Cryptocoin Mining?

[Virge_]

I've been trying to get the H81S2 to work with 6 cards for the past two days. I've got three of them, each of which is connected to 6x R9 290X's using powered risers. I know the cards and risers work because I can plug in any combination of cards into any combination of slots, and they work just fine - however once I add the 5th and/or 6th card they appear in the device manager with an Alert: Error code 43. I've set the PCI bandwidth from 32 to 64 and disabled all non-essential devices (sound, sata, usb, etc), and still no dice.. any suggestions?

 

[thilanliyan]

MaxCoin is actually going up... 0.019 now. And during a BTC crash of all times.

edit: shot up to 0.38 now, holy shit. I've made 12 BTC off this now

:awe:

 

[SunnyD]

I've been trying to get the H81S2 to work with 6 cards for the past two days. I've got three of them, each of which is connected to 6x R9 290X's using powered risers. I know the cards and risers work because I can plug in any combination of cards into any combination of slots, and they work just fine - however once I add the 5th and/or 6th card they appear in the device manager with an Alert: Error code 43. I've set the PCI bandwidth from 32 to 64 and disabled all non-essential devices (sound, sata, usb, etc), and still no dice.. any suggestions?

Edit: NM - either use Linux or be prepared to jump through hoops to get it working in Windows. It's a driver/Windows limitation.

 

[Virge_]

Edit: NM - either use Linux or be prepared to jump through hoops to get it working in Windows. It's a driver/Windows limitation.

4GB, but I can swap in more from other systems to test - what would RAM have to do with detecting the cards?

I tried compiling in Ubuntu last night and was successful but the entire process reminded me just how fucking irritating Linux is as an OS and why I don't use it. I'm going to install 8.1 on one of my systems tonight and give that a try.

 

[IEC]

Apple just dumped all the bitcoin wallet apps from their store. Maybe that's why. I wonder if the Android apps are next.

According to the DailyTech article, for at least one of the bitcoin apps it appears to be due to having misrepresented itself to Apple reviewers. While the more cynical seem to believe Apple is creating its own "wallet" and doesn't want any competition, and is thus removing cryptocurrency wallets from their store.

 

[SunnyD]

4GB, but I can swap in more from other systems to test - what would RAM have to do with detecting the cards?

I tried compiling in Ubuntu last night and was successful but the entire process reminded me just how fucking irritating Linux is as an OS and why I don't use it. I'm going to install 8.1 on one of my systems tonight and give that a try.

Just use BAMT.

You're going to want AT LEAST 2gb per card. 290's probably more like 4gb per card.

 

[Unoid]

4GB, but I can swap in more from other systems to test - what would RAM have to do with detecting the cards?

I tried compiling in Ubuntu last night and was successful but the entire process reminded me just how fucking irritating Linux is as an OS and why I don't use it. I'm going to install 8.1 on one of my systems tonight and give that a try.

FYI. 290s really like 8gb ram. Running 4+ might even like 16gb

 

[Midwayman]

Try 8001 or 8000 TC actually. 8193 was an old config of mine.

I leave the RAM at 1500 normally though 1250 seems to work fine. The core speed has not mattered for me, 800-1125 gpu-engine have the same results. I also leave PowerTune alone.

I already get 430k out of my config. Just academically curious as to why it varies so much on this card as far as what configs work.

 

[Torn Mind]

I already get 430k out of my config. Just academically curious as to why it varies so much on this card as far as what configs work.

The Stilt figured it out and his explanation is on litecointalk.

https://litecointalk.org/index.php?topic=12830.0

https://litecointalk.org/index.php?topic=12369.0

 

[slashbinslashbash]

There is an article on the Verge about coinbase getting attacked and people losing their money.

I always thought of coinbase as the legit place to go, so it's just more bad news for the cryptocoin world:

http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/7/5386222/a-string-of-thefts-hit-coinbase-bitcoins-most-reputable-wallet-service

Seems like that was more of an individual account attack than a compromise.

I use coinbase, I use two-factor authentication and I only keep coins there for as long as it takes to cash them out.

It blows my mind that people store their coins long-term in online wallets. (Long-term meaning, more than an hour or two.)

And crap, looks like I missed out on the chance to buy BTC low. Coinbase is already back up above $750. Oh well, cashing out at $743 gave me my ROI in fiat terms. And maybe it'll dip again if MtGox truly crashes.

 

[KingFatty]

Does anyone mine with multiple workers pointing at wafflepool?

My question is whether it is a problem using the exact same bitcoin address for two different workers that have very different hashrates.

The FAQ on wafflepool mentions that you can append a workername and the VARDIFF will pick up on that accordingly. But I just find it odd that the FAQ on wafflepool DOESN'T ACTUALLY ANSWER THE QUESTION POSED IN THE FAQ! It just mentions an option, without explaining the ramifications of not following that option, or whether that's the best approach etc.

So, I can theorize, but could someone confirm what will happen to my 'slower' worker on wafflepool when I use the same username on the slower worker and a faster worker? I mean, without using the "_workername" add-on suggested here:
http://wafflepool.com/faq

I have multiple workers, can I use the same username?

Connect each worker in the form: btcaddress_workername
Each worker will be tracked separately for vardiff, however balances are calculated on a per-address (not username) basis!

Also, if I don't use the workername thing and just use the same bitcoin address, Will wafflepool just ignore my slower worker and his work is wasted? Or will wafflepool merely force both workers to use the same difficulty, so that the slower worker will just be forced to choke down a very high difficulty that is more appropriate for the faster worker?

 

[slashbinslashbash]

Does anyone mine with multiple workers pointing at wafflepool?

My question is whether it is a problem using the exact same bitcoin address for two different workers that have very different hashrates.

The FAQ on wafflepool mentions that you can append a workername and the VARDIFF will pick up on that accordingly. But I just find it odd that the FAQ on wafflepool DOESN'T ACTUALLY ANSWER THE QUESTION POSED IN THE FAQ! It just mentions an option, without explaining the ramifications of not following that option, or whether that's the best approach etc.

So, I can theorize, but could someone confirm what will happen to my 'slower' worker on wafflepool when I use the same username on the slower worker and a faster worker? I mean, without using the "_workername" add-on suggested here:
http://wafflepool.com/faq


Also, if I don't use the workername thing and just use the same bitcoin address, Will wafflepool just ignore my slower worker and his work is wasted? Or will wafflepool merely force both workers to use the same difficulty, so that the slower worker will just be forced to choke down a very high difficulty that is more appropriate for the faster worker?

I think the latter. Your slower worker will just be working at too-high difficulty, which will affect the perceived hash rate on the pool's end. It would probably be in your favor to set up a separate worker name for the slower one.

Difficulty management in pools is based on limiting the bandwidth required to each worker.... providing "proof of work" without requiring proof of every single hash calculated. If you have big powerful workers, sending every single result to the pool would result in massive wasted bandwidth. So the difficulty is set higher for these workers, meaning they only submit values of X high difficulty, and these results are internally scaled by the pool so that your shares submitted are calculated on a difficulty=1 scale, without all of those shares having to actually be submitted. (e.g. you will only submit 3 results instead of 3000, but if those 3 results were 1000x more difficult than the base difficulty, then you'll get pool credit for 3000 submits because of the presumed 2997 computed that were not actually submitted.) (Using low numbers here just for simplification.)

So if you have a slow worker at a high difficulty level, chances are that a lot of the time its shares won't even be counted, since a new block might start before it comes across a share of the required difficulty. So it sits there computing, computing, computing, it hits 957 hashes but never hits one of the required difficulty (expected 1 out of every 1000), none of those 957 hashes are submitted and a new block starts => all of that work counts for 0.

Of course things will theoretically even-out in the long run (after all, there will be some times when the slow worker has good luck and other times when it has bad luck) but it will lower your variance if you set it up with a separate worker name.

 

[taserbro]

You do realize that solo-mining Maxcoin with a CPU at this point is basically pointless. Reasons:

- Difficulty is currently in the 800's.
- People with Nvidia video cards have been pushing 200-300+ MH/s
- There's a huge pool set up where the top 5 members comprise something like 5 GH/s, and the total pool hashrate is probably something like 10 GH/s

Yes, that's right, I said NVIDIA video cards are getting 200-300 MEGAHASHES per second. Not a typo.

I honestly have no idea why people are paying out the ass for such a broken coin. It is seriously destabilizing to the market in general.

I didn't know the nvidia people had such a huge advantage but at the time I was asked, it was still very possible to get blocks. I can't find the post from bitcointalk that I was referencing but the odds of finding a block at difficulty ~400 was still allegedly quite high over 24 hours. In fact, I just mined overnight and getbalance just returned 96. The cpu miner seems to not make my pc unresponsive at all and works along with whatever other coins you are mining on your gpus so there was literally no reason for me to not try.

And yes, I know it's not going to go on for long, a new cgminer that works with keccak will be made, everyone will have to switch to pools, more people will call for the coin to fail, yada yada the circle of life but hey I was just trying to help.

 

[Virge_]

Just use BAMT.

You're going to want AT LEAST 2gb per card. 290's probably more like 4gb per card.

Litecoin BAMT?

 

[JBT]

What is your config??

I already get 430k out of my config. Just academically curious as to why it varies so much on this card as far as what configs work.

 

[wbynum]

FYI. 290s really like 8gb ram. Running 4+ might even like 16gb

Can anyone actually say why this is? Seen plenty of post with people running 2gb of ram and getting good hash rates using 7970's, 290's, etc. Then I have seen other posts with people saying huge ram is needed. One thing I do know is on my system with two 290's, cgminer takes up ~50 MB total in memory.

 

[nwo]

Can anyone actually say why this is? Seen plenty of post with people running 2gb of ram and getting good hash rates using 7970's, 290's, etc. Then I have seen other posts with people saying huge ram is needed. One thing I do know is on my system with two 290's, cgminer takes up ~50 MB total in memory.

I've heard it has something to do with thread concurrency. But, that's just a rumor I heard, do not have any details or personal experience with it.

 

[IEC]

FYI for MSI Gaming 290 owners. I couldn't get my (Hynix) memory to clock above 1400 MHz at all on the MSI BIOS, so I flashed to a stock Asus 290 BIOS from TechPowerUp's archive. Now I'm able to get 1600+ MHz stable on the memory. As always, YMMV, at your own risk, and who knows what might fry if you run it 24/7 but for me it was worth trying.

 

[Midwayman]

What is your config??

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=36041035&postcount=9891

 

[slashbinslashbash]

Hmm, I guess the problem with coinbase is it's not really an exchange like a stock exchange. More like an exchange like a money exchange in an airport. You can't put in an order that might get filled; you have to buy or sell right then and there, at whatever spot price they quote. So if you try to trade on coinbase, you basically have to babysit it constantly and refresh to watch the price go up and down. Kind of annoying.

But I can see why they did it that way, they want to try to take the speculative elements out of it and make things easy for vendors to accept BTC.

 

[Unoid]

Can anyone actually say why this is? Seen plenty of post with people running 2gb of ram and getting good hash rates using 7970's, 290's, etc. Then I have seen other posts with people saying huge ram is needed. One thing I do know is on my system with two 290's, cgminer takes up ~50 MB total in memory.

I know TC is a big issue with system Ram, including 4GB vid ram needs more system memory.

 

[Unoid]

FYI for MSI Gaming 290 owners. I couldn't get my (Hynix) memory to clock above 1400 MHz at all on the MSI BIOS, so I flashed to a stock Asus 290 BIOS from TechPowerUp's archive. Now I'm able to get 1600+ MHz stable on the memory. As always, YMMV, at your own risk, and who knows what might fry if you run it 24/7 but for me it was worth trying.

I asked in your other thread, does the bios have to state MATCHING memory brands?

 

[Unoid]

I've been optimizing core/mem with a stable TC/Intensity.

Now I'm optimizing TC with Int=20, and I find a very odd thing. Multiples of 64 are supposedly the rule, however I find that by adding 1 to them boost my KH/s by 70!!!!!

Adding +2 to a 64-bit multiple drops the TC down again.

anyone got an idea? I'll share my tests on TC.

Also here's my Core/mem optimizing.

1500Mhz memory on my elpida seems to require too much vcore and produce too much heat/watt for my liking.

 

[wand3r3r]

I use Multi Bit, syncs with in minutes and doesn't require huge amounts of space.
https://multibit.org/

It looked good until it needed Java. I don't want that widely used malware target on my machine where I also dabble in coins.

Are there alternative bitcoin wallets (safe) without the need to synchronize the whole blockchain?

 

[Silverforce11]

Electrum. Its what I use.