Can anyone tell me if the KNC Titan script miner will work in wafflepool?
You cannot mine with something that doesn't exist
Topic: [POOL][Scrypt][Scrypt-N][X11] Profit switching pool - wafflepool.com - page 148. (Read 465668 times)
March 21, 2014, 10:26:21 AM
You cannot mine with something that doesn't exist
March 21, 2014, 10:25:39 AM
Was useast down within the last 10-12 hours? I had my rigs mining to a backup pool for a while, not sure if there was something wrong on my end, or at waffle.
Mine all swapped to backup as well - around 3am EST. March 21, 2014, 10:24:19 AM
Can anyone tell me if the KNC Titan script miner will work in wafflepool?
March 21, 2014, 10:03:04 AM
Was useast down within the last 10-12 hours? I had my rigs mining to a backup pool for a while, not sure if there was something wrong on my end, or at waffle.
March 21, 2014, 10:00:16 AM
Flappycoin was overmined (~1.6btc). There was depth when we mined it, and by the time it confirmed on the network, either someone else dumped a ton and killed the buy orders, or the people buying removed their orders. We have a sell up on cryptsy if anyone ever jumps on to buy again, but it looks like that will be a overmine loss. We'll revisit in a week or so.
You can probably dump some of it on Poloniex for LTC.
March 21, 2014, 09:57:30 AM
How exactly do you know they're idling?
EVGA Precision
March 21, 2014, 09:51:26 AM
I've been having the same issue as a few others since the new stratum server came online. As I write this, two of my 3 GPUs are idle while the third is hard at work. They idle for between 10 seconds and 5 minutes, which is ridiculous. What can I do to fix this?
My current CudaMiner command:
I don't have much mining power (600kH/s) so I can't afford to have them idle for so long.
My current CudaMiner command:
Code:
"C:\Miners\cudaminer.exe" -R 1 -C 1 -d 0 -a scrypt -o "stratum+tcp://uswest.wafflepool.com:3333" -u [address] -p x
I don't have much mining power (600kH/s) so I can't afford to have them idle for so long.
Most likely caused by a coin switch, i could hear it when i mined with GPU's when we switched coin, cause the fan would lower in speed because of less use.
March 21, 2014, 09:17:17 AM
I've been having the same issue as a few others since the new stratum server came online. As I write this, two of my 3 GPUs are idle while the third is hard at work. They idle for between 10 seconds and 5 minutes, which is ridiculous. What can I do to fix this?
My current CudaMiner command:
I don't have much mining power (600kH/s) so I can't afford to have them idle for so long.
My current CudaMiner command:
Code:
"C:\Miners\cudaminer.exe" -R 1 -C 1 -d 0 -a scrypt -o "stratum+tcp://uswest.wafflepool.com:3333" -u [address] -p x
I don't have much mining power (600kH/s) so I can't afford to have them idle for so long.
How exactly do you know they're idling?
March 21, 2014, 09:10:48 AM
I've been having the same issue as a few others since the new stratum server came online. As I write this, two of my 3 GPUs are idle while the third is hard at work. They idle for between 10 seconds and 5 minutes, which is ridiculous. What can I do to fix this?
My current CudaMiner command:
I don't have much mining power (600kH/s) so I can't afford to have them idle for so long.
My current CudaMiner command:
Code:
"C:\Miners\cudaminer.exe" -R 1 -C 1 -d 0 -a scrypt -o "stratum+tcp://uswest.wafflepool.com:3333" -u [address] -p x
I don't have much mining power (600kH/s) so I can't afford to have them idle for so long.
March 21, 2014, 08:49:15 AM
Alrighty. In an attempt to offload a bit of the work here (theres a ton of it, apparently pools are hard!)
We're looking for coins to potentially add, and theres an infinite number of them popping up, and I just don't have time to check through them all. So if you guys see something, please let me know. There are a few requirements for the coins though, so that I don't go digging through hundreds of submissions for coins that we really can't add.
Requirements:
- Scrypt POW. Please don't post Scrypt-N, etc. We just can't support them right now.
- Average difficulty > 10. This may be relaxed in the future, but for now, we can mine 10+ coins very nicely, sub-10 needs tweaking still.
- Listed on a supported exchange. We currently support cryptsy/mintpal/poloniex.
- 3+ BTC Depth in buy orders. Don't want to add a coin just to be able to mine 0.1btc out of it...
If you see something, please post with this info:
Coin: [coin name]
Exchange: [link to exchange for BTC/COIN]
Difficulty: [recent difficulty]
I'll check through some of them and see what we've got.
We're looking for coins to potentially add, and theres an infinite number of them popping up, and I just don't have time to check through them all. So if you guys see something, please let me know. There are a few requirements for the coins though, so that I don't go digging through hundreds of submissions for coins that we really can't add.
Requirements:
- Scrypt POW. Please don't post Scrypt-N, etc. We just can't support them right now.
- Average difficulty > 10. This may be relaxed in the future, but for now, we can mine 10+ coins very nicely, sub-10 needs tweaking still.
- Listed on a supported exchange. We currently support cryptsy/mintpal/poloniex.
- 3+ BTC Depth in buy orders. Don't want to add a coin just to be able to mine 0.1btc out of it...
If you see something, please post with this info:
Coin: [coin name]
Exchange: [link to exchange for BTC/COIN]
Difficulty: [recent difficulty]
I'll check through some of them and see what we've got.
March 21, 2014, 08:48:08 AM
Hi,
One of my small miner (350 khs) is not getting any accept from 1.30 to 2 am est. Hence hashrate is showing 0 khs for last 6 houts so its continuously hashing. Has something changed? I am pointing it to diff pool for the time being.
One of my small miner (350 khs) is not getting any accept from 1.30 to 2 am est. Hence hashrate is showing 0 khs for last 6 houts so its continuously hashing. Has something changed? I am pointing it to diff pool for the time being.
March 21, 2014, 08:32:26 AM
@PW - what is the status on the mintcoin and flappycoin we are holding?
also I see no auroracoin being mined on the pool?
also I see no auroracoin being mined on the pool?
Mintcoin is still waiting on CoinMarket. Was withdrawn on the 25th, nothing since then. I'm going to assume they're gone for good. I'll remove them in a few days most likely.
Flappycoin was overmined (~1.6btc). There was depth when we mined it, and by the time it confirmed on the network, either someone else dumped a ton and killed the buy orders, or the people buying removed their orders. We have a sell up on cryptsy if anyone ever jumps on to buy again, but it looks like that will be a overmine loss. We'll revisit in a week or so.
Auroracoin may be back today/tomorrow. The new stratum servers unfortunately didn't/don't have support for dynamic coin loading, so I've been working on that today, with the hope we can load up a few more coins (AUR included possibly).
March 21, 2014, 07:10:40 AM
@PW - what is the status on the mintcoin and flappycoin we are holding?
also I see no auroracoin being mined on the pool?
also I see no auroracoin being mined on the pool?
March 21, 2014, 06:47:32 AM
whether we will produce Vertcoin (VTC) Scrypt-N?
p2p scrypt-N mining is not difficult. Just connect to some node with your Scrypt-N coin address and that's it and wait coins are coming from windows and doors.
I think that fast mode KGW need urgently add also to many Scrypt coins just becouse these many multipools high hashing power related to some coin total average hashrate and very slow difficulty adjustment. Todays pumpdump scene is going more and more bad and finally we all loose in long run.
If there is coin where net hashrate total is example 1Ghash and then one 100Ghash pool jump on board... good night and last people shut lights off. We all want win-win but we get loose-loose.
Example: EXEcoin is now very down. 1 EXE is ~0.04mBTC
But even with this, I test with around 2.4MH/s (Scryp-N speed) and get around 800 EXE last 24hour.. It give 32mBTC if I change it to BTC now. If I use 4.8MH/s normal multipool scrypt I may get same time 25mBTC.
(but I do not, I use two test rigs just for mine VTC and EXE and hold.)
March 21, 2014, 01:03:38 AM
You oversimplified your example to the point of eliminating units of representation thereby eliminating the possibility of being able to see how the the time scale units could be combined and factored. But I understand your position... You want to be right even if you're not correct.
I do often wonder about your kind. Well played with the grammar mistake, all the same.
I find it to be absolutely amazing that you believe your oversimplification was equivalent to the expression I put forward. And that you are unable or unwilling to reexamine your assertion in light of a new realization that the two time scales can be combined and factored. But don't take my word for it. Ask someone else who you consider to be as smart as or smarter than you. Either way, I won't expect to hear back from you as your ego may not allow you to pursue any activity which could possibly prove you wrong.
In case you really need to simplify things in order to understand them, if you were to set your miner to generate hashes at the rate of 1MH/s, what is the total number of hashes it will generate in 86400 seconds? Don't answer this; it's rhetorical. The answer should be instantly obvious to all.
I only chose to highlight your grammatical error in order to point out that there are indeed details which escape your notice, even when they are staring you in the face. I am not now, nor have I ever been an agent of the grammar police.
March 21, 2014, 12:40:01 AM
You oversimplified your example to the point of eliminating units of representation thereby eliminating the possibility of being able to see how the the time scale units could be combined and factored. But I understand your position... You want to be right even if you're not correct.
I do often wonder about your kind. Well played with the grammar mistake, all the same.
March 20, 2014, 11:42:41 PM
I'm not convinced that the only way to parallelize these algorithms is the way that it's being done currently. It is often possible to write GPU codes where several threads or even a whole warp/wavefront work collectively on an algorithm step. I haven't looked at the details of scrypt-chacha specifically, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are alternative algorithm formulations other than the one you refer to. The top-end GPUs today have 8GB to 12GB of RAM. In the next two years, there will be GPUs and other GPU-like hardware (e.g. Xeon Phi) that will have significantly more memory than they do now, likely in the range of 32GB. I've read analyst articles that expect that Intel will put at least 16GB of eDRAM onto the next Xeon Phi (though likely on its own separate die), a much larger scale variant of what Intel is already doing for integrated graphics. Next week is NVIDIA's GPU conference, perhaps there will be some public announcements about what they're doing for their next-gen GPUs.
That's all good information, and I'm sure you're quite correct on there being alternate ways to rework these hashes for new hardware - that's the one aspect of mining my knowledge is very shallow on. Regarding those badboy GPU's with 8 and 12GB of memory - they aren't real common, and their cost would be prohibitive compared to running multiple "smaller" GPU's, but that's where the schedule of increasing N comes in - it's taking a stab at where computing power will be in the future, and it could be very wrong, but it's still scaling up the requirements over time.
The Xeon Phi looks to be an interesting beast, and I was unfamiliar with it until you brought it up. The specs call for 61 cores at 1.238GHz for the high end machine, which doesn't sound massively parallel. Time will tell, but I'm not going to be the guinea pig to plunk down $4,000 USD to find out.
Christian Buchner (of cudaminer) has been in touch with nVidia, and they're on board with crypto-mining - I believe they've evan assisted with optimizaing some of his kernel code. Regarding their announcement, I do know that their Maxwell architecture is already providing improved performance per watt on the mid-range 750Ti card.
The NVIDIA Titan cards have 6GB, and they tend to hover close to a kilobuck. The Xeon Phi (in its current form at least) is no match for state-of-the-art GPUs. I mentioned Xeon Phi only to provide context that multiple vendors are already building hardware with large high bandwidth memories now, and that the memory capacities (again, from multiple vendors) are expected to go up dramatically in the near future.
I understand the sticker shock, $2K to $4K is costly, but then that's what the high-end ASIC boards cost for crypto currency mining. To keep the ASICs out, there just has to be a commodity option that's price-competitive, and there are definitely high-end GPUs that, for a memory-bandwidth-bound algorithm at least, should still be more cost effective than low-volume ASIC boards for any non-trivial memory capacity.
March 20, 2014, 11:39:56 PM
And as for zSprawl, on his order of operations argument and retarded analogy proving absolutely nothing...
You are correct that a specific order of operations in the denominator would be necessary if the denominator still contained an irreducible operation. But what you failed to realize is that both Day in the numerator of the larger fraction and s in the denominator of the larger fraction are both units of time in different scales, and 1 Day always equals 86400 seconds. So either time unit contained in the denominators of the smaller fractions can be rewritten to share a time scale with the other, and the larger fraction can be further reduced to a point at which there is no operation remaining its denominator because time can be factored outside of it, hence order of operation restrictions would no longer apply as there are no operations remaining in the denominator of the larger fraction. Do it if you don't believe me because I know you won't want to.
You are correct that a specific order of operations in the denominator would be necessary if the denominator still contained an irreducible operation. But what you failed to realize is that both Day in the numerator of the larger fraction and s in the denominator of the larger fraction are both units of time in different scales, and 1 Day always equals 86400 seconds. So either time unit contained in the denominators of the smaller fractions can be rewritten to share a time scale with the other, and the larger fraction can be further reduced to a point at which there is no operation remaining its denominator because time can be factored outside of it, hence order of operation restrictions would no longer apply as there are no operations remaining in the denominator of the larger fraction. Do it if you don't believe me because I know you won't want to.
I failed at nothing other than getting you realize your not always right, but hey... comeonalready!
You oversimplified your example to the point of eliminating units of representation thereby eliminating the possibility of being able to see how the the time scale units could be combined and factored. But I understand your position... You want to be right even if you're not correct.
March 20, 2014, 11:34:33 PM
And as for zSprawl, on his order of operations argument and retarded analogy proving absolutely nothing...
You are correct that a specific order of operations in the denominator would be necessary if the denominator still contained an irreducible operation. But what you failed to realize is that both Day in the numerator of the larger fraction and s in the denominator of the larger fraction are both units of time in different scales, and 1 Day always equals 86400 seconds. So either time unit contained in the denominators of the smaller fractions can be rewritten to share a time scale with the other, and the larger fraction can be further reduced to a point at which there is no operation remaining its denominator because time can be factored outside of it, hence order of operation restrictions would no longer apply as there are no operations remaining in the denominator of the larger fraction. Do it if you don't believe me because I know you won't want to.
You are correct that a specific order of operations in the denominator would be necessary if the denominator still contained an irreducible operation. But what you failed to realize is that both Day in the numerator of the larger fraction and s in the denominator of the larger fraction are both units of time in different scales, and 1 Day always equals 86400 seconds. So either time unit contained in the denominators of the smaller fractions can be rewritten to share a time scale with the other, and the larger fraction can be further reduced to a point at which there is no operation remaining its denominator because time can be factored outside of it, hence order of operation restrictions would no longer apply as there are no operations remaining in the denominator of the larger fraction. Do it if you don't believe me because I know you won't want to.
I failed at nothing other than getting you realize your not always right, but hey... comeonalready!
March 20, 2014, 11:15:50 PM
First, slightly offtopic: comeonalready and others, please, STOP flooding this topic with your "MHD or not MHD" garbage, there is too much of that on several last pages. Do it somewhere else.
I know, right? Math, yuck!
I'm going to create a pool of my own and no one else but me will be allowed to join it!
And maybe sfire...
Jump to: