@realbminer, which new hash algorithm bminer plans to add? When will the new version be released?

ETH is the future and TRON is a worthless pump and dump coin.

It seems there is something wrong associated with your GPU 11.
Maybe you can try to use --devices flag to test whether it is a problem specific to your GPU 11.

You can try --devices 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,12
to check whether bminer can run for all of the remaining GPUs.

If so, then you may want to check your hardware cable connections of GPU 11.

Slightly higher sol/s on my rigs (~0.5%, 1080Ti + 1070) comparing to 6.0.

I now use bminer to mine ZEC again not because ZEC price recovered, but because ETH price fell...   

When will the stupid market recover? Could these miners lower their devfee to give us some breathing room in this difficult time?

Given the market crash and especially ZEC price crash recently, I am not sure which coin is best to mine for NVIDIA card. Does anyone have good suggestions?

Right now I am running simply ETH but I do not think this is optimal here.

Also, anyone thinks the ZEC price will come back anytime soon? It seems to me that ZEC always underperforms comparing to other major coins like BTC/ETH/XMR...

It seems that more people have tested bminer and got same results as I got in the past: Bminer is 2-3% faster than dstm. Unfortunately, the recent ZEC price drops significantly and it is now more profitable for me to mine ETH instead. If ZEC price goes back, I think I will use Bminer again. BTW, I still think 2% devfee is too high for all those equihash miners.



It is so funny that every three days there will be some new-account posts like this with no serious test and no data just asserting dstm is better. Thanks, I can do my own test and math. And seriously, if dstm wants more user, he should improve its miner performance or lower its devfee, not hire those trolls.

Most of my rigs are in Linux. I do have one rig in Win 10 but I did not get any VB runtime error at all. Maybe your rigs are in old operating systems? If I guess, it is probably something like visual studio redistributable package. Sorry that I cannot be more helpful.

I figured out the problem myself.

The card sold to me with out-dated version of bios. I have to flash the bios to newer version to make it hit 35MH/s.

Hope this information will be useful for other people.

I have been running this on my rigs for 2 days. It seems totally fine.

But of course, you should never run any closed source mining software on a computer with critical information you care (like your wallet file).

Cannot agree for more! This is the very first reason why I stop using ewbf. Ewbf collects fees without any update for months.


Yes. I would love to see bminer to give more transparency, e.g., showing the devfee shares like ewbf did. The thing I miss in bminer or dstm is that they both do not show devfee shares.

BTW, a little bit off the topic. Anyone know how to run ethminer on P104-100 in Linux. I am pretty frustrated right now. See my original post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2898322.0

Anyone could help me on how to even get more than 35MH/s on Linux. My original post is at:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2898322.0

My P104-100 in stock setting only gives me 26MH/s. I tried both Claymore and the open source cuda ethminer.

I also tried both 387 driver and 390 driver.

I am pretty frustrated now.

Regarding the priviate connection of bminer. I recall one people in this thread finds out that the private connection is to fetch devfee address. Now I guess I understand why bminer encrypts this connection. Otherwise, even with my limited hacking skill, I would be able to remove/hijack the devfee. I only run miners on mining rigs so I do not care. I think it is stupid to run any miner on a computer with sensitive data.

That's just the sad situation in the mining world. Open source projects on large coins do not get enough support, they just got beat by close source miners. All those miners are greedy. Claymore, bminer, dstm, and ewbf charge crazy amount of fees. Some people are greedy too, trying to hijack/remove fees (I recall there was a dstm fee remover recently). Simply no one plays fairly. Then miners start to use encrypted connections and we cannot monitor what they are doing. This is the reason why all miners are behaving like virus and marked as virus by most anti-virus software.

My main complaint to bminer and all other miners is that the devfee is too high. But I don't think they will change it.

BTW, Some people in this thread is very strange and suspicious. For example, if you check the history posts of @resiva, all of his past 4 posts are in this thread. Just like the sole purpose of this account is to say negative things about bminer. There are also a few newbie accounts only saying positive things about bminer. It is fun to watch those marketing accounts fighting back forth lol.

I have done my own testing: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2519271.msg29780550#msg29780550

For me, bminer is slightly better than dstm. I suggest other people should do their own testing because the difference is small. Maybe in your machines, the results will flip. You can follow @cryptoyes instructions to do that.

No one wants to help me?

Anyone tried to use this card in Linux???

I am investigating this because given the current prices/hashrate, 39MH/s in ETH pays more than 490Sol/s for Equihash coins.

For example, people posted here getting 40MH/s in Windows:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2677496.0

Also I saw posts in reddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/EtherMining/comments/7sy46v/my_p104100_x_9_build_360mhs_eth_hashrate/?st=jdde5yu0&sh=dbe92fad

Anyone gets more than 35MH in Linux?

Hi All,

I recently got 6 P104-100 4G cards (gigabytes model). However, I can only get (26MH in stock and not more than 31MH in OC). I tried both 387.34 and 390.25 drivers. I am pretty frustrated to see why my card cannot reach the same rate reported by other guys in Windows.

Is there anyone successfully get more than 36MH with P104-100 in Linux? Or I have to use Windows (I really hate doing that tbh)?

Really appreciate if anyone could help!

Unfortunately, my connection to flypool goes down and all four rigs stop working at the same time around 13:30. Here is the summary of tests I have for the 12 hours, you can check on the page:

dstm: https://zcash.flypool.org/miners/t1SstC4pJy3JtKdqSoFJZk6SUtyznfo1ZB6
https://i.imgur.com/g7agrmg.png

bminer : https://zcash.flypool.org/miners/t1LLJPAoYajZjPQggPZcdDpwPont4AoGvfq
https://i.imgur.com/sjcIHk9.png

              Pool avg. hashrate          Payout
dstm               5.29kH               0.03619ZEC      
bminer            5.48kH               0.03847ZEC

If you are interested in seeing the full running logs, here it is: https://ufile.io/f2906

Note that my experiments should NOT be interpreted as a general experiment that can apply to all situations. The best way to find out which miners work best for you is to try it yourself.

To be honest, I see this as a healthy situation for all of us. As long as the difference between bminer and dstm is small, they will have to play fairly (for example, not raising devfees) and we get more choices.

If I have time, I may run a comparison again maybe on another pool. But I cannot promise because doing this takes a lot of energy.

That's exactly the frustration I have when I try to look and compare the hash rate. None of the number matches. Bminer tells me it is 3K. Your math shows it is 2.85k, and the flypool shows it is averaged as 2.7k only. I bet if I write a python script to count the "+" sign in dstm log, I will get a different number that does not match as well. Maybe all pools/miners report fraudulent numbers .

That's probably the reason why many people choose to look at payout. At least there is no fake number involved there (In fact, I would love extra payouts for the fake sake  ). Anyway, bminer still gets a little bit more payout, but dstm is trying to catch up.

It seems that even with 2.8-2.9kH per rig, there is still a big luck factor involved here. The funny thing right now is that bminerr2 now catches up bminerr1 in terms of the total amount of accepted shares (30 more shares now), although bminerr2 should be slightly slower than bminerr1 according to the reported number.

So I have to emphasize again that this is just for my own testing. It should NOT be interpreted as a general test that applies to all.

Based on the data I have seen so far, none of the two miners matches exactly the pool reported rate. I should see 5.8kH with dstm and close to 6kH with bminer. However, instead, I see 5.4kH and 5.5kH. There is no way to know how different pools/miners count hash rate. Therefore I cannot explain why.

However, the numbers are proportionally in line with each other.
On the pool: bminer is 5.479kH. Dstm is 5.375kH. That's 2% faster.
Miner reports: bminer is 5.99kH, Dstm is 5.810kH. It is close to 3% faster. But consider bminer has 0.5% rejected rate, while dstm has close to 0%. This number makes sense so far.


One thing I observed in the past is that the gap between nanopool number and my ewbf number (I used to run ewbf) is usually closer than the gap between flypool and ewbf. That was another reason why I prefer nano.

This is because the bminer address already got paied once with 0.01012ZEC :

https://zcash.flypool.org/miners/t1LLJPAoYajZjPQggPZcdDpwPont4AoGvfq/payouts

As I said before, this is just for my own testing. It should NOT be interpreted as a general test that can apply to all machines or environments.

The difference between two is still too small to call. Maybe in the next hour or so, the results will flip