DSTM 0.5.8

[atp1916]

Fixes the damn protocol version not supported error i've been getting recetly.

Link

 

[Orddie]

I'm currently using EWBF 0.3.4b.. is this a better solution? if so, how and why?

 

[atp1916]

I've personally felt that DSTM's implementation was just a tad faster, and i like the output w/ the H's per watt. Helps me tune things out a bit.

The miners are definitely close enough to each other that EWBF or DSTM may be better for specific models.

 

[Kingkau]

DSTM to me vs EWBF has been about 8% more sol, and I think 5% less power useage.
I'm running 12 gtx 1070s from various vendors as well.

 

[odditory]

DSTM to me vs EWBF has been about 8% more sol, and I think 5% less power useage.
I'm running 12 gtx 1070s from various vendors as well.

There's not an 8% spread between the two, sorry.

What the miner displays locally should be taken with a grain of salt since it can be embellished and the software is closed source.

To accurately compare you need to compare results poolside. Meaning if you have two identical rigs then mine to two separate pool accounts or wallets - one rig with DSTM, one with EWBF with --fee 0 option. If you only have a single rig then mine with half the GPUs to one wallet with EWBF, other half with DSTM. Compare results poolside after 24-48 hrs and you will not see a 8% spread.

They're pretty close in my testing, with a slight edge to EWBF with the devfee disabled (something that you can't disable with DSTM).

 

[oblox]

I tried DSTM and frankly it kept locking up on me. I'm back to EWBF w/ no dev fee.

 

[Kingkau]

There's not an 8% spread between the two, sorry.

What the miner displays locally should be taken with a grain of salt since it can be embellished and the software is closed source.

To accurately compare you need to compare results poolside. Meaning if you have two identical rigs then mine to two separate pool accounts or wallets - one rig with DSTM, one with EWBF with --fee 0 option. If you only have a single rig then mine with half the GPUs to one wallet with EWBF, other half with DSTM. Compare results poolside after 24-48 hrs and you will not see a 8% spread.

They're pretty close in my testing, with a slight edge to EWBF with the devfee disabled (something that you can't disable with DSTM).

I have done this with suprnova and its also varied on there as more miners hopped on and off. Those were MY results.

 

[Riccochet]

I run DSTM. It's been stable for a couple days now. When I had my overclock pushed to the edge is when DSTM would crash.

 

[odditory]

I have done this with suprnova and its also varied on there as more miners hopped on and off. Those were MY results.

Variances in difficulty and pool hashrate (number of miners) are irrelevant if you're testing correctly. Which is why I said you have to run a simultaneous test - both miners against the same pool for the same duration with identical hardware. If you just ran your entire rig for a period with EWBF and then ran it with DSTM and decided "welp DSTM is better", you haven't proven anything except that pool hashrates and difficulty are in a constant state of flux.

Do what you want - running either of these miners on Nvidia right now is squandering profitability anyway since its not where the sweet spot is.

 

[Kingkau]

Variances in difficulty and pool hashrate (number of miners) are irrelevant if you're testing correctly. Which is why I said you have to run a simultaneous test - both miners against the same pool for the same duration with identical hardware. If you just ran your entire rig for a period with EWBF and then ran it with DSTM and decided "welp DSTM is better", you haven't proven anything except that pool hashrates and difficulty are in a constant state of flux.

Do what you want - running either of these miners on Nvidia right now is squandering profitability anyway since its not where the sweet spot is.

Okay.

 

[boss6021]

Do what you want - running either of these miners on Nvidia right now is squandering profitability anyway since its not where the sweet spot is.

Please elaborate on this.

 

[atp1916]

Please elaborate on this.

So what odditory is getting at here is basically the potential profitability difference of running against a specific algorithm (Equihash in this case) versus running against the broad set of algorithms profitable.

You can either run against an algorithm that has proven itself out to be profitable over a long(er) time span, or hit coins in a shorter window of time that could be more profitable than your 'longs'.

 

[boss6021]

So what odditory is getting at here is basically the potential profitability difference of running against a specific algorithm (Equihash in this case) versus running against the broad set of algorithms profitable.

You can either run against an algorithm that has proven itself out to be profitable over a long(er) time span, or hit coins in a shorter window of time that could be more profitable than your 'longs'.

Gotcha, since currently my operation is ROI focused, I will remain looking at the short term, but after the ROI is achieved I can look at more long term holding and mining.

 

[atp1916]

boss6021 Bingo.

Some want to get in and max out that short window, others take the longer time frame approach.

Both are absolutely viable strategies.

 

[Orddie]

Variances in difficulty and pool hashrate (number of miners) are irrelevant if you're testing correctly. Which is why I said you have to run a simultaneous test - both miners against the same pool for the same duration with identical hardware. If you just ran your entire rig for a period with EWBF and then ran it with DSTM and decided "welp DSTM is better", you haven't proven anything except that pool hashrates and difficulty are in a constant state of flux.

Do what you want - running either of these miners on Nvidia right now is squandering profitability anyway since its not where the sweet spot is.

which is?

 

[atp1916]

Orddie Likely XVG, from what i've gathered.

 

[Orddie]

xvg looks to be $10ish lower than where im at currently -ZCL