Does anyone have a list of coins where soloing is known to be broken? Maybe one with low diff? 
SecureCoin (SRC) was suggested. It is a Quark coin. Another miner posted that it has the same error message on finding a block (crashing) as VertCoin (VTC). CCminer will generate Quark hash with SRC; SRC has very rapid blocks at low difficulty.
Currently, I do not think solo-mining will work with any algo using CCminer.
That's in part why I am rather unhappy about the situation. myself and other have busted our asses on ccminer while the most publicised version which mostly uses the code we developed gets broken on a daily basis, feature gets removed, not even possible to run in debug mod without recompiling etc...).
no offence sp, it is time you get your shit together and stop releasing 4 untested releases a day...
PRECISE--
OK, you have a point, DJ. I was posting in sp_'s thread, however. I DO try to be clear about OS, version, hash rates, clock rates, spelling and punctuation, etc. I've groaned about the bleeding edge speed before, myself, but sp_ has brought my 750ti cards from 5.5+ Mh/s to 6.1Mh/s mining Quark within the last 20 releases.
Maybe a few releases should focus on code clean-up and standardization rather than speed. Future improvements would then be on a stronger base. --scryptr
Considering DJM doesn't release anything, he doesn't really offer an alternative. I'd rather take a buggy and sometimes glitchy version with speed over one that's getting steamrolled by the private miners (usually released by the same person).
Also, everyone is getting their panties in a knot about solo mining. Who even solo mines now days? Only people who do have to have a relatively large farm for that to actually work (on the profitable coins). Perhaps consider charging them for a solo mining version. The amount of shits I have for this issue are about 0 as it is I'm sure for the majority of miners as we're all on pools... because, you know, we can't magic 5% of the network hashrate out of our asses.
Seems as though people are on SP's balls because profits are tight and he's offering a open source-public miner, which hurts the private miner business. For instance, DJM's toted L2V2 rewrite isn't even worthwhile anymore compared to Quark or other alternatives.
On the other hand solomining is important for small miners : this allow us to benefit from recently launched coins or low profiles ones, often more profitable. Moreover, ethereum (rather shift, exp which have lower difficulties) mining is more profitable in solo, due to very fast blocks which penalized pools mining if you have not low latency network between your rig and the pool.
Yeah, no. If you can solo mine Ethereum right now you have a pretty big mining operation. Things balance out over the long term, but I tried mining it solo for a few days and never hit a block... That was before it took off and all the AMD miners hopped on it.
As far as new coins... I guess. If .61 for instance still works, you're not losing much by going back to it, especially for a low difficulty coin you're prospect mining. Usually coins get pools before they ever get an exchange. It doesn't take long. Still makes this a non-issue.
He definitely has built on top of what other coders have done, but that's part of being open source. You open source your ancient miner that is a year and a half old and someone builds off of it, you don't get to bitch about someone 'misusing' your code. It's always your decision to open source a miner and contribute. Some of the aforementioned names have contributed a lot more to the continued development of CCminer and I think they've also gained recognition for it (You're missing Pallas for instance).
The whole reason CCminer is so popular is because it gets love and attention from continued development. If other developers are jealous of this, maybe they should pull their dick out of their ass and try a different payment model - like donations or a % based fee. Or partner up with SP and work towards group donation or a % miner fee. It's all deserved. I've seen 'partners' in this thread receive donations too, much like SP, although I'm sure in a smaller amount.
I don't think the private miner coders get to bitch about SP having bugs in his release and what a 'terrible' version of their code it makes. Oh god, the humanity.
second: stop accusing other devs. to release private miners all the time, which is your excuse for everything
(you know very well it isn't true at least for me since you contacted me to have my private neoscrypt and I told you no.
I release only very rarely private miners and mostly on a trust basis (if the fee is large enough, I could trust you more... yeah well...
))
(you know very well it isn't true at least for me since you contacted me to have my private neoscrypt and I told you no.
I release only very rarely private miners and mostly on a trust basis (if the fee is large enough, I could trust you more... yeah well...
))Pretty much sums it up. You just reiterated everything I just said.
Sure, L2V2 was profitable for awhile, then it's not anymore after you decided to go private with the miner (which I'm sure you still ended up selling). No improvements to L2V2 speed happened afterwards, the only change was the difficulty change and some bug improvements. Neither of which effected me.
You are sure that I still ended up selling it.... well you are just dead wrong (as usual, I must say).
Also I didn't decided to go private, whatever that means, I just didn't publish it.
Also I remind you that tsiv has also a non public version, and it isn't in my habit to screw other devs by opensourcing
while they are trying to sell their miner... so as far as I am concerned there is no hurry
Regarding the non improvement to lyra2rev2, the thing you fail to understand is that code hasn't been rushed into release, but benefit from the various rounds of optimization I did on lyra2re (classics), so instead of releasing every days half broken stuff, I release once the work is over, has been tested and which I consider as stable. So beside fiddling with kernel parameter more than I did already there isn't much to do to optimise it. (new optimization are found by rethinking the code and rewriting in full or in part the logic... fiddling with kernel param is ok, but at one point you have to decide for one over an other...).
So yes you didn't see improvement. Must add when a team ask me to write an algo for their coin, I try to release something which works and is stable no some half optimized broken stuff which wouldn't be very professional...