you seem to forget WHO we are and WHAT we do - to even attempt an insult like that concoction of stealing ...

first - ChainWorks Industries is a BUSINESS - and as such are bound by the LAW of the Federal and State Government of Australia ... we dont even entertain the idea of doing anything underhanded - in any way shape or form - or we LOSE the company and all we have been working for ...

second - we are here because we have been mining for a LONG TIME - longer than most ... we have seen the underhandedness of other devs ( yes - THAT dev ) - and seen the greed that drive people to do underhanded and ILLEGAL things in this industry ... we WONT - and we DONT ... PERIOD! ... we take what we do and say very seriously - and so should you ...

all that you are seeing here are settings that are placed within the realms of the stratum and the pool - WITH protection now from DDOS - due to the attacks ...

IF you have not set the miner to the lodiff port ( using --lodiff ) then you WILL be forced into the hidiff port ( port 6000 ) which starts at diff2.5 and goes upwards from there ... meaning this - if you have more than 4cards ( and we will fix this in future releases ) and you DO NOT add the --lodiff parameter - you are on port 6000 and the diff WILL be too high for your rig to handle and as such - submit less shares tho at high diff rates ...

we do NOT accept ANY 'possibilities' that you have stated - ESPECIALLY with regards to stealing ...

your results and posts of stats are great ... and PROVES that you are submitting VERY high difficulty shares - which is why the pool shows you doing 'less' work by submitted shares ...

ALL this software we are using is EXPERIMENTAL - ALL of it ... including the Signatum Wallet daemon ... there are many factors that accompany such software - and the use of ... all which we need to iron out as we go along ... all this talk of pools and people ripping miners off is absurd to say the least - at least it is for us and the likes of ocminer ( suprnova ) and tpruvot ( yiimp ) and a few others - who have been in this industry longer than most can remember ... good honest hardworking developers that are ALWAYS improving and ALWAYS doing the best we all can for the communities and people alike ...

if there is an issue - then state ALL the facts ... ie - ALL the stats ( like you have - and thats great ) - ALL the setup - including your commandline parameters ( without your username and password ) - and what EXACTLY the issue is ...

you have supplied two of the three things that we need ... so - to resolve this without slinging the 'option' of stealing dirt around - please let us know what your commandline parameters are - so that we can test PROPERLY ...

afterall - this IS a test ... and we are NOT here for ourselves alone ... we are here for you also - as a miner and crypto enthusiast ...

remember - we could have kept ALL of this private and under a veil - and NOT brought it out into the open like this ... we have a farm ( theFARM ) - we have a company ( ChainwWorks Industries ( CWI ) ) - we have the means of making our own money coins and have done so for over 5years ...

this issue you are having sounds like the typical issue of the miner forcing the hidiff port - which has been pointed out by other members of the community ... let us know what parameters you have used in order to rectify this issue ... so that we can improve the miner moreso ... which will be in my next post in the next few minutes ...

and please - no assumptions or options or accusations ( i know you didnt accuse - but you made it a residual option that it could 'only be if' ) - or i will start to delete posts ... this thread is about helping - and testing ... so lets work together ...

tanx mate ...

#crysx

no worries - let us know what you think ...

and the stats specs please ... we would be very intersted in the stability of tribus when you get the chance ...

tanx ...

#crysx

checking again now ...

edit - user error ( my error - copying the prior hash before changes made ) - correcting now ...

tanx for picking this up ...

#crysx

Windows 10 x64

This is on SIGT with 6 msi armor 1080ti at 75% tdp, +130 core, -1000 mem.


I also have 8 msi armor oc 1070s and they are getting a combined 247 mh/s (30.875 mh/s each) at 90% tdp, +150 core (~2020Mhz) , -1000 mem.  Temps ranging between 60-66c.

I'm using cwigm 0.9.8.  I'm happy with the results.  Nice job with the miner.  Impressed

1) Actually I don't know who you are except you loud words and a nickname on the forum. For me and many others you have only them and nothing more. Just remember it.
2) I already wrote it but of course I set to lowdiff, and received 0.25 at the beginning of the test.
3) As I said before all results were received at difficulty 0.25-1.xxx. Ok fine. Yesterday I put 531Mh/s and the best hashrate that I saw was less then 400. I thought it was a mistake or wrong miner that I downloaded from another guy. Today I downloaded by your link and gave it a try with clean setup. Nothung changed.
4) I think that as far as you own the pool you can check everithing by yourself. But anyway thats it:
cwigm_x86.exe -a skunk -u abudfv2008.Rig5 -p 123 -i 25 --cpu-priority=3 --lodiff
cwigm_x86.exe -a skunk -u abudfv2008.Rig6 -p 123 -i 23,25.5 --cpu-priority=3 --lodiff

P.S. For testing purposes, your miner shows slightly better results than Spmod5. Something like 100vs99. Lase 0.9.8 shows even better results. 72.1 vs 69.5. It would be great to see these results on the pool.

ok ...

if i sounded very harsh - its not intentionally about being harsh ... its about the idea that we are doing ANYTHING uncouth or underhanded - that is just not what we do ...

the results and figures - thats good ... but the hashrates are not being reflected on the pool? ...

hmmm ... so let me understand this correctly - and lets have a good look at this ...

the miner ( ie any miner you get ) will show the closest to the accurate hashrates due to it being the miner - being local - and being very very quick in determining the hashrates ... after all - its the miner thats producing the hashrates ( or processing cycles ) ...

the pools ( all of the pools ) work differently ... they estimate hashrates by averaging the submitted shares in a certain timeframe ... in this case - 5mins ... the pool estimates the hashrate over this given time using the shares submitted ... there is also another factor - which we are investigating ... there is also a module in the mpos pools that are called 'coin classes' ... these classes need to be built from the ground up - but most are not ...

once we find what class is meant to be built for skunkhash - it will become a more accurate measurement for hashrate on the pool itself ...

but there is the rub ... the stratum is accurate - and its the stratum that submits your shares ... the pool just does its best to measure those shares ... so in effect - you are not losing your hashrate or shares - they are just being displayed incorrectly ... hence the wild fluctuations on most pools in most algos ... but skunkhash is displaying much lower than what the miner is producing ... you are still hashing at the miner rate - but you are correct in saying that it would be nice if the pool displayed the results also - and not lower ...

lets look into this further ...

we appreciate your shedding light on this ...

#crysx

With new version 0.9.8 everything is fine. The hashrate is correctry reported by the pool.
I put 765Mh/s (Spmod5) and it shows now ~800 which corresponds with increased speed in your miner.
So the problem was with 0.9.7.1
Waiting for more hashrate from a new versions while there is still some time to mine SIGT.
Sorry if you consider me beeing rude. English is not my native language.

Pushing harder with this build and it's looking good so far

why i dont trust? too many negative feedback?

Turn on the "monitor" on your worker settings