Exported Data

8 March 2018

Z

23:30

Zack

otherwise, ignoring other people's blocks and mining on your own fork is a waste of effort.

MH

23:32

Mandel Hoff

In reply to this message

Yes, I run your node and pool. I use the pool as an endpoint for getting and submitting work json. I leave my keys locked, so payouts fail intentionally. (It gives the "you can not send money to yourself" error message.) Payouts happen at scheduled times by my payment manager.

Z

23:32

Zack

very cool

MH

23:34

Mandel Hoff

👍 Thank you.

Deleted joined group by link from Group

N

23:54

NM$L

In reply to this message

here

9 March 2018

EP

00:17

Evans Pan

In reply to this message

李笑来？

N

00:30

NM$L

假的

MF

00:53

Mr Flintstone

mandels pool is BKy?

MH

00:53

Mandel Hoff

Yes

MF

00:53

Mr Flintstone

And zacks new pool BPWN?

MH

00:53

Mandel Hoff

Yes

MF

00:53

Mr Flintstone

:(

Z

00:57

Zack

In reply to this message

When your mining pool finds a block, what percentage of the time does the block get included?

MH

00:59

Mandel Hoff

I think most of the time. I've watched the unconfirmed blocks for orphans that get "taken away" when you jump +2 over me. I've seen that but I wouldn't say it's "often". If I had to guess it's like 80-90% included.

01:00

That's "current" - obviously, a few days ago it was wildly different with wildly different block times and other things happening.

Z

01:01

Zack

In reply to this message

Great. That is a lot better than I thought.

01:01

So I guess I will move on to the POW hard fork next.

MH

01:02

Mandel Hoff

I'm not against that, but what is solved by that?

Z

01:03

Zack

We don't have to wait for iridescence or kassel to open source.

01:04

They say they will soon, but there is nothing holding them to it.

01:04

Also, this makes the mining software a little simpler, so it is less effort to rewrite for different hardware.

MH

01:09

Mandel Hoff

"Reuse the context" makes hashrates faster, but I don't think that's a reason to change the pow. It was a super advantage early, but I'm not sure how much edge that gives any more.

I

01:11

Iridescence

I welcome any pow changes. =)

01:12

Deleted Account

change a pow algorithms?

MH

01:15

Mandel Hoff

Well, I confirmed that sha256_update and sha256_final do add significant time to the kernel's work per nonce. Possibly, Kassel has superior sha256 code, which may or may not still be the same superior-factor after pow changes.

s

01:16

scott_l | DeFi Pulse

In reply to this message

iri's software is not useful at current difficulty

OK

01:17

O K

It would be useful with a compatible shared mining pool right?

s

01:18

scott_l | DeFi Pulse

In reply to this message

hmmm, actually im not sure.

01:19

im trying to verfiy zack's difficulty calcs

MH

01:19

Mandel Hoff

I hope I'm not offending Irid, because he's a fine member of the chat - but, I would ignore his mining tool in any of the pow decisions.

OK

01:19

O K

👍

MH

01:26

Mandel Hoff

I'm almost for just letting this play out. We don't know what Kassel has. If it's fpga or asic, then it will be sustained a long time and the community may die off. If Kassel has superior capital and a huge AWS bill, then it will either not be sustained or alienate the other participants. Either way, improve the nodes/pools/governance/markets/betting and we start over if it dies off.

s

01:27

scott_l | DeFi Pulse

changing proof of work to something accessible and raising block reward to an appropriate level to ensure a reasonable notional value per token (like 1,000) seems like an easy do.

I

01:27

Iridescence

Is Kassel still throwing the same amount of hashpower?

s

01:27

scott_l | DeFi Pulse

seems like yes

MH

01:28

Mandel Hoff

Yes, appears to have maintained constant speed after diff change.

I

01:29

Iridescence

It must be nice

01:29

To have 240 V100s by your side

JM

01:29

J M

In reply to this message

i'm gettting an error trying to connect to amoveopool using cuda-miner on ubuntu

01:29

seems like the http://amoveopool.com/work URL is breaking the config file

01:30

anyone else seen this?

MH

01:30

Mandel Hoff

That's the default, so just don't set that.

01:30

Yes, it might be broken - it's optional , so just leave it off the command line.

JM

01:31

J M

then how do you specify which URL to point to?

MH

01:31

Mandel Hoff

In reply to this message

If that's really what he/she is using, I think the current mining is entirely fair. It was not fair earlier when block times were low and sync was less good.

01:32

In reply to this message

You don't. It will default to amoveopool.com/work

JM

01:32

J M

this does? https://github.com/decryptoed/amoveo-cuda-miner

OK

01:32

O K

In reply to this message

👍

MH

01:33

Mandel Hoff

No, that's Iridescence's miner.

I

01:33

Iridescence

I should add a note to my repo

01:33

That it is isn't compatible with Mandel's pool

MH

01:33

Mandel Hoff

The amoveopool.com cuda miner was ported to linux by someone here:
https://github.com/tumblecatweed/AmoveoMinerGpuCudaLinux

01:34

WARNING: I have no tried that ubuntu version, so I have no idea if it's good or bad or ugly.

I

01:34

Iridescence

In reply to this message

I didn't say that it was unfair, merely wishing that I had that much capital to throw at Amoveo

MH

01:36

Mandel Hoff

In reply to this message

But, would you? If it is AWS GPUs, the investment going in to this is incredible. I probably wouldn't, but I'm not entirely surprised someone on the planet is.

JM

01:36

J M

there are no new commits in https://github.com/tumblecatweed/AmoveoMinerGpuCudaLinux

I

01:36

Iridescence

In reply to this message

If I was a mega whale then I probably would

JM

01:37

J M

it looks like it's just a fork of the windows version with no changes, not a port

MH

01:38

Mandel Hoff

In reply to this message

Looks like it was made by catweed. catweed could perhaps help.

01:38

Perhaps that's the wrong repo. Sorry, I'm not sure where catweed has the code.

01:45

@Iridescence you might want to make your miner json compatible with my pool. It's pretty easy to change that, and if it performs well you may be able to make a few sales on your "optimized" version. It'd also prove if makes valid pow results. You just send the miner address with the get work call, and getwork responds with an extra (lower) share diff. You submit any work in the same format, and if it meets the share diff the miner gets credited.

JM

01:46

J M

@Mandelhoff @Iridescence appreciate the info 👍

I

01:46

Iridescence

In reply to this message

Yeah, I think that's a fair idea.

MH

01:46

Mandel Hoff

My pool will respond with "dupe nonce" or "share diff to low" things if the submitted work is not accepted.

I

01:46

Iridescence

In reply to this message

What is the current difficulty threshold for shares?

MH

01:48

Mandel Hoff

Share diff is dynamic based on speed of your miner's submitted work. It scales up and down trying to tune to X seconds. Gpu usually runs around 8500 share diff, but the json tells you what to use.

I

01:48

Iridescence

Ok

MH

01:48

Mandel Hoff

👍

OK

01:49

O K

😄

I

01:50

Iridescence

Sucks that I only have a few hours each day to work on it

01:52

Doesn't help that I'm totally new to Erlang, and the miner and mining pool is written in it XD ( no fault of Zack's, just mine)

01:55

Deleted Account

What is the method to validate an amoveo address?

MH

01:59

Mandel Hoff

The thing about that is - you can have a valid address that is "new" and is not on the block chain. It's "valid", but the block chain has no idea about that address.

MF

02:12

Mr Flintstone

In reply to this message

what if they just come up with more improvements on the new mining code?

Sy joined group by link from Group

S

02:15

Sy

hey all, i am currently trying to get my privkey out of the node

02:15

api:pubkey(). shows my address

02:15

balance shows 0 tho, explorer shows more xD so i would like to get that privkey into a textfile and use it with the web wallet

02:16

is there no dumpprivkey()?

02:16

Deleted Account

In reply to this message

Any idea how to verify both the cases? When I send a wrong address to the api, the response is empty. Do I just do: if res is 200 OK and body is empty then invalid?

02:19

Bitcoin had base58check and ethereum has capitals checksum and stuff? Anything similar for amoveo?

MH

02:27

Mandel Hoff

In reply to this message

Correct, there is no dump private key to console.

02:27

In reply to this message

Base58check would probably work. Zack could confirm. I have not tried that.

OK

02:28

O K

@Simon3456 Maybe you could just make a new private key from your Node's wallet.html and transfer? https://github.com/zack-bitcoin/amoveo/blob/master/docs/api/commands_accounts.md

S

02:29

Sy

i tried to send it to the second acc i made via web wallet

02:29

but api:spend seems to be a bit picky :D

02:29

plus api:balance(). tells me 0 xD

02:30

api:spend(base64:decode(<<"BI6PuRnjBCVGeBu6Pg0DGw5sy/adVDqaiS7d/O3VUFFlkE7uD6ozgLWD+OXS5AWCrIcndzu/b/KNMzxVy2loUFA=">>), 720000000).

OK

02:31

O K

what is api:height(). and block:height().

S

02:32

Sy

6162 - just did another sync:start().

02:33

block.height(). returns 0

OK

02:33

O K

that's why

02:33

you only have headers

S

02:33

Sy

how to fix? ^^

OK

02:38

O K

If it were me, I would do this @Simon3456 , the update instructions with a make prod-clean before make prod-restart

02:38

https://github.com/zack-bitcoin/amoveo/blob/master/docs/basics/updating.md

02:39

then make sure you follow the sync instructions https://github.com/zack-bitcoin/amoveo/blob/master/docs/getting-started/sync.md

02:39

once block:height(). == api:height(). you shouldn't have these issues

S

02:40

Sy

i did a sync normal

02:40

but i think i need more peers

02:40

talk_helper failed_connect 1
means what?

OK

02:40

O K

You shouldn't be sync normal, you never even began to sync

02:41

there were some problems with the earlier node releases, just make sure you're up to date and start over

02:41

Deleted Account

I just now pushed linux version of AmoveoMiner code here.
https://github.com/tumblecatweed/AmoveoMinerGpuCudaLinux
It runs 575Mh/s on GTX 1080 Ti.

S

02:41

Sy

i set it up maybe 4h ago

OK

02:41

O K

since block:height(). is 0 you have literally nothing to lose

S

02:41

Sy

i got 7.2 sitting in that wallet address

02:41

so yes, i got something to loose ^^

OK

02:41

O K

Those instructions state keys are preserved

02:41

Go ahead and review them

02:42

If you really don't want to do that, you could just

api:off().
halt().
make prod-restart

MH

02:43

Mandel Hoff

Do you want to tell him or should I?

S

02:43

Sy

done

02:43

git pull had some changes :)

02:43

could not get block 1050 from peer [-7,[-7,51,15,75,100],8080]syncing with this peer now [-7,[-7,159,65,173,9],8080]

MH

02:44

Mandel Hoff

Probably mined 7 veo on a fork. I don't think that node address mined any blocks on the main chain. But, I could be wrong.

S

02:44

Sy

you are wrong

02:44

since i started with "it shows on the explorer"

OK

02:44

O K

Don't worry about the little error messages here and there

02:44

just sync:start(). now

02:44

you'll know if it's syncing right

S

02:45

Sy

i must tell you, this is even more odd than the first monero release :D

MH

02:45

Mandel Hoff

Ok 👍 There may be some sub-4k blocks that I'm mis-remembering the coin base address for. That was a mess. I'm happy some were yours.

OK

02:46

O K

I'm surprised too that you have such a high balance, but weren't here in the chat with us

02:46

But cool!

02:46

Are the blocks flowing in fast now?

S

02:46

Sy

got some gpus

02:46

plus the ec2 miner stopped ^^

OK

02:46

O K

Whose miner are you using?

02:47

AMD or Nvidia?

S

02:47

Sy

hmm it looks like nobody likes block 1050 xD

02:47

can i redownload the blockchain somehow if my node is on a fork?

02:47

or am i at 0 anyway with block:height(). 0?

02:48

i keeps saying it cant sync block 1050 with different nodes

OK

02:48

O K

if sync:start(). is working, you should see blocks flowing in rapidly 10 at a time

S

02:49

Sy

i saw that earlier today but never since

02:49

could not get block 1050 from peer [-7,[-7,24,5,185,238],8080]syncing with this peer now [-7,[-7,51,15,69,135],8080]
trade peers
get their top header
get blocks from them.
another get_blocks thread
block organizer add

02:49

repeat with new peer

02:49

over and over

MH

02:53

Mandel Hoff

In reply to this message

👍

I

02:55

Iridescence

Dang, blocks coming in fast

Deleted joined group by link from Group

02:59

Deleted Account

Hi!

I

02:59

Iridescence

Hello

03:03

Deleted Account

hi

03:04

tried AWS p3 instance for a while, but too expensive.

I

03:06

Iridescence

Ka$$el disagrees 😆

03:06

Deleted Account

haha

JT

03:06

Jehan Tremback

Zack I'm interested to see some of the innovations of Amoveo in action

03:07

the markets and the smart channels etc

I

03:07

Iridescence

I think Amoveo needs a good UI for it's features

03:07

Like the governance betting etc

JT

03:07

Jehan Tremback

Also, lol, you beat Tendermint to launch

03:07

wouldn't have seen that coming 3 years ago :)

MH

03:07

Mandel Hoff

If you get bored, please try my 1.0.0.4 miner on a V100 just to get a speed test.

03:08

The Windows version.

I

03:09

Iridescence

Is headless windows a thing?

03:09

I've never used windows in a vps

OK

03:09

O K

Is Kassel still online?

MH

03:09

Mandel Hoff

Remote desktop connection is what I usually use to a Windows vps.

I

03:10

Iridescence

I see. Makes sense

03:10

In reply to this message

Last time I saw blocks were every 2-3 minutes

Z

03:16

Zack

In reply to this message

Me too.
We did use governance to change the block reward a couple times

03:17

In reply to this message

Yeah. Tender mint always seemed more complete.

OK

03:17

O K

I solveed Sy's problem

03:18

Deleted Account

Im working on a radeon miner that does 210 Mh/s on a rx570. Its still a work in progress and will be open sourced once it works and has some minimal testing...

Z

03:18

Zack

In reply to this message

Great

03:18

Deleted Account

Just fyi.

OK

03:18

O K

@tallakt are you part of Sy's group

03:18

Deleted Account

Nope

03:19

Just me

03:19

Its more or less just the C miner on a GPU

OK

03:19

O K

Great

03:21

I was told that Kassel is no longer online

K

03:21

Kenny

he has to be

03:21

hashrate is increasing

OK

03:21

O K

Sy said there is a new group that has a working AMD miner

K

03:22

Kenny

well i wouldnt say has to be, but he likely is still running

OK

03:22

O K

He claims Kassel told them he went offline, and a popularity surge is making up the difference in hashrate

Z

03:26

Zack

In reply to this message

Our address has to be a valid pubkey for secp256k1
Encoded in base 64.

03:27

In reply to this message

We use base 64 for now. Not base 58.

03:29

In reply to this message

https://github.com/zack-bitcoin/amoveo/blob/master/docs/getting-started/sync.md

S

03:31

Sy

okay i guess i entered the fun zone

03:31

node is synced, api:spend actually said okay but the coins are nowhere yet haha lets wait and see

Z

03:32

Zack

In reply to this message

Great

03:35

Deleted Account

In reply to this message

You can create a new key from random bytes and then import to Amoveo?

LB

03:41

Luke B

If Kassel is offline then is a pool winning all of these blocks?

S

03:42

Sy

how many gpus are 1600 mh?

Z

03:43

Zack

In reply to this message

Yes. But it is better to spend the Veo instead of importing the key.

03:44

In reply to this message

My pool has been winning all the blocks.

LB

03:45

Luke B

Can you remind me of your address?

S

03:45

Sy

Zack yes i've used api:spend - not sure if i did it correct and they will ever show up tho xD

Z

03:45

Zack

BPWND

S

03:46

Sy

now that i think about it, i should have tested it with a smaller amount....

LB

03:46

Luke B

IP address i mean

Z

03:46

Zack

In reply to this message

Is it in your mempool?

S

03:46

Sy

good question

03:46

i only did api spend and it said okay

03:46

do i have to commit it or something?

Z

03:46

Zack

In reply to this message

159.65.120.84:8085

S

03:47

Sy

yes it is listed in api:mempool().

G

03:48

Gonzalo

In reply to this message

What miner are you using?

Z

03:48

Zack

Did you push the TX into other users mempool? https://github.com/zack-bitcoin/amoveo/blob/master/docs/getting-started/sync.md

If you are in sync mode normal, then it will automatically share the txs when you download blocks from peers.

MH

03:49

Mandel Hoff

I haven't got a tx spend to stick in a block since 6151.

JM

03:49

J M

Zack can I use Iridicense's cuda-miner on your pool?

Z

03:49

Zack

In reply to this message

I think yes.

03:51

In reply to this message

Did you try manually pushing it to my node?

M

03:51

Mike

@Mandelhoff Could you please release the source of the latest version of the cuda miner? I'd like to try to port it to Linux

MH

03:52

Mandel Hoff

Ha!, Maybe we got 6199 unless it gets orphaned.

G

03:52

Gonzalo

In reply to this message

👍😅

S

03:53

Sy

6191 up2date?

MH

03:53

Mandel Hoff

I got a payout in that block too, so someone should have wallet boost. Lots more waiting to be confirmed "lost" though.

S

03:53

Sy

block and api height retur 6191

Z

03:53

Zack

6200.

G

03:53

Gonzalo

In reply to this message

6200

S

03:53

Sy

damn so it stopped syncing again

03:54

sync.start says nothing to sync and its running in normal

Z

03:54

Zack

In reply to this message

Do you have port 8080 open? What is your Explorer url?

S

03:54

Sy

no firewall at all

03:54

it just synced up with @potat_o helping me

03:55

and then stopped again xD

MH

03:55

Mandel Hoff

I added pool logging, so I have a record of when miners find a solution. I can get an accurate number of how many orphans are being produced now.

Z

03:55

Zack

In reply to this message

What is your Explorer url?

S

03:55

Sy

my ip with 8085 right?

Z

03:56

Zack

In reply to this message

http://159.65.120.84:8080/explorer.html
Here is my Explorer url.

MH

03:56

Mandel Hoff

In reply to this message

Sure, it's messy. Give me some time. I rewrote a lot of it for the big speed boost.

I

03:59

Iridescence

In reply to this message

Yes

JM

03:59

J M

👍

I

04:01

Iridescence

I am planning to make my miner compatible with Mandel's pool. That way we will be able to get shared rewards

04:01

Currently Zack's mining pool software only rewards block finders

MH

04:01

Mandel Hoff

👍

G

04:01

Gonzalo

@Mandelhoff what was previous block found by your pool before 6199?

I

04:02

Iridescence

I might spend some time later to make Zack's mining pool software shared

04:02

But for now it is easier to make it connects to Mandel's pool

JM

04:02

J M

Is there a way to see who is winning the blocks in Zacks pool?

Z

04:02

Zack

In reply to this message

Make it configurable so you can do either.
Only connecting to a closed source pool isn't good.

I

04:03

Iridescence

You can see the transactions in amoveopool

G

04:03

Gonzalo

In reply to this message

yes, you can watch the tx on chain

I

04:03

Iridescence

Zack's pool address will send VEO to the winner

JM

04:04

J M

what's the advantage of using Zack's pool?

04:05

i guess i'm confused about what someone like me should do. I have a few powerful GPUs trying to mine this is the best way possible

EP

04:05

Evans Pan

renting aws in the early days of a coin, its normal

I

04:05

Iridescence

Depends on how much hashpower you have

JM

04:05

J M

perftest said 500 m/h

I

04:05

Iridescence

If its only a few GH mining solo won't do much

EP

04:05

Evans Pan

I will do it if I found amoveo a few days ago

I

04:05

Iridescence

If you have windows do Mandel's pool

JM

04:06

J M

i can do either

I

04:06

Iridescence

I should have my ubuntu miner connected to Mandel's pool in a day or two

MH

04:06

Mandel Hoff

Ok, code updated here:
https://github.com/Mandelhoff/AmoveoMinerGpuCuda
catweed - this has the 1.0.0.4 build code. Please forgive the gross ignorance of my mutex usage.

G

04:08

Gonzalo

In reply to this message

I think that if you are a powerfull miner -and you can eventually increase your h/s power in the same ratio as the network- you can try mining on a non shared pool, probably you will get the same rewards on the long term.

I

04:13

Iridescence

I think if you have less than 10% of

04:13

Network hashpower, solo mining doesn't make sense

G

04:14

Gonzalo

In reply to this message

I agree

MH

04:15

Mandel Hoff

I just noticed that due to all the "lost" tx's that - whenever my pool finds a block, whoever got Zack's last block doesnt' get paid. Their tx gets lost. 🙈

04:16

I didn't notice it until just now, but I'm sure that's not new.

Z

04:16

Zack

In reply to this message

Thanks for pointing this out. I'll check into it.

OK

04:28

O K

In reply to this message

J I am just like you, I have a few powerful GPU only. I think Mandel's pool is best choice.

Z

04:30

Zack

In reply to this message

looking at your pool, it seems like I payed a reward for every block found.
Sometimes it takes 1 block for the reward to get included

s

04:33

scott_l | DeFi Pulse

what does "nothing to sync" message mean? is that an error or just a message that i am connected and have all the blocks in the chain?

Z

04:34

Zack

it means you have a block for every header you know about.

04:34

so it wont try downloading anything else

s

04:35

scott_l | DeFi Pulse

thx zack.

04:35

block:height(). says 6205, but amoveopool says 6208. this means i have something messed up?

Z

04:36

Zack

In reply to this message

https://github.com/zack-bitcoin/amoveo/blob/master/docs/getting-started/sync.md

s

04:36

scott_l | DeFi Pulse

yea... ive been tryin

G

04:45

Greg

is there a way to easily compute the network hashrate? would have like to chart it

OK

04:47

O K

block:hashrate_estimate().

G

04:48

Greg

I would like to plot "historical" data

OK

04:50

O K

L = lists:map(fun(N) -> round(block:hashrate_estimate(N)) end, lists:seq(100, block:height(), 100)).
rp(L).

04:50

Search for that in the chat, Zack explained it up a bit

04:51

That's every 100 blocks

G

04:51

Greg

In reply to this message

thanks!

Z

04:56

Zack

1.25 TH/s right now.

G

04:57

Gonzalo

wow

OK

04:57

O K

In reply to this message

How can we see the rich list ourselves?

Z

05:03

Zack

In reply to this message

accounts:all_accounts().

OK

05:13

O K

Thank you

I

05:19

Iridescence

We should make a cheat sheet

05:19

Or maybe a telegram bot?

05:19

Telegram bot connected to Amoveo node would be cool

05:20

Deleted Account

Yes

MF

05:20

Mr Flintstone

we should connect it to its own node and not zacks haha

Z

05:20

Zack

In reply to this message

It is no good just guessing what info people want.
As long as you guys keep asking questions, I will keep updating the code and documentation to make it easier to find out what you want.

OK

05:21

O K

I was thinking about making a consolidated command document

05:21

I basically already have it started

Z

05:21

Zack

In reply to this message

I recommend pushing to the commands documents I already have on github.

OK

05:21

O K

I do from time to time, you just haven't made the connection

Z

05:22

Zack

https://github.com/zack-bitcoin/amoveo/blob/master/docs/api/commands.md
I am adding more to this almost every day.

OK

05:22

O K

It's still inconvenient to have several pages, it's nice on one hand, but sometimes you know what you're looking for but you don't know where it is and you just want to CTR+F you know?

M

05:23

Mike

In reply to this message

Thanks. I've made a CMake config to build it on Linux + some little changes: https://pastebin.com/HhGEsMtB
cpprestsdk source should be in a sibling directory. Then build with CMake normally. E.g.: mkdir build ; cd build ; cmake .. -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release ; make -j AmoveoMinerGpuCuda

Z

05:24

Zack

In reply to this message

Then make a pull request that changes it to one page.

OK

05:24

O K

I will

05:24

Just sent one with some minor updates

05:31

Deleted Account

i have 8 GH/s on one gpu 1060, pikes 32.1GH i can not believe this, or maybe i have an error.

05:31

im using the mandelhoff miner

05:31

With blocksize 256

OK

05:31

O K

What reports the 8GH/s, his website?

05:31

or the console

05:32

Deleted Account

The website and the console 900mh

OK

05:33

O K

The website frequently shows really big numbers for me, it fluctuates

05:33

Deleted Account

OK

05:33

O K

Are there spending problems right now?

05:33

Deleted Account

246GH on the website

OK

05:34

O K

That doesn't seem right

05:34

I have 3 cards and the site shows 36GH/s right now

05:34

Deleted Account

05:35

After mandelhoff post the miner, i take the code and recompile, with 256

05:35

Nothing else, the same code

OK

05:35

O K

what's your temps/ fanspeed

05:37

Windows?

05:37

Deleted Account

above the 75

05:37

Yes

05:37

Temp

OK

05:37

O K

Man, wow

05:37

Deleted Account

I have to turn off

OK

05:38

O K

I mean that's not too bad

JM

05:38

J M

@Mandelhoff I am getting "not valid share difficulty too low". Am I doing something wrong?

MH

05:38

Mandel Hoff

In reply to this message

Often or just once in a while?

05:39

Deleted Account

im gonna change the blocksize and recompile again

05:39

In reply to this message

thanks Mandelhoff, great piece of code, an artisan

JM

05:40

J M

not sure how to answer that exactly, but not every single time

OK

05:40

O K

Mandel, if it says he's getting that from one card on the website, that means he is right?

05:41

Have you made any big changes since the last release?

05:42

I want my GPUs running at 75c

05:42

They're begging to work that hard

MH

05:43

Mandel Hoff

I should remove hashrates. They don't mean anything except how lucky you were in the last x seconds. Yes, it goes way up and down based on what partial solution you found. It's the same as "Why are some block times 1 min and some are 10 min?"

05:43

Deleted Account

Lol now 1.2 gh on website and consoke

05:44

But the temperature of the gpu its not the same 35

05:46

Deleted Account

@Mandelhoff on win, if i try to run more than 3 GPU's off 1 rig, the miner crashes

05:46

anyone else experiencing that?

OK

05:46

O K

Why not average the hashrate over time please?

05:47

Like nanopool has a "average hashrate over 24 hours"

05:47

It's helpful

MH

05:47

Mandel Hoff

In reply to this message

When you find shares fast, the pool gives you harder diffs. The pool was accepting solutions at 80% of your current diff to account for this. I lowered it now. Almost doesn't matter, because you get credit based on the diff and that scales. Once you "ramp up", diff shouldn't change enough to cause this too often. When you kick off a new miner, this can happen a few times at the beginning when you find tons of low diff solutions.

JM

05:48

J M

👍

MH

05:48

Mandel Hoff

In reply to this message

Trust the h/s on your miner console (unless you tamper with it). 🙈

Z

05:48

Zack

I added more info to the explorer. just click the "update height" button http://159.65.120.84:8080/explorer.html

OK

05:49

O K

The H/s on the console varies widely too. I'd rather see MH/s on the console, as an average

05:49

It reports too often to gather good intel, if I stop a miner and start it in 5 seconds, there can be a 50000 difference

05:50

In reply to this message

Awesome

05:50

Deleted Account

I have in console 101387176 h/s

MH

05:50

Mandel Hoff

Win or Ubuntu? What model gpu?

OK

05:51

O K

when numbers are that big without commas I might as well have dyscalculia

05:51

Deleted Account

Win nvidia 1060

OK

05:51

O K

especially as they scroll by on the screen

MH

05:52

Mandel Hoff

I have a gtx 1060 6gb model. It runs about 350-370mhs

J

05:52

Jim

05:52

Network hashrate / 10 block intervals.

Z

05:52

Zack

In reply to this message

very cool

05:53

Deleted Account

In reply to this message

man, maybe i have a problem

05:53

Im gonna check it on another gpu

MH

05:53

Mandel Hoff

Try numblocks = 256 or 192

05:54

Deleted Account

Thats what i have

05:54

MH

05:54

Mandel Hoff

Version 1.0.0.4? - Not sure else to check.

05:54

Deleted Account

yep

05:56

laptop with nvidia 1050

05:56

OK

05:57

O K

That's 100 mhs

05:57

not gigahash

05:58

Deleted Account

Not Gh of course

OK

05:58

O K

I must have misunderstood

05:59

Deleted Account

Testing on the laptop with another gpu model the firts one blocksize 256 and this one 196

OK

06:01

O K

Gotcha, okay

Z

06:01

Zack

Who is BEwcaw?
a third mining pool?

OK

06:01

O K

My cards never go over 55c

Z

06:01

Zack

is Iridescence pool finally working?

OK

06:01

O K

Did you see what I was saying earlier?

06:01

The group that Sy was with, AMD miner, etc

06:02

My cards never really crank it out, I'd be thrilled if my cards were giving me numbers and getting hot like that @Paixo_Poison

06:03

Deleted Account

just on the gpu 1060 with blocksize 256, temperature 75 almost 80

06:03

On gpu 1050 laptop with blocksize 196, temperature 35

06:04

I dont really understand, why this

MH

06:05

Mandel Hoff

My 1060 runs much hotter than my 1050. It's about 55% faster too.

06:05

Deleted Account

Got it Mandel, 👍

I

06:05

Iridescence

In reply to this message

I measure hashrate based on how long a kernel takes to run when the run did not find a nonce

06:07

In reply to this message

Don't think so

OK

06:08

O K

can I output node commands to a file?

06:08

like accounts:all_accounts(). > accounts.txt

Z

06:10

Zack

In reply to this message

if you convert to binary first.
http://erlang.org/doc/man/file.html#write_file-2

accounts:all_accounts(). is an exception. it works by side effects of printing to the screen instead of returning the result you are interested in.

OK

06:14

O K

Thanks

RT

06:26

Roger That

@Mandelhoff - whats the total has power of your pool?

06:28

Zack - whats the total has power of the network? if there a webpage to track it?

s

06:29

scott_l | DeFi Pulse

is anyone's node working? (besides zack's)

Z

06:30

Zack

In reply to this message

http://159.65.120.84:8080/explorer.html

06:30

In reply to this message

Mandel's is.

06:31

There are 18 full nodes connected to mine.

s

06:31

scott_l | DeFi Pulse

k

Z

06:31

Zack

I am running one of them.

RT

06:31

Roger That

mandel's pool showing 1.7ths

Z

06:31

Zack

Either mandel's math is wrong, or mine is.

RT

06:31

Roger That

your page showing 1.37

06:31

yes

06:33

something is going on with mandel's pool, my hash is consistently sjowing at 55ghs+ and i am not even close

MH

06:35

Mandel Hoff

My page shows hashrate almost always too high.

06:36

It's spikey based on luck and not at all averaged across partial work solutions

RT

06:37

Roger That

quick question - what happens if i put an arbitrary number for numblocks? like too small or too large ?

06:38

trying to understand the underlying concept

OK

06:38

O K

My node has been good 159.65.173.9

MH

06:42

Mandel Hoff

Sorry! I had been saying NumBlocks. That was wrong. The BlockSize argument is the one you want to try 192 vs 256 vs whatever.

RT

06:42

Roger That

ok

06:42

so just to understand what happens if i mess with the numblocks parameter?

MH

06:42

Mandel Hoff

NumBlocks is 65536, and I haven't found tuning that helps. Anything else brings it down, but feel free to try it.

G

06:45

Gonzalo

In reply to this message

mine is ok @ 51.15.75.100

MH

06:47

Mandel Hoff

BlockSize is like parallel threads that share memory.

06:48

NumBlocks is like groups of BlockSize that can share device memory, but not local thread memory.

RT

06:49

Roger That

messing with numblocks is giving me very interesting hash speed on console without any valid shares

G

06:50

Gonzalo

Who is BEwcawKx5oZFOmp?

MH

06:50

Mandel Hoff

Yes, some high numbers make the kernel invalid and you get crazy high h/s numbers. It's broken with those configs, of course.

06:50

Sy

RT

06:50

Roger That

ok got it

I

06:50

Iridescence

Is numblockd the block dimension for CUDA?

RT

06:52

Roger That

even some low numbers are throwing things off

06:55

funnily if i put numblocks as 256, its telling me its getting valid shares

06:55

Deleted Account

what is current total hashrate?

06:55

total net hashrate? and current block reward?

RT

06:55

Roger That

1.12ths

06:56

reward 1

Z

07:18

Zack

I tried writing the partial hash upgrade to my C miner, but it only became 10% faster.
I was expecting it to more than double in speed.

07:24

Deleted Account

What is current block reward?

07:26

Deleted Account

only got 1.5 veo

Z

07:26

Zack

1

07:26

Deleted Account

too hard to mining now

07:26

kassel destory the fun of mining

07:27

mining a month won't make 10 veo probably

07:33

Deleted Account

In reply to this message

So you reduced the block reward. I didnt check the group for many days. Did you relaunch amoveo with different algo or this is final blockchain ?

M

07:35

Mike

In reply to this message

It’s all fair, technically

07:36

Deleted Account

In reply to this message

he is too greedy

Z

07:37

Zack

In reply to this message

Amoveo launched on March 2. We have not re-launched or started over.

07:38

Deleted Account

In reply to this message

Is he the new BATman ?

07:38

In reply to this message

Ok thanks

Z

07:42

Zack

I think the fix to the mining pool today must have helped, it just took the miners a while to realize and adapt.
Now there are 3 nodes regularly getting blocks.

G

07:46

Gonzalo

yes it looks better now. The improvement in Mandel's miner probably helped as well

MF

07:49

Mr Flintstone

In reply to this message

You have 1500 mVEO

Z

07:49

Zack

https://github.com/zack-bitcoin/amoveo-c-miner
I upgraded the c-miner to show how to do the partial hash optimization.
It is only about a 10% benefit for CPU miner, so maybe I made a mistake, or maybe this is less important for CPU than it is for GPU.

07:49

150000000 Satoshis.

MF

07:49

Mr Flintstone

maybe it makes sense to think about things in mVEO terms?

Z

07:50

Zack

0.0015 kiloVeo

G

07:50

Gonzalo

In reply to this message

Yeah, this is the positive mentality! 😂

Z

07:51

Zack

in a network with 9 kiloVeo total

07:52

Deleted Account

I almost lost patience mining

MF

07:55

Mr Flintstone

the decimal in veo is arbitrarily placed

G

07:58

Gonzalo

In reply to this message

what do you mean?

MF

07:58

Mr Flintstone

we just agree by convention to place the decimal there

07:59

This is a decision made off chain

07:59

@zack correct me if wrong

07:59

the only unit on the chain is satoshis

G

07:59

Gonzalo

oh ok, I understand now

08:00

and agree

MF

08:00

Mr Flintstone

this is why we shouldn’t be rash to increase block reward solely because the number looks low

G

08:01

Gonzalo

I agree as well

JS

08:02

Jon Snow

Yeah, I think it’s a great idea

08:02

Go mVEO!

G

08:03

Gonzalo

but people always tend to prefer having 100 X than 1 Z, even if 100 X = 1 Z

Z

08:03

Zack

In reply to this message

yes, correct.

08:05

In reply to this message

Those are the kind of people we are trying to avoid.
If they are investing for any reason besides the technology or community, then we don't want them.

G

08:06

Gonzalo

In reply to this message

👍

Z

08:09

Zack

If 1 Veo = $40, then that means the transaction fee is about $0.06

OK

08:11

O K

In reply to this message

Are you using Mandel's shared pool @smubo

MF

08:20

Mr Flintstone

In reply to this message

this seems like a lot

08:20

The tx fee

Z

08:21

Zack

Yes. It took eth over a year to get such a high fee.

08:23

A block can hold about 650 txs, so I made the governance fee about 1/650 th of a block reward.
This way we wouldn't have too many txs in the early blocks if someone wanted to attack.

As the value of amoveo goes higher, we can afford to lower the governance fees.

MF

08:24

Mr Flintstone

I think making the tx more expensive in the beginning of the chains life is a good idea to protect it from spammers

s

08:31

scott_l | DeFi Pulse

In reply to this message

convention is sticky. whatever the "real" notional unit is what people will use.

MF

08:42

Mr Flintstone

imo the block reward should be no greater than what is needed to secure the chain to the extent that is acceptable in the eyes of the community

08:44

@zack has an argument that we should seek to increase the block reward in order to increase the market cap in order to decrease the volatility of veo, which does not fit into my framework above

Z

08:44

Zack

In reply to this message

I disagree.
If more security is needed, then wait for more confirmations.

The block reward should be set based upon how high the demand for new Veo is.

MF

08:45

Mr Flintstone

In reply to this message

what is or is not acceptable to the community certainly takes into context wait times as well

Z

08:45

Zack

Yes. I wonder what the community will decide.

MF

08:45

Mr Flintstone

i think you can use increasing the block reward as a tool in certain circumstances

Marc joined group by link from Group

J

08:52

Jim

Would personally be against big changes either way as community finds equilibrium. I’d say no more than 20% either way

G

08:52

Gonzalo

In reply to this message

👍

Z

08:54

Zack

When the difficulty retargets, it is the same as a drastic change in the block reward

MF

08:57

Mr Flintstone

In reply to this message

with regard to the latter sentence, I think the marketplace can automatically take care of veo demand because the price will go up

08:58

the marketplace being an exchange perhaps

08:58

although I guess you could say that this is not new veo

08:58

though I’m not sure what circumstances we would have where the difference is significant

08:59

marketplace demand would always be able to pry new veo away from miners since veeyrone has a price

OK

09:00

O K

In reply to this message

👍

Z

09:00

Zack

Growing with just a price increase of Veo is not so good.
That over-rewards the early adopters, and punishes anyone who shows up late.
It would hinder growth.

Growth in market cap is more important than growth in the price per token.

OK

09:01

O K

Price doesn't matter really, because if prices are high, .0001 veo will be effective

Z

09:02

Zack

Maybe it should be our goal that each Veo stays below $50 for now. If the price goes too high, we should increase the block reward more to encourage growth.

MF

09:02

Mr Flintstone

In reply to this message

i feel like if will be difficult to get people to agree to this

09:02

it will*

09:02

we will see though, that is the wonderful thing about amoveo

09:03

very interested to see how this plays out

JS

09:04

Jon Snow

In reply to this message

👍

EP

09:04

Evans Pan

Too early to talk about price

OK

09:04

O K

In reply to this message

this is arbitrary, 0.1 veo out of 15,000 is not inherently better than 1 veo out of 150,000

09:04

We shouldn't try to engineer prices

Z

09:05

Zack

In reply to this message

This is a straw-man.
My argument was not that we would have too many decimals.
Rather, I am worried we will over-compensate early adopters, and make it worse for late-adopters in comparison.

JS

09:05

Jon Snow

In reply to this message

Is the goal to be a stable coin lol

Z

09:05

Zack

In reply to this message

no.

09:06

Our goal is to reach a balance.
We don't want to over-reward early adopters.
We don't want to under-reward them either.

09:07

Amoveo makes stable coins using synthetic assets in the markets in the lightning network.

MF

09:07

Mr Flintstone

very hard to optimize for market cap when users are optimizing for price per coin :)

OK

09:07

O K

In reply to this message

Just as in any other economy, those that benefit by new money are those that receive it first (i.e. the miners).

09:07

If the price of amoveo goes up, then a partial reward from a mining pool is still a good reward for a latecomer

JS

09:08

Jon Snow

In reply to this message

Agree

MF

09:08

Mr Flintstone

In reply to this message

maybe not very hard, but it is definitely a different class of outcome

OK

09:09

O K

People who are not miners, pay the market rate, they don't benefit by inflation

EP

09:09

Evans Pan

If the rewarding system is complicated and keep changing , new miner won't come

Z

09:11

Zack

A bigger market cap is important for maintaining the price of the tokens.
If there are only $1 million of Veo, then we can't have big markets.

09:11

a bigger market cap increases the utility

JS

09:12

Jon Snow

Then let’s move the decimal and use mVEO

OK

09:12

O K

A market cap is a measurement of two variables, supply and price, two variables that directly have an impact on each other

Z

09:12

Zack

that doesn't change the market cap in USD.

OK

09:13

O K

So making more veo faster, doesn't imply that the market cap will go up, because the price may go down proportionately given a fixed demand

MF

09:13

Mr Flintstone

In reply to this message

my guess is the market cap of amoveo far outstrips the open interest in markets at least for a while

09:13

This is a very speculative space

09:13

and is permissionless

09:13

so even if you don’t like it, you can’t stop the speculators unless you’re willing to destroy the value of your coin which defeats the purpose

Z

09:13

Zack

In reply to this message

Sure it does.
If miners are spending twice as many USD on mining, then the market cap is growing twice as fast.

OK

09:14

O K

just because someone is spending money on a product to sell it, doesn't mean it will sell for what they want

09:14

trust me, I learned that one the hard way

Z

09:14

Zack

mining is an ongoing process. if it isn't profitable, then they reduce how much they are mining.

JS

09:15

Jon Snow

Why early adopter should compensate new comers? Did any other major public chain do that before?

09:15

This will discourage people

EP

09:16

Evans Pan

The only factor deciding the price in the early stage is the network hashrate ,nothing else

MF

09:16

Mr Flintstone

In reply to this message

yeah

Z

09:16

Zack

Then how about we set the block reward to 0.00001
And Kassel can own 60% of the tokens for the next decade?

09:17

clearly lowering the reward is not always better

OK

09:17

O K

I'm not opposed to raising the block reward, I agree it should go up when things are more distributed

09:17

I just don't think engineering prices should be the end in mind

09:18

or engineering market cap, because I think that will backfire

JS

09:18

Jon Snow

Why don’t we just keep the reward as it is?

09:18

Not lowering or increasing

Z

09:18

Zack

so if we don't base the block reward off of the goal of increasing the market cap or the goal of increasing the price of tokens, what would you base it off of? rolling dice?

OK

09:19

O K

I would bet on a conservative block reward increase after there is no single individual or pool with more than 40%

MF

09:19

Mr Flintstone

In reply to this message

securing the chain

OK

09:19

O K

No the goal of distributing it more broadly than to kassel

09:19

and batman

EP

09:19

Evans Pan

In reply to this message

If we have 100s Kassel mining veo , veo is successful.

OK

09:19

O K

In reply to this message

this is a better answer than mine

MF

09:20

Mr Flintstone

In reply to this message

there obvs can be other inputs, but my opinion is that security should be the main one

OK

09:20

O K

At the end of the day, I think we can make anything work, you'll never keep up with the price though zack, you're too humble 🙂

09:20

10 min blocks, same block reward, I'm calling $500 conservative price

MF

09:21

Mr Flintstone

Zack if the amount of veo bet on markets is approaching the total supply of veo, we should probably increase the block reward

Z

09:22

Zack

In reply to this message

your opinion is wrong.
If you need more security, wait for more confirmations.

The rate of distribution is a economic problem 100%, this is not a time where we optimize for the number of confirmations.

OK

09:22

O K

Well, value is subjective after all

JS

09:25

Jon Snow

If we increase the block reward by x times, can we increase the current balance by x times?

09:25

Lol

MF

09:25

Mr Flintstone

In reply to this message

waiting for confirmations does not protect you from a 51% attack. Maybe I should have clarified exactly what I meant by security

s

09:30

scott_l | DeFi Pulse

In reply to this message

kinda seems like you just bot a ton of veo without realizing block reward would probably be increasing in the future

MF

09:31

Mr Flintstone

I guess maybe what I am saying is as follows: the block reward is first and foremost a means to protect against reversion. while manipulation of the block reward can have effects outside of this, these should be secondary considerations

09:31

In reply to this message

i was aware of the governance system

09:31

so maybe attack my arguments?

EP

09:32

Evans Pan

In reply to this message

Interesting to know , what if a big miner join the game, like 1000 rigs, will you be happy or say no?

s

09:32

scott_l | DeFi Pulse

In reply to this message

not talking about the governance system. talking about the community consensus

MF

09:33

Mr Flintstone

then I disagree that the reward will probably increase

09:33

this is ok, disagreement is actually a good thing for these protocols

G

09:35

Gonzalo

It looks like Sy is winning Kassel right now. It's weird there are no more little miners on Mandel's pool. Only big whales here.

Z

09:35

Zack

In reply to this message

We could use some proof of stake system for that.
The reason I added proof of work is to distribute tokens.
It happens to protect against reversion too, as a side effect. So I didn't worry about adding anything else to prevent reversion.

s

09:36

scott_l | DeFi Pulse

In reply to this message

omg zack yes please

09:36

cosmos this mfer

MF

09:36

Mr Flintstone

maybe I’m just a pow maximalist :(

Z

09:37

Zack

There is no reason to use POS, because POW already prevents reversion as a side effect.

OK

09:37

O K

In reply to this message

ASICs will make it so only people who have a lot to invest can receive the distributed tokens

09:38

If the goal is distribution qua distribution then airdropping really probably is the best way

09:38

Not that I'm in favor of that

Z

09:41

Zack

POW is the ideal way to distribute. It is sustained over a long period.

09:41

it costs something

EP

09:41

Evans Pan

In reply to this message

Where is the coin for dropping ?😃

MF

09:42

Mr Flintstone

In reply to this message

makes deciding which chain is the right one easier too

09:42

esp for a new chain

N

09:47

NM$L

difficult to mine

OK

09:47

O K

What hardware @windance

N

09:47

NM$L

1080+1060

OK

09:47

O K

amoveopool.com ?

N

09:48

NM$L

2days only 0.6+ veo

09:48

In reply to this message

yes

09:48

hashrate grow so fast.

OK

09:49

O K

I get 1 per day with 1080, 1080, 1070

N

09:49

NM$L

It's cool

MF

09:49

Mr Flintstone

In reply to this message

where else can you mine 60% of a block reward in two days with your hardware?

N

09:50

NM$L

🙂

Z

09:53

Zack

4.5 minutes per block

10:00

I hope the new mining pool lets me push updates.

10:13

Deleted Account

any comments on Aeternity?

10:13

I invested a lot on it

I

10:14

Iridescence

LOL

N

10:14

NM$L

In reply to this message

100$ at EOY

I

10:14

Iridescence

https://github.com/zack-bitcoin/amoveo/blob/master/docs/why_I_left.md

M

10:15

Mike

Amd miner? Wish I could made the DAC

Z

10:20

Zack

I want to set up a market to bet on the difficulty after the next hardfork. What is a good over/under value where you think it has a 50% chance to cost more than that many hashes per block, and a 50% chance to cost less

10:22

Deleted Account

can we make VEO more valuable than XMR.

Z

10:22

Zack

it is 340 TH per block now.

10:23

I am thinking 900 TH per block for the next round? does that sound like a good guess?

10:24

Deleted Account

and I only have 200m/s

Mr Fox joined group by link from Group

MF

12:08

Mr Flintstone

In reply to this message

yeah

MH

13:30

Mandel Hoff

Mining tool release packaging now.

13:31

This will be much faster. Update is memory limited, so I think it can go faster when I stop being so terrible at gpu memory.

N

13:35

NM$L

That's too difficult to mine

MH

13:42

Mandel Hoff

https://github.com/Mandelhoff/AmoveoMinerGpuCuda/releases/tag/1.0.0.5

13:42

It's faster!
Not very efficient on memory, so if AmoveoMinerGpuCuda.exe crashes try the AmoveoMinerGpuCudaMini.exe instead.

I have to use the AmoveoMinerGpuCudaMini on my 750Ti, but AmoveoMinerGpuCuda.exe works on 1050, 1060, and K80.

13:42

Good night. Happy Hashing!

I

13:52

Iridescence

You are using more memory? 😮

13:52

But I guess if it's faster than it's better XD

Miles Teg joined group by link from Group

N

14:12

NM$L

why hashrate is so high.

14:23

Deleted Account

because we got batman

S

14:37

Sy

I'd say because you start to gain traction

14:37

It won't slow down over time...

15:25

Deleted Account

anyone selling veo

P|

15:31

Paul N. | BAND (🅑) - I'll never DM you

In reply to this message

I am at 1 ETH/Veo

15:32

And please, I'm not trolling. PM me if you're interested.

S

15:41

Sy

when i use the wallet.html to send VEO around and i insert 1, does it send 1 VEO or 1 satoshi VEO (whatever the smallest is called ^^)?

15:42

Deleted Account

1 veo

S

15:45

Sy

hmm does it say "okay" like the node? because i tried to send 1 and nothing happened for several blocks

RT

15:54

Roger That

In reply to this message

i like your price as a poor holder and eliminated miner

P|

16:03

Paul N. | BAND (🅑) - I'll never DM you

In reply to this message

Send me some Veo please. Thanks 😳

16:03

My 28 GPU doesn't mine with profitability at all, so I stopped loll

RT

16:03

Roger That

28 gpu!!!

P|

16:04

Paul N. | BAND (🅑) - I'll never DM you

of 1080 and 1080 Ti, yes

RT

16:04

Roger That

just mine on nicehash

16:04

better roi

16:04

this has spiralled out

P|

16:04

Paul N. | BAND (🅑) - I'll never DM you

but I want Veo 😂

RT

16:05

Roger That

i am just workdering is folks with 28 gpus are not mining then who is!

P|

16:06

Paul N. | BAND (🅑) - I'll never DM you

the one with 700 GPUs maybe?

RT

16:06

Roger That

Yes that dual mining firm

16:07

Anyways, there’s a discord channel for buying and selling

P|

16:07

Paul N. | BAND (🅑) - I'll never DM you

that's just pure evil ;_;

RT

16:07

Roger That

Not many trades though.

P|

16:07

Paul N. | BAND (🅑) - I'll never DM you

I tried posting, but nobody's selling I think

RT

16:07

Roger That

In reply to this message

Oh yes but the community likes it.

G

16:18

Gonzalo

In reply to this message

No way, u trolling?

P|

16:19

Paul N. | BAND (🅑) - I'll never DM you

In reply to this message

I'm not, but my cost is rather very high comparing to a big GPU farm

16:21

Deleted Account

In reply to this message

Is this nicehashable?

RT

16:22

Roger That

In reply to this message

not yes afaik

G

16:22

Gonzalo

I'm mining with a rented gpu server, 2x1080ti and at least yesterday was profitable

S

16:23

Sy

hmm every time i try to spend via the wallet.html on my node the node outputs
tx_pool_feeder died
so i guess thats the reason its not working xD

P|

16:24

Paul N. | BAND (🅑) - I'll never DM you

In reply to this message

Where are you renting at? I want to compare my cost

R

16:25

Ryuu

In reply to this message

Which's pool that you join or solo mining?

I

16:25

Iridescence

My Ubuntu CUDA miner is now compatible with Mandel Hoff's Pool. I have tested mining with my GTX1080 at roughly 1GH/s.

https://github.com/decryptoed/amoveo-cuda-miner

P|

16:26

Paul N. | BAND (🅑) - I'll never DM you

In reply to this message

Mandel's

S

16:28

Sy

rented gpus are usually really expensive...a single 1080 goes for 99€/month in germany and thats probably one of the cheapest

16:28

ive seen 300+ per month for 1-2 gpus

G

16:29

Gonzalo

In reply to this message

Sorry but not at home now, I check later

R

16:31

Ryuu

In reply to this message

thanks you

G

16:31

Gonzalo

In reply to this message

And +

16:35

Anyway if you get @Iridescence upgraded miner you could try my pool, it's at 0% fees the first 10 blocks 51.15.75.100:8085

P|

16:36

Paul N. | BAND (🅑) - I'll never DM you

In reply to this message

Can I get 5% for the first 10 blocks 😂

I could probably kickstart your pool with it

Z

16:39

Zack

In reply to this message

The amount should disappear.

S

16:39

Sy

yep it did

16:40

Deleted Account

sounds like a real wallet 🙂

Z

16:42

Zack

In reply to this message

Do you have enough funds to spend?
Are you using a watch only wallet, or is your private key in the browser?

G

16:42

Gonzalo

In reply to this message

😂

Z

16:45

Zack

In reply to this message

Maybe the node you are connected wih is having trouble getting its txs to the network.

You can use tx_pool:get(). to see your TX pool.

16:45

Deleted Account

In reply to this message

👍

G

16:46

Gonzalo

https://goo.gl/images/2uSVmA

T

17:05

TownAlwaysGet

is mandel's pool down?

JZ W joined group by link from Group

S

17:21

Sy

amoveopool.com out of sync

17:21

or i forked...not sure
current height: 6370
terahashes per block: 340
gigahashes per second: 1133
seconds per block: 300

17:22

http://159.65.120.84:8080/explorer.html got the same so i guess the pool went away

Z

17:23

Zack

In reply to this message

It says 6370.
Looks in sync to me

17:23

Deleted Account

is the target 300 seconds per block?

Z

17:23

Zack

No. 600

17:24

Deleted Account

oh right, going fast then 🙂

S

17:25

Sy

http://amoveopool.com/transaction stuck at 6366 tho

17:28

ah i probably know why... xD
okay question @zack

17:28

if your pool finds blocks but you forgot to unlock it since you did a git pull....will it still create the tx and send out later?

17:32

and if not...how do i see who mined those blocks?

Z

17:34

Zack

In reply to this message

I think the behaviour now is that the pool keeps trying to make the TX for a while.
It is a sort of memory leak actually. I will eventually fix this so it just drops the TX.

S

17:35

Sy

if you display who it tried to pay to, okay xD

Z

17:36

Zack

I think it might not be possible to see who mined the block in that case.
I guess this is something that should be recorded in a log file.

S

17:38

Sy

that would be nice :)

17:39

i dont think its tryint to recreate the tx, it just paid another block

17:39

if we got a block with no transaction someone is actually solo mining on a local wallet correct?

Z

17:39

Zack

Well, now that I think about it. Maybe it is in the log file already.
_build prod rel amoveo_core log crash.log

S

17:40

Sy

no crash.log there, just erlang.log1-3 and a run_erl.log

Z

17:40

Zack

In reply to this message

That is one explanation.
Or the mining pool has a locked wallet.

S

17:41

Sy

*cough* who would forget to unlock a pool wallet... 😝

Z

17:41

Zack

In reply to this message

Look in the amoveo full node log. Not the mining pool log.

S

17:41

Sy

ah true, wrong folder...my bad

17:43

hmm could be it but no info what it was sending

17:45

alright, shit happens, i know my miners so we will sort this out by hand

Z

17:46

Zack

The log file probably displays addresses in binary format. << 45, 240, 0, 27>>

17:47

You can send me your log if you want me to check

17:51

Deleted Account

In reply to this message

great work

17:52

anyone knows that how much hashrate of GPU when mining bitcoin

17:59

before launch，i was thinking about mining thousands of veo and become rich.

18:00

Now I witness how batman and kassel achieve my goal.

EP

18:23

Evans Pan

In reply to this message

if you spend big money on ec2 ,you can do it ,lol

18:32

Deleted Account

First, you need to get their closed source miner

18:47

Deleted Account

Mining a whole day and get nothing today

Z

18:48

Zack

In reply to this message

340 terahashes to find a block.

EP

18:49

Evans Pan

Can dev do a gpu bounty ?

18:49

Deleted Account

In reply to this message

200mhs. So it will take me 20days to get a block

18:50

If that is true. I am out

Z

18:52

Zack

bitcoin block reward is about $12k over 600 seconds makes $20 per second. and bitcoin is about 25 million TH per second.
So for bitcoin, it is about $1 per million TH.

block reward on Amoveo is about $50 over 600 seconds makes about $0.10 per second.
Amoveo is 2 TH per second.
So for amoveo, it is about $50k per million TH.

Amoveo hashes cost 50 000x more than bicoin hashes, even though they are about 6x less complex to compute.

S

18:59

Sy

hmm

19:00

something broke down, my pool isnt paying anymore but i see no errors in the node

Z

19:00

Zack

keys:status(). should be unlocked.

19:01

api:balance(). should be > the block reward.

S

19:01

Sy

its unlocked, if you dont have it unlocked it shows an unlock your wallet error

Z

19:01

Zack

sync_mode:check(). should be "normal"

S

19:01

Sy

the balance is fine, im checking the balance vs zacks node

19:01

its growing...

Z

19:01

Zack

are you sure that is the pubkey loaded into the full node?

19:02

api:pubkey().

S

19:02

Sy

it has been paying the last 14h...

19:02

yep pubkey matches

19:02

just stopped both and started node first, then pool - unchanged

Z

19:02

Zack

are the txs appearing in your mempool? tx_pool:get().

S

19:03

Sy

it outputs...something

19:03

hmm and there it paid one again...but only the lastest one

Z

19:03

Zack

Maybe you are paying rewards on uncle blocks, and then you don't have funds to pay the person who finds a block?

S

19:04

Sy

no, i got a balance of 17+

19:04

vs your explorer, not my own node

19:05

so i get credited for the blocks but they arent paid

19:19

its fixed for now, thanks zack

MH

19:32

Mandel Hoff

Miner Tool Update:
https://github.com/Mandelhoff/AmoveoMinerGpuCuda/releases/tag/1.0.0.6

19:32

Default BlockSize is now 64.
Default NumBlocks is now 96.

Best for me:
Gtx1060: BlockSize=64, NumBlocks=96
Gtx1050: BlockSize=64, NumBlocks=64
750Ti: BlockSize=32, NumBlocks=64

If your Memory Controller Load is constantly at 100%, you may want to try lowering your NumBlocks.

A higher BlockSize is almost always better, but too high will crash the miner.

20:02

Deleted Account

In reply to this message

what's wrong with 1.0.05

20:03

I just made my gpu running 1.0.0.5. And about to travel for two days

MH

20:05

Mandel Hoff

1.0.0.5 is fine - Similar speeds, less load on the memory controller in 1.0.0.6.

20:07

1.0.0.6 is much faster on my 750Ti and 1060, but about the same on my 1050 and K80.

G

20:10

Gonzalo

Tested on 1080ti, so far I've not seen improvements with 1.0.0.5 and 1.0.0.6 over 1.0.0.4

MH

20:13

Mandel Hoff

What is optimal block size and numblocks for your 1080?

G

20:15

Gonzalo

v1006 makes the OS quite laggy. I think I prefer v1005 with defaults (256 and 65536).

20:16

I get 835mhs on one 1080ti, 870mhs on the other

MH

20:17

Mandel Hoff

Thanks for the metrics.

G

20:17

Gonzalo

Thanks for the miner ;)

MH

20:21

Mandel Hoff

Each kernel thread does a lot more work per execution in 1.0.0.6 so that's probably OS lag diff.

20:23

I may tinker with the cpu miner next. I'm almost all out of ideas for gpu boosts.

G

20:23

Gonzalo

In reply to this message

So if this happens the pool will lose the money?

Z

20:24

Zack

In reply to this message

Yes.

G

20:24

Gonzalo

I see, the pool pays the miner even before he gets the block reward?

20:25

he=pool

Z

20:26

Zack

the pool immediately pays the reward when it sees valid work. It does not wait to see if the block actually gets included in the chain. It does not wait for any confirmations.

G

20:27

Gonzalo

I guess you made this like it is just to keep it simple, isn't it?

Z

20:28

Zack

I think the mining pool is 80 lines of code right now.

G

20:28

Gonzalo

more or less

Z

20:28

Zack

or at least, 80 of the lines aren't copy/pasted from amoveo

20:30

I don't wait for code to be perfect to release it.
I release it as soon as I think it can create value for someone.
Then we can look at them using it, and decide what upgrades are most important.

S

20:30

Sy

119 lines, close enough :)

G

20:32

Gonzalo

nice

Z

20:33

Zack

Waiting for more confirmations before making a payment is probably a good idea.
Double-paying is pretty expensive if the mining pool is only taking <5% of the reward.
200 minutes of mining wasted.

G

20:33

Gonzalo

yes

P|

20:41

Paul N. | BAND (🅑) - I'll never DM you

@Mandelhoff Have you pushed your latest code to Github?

MH

20:44

Mandel Hoff

In reply to this message

Updated - all changes were in main.cpp.

20:54

Happy 1 week anniversary Amoveo! (Feels like 5 years.)

OK

20:57

O K

Yeah!! 1 week!!!

20:58

Mandel the new miner kicks ass man

MH

21:00

Mandel Hoff

Thanks - what gpu model, what blocksize is optimal, and approx what hashrate?

OK

21:02

O K

I started for 1080, 1070, and did 96 96. The 1070 is doing 523, one 1080 does 605 and one does 650

Z

21:03

Zack

In reply to this message

great. Good job Mandel, and thank you OK for testing.

P|

21:03

Paul N. | BAND (🅑) - I'll never DM you

In reply to this message

My laptop 3GB 1060 is doing ~400 MH/s

MH

21:04

Mandel Hoff

Thanks. I have my one 1060 doing ~450. Gonz said his 1080 got ~850, but I'm not sure what blocksize/numblocks he used.

MS

21:04

Matthew Slipper

@Mandelhoff what is the difference between paid and pending confirmation payments? What is the expected time for money in the pending state to be credited to a miner's wallet

21:04

?

OK

21:05

O K

I know 96 is not a recommended blocksize, but doesn't seem to cause issues

P|

21:05

Paul N. | BAND (🅑) - I'll never DM you

In reply to this message

6GB version of 1060 is clocked slightly higher and have silghtly more cores, so that make sense

MH

21:07

Mandel Hoff

Nice - yes, I have the 6gb version. That's probably it. I have blocksize=64, numblocks=96 on my 1060.

21:09

In reply to this message

The "In Processing" means the pool created a spend tx to send you money and that was submitted the Amoveo mempool. Those txs are still often getting "lost", so my pool watches confirmed blocks to see if you receive your funds. If you don't receive your funds after X blocks, the pool makes another spend tx to send you the money again.

21:10

21:11

It's pretty unpredictable. Sometimes payments stick in a block on the first or second try:

21:11

And sometimes I have to send them MANY times for them to stick in a block:

21:11

OK

21:11

O K

Yesterday I had one pending all day

G

21:14

Gonzalo

In reply to this message

I think I prefer v1005 with defaults (256 and 65536).
I get 835mhs on one 1080ti, 870mhs on the other

MH

21:16

Mandel Hoff

Ok, the kernel might be doing too much work per execution thread on 1.0.0.6 - might be some happier middle ground. I'll try to tinker some more. The OS laggy thing is pretty severe too, but most people probably don't use their gpu miner boxes for OS work anyways.

Z

21:18

Zack

In reply to this message

Nvidia has that problem where if you don't put a sleep statement while it is working, then it maxes out your cpu.

You probably already know

MH

21:24

Mandel Hoff

Yes, I think my miner consumes about 1 cpu core. It could be more efficient there.

G

21:29

Gonzalo

Right now Sy is founding like 90% of the blocks, is this because he has much more power than Kassel or because Kassel has reduced his mining power?

21:29

Or is just that Sy=Kassel and he's balancing his power?

Z

21:29

Zack

In reply to this message

I bet Kassel is working with Sy.

21:30

Because the network hashrate hasn't changed much.

G

21:30

Gonzalo

thanks, thats what I guessed as well

MH

21:30

Mandel Hoff

Seems very likely. They are both in Germany. Same city.

21:30

Deleted Account

who is Sy

Z

21:31

Zack

could even be the same person

21:31

Sy is someone in this group.

21:32

Deleted Account

a coin always has 51% attack risk seems cannot be called a success

Z

21:34

Zack

I wont consider Amoveo a success unless it has >50% market cap of all cryptocurrencies.

S

21:35

Sy

thats a nice goal :)

21:36

Market Cap: $363.246.269.176

21:36

Deleted Account

In reply to this message

that's definitely a success

G

21:38

Gonzalo

Yeah

21:40

Before this we'll need more shared pools to balance hashing power, and way more little miners working there

S

21:41

Sy

it is kinda hard to run little hashpower if you are effectively still solo mining

EP

21:52

Evans Pan

Kassel is gone.

21:53

In reply to this message

Are you Kassel ?

KR

21:55

Kevin Roberts BWD

Sy what kind of rig are you running?

S

21:56

Sy

1070ti and 1080ti rigs

KR

21:58

Kevin Roberts BWD

im on Antminers and testing AWS stuff (not mining here)

G

22:05

Gonzalo

In reply to this message

Wow how many?

S

22:05

Sy

company secret :D

MH

22:05

Mandel Hoff

In reply to this message

Thought you said you have closed source AMD miner tools?

S

22:06

Sy

noope

22:06

never said that ^^

22:06

wont touch amd anytime soon again, used them back in 2013 2014, it was no fun then and its no fun now

MH

22:07

Mandel Hoff

Ok. I'm mistaken then.

G

22:08

Gonzalo

OK

O K 09.03.2018 02:46:44

Whose miner are you using?

G

22:08

Gonzalo

S

Sy 09.03.2018 02:47:03

none public

G

22:08

Gonzalo

OK

O K 09.03.2018 02:47:11

AMD or Nvidia?

G

22:08

Gonzalo

S

Sy 09.03.2018 02:47:21

im using nvidia but its working for both

S

22:09

Sy

see :)

22:09

its just a matter of time until other farms spot this coin, its sad but cryptop reality

G

22:09

Gonzalo

OK was confused later

G

22:09

Gonzalo

OK

O K 09.03.2018 03:21:56

Sy said there is a new group that has a working AMD miner

MH

22:09

Mandel Hoff

Yes, I was incorrectly remembering a close source AMD miner and associating it to your closed source miner tool.

KR

22:10

Kevin Roberts BWD

im suprised it hasnt happed sooner

G

22:10

Gonzalo

OK

O K 09.03.2018 06:01:54

The group that Sy was with, AMD miner, etc

S

22:10

Sy

you rarely make money with just a few gpus, that worked back in 2014 when early mining was a thing

22:10

but nowadays with nicehash and amazon....way harder

MH

22:10

Mandel Hoff

Thanks Gonzalo - perhaps I'm not as senile as I feared.

G

22:11

Gonzalo

😂

22:11

Sure

KR

22:11

Kevin Roberts BWD

sy have you played with the teslas on Amazon?

G

22:12

Gonzalo

How old are you, btw? I'm only 43 😅

MH

22:15

Mandel Hoff

Let's just call it old enough to have written more assembly than anything else.

S

22:15

Sy

35

22:15

assembly 😝 hell no!

MH

22:16

Mandel Hoff

That "Motorola Chips 4 Life" tattoo I have is well faded.

KR

22:17

Kevin Roberts BWD

haha

S

22:18

Sy

In reply to this message

😂😂

KR

22:19

Kevin Roberts BWD

Sy what other coins do you like?

S

22:22

Sy

the last coins I mined were safecoin, raven, xdag and bismuth - from recent to old

22:23

safecoin is still low on diff but with an uncertain future ^^

P|

22:24

Paul N. | BAND (🅑) - I'll never DM you

@Mandelhoff your pool seems down man

MH

22:30

Mandel Hoff

In reply to this message

Thank you for the alert. It seems to have recovered. I'm not sure what happened. Looks like my node had a large disk spike and wasn't handing out work for a minute or two.

22:30

G

22:31

Gonzalo

In reply to this message

ASM coders are heroes 🧐

Z

22:32

Zack

If you can do ASM, then chalang should be easy.

MF

22:35

Mr Flintstone

is network hash rate stil around 1 th?

MH

22:35

Mandel Hoff

I've forgotten nearly all of it. Ha! I googled chalang, and top hits were not at all software related. 😱

Z

22:36

Zack

In reply to this message

http://159.65.120.84:8080/explorer.html
click "height"

22:36

In reply to this message

https://github.com/zack-bitcoin/chalang
For making smart contracts on Amoveo.

MF

22:36

Mr Flintstone

In reply to this message

Nice!!!

22:37

gigahashes per second: 1118

22:38

how many prior blocks go into this calculation?

Z

22:38

Zack

20

MH

22:39

Mandel Hoff

Thanks Zack. I hadn't looked at doing any custom smart contracts yet.

P|

22:48

Paul N. | BAND (🅑) - I'll never DM you

@Mandelhoff I'm tinkering with the parameter. If your miner says some ridiculously high number of h/s, what does it mean?

MH

22:53

Mandel Hoff

That means the kernel fails to run and it's not doing work.

P|

22:54

Paul N. | BAND (🅑) - I'll never DM you

even though it's saying --- found share --- ?

S

22:54

Sy

found the magic numbers? ^^

MH

22:56

Mandel Hoff

Found share is very good. That means you submitted valid work. Checking...

23:00

I can't seem to be able to make that crazy high h/s work. I know what your saying though. It spins at TH/s - but, I've never had "Found Share" happen at those crazy speeds.

23:01

Ooo - got it. -1 numblocks makes it happen.

23:01

P|

23:02

Paul N. | BAND (🅑) - I'll never DM you

MH

23:02

Mandel Hoff

It can happen with other "normal" numbers too, but it usually means kernel is failing to launch due to bugs or bad settings.

s

23:03

scott_l | DeFi Pulse

hey, trying to get a full node running. i can sync the whole chain easily. i see peers. but i never receive a new block after the initial syncing. 8080 is open. does anyone have any guesses what i might need to do different? (i have tried all things in the github page on syncing as i understand them)

P|

23:04

Paul N. | BAND (🅑) - I'll never DM you

@Mandelhoff picture above :/

MH

23:04

Mandel Hoff

Awesome - that 9000 share diff is pretty normal for gpu. The pool would give you a higher diff if you ran at those speeds for real. You probably found a bug in the h/s metrics such that the int64_t is over/underflowing. Have you been running that miner a long time? Perhaps after several days of runtime the nonce counter overflows.

P|

23:04

Paul N. | BAND (🅑) - I'll never DM you

I just started it 🙁

MH

23:05

Mandel Hoff

Yes, It's probably just a metrics calculation bug if you get valid shares and a normal gpu share diff.

Z

23:06

Zack

In reply to this message

what is your explorer url?

P|

23:06

Paul N. | BAND (🅑) - I'll never DM you

In reply to this message

Now I don't know the h/s of the setting I'd go for 😅

23:07

Is it fair that I use power consumption as benchmark? lol

s

23:07

scott_l | DeFi Pulse

In reply to this message

you mean on my node?

MH

23:07

Mandel Hoff

Ha! Sure, I can console print 1TH/s for everyone if that helps. 😆

s

23:07

scott_l | DeFi Pulse

ive been watching the new block on yours, http://159.65.120.84:8080/explorer.html on a different computer

23:07

but not ever seeing them in my node

P|

23:11

Paul N. | BAND (🅑) - I'll never DM you

@Mandelhoff Info: Not valid share. Difficulty too low. does this mean kernel's failing?

23:11

or it just happen randomly?

Z

23:13

Zack

In reply to this message

my_ip:get().

MH

23:15

Mandel Hoff

That's just random. I've tried to reduce that from happening. When your miner finds a bunch of shares in a row, the pool gives you a higher diff target. There's probably a race condition where you are submitting work at the old share diff. In 1.0.0.4, I put the getwork/submitwork on separate threads which allows for race conditions like that.

23:17

It made overall speed go way up though, so worth the race condition side effect (until I get time to fix it).

s

23:19

scott_l | DeFi Pulse

In reply to this message

hmm.. .ty. i fck'd that part up at least

23:20

hopefully that will do the trick. i need to manually add myself to peer list, and then manually trade peers, correct?

P|

23:21

Paul N. | BAND (🅑) - I'll never DM you

In reply to this message

It might be because I'm using multiple miners on the same pubkey (with randomized seed)

23:22

that could make the share diff act stangely?

OK

23:22

O K

I get those messages too Paul, but very rarely

23:22

are your randomized seeds nice and long (and different for each card)?

P|

23:24

Paul N. | BAND (🅑) - I'll never DM you

In reply to this message

set /a miner_seed_0="%random%*%random%" it should result in something between 0 - 2^30

OK

23:24

O K

Oh okay, you're doing way better than my button mashing ahahaha

P|

23:29

Paul N. | BAND (🅑) - I'll never DM you

In reply to this message

😂

s

23:29

scott_l | DeFi Pulse

23:29

Zack do u see me?

MH

23:29

Mandel Hoff

I think I know what it is - I give credit to submitted work even if the bhash has changed since you "got work". Yes, one of your other miners (or even the same miner) did a getwork where bhash changed, and you submitted a solution for the previous bhash.

23:31

It's similar to the getwork/submit work separate thread race condtion, but the bhash is changing.

23:32

Zack the pool/node changes bhash pretty often - will that change with longer block times?

OK

23:32

O K

I'm not a proficient coder, but couldn't that be exploited Mandel?

MH

23:33

Mandel Hoff

Not really - you still have to "do work" to find a stale solution.

S

23:33

Sy

but you do have to save every solution and check vs submitted to prevent double submit exploits

N

23:33

NM$L

MH

23:34

Mandel Hoff

Yes, I protect against duplicate nonce attacks.

N

23:34

NM$L

1080 the hashrate is too high

23:34

and never Found Share

S

23:34

Sy

good :)

N

23:34

NM$L

Is it normal?

OK

23:34

O K

Which version 1.0.0.4?

S

23:34

Sy

i tried myself at a simple pool with bismuth but that was python ^^

N

23:34

NM$L

1.0.03

OK

23:34

O K

Update

N

23:35

NM$L

No linux update

MH

23:35

Mandel Hoff

In reply to this message

https://github.com/Mandelhoff/AmoveoMinerGpuCuda/releases/tag/1.0.0.6

N

23:35

NM$L

In reply to this message

My window OS is using this.

23:36

But my ubuntu OS is using https://github.com/tumblecatweed/AmoveoMinerGpuCudaLinux

MH

23:37

Mandel Hoff

Ok, I'm pretty sure there's a bug in the h/s metrics that can overflow a int64 and cause crazy reported metrics, so if you are getting "Found Share" that's great.

I

23:37

Iridescence

In reply to this message

My ubuntu miner is now compatible with Mandel's pool

MH

23:37

Mandel Hoff

In reply to this message

👍

N

23:38

NM$L

In reply to this message

pay for upgrade?

I

23:38

Iridescence

I will try to get the unpaid version to be at parity with Mandel's version

23:38

In terms of perf

OK

23:39

O K

What is the price to upgrade?

N

23:40

NM$L

In reply to this message

But never show found share. Should I still mine?

OK

23:40

O K

What is GPU temp Jamhan?

N

23:41

NM$L

In reply to this message

OK

23:41

O K

That seems low

MH

23:42

Mandel Hoff

In reply to this message

You'd probably be best off using catweed 's linux port along with my 1.0.0.6 tool, or try Irid's miner on my pool.

OK

23:42

O K

👍

N

23:43

NM$L

In reply to this message

.....I used my 1080 mine 2days. It's a waste. I don't know

M

23:43

Minieep21

1.0.06 slows my computer to a stutter. Same hash as 1.0.0.5 on my 1080 ti

MH

23:43

Mandel Hoff

Are you running ccminer and the amoveo miner together? That' would be why you seldom find shares and the metrics are all broken (rolled over).

S

23:43

Sy

😝

MH

23:44

Mandel Hoff

In reply to this message

Yes, the 1.0.0.6 makes the OS very laggy. The kernel work batches are very large.

23:44

ccminer is for Ethereum and other coins.

N

23:44

NM$L

In reply to this message

23:44

Deleted Account

is nicehash selling hashrate for amoveo

N

23:44

NM$L

I shut down ccminer

23:44

hashrate grow

S

23:45

Sy

In reply to this message

nope, nicehash doesnt have any custom algos

23:46

I

23:59

Iridescence

In reply to this message

What GPUs are you running?

10 March 2018

P|

00:00

Paul N. | BAND (🅑) - I'll never DM you

In reply to this message

That's God-Powered-Unit 😂

I

00:01

Iridescence

@Sy, just curious, what is your pool mining address?

M

00:04

Marc

the one that gets most of the blocks. :-/

N

00:04

NM$L

In reply to this message

1080

I

00:06

Iridescence

208 GH/s with 1080 😂

N

00:06

NM$L

Is It valid？

I

00:07

Iridescence

Probably not

P|

00:07

Paul N. | BAND (🅑) - I'll never DM you

In reply to this message

it's way too low

I

00:07

Iridescence

In reply to this message

😂

N

00:07

NM$L

😂😂😂

00:09

Thats why I mine 2days with 0.7veo

I

00:09

Iridescence

Sounds about right

OK

00:10

O K

In reply to this message

🤣

P|

00:13

Paul N. | BAND (🅑) - I'll never DM you

@Mandelhoff Is there a chance this const int blocksPerKernel = gNumBlocks * gBlockSize; exceeds 2^31?

00:13

still trying to find what's wrong with the h/r 😂

I

00:14

Iridescence

I encountered an issue when

00:15

Mutiplying two int32s would overflow before being copied to the int64

00:15

But it seems the problem here is that the hashrate is being over reported?

P|

00:16

Paul N. | BAND (🅑) - I'll never DM you

In reply to this message

yes :/ and the int overflow should just result in negative number?

I

00:18

Iridescence

If it's unsigned it will wrap around to 0

00:18

If signed it will become negative

00:18

If overreporting it is probably something to do with the timing

00:19

Calculating the elapsed time to be smaller than it actually is

00:20

I also don't know how the numhashes are calculated.

P|

00:29

Paul N. | BAND (🅑) - I'll never DM you

@Mandelhoff Pool's down 😂

J

00:30

Jim

Longer term governance Q for @zack - are there any plans to incentivize node operators?

MH

00:32

Mandel Hoff

Pool back up. Node died.

00:32

00:35

In reply to this message

Zack probably has a better answer than me, but running any sort of Derivatives market and hosting channels for lightning payments requires a node at a hub. That node operation can make great profits.

00:35

I think that's a great opportunity for anyone with spare time to develop. I'm a little afraid of the risk in running a "betting" site, but it's an incredible opportunity.

M

00:38

Minieep21

Can anyone share if they have performance boost with Mandel's 1.0.0.6 miner?
1.0.0.5 gets my 1080 ti to 800 MH/s. No difference with 1.0.0.6 other than OS lag.

J

00:39

Jim

In reply to this message

Agree that derivative markets and oracle operators can generate fees. Looking for more clarity on how that could work. I think most masternode/PoS implementations are “boring”, and there’s a chance to do something different.

MH

00:40

Mandel Hoff

It's definitely better on my 750ti - from 145 to 173. My 1050 and 1060 are improved but not by crazy amounts. I think I found a boost - got my 750ti running 223! Release probably today.

00:43

In reply to this message

Here's a very terrible video showing how to lock funds in a channel and participate in a derivatives "bet", but it's about as concrete as we have now:

00:43

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPlNjGF3wCk&t

P|

00:48

Paul N. | BAND (🅑) - I'll never DM you

In reply to this message

try this ==>

blockSize: 192
numBlocks: 168

RT

00:49

Roger That

Discord selling channel!

M

00:51

Minieep21

In reply to this message

AmoveoMinerGpuCuda.exe [Address] 0 192 168 http://amoveopool.com/work

00:51

Crashes the miner

P|

00:52

Paul N. | BAND (🅑) - I'll never DM you

In reply to this message

oops sorry man

00:52

it was working for me

M

00:53

Minieep21

Strange. What GPU are you using?

MH

00:54

Mandel Hoff

Sometimes adding the url to the end can crash it. Leave that off - also there is a <seed string> argument before the Url too.

00:54

BlockSize 192 in version 1.0.0.6 is too high. The valid block sizes are much lower in that version.

00:55

Each kernel does much more work, so 192 crashes it

P|

00:58

Paul N. | BAND (🅑) - I'll never DM you

In reply to this message

Tesla P100, but I thought it'd be similar enough to 1080 Ti. I guess not.

M

00:58

Minieep21

Interesting... Tried with BlockSize 90 and it doesn't crash. OS slows to a stutter but I get about 10% higher hashrate. Approx 870 MH/s

P|

01:00

Paul N. | BAND (🅑) - I'll never DM you

In reply to this message

try 96 336

M

01:00

Minieep21

BlockSize 45 brings it down to 670 MH/s.
90 Does seem like the sweet spot

P|

01:01

Paul N. | BAND (🅑) - I'll never DM you

@Mandelhoff how much different is it between share diff of 8k and 10k?

M

01:01

Minieep21

In reply to this message

Drivers crash

P|

01:01

Paul N. | BAND (🅑) - I'll never DM you

In reply to this message

I give up 😂

I

01:01

Iridescence

@Mandelhoff is Blocksize the number if threads per block?

MH

01:02

Mandel Hoff

Yes

P|

01:03

Paul N. | BAND (🅑) - I'll never DM you

meanwhile ... the Gh/s of the whole network went from 1150 => 1658 in the last 4 hours

MH

01:03

Mandel Hoff

In reply to this message

Lots - the diff is in scientific notation.

01:03

Just got my 1060gtx running at 900 mhs! Release today for sure!

P|

01:04

Paul N. | BAND (🅑) - I'll never DM you

In reply to this message

Can't wait to get my hands on!

M

01:04

Minieep21

96 168 has brought it up to 980 MH/s

P|

01:05

Paul N. | BAND (🅑) - I'll never DM you

In reply to this message

Please bring it down again for the durability of the cards 😂

01:06

just kidding lol. congrats!

MH

01:06

Mandel Hoff

Last change - I'm going to try to make that OS stutter thing configurable so you can chose if you want OS stutter or more h/s.

01:07

It's probably just a few % for less OS stutter

M

01:07

Minieep21

Cool! That would be a great feature :)

S

01:07

Sy

In reply to this message

it has been there before, its mostly an educated guess based on blockspeed, a few lucky blocks and that number jumps

P|

01:08

Paul N. | BAND (🅑) - I'll never DM you

In reply to this message

I see. Btw, which pool are you mining in?

S

01:12

Sy

yay my pool went loco

01:12

pool found a block
block organizer add
trie died!died!recent blocks died!
block absorber died!
died!potential block died!potential block died!potential block died!

01:12

it keeps spamming potential block died

01:12

ignore? :D

01:12

node, not pool, sorry

01:13

did i get my first orphan?

MH

01:26

Mandel Hoff

Mining Tool Update:
https://github.com/Mandelhoff/AmoveoMinerGpuCuda/releases/tag/1.0.0.7

01:26

New command line argument {suffixMax}, and it follows the seed string. This controls how large your kernel work batches are. SuffixMax defaults to 65536, which is the max. If your OS stutters too much, you can lower this (at the cost of some hash speed) to reduce your OS lag.

Default suffixMax is 65536. Do NOT use anything higher than 65536. Lower numbers reduce OS lag and will reduce hash rate by a few percent.
Default BlockSize is 64.
Default NumBlocks is 96.
A higher BlockSize is almost always better, but too high will crash the miner.
If your Memory Controller Load is constantly at 100%, you may want to try lowering your NumBlocks.

MF

01:27

Mr Flintstone

hash rate starting to pick up ex-Kassel