I see… I have to read more then.
But anyways, the fact that so many requests go to the other pool/wallet/… made me think this way.
As was stated, there are several factors such as difficulty level that is set by the dev and a 5 minute dump is not an accurate picture.
I appreciate your due diligence but keep in mind there are thousands of people that look at his, and EWBF, and another miner that I will not mention every day. If DSTM or EWBF were cheating people it would have been called out long before your test.
There is also the Howard Stern Option. If you don’t like it, turn it off.
1 Like
Ok. I deleted the post because indeed it was a misleading conclusion.
Sorry for that.
I admit it is my bad, I am new to these concepts.
Latency and not having a proxy server (if you’re larger, connection dependent) can also limit your shares.
what do you mean by ‘lager’, a lot of mining rigs?
Just my $0.02…
food for thought…
And incidentally, my food for thought is the same amount the developer takes for using his free product.
In the grand scheme of things, is him getting $2 for every $98 you receive too much?
I used to think a 2% cut for doing “nothing” was too much and steep as well, then I realized the guy who made DSTM is helping me also do “nothing” for sitting back and earning Zcoins on my mining rig. Without him I wouldn’t be making that $98. So yea, I’ll give him a couple bucks to buy a soda.
NOW - if for whatever reason is actually is NOT doing 2% though intentional malicious means or a glitch or whatever, then I would have a problem. Advertising one thing and doing another is a no no in my book.
I would prefer 100$ tantum to buy a license.
Cutting 2% for something that can be developed in 1 day is very unfair and simply not justified.
It’s regular human greed, nothing to be amazed of, but in anycase this greed is what will bring better software with better performance and lower fee (if none).
Why buy a $100 license if you can just develop your own in under a day?
I’ll happily give you a 1% fee for using JohnWisdomsCudaMiner if you can match DSTM’s speed.
1 Like
Hello guys!
Want to remind to all of you, that if somebody has any problems with stability of EWBF, DSTM, BMINER, CLAYMORE, CC miners or needs some extra control over your rigs please read carefully my message below.
I want to introduce you a script, which can solve most of your problems. It is a result of half a year hard work with my beta testers. Now it is clean of any bugs and ready to be introduced for the wide mining community.
- [CMD]FarmWatchBot, Claymore, Bminer, Dstm, CC, Eth, CastXMR, Phoenix, Trex, Gmnr
- [CMD] FarmWatchBot (Autorun/Watchdog) for Ewbf, Claymore, Dstm, CCminer, Bminer, Ethminer, CastXMR, Phoenix, T-Rex, Gmnr, NB
It will definetely reduce your valuable time spent near your rigs, because this script will do all the work for you. Just start it and forget about your rigs, relax or do anything else. In case of any problem this script will restart your miner, or the rig, if necessary. It will notify you by Telegramm message about all problems and corrective actions taken. It is open source code (CMD/BAT, not an .exe or something like this), so anyone can check throug the code if needed.
Enjoy your life, let the script to monitor your rigs for you.
3 Likes
You’re also increasing the network difficulty by that much and some have said that the real % is higher than 2%. Add that to your latency and pool fees and you’re around -5-8%. It adds up.
I would pay a few thousand dollars for mining software – and I already have. I voluntarily added EWBF’s dev fee for 2017, which came out to be in the many many thousands of dollars. That is fair. At some point there is an amount where the user should consider the dev fee paid, it should not be in perpetuity. Now if DTSM increased hashes significantly more than EWBF, then maybe it would be worth it, but after the dev fee that just isn’t the case. There are only very small increases over EWBF after dev fees. EWBF has better stability as well.
2 Likes
How is the temperature handled in dstm miner ? It looks like if 1 gpu reaches the temp limit, it stops all the gpu … is that the case or am I missing something ? And a few gpu keeps a lower hashrate like 100h/s and when I login into the machine it starts rising to the regular numbers … has anyone else seen such case ?
When DSTM support Titan V ?
New Version 0.6
changelog
- failover pool support
- introduce configuration file
- introduce intensity option
- support per gpu temp-target via cfg-file
- support per gpu intensity via cfg-file
- json-rpc report gpu_name, pci_bus_id, pci_device_id
gpu_uuid - improve error reporting
- improve handling of invalid server resposes
- improve reconnection in cases where servers
become reachable but respond with malformed data - ui: add colorized output
- web-ui: use dark colors
0.6 contains a huge amount of changes, there are especially quite a lot internal changes - so please test before deploying.
Most notable in this release is failover pool support and the addition of configuration files. You can setup multiple pools in the configuration file. Configured pools are ordered by priority. ZM connects to the highest priority pool which is reachable. If a pool gets unreachable a lower priority pool will be used. ZM reconnects to a higher priority pool automatically if it gets reachable again, accepts your login and responds properly. A bad behaving server (which oscillates between being responsive / unresponsive states) might cause zm to oscillate between the servers - I’ll look for ways to improve this in future releases.
There is also a way to reduce the load which is put on the gpu now. It’s configured by the intensity option. It takes some time (about 30sec) till it starts reducing the gpu load since it needs to gather performance data first. The intensity option accepts values in the range ]0.0 - 1.0[. A value of 0.5 will roughly put a load of 50%.
0.6 has also some ui changes. It supports colorized terminal output, webui uses dark colors now, since this was requested multiple times.
There are ofc multiple internal improvements all around the place, most notable better handling of invalid data and improved error reporting.
Linux x64:
executable sha1 c5951521699e8f58f339a3a194a8896b27ebfba8
Win x64:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kv9tqmrxsedidhws7OtFnEI7j3sJT1sR
executable sha1 4bd604a5de330dae96a5df0525fb44363b1b22ec
It does not accept intensity value of 1.0 it crashes, but it does accept 0.99. What is the intensity level if I leave the value disabled #intensity.?
I found dstm’s zm 0.6 with no dev fee:
1 Like
anyone tested this? its safe to use?
It’s better than bminer and ewbf. Here is my test
1 Like
Download from the source on BitcoinTalk - not from links like this.
dstm_redirect.exe wtf? can someone check what is inside of it? or with what tool can one check it out? I normally stay away from the “.exe” files when it comes to mining.
So did you ever get this problem worked out? I am running 8 1070’s and trying to use the controller just kills my hash rate but do not like these high temps.
What happened with the temps ? I read several places that lower temps were to be had using your miner and mining ZCash. I saw several examples of 60 C and less. Why do mine want to run 70+?
Was mining ETH and gpu’s never exceeded 62 C…thanks for any help you can give…