Quote from: threeflappp on January 31, 2018, 04:18:13 PM

So I've been testing Bminer for a few days now and I am going back to DSTM's miner (zm).

First off, everyone else should be doing their own tests and make their own judgement. Take my results with a grain of salt. I started this test because I tried out no devfee option on this miner and saw pretty much no change whatsoever on the hash rate which was really strange.

Hardware: 5 x GTX 1070

Testing methodology: Start miner. Take note of Sol/s. Wait 24 hour. After the first 24 hour, take note of Debit AP. Wait another 24 hour, take note of Debit AP.

Note: Second Debit AP is what I used in this table to keep this short. Of course, testing for longer than this will give more accurate results but this is enough for me. DO YOUR OWN TEST.

Miner	Average Sols	Dev Fee	Payout Last 24HR
Bminer	2510	Yes	0.12886265
Bminer	2510	No	0.12936028
DSTM's (zm)	2440	Yes	0.14198767

As I said before, there's no difference in hash rate whether you're running with dev fee or not. During these tests, I check whattomine everyday for their 24 hour estimated rewards; it was around 0.145. This is just an estimation but I think it's a good guideline of what you should be paid as it has been accurate for me for months and months.

I think the hash rate shown is padded and I will be going back to DSTM's in the mean time.

Can other people test no devfee option? Anyone else keeping track of their payouts?

I'm not one to defend developers of mining software (they want to stay anonymous, they charge a shameless amount, etc), but hey, that's another discussion. However, the test you did is inaccurate at best, and I'll explain below.

In fact, there isn't a 100% accurate test. The only test that is 100% accurate is to give the exact same shares to mine twice in a row and measure the time it takes both times to submit the same number of results. You can really only do this either on a private blockchain or a testnet. Anything else means different test conditions for the two runs. But not everyone can/has the expertise do such a test.

The next best test is to run two identical rigs, at the same time, on the same pool, and see the average hashrate at the pool after 24h. There will still be differences even if you used the same miner on both rigs and started at the same time, because each rig will receive different shares to mine, each being different and taking different amounts of time to hash. 24h should give you a better idea though.

Another far simpler test is to simply run for 24h (the longer, the better!) and check whether the pool reports an average hashrate for the whole period equal to

Code:

(1 - n_rejected/n_total) * 0.98 * rate_reported_by_bminer

... where 2% is the devfee. Both Flypool and Nanopool show 24h averages.

What you did is flawed on multiple levels. You did two tests consecutively, and then also looked at the payout. The difficulty of the algo you mine will have changed in the meantime, making the 2nd run easier/harder to mine, but never the same. You also looked at payouts but never mention what currency, because if it is anything other than the coin you mine, and it looks like you are talking about BTC, then the market will also have fluctuated the price by the time of the 2nd run. Shortly put: don't trust what you just did ...

EDIT: In my personal case, the winner is clear: with many cards (e.g. 13 GPUs on a motherboard) both ewbf and dstm drop their hashrate within 30 seconds after they start by about 5%, which is a lot. This is apparently (I don't have the code to say for sure) because of a lot of interrupt requests hogging the CPU. bminer does not, but I haven't yet run the above test. I'm still curious about it and is on my todo list. Anyone?