Quote from: Schwede65 on January 28, 2014, 02:43:15 pm

Quote from: reorder on January 28, 2014, 02:16:53 pm

Quote from: Schwede65 on January 28, 2014, 02:06:56 pm

Quote from: Schwede65 on January 28, 2014, 09:16:08 am

1.4-gpu-miner with R9 290X: 1320 cpm
it's o.k., but only slightly better then my HD6990 per gpu

Edit: <0.1 % stale(s) - fantastic stratum-result!

@reorder please contact the developer NaN https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=2598.30 to support your pool with his miner, because he has a great AMD-GPU-miner for the newer cards e.g. R9 290X with more then doubled hashrate!
the 1.9 % developer-fee is not the point when doubling the cpm...
may be you can work together with the stratum-support for the miner...

Hmm, have you tried running two instances of 1GH miner on a 290X? Seems like this is how the top performance is achieved in that miner too.

i am no expert - so i startet the bat-file (with "-d 0") two times regarding this first 290X - done the same with the two other 290X - so i had 6 x cmd-window
but there was no hashrate-improvement: 0.5 + 0.5 = 1
is this "running-two-instances" correctly done by me?

I rather meant 1GH miner (it does not have options like '-d 0'), does it perform better on 290X when multiple instances are started?

"pts-miner_d0.bat"
pts-miner.exe "my_pts_address" -d 0
pause
i started this file two times - this "-d 0" comes from my scrypt-mining-times and it works fine with your miner
(it works with: "-d 1" + "-d 2" and "-d 3" in other bat-files)
so i had two cmd-windows with running each at the half hashrate (660 cpm + 670 cpm)
by the way - HOW do i start multiple instances correctly?

Quote from: Schwede65 on January 28, 2014, 02:06:56 pm

Quote from: Schwede65 on January 28, 2014, 09:16:08 am

1.4-gpu-miner with R9 290X: 1320 cpm
it's o.k., but only slightly better then my HD6990 per gpu

Edit: <0.1 % stale(s) - fantastic stratum-result!

@reorder please contact the developer NaN https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=2598.30 to support your pool with his miner, because he has a great AMD-GPU-miner for the newer cards e.g. R9 290X with more then doubled hashrate!
the 1.9 % developer-fee is not the point when doubling the cpm...
may be you can work together with the stratum-support for the miner...

Hmm, have you tried running two instances of 1GH miner on a 290X? Seems like this is how the top performance is achieved in that miner too.

i am no expert - so i startet the bat-file (with "-d 0") two times regarding this first 290X - done the same with the two other 290X - so i had 6 x cmd-window
but there was no hashrate-improvement: 0.5 + 0.5 = 1
is this "running-two-instances" correctly done by me?

Sup, anybody knows why http://pts.rpool.net/ is giving  less PTS per round and appear to vanish with my shares? I am using PtsGPUz0.3c and was making 0.3 PTS/day with my GTX 770, but now, mine PTS/TIME is getting a lot SLOWER. I have 0.9 PTS on this pool and need to have 1 PTS to reclaim them. Someone has the solution?

Sorry about my bad english, but i am a Brazilian that speak 2 languages.

when i'm mining i get e.g. 0.25 PTS for 10000 shares, at a second round i get 0.25 PTS for 2500 shares and at a third solved round i get 0.25 PTS for 25000 shares and so on (RBPPS - Round Based Pay Per Share)

the main thing is, how many blocks the pool solves over a day - the luck-factor

another point is how much hashrate the whole pool claims and which percentage of the whole hashrate you have
when the pool's hashrate is growing, you have less percentage of the whole - but the pool may solve more blocks with the higher hashrate

Edit: please don't forget the dropping solved-block-reward of PTS - i think weekly 5 %

this new miner 1.4 rocks again
my HD6990-hashrate increases from 2380 cpm to 2560 cpm
very good work!

Interesting, I'll take your word for it. I was only going off relative hashrates of a 280x, which makes around 1,000 c/m from what I've seen (maybe it's more now?).

Anyway, looks like for you it's competitive with scrypt. The recent ~10% diff reduction should have helped too, although price is a bit lower now as well.

thanks for asking this efficience-question, so i have seen, that only my 6990 are very effective in PTS-mining and the other cards are more effective in scrypt-mining

Quote from: Schwede65 on January 22, 2014, 12:42:23 pm

Quote from: luigi1111 on January 16, 2014, 04:49:04 pm

You could almost certainly make more than LTC at one of the multipools, which requires very little management. Now, if the difficulty drops the currently predicted amount, and price stays the same or climbs, the ~19-20% increase in revenue will probably make it competitive with scrypt. Of course, as you point out, improvements in the GPU miner will have an affect as well.

My original point still stands: GPUs haven't impacted PTS much, because it's not competitive with scrypt...yet.

in the last 5 days i made ~45 PTS with comparable 10 Mhs-scrypt-mining rigs, which stand for ~15 LTC in that time
so i mined ~ 21 LTC (exchanged) with this pts.1gh.com-pool, but with only 75 % of the energy costs, which i have had with scrypt-mining: 180/135 $ - so i saved 45 $ extra energy this time
my conclusion is: i have mined more LTC with PTC and this with lower costs - so PTC-GPU-mining is really competitive with scrypt - you have to read the numbers!

I have no idea how you made that much PTS with a 10 MHS rig. That's only like 13,000 coll/min or so unless a more efficient miner has been released or my numbers are just off. You should get closer to 25 PTS in 5 days by the numbers I have.

Also, what are you paying for electricity??

there are many mixed gpu-rigs - mostly there are 4 x HD6990 and many HD7850 (2 GB) and 2 x HD7950
i have around ~ 22,000 cpm with my cards
the power-consumption at the wall is e.g. for:
2 x HD6990-rig: PTS: 650 watt for 4760 cpm / Scrypt: 905 watt for 1840 khash
3 x HD7850-rig: PTS: 350 watt for 1680 cpm / Scrypt: 500 watt for 1000 khash

the HD6990 are really very good cards for PTS-GPU-mining

Edit: here in germany i have to pay 0.25 EUR/kWh - thats 0.339 in $ - very expensive energy here...

Status: 65 Bestätigungen
Datum: 22.01.2014 23:43
An: angelshares 009 1ANGELwQwWxMmbdaSWhWLqBEtPTkWb8uDc
Belastung: -0.10 BTC
Transaktionsgebühr: -0.0001 BTC
Nettobetrag: -0.1001 BTC
Transaktions-ID: bb4003f99f4d7db739ba4f4c98cf8f7b9a31b02de81c4bc6a724b20280d34f45

this transaction is not shown up at:
http://www1.agsexplorer.com/balances/1Nb6c11NKkZTnMZhCMbMVQapbQ552T1dPh

Suggestions for the transaction-chain of bitshares

1. one ordering-node (with extra two parallel running backup-server - one of them goes online when the master is down) to define only the sequence of the transactions
this ordering-node gets this - at first at one node-confirmed transactions - to post the transaction-sequence to the 20 nodes

if in the first step a transaction has to be set corrupt (wrong addresses or other mistakes) it has to be sent back to the client by the node without sending it to the ordering node

2. 20 nodes get this sequence and confirm the transaction(s) with their full transaction-chain - a transaction is confirmed and done by minimum of 10 or 15 different nodes-approvals

3. the full transaction-chain must be on all 20 nodes for the confirmations

4. the thin client can choose which data he wants to have
a) minimum (default): the confirmed transactions of this client (very thin for mobiles and smartphones)
b) medium: decentralized distribution of the transaction-chain - done by the nodes - they divide the whole transaction-chain into 25, 50, 100 or more pieces and send them to the clients - one piece of the whole chain has to be sent to minimum 50 clients
c) full: the whole transaction-chain downloadable by the nodes - with the full download of the chain he is part of the complete transaction-chain-distribution on the network - may be the thin client is now a full client and could be a part of the transaction-confirmation-job of the 20 nodes - so we might have for a correct transaction-confirmation 10 % of the (now) full clients

the numbers of the 20 nodes are scalable - may be starting with 10 nodes

so the bitshares-system has to run 23 (13) server - with the donations now it is no financial problem

or is this system too centralized?