigs it takes a while to do the benchmarks completely and IMO it should use the BTC address that I have put into NH if one exists at the time of the benchmark.

If the benchmark cannot be run locally and requires connecting to a server to submit actual shares, it should go to the address I provided. If there isn't an address for new users as described above then it should default to the "Demo" address.\

I'm sure NH Miner can be updated to reflect this type of change but the question is, will they?

at one time, they used to use the address that you put in there because the algorithms benchmarked used show up on my mined output for nicehash. So in a sense, they have decided to start "stealing" our electricity and said it was to help the newbie miners in case they put in a wrong or invalid address. that last sentence alone is asinine, because an individual can still put in a wrong or invalid address after the system has been benchmarked.

Scorpers

newbie

Activity: 3

Merit: 0

@bathrobehero, you are required to benchmark with every update as miners change, if u have 3 mining tools, each takes about 10 minutes, thats 30 minutes roughly every week for all the users, that adds up.

@Eyedol-X, im still discussing this with one of the devs, maybe if others weighed in on the discussion it would have more of an effect.

https://github.com/nicehash/NiceHashMiner/issues/556

Eyedol-X

hero member

Activity: 952

Merit: 508

Quote from: Scorpers on January 27, 2017, 08:07:37 PM

NiceHash is using the CPU&GPU time of our benchmark testing with every new version with their own wallet, as one of their devs claimed, out of convenience, although a simple pop-up would have sufficed in case no BTC address is given, this is not changed if there is an address given by the user.

personally i wont benchmark until this is changed to at least warn the users, one pop-up to remind the user to enter an address or to simply ASK his permission to mine to your account would have sufficed at least to a point of proper legal conduct.

this is the address shown in the logs 34HKWdzLxWBduUfJE9JxaFhoXnfC6gmepg

https://www.nicehash.com/?p=miners&addr=34HKWdzLxWBduUfJE9JxaFhoXnfC6gmePG

as it is clearly making an income from all the users this is a second source of income for NiceHash, one which is not upfront with its user base.

this is the reply of one of the devs on github to a ticket on the matter, i found the reply rather lacking as a simple pop-up or if/while function would suffice and so claiming complexity and convenience looks more like an excuse.

S74nk0 commented 3 hours ago
@netswalker1 @Scorpers that is the DEMO user address. It is used for convenience, most new users don't have a BTC address and since some miners need a direct connection to do a benchmark this address is used because it is always known, no need for handling and prompting the users to first enter the address to do a benchmark it reduces unneeded complexity.
Closing issue...

Yeah I wondered about that for a while now but never looked into it. On my multi-GPU Rigs it takes a while to do the benchmarks completely and IMO it should use the BTC address that I have put into NH if one exists at the time of the benchmark.

If the benchmark cannot be run locally and requires connecting to a server to submit actual shares, it should go to the address I provided. If there isn't an address for new users as described above then it should default to the "Demo" address.\

I'm sure NH Miner can be updated to reflect this type of change but the question is, will they?

bathrobehero

legendary

Activity: 2002

Merit: 1051

ICO? Not even once.

Meh, otherwise it would be wasted electricity.

And why would anyone run the benchmark for more than a few minutes?

Topic: NiceHash Benchmark mining wallet address (Read 2227 times)