I'm not getting the same "better" results from my 4850 on a 6870. Getting about 255-257 (occasionally peaks at 271) when I can easily get 277-280 using poclbm using latest phatk kernel and 264 on Phoenix with phatk (same kernel).

But a few suggestions for the website:
1. Really needs to show total hash rate otherwise can't tell what's going on.
2. Better stats for solved blocks such as how much I got for each block, and possibly even how many shares.
3. Better real time stats such as how long the block has been running for, how many shares total for this block so far, how many each worker has submitted, etc.

Tried this on a 5850 930/310 worksize 256 .  Was seeing about ~339MH/s

Using: phoenix.exe DEVICE=0 -u http://xxxxx_5850:xxxxx@mint.bitminter.com:8332 -k phatk VECTORS BFI_INT WORKSIZE=256 FASTLOOP=false AGGRESSION=13  gives me ~379 when it was running:


I don't know if it doesn't like phoenix but I'm usually pretty stable with the other pools.  Hope this helps.

I notice a big difference with hashrates between original bitcoin client and BitMinter miner (in the best case), look at this:

Original bitcoin client



BitMinter miner



CPU-Z



I hope you will find how to do more than original bitcoin client

I'm still getting only 114Mhash/s with bitminter (manual vectors off, work size 128) vs. 140Mhash/s with poclbm
if you remember what my setup was, it's a 5750 that's not overclocked (Juniper GPU)

notice he's mining 52khash/s with bitminter

Yeah, the CPU-mining code is really bad still. It hasn't been a priority, but I will implement OpenCL mining on CPU (with Intel or AMD drivers) soon.

If that's not fast enough, I'll do by-hand optimized assembly language with SSE instructions. An assembly language solution will probably be far down on the priority list though, as it will be a lot of work for probably little gain. I would need to make shared libraries for Windows, Linux and Mac, and invoke those from the Java Virtual Machine.

The miner seems to do better than the other miners on Radeon 69xx (VLIW-4 architecture), and GeForces.

I still need to optimize for VLIW-5 (Radeon 4000 and 5000 series and part of 6000-series).

Today I was able to find a refurbished Radeon 5970 at a decent price. I'll have it tomorrow and start working on speedups for the VLIW-5 cards. By the way, I thought 5970s were supposed to be impossible to get? Lucky find, I guess...

I currently solo mine but would be interested in joining this.  Unfortunately I see that the payout method is proportional which is a deal breaker for me.  Any plans to implement something fairer (like score based shares or shares from last 5 minutes only)?

I assume it's a deal breaker because of pool hopping?

I don't have any specific plans, but I have been thinking about the different payout methods. I realize it will be tough to prevent pool hopping with proportional payouts. Delaying stats may work for DeepBit, but it would not work as well for a smaller pool (or stats would have to be delayed much longer).

I think paying for last N minutes is vulnerable to pool hopping too. The more shares were submitted the last N minutes, the less they are worth. And the higher the pool hash rate the better the chance of creating a block. If many shares were submitted and hash rate then dropped: time to pool hop. You don't want to work alone and then give all the money away. If few shares were submitted compared to the current hash rate: time to come back again. Someone else is likely to find a block and you want to get paid.

Maybe "pay per last N shares" is the most fair. If pool hash rate drops there is less chance someone else finds a block that you get paid for. But also you will take over more and more of the N shares at an increased rate, "pushing out" the shares of other users.

Interesting charts on different payout methods: http://eligius.st/~luke-jr/samples/800MH/

I'm open to suggestions.

You're right, there does seem to be a different kind of hopping problem with PPLNminutes but at least it is very much to the pool's benefit (I guess pool hoppers would try to keep the mining volume constant).  I'm new to pool mining theory and PPLNS is a new discovery for me; it looks better than PPLNM but would be interested to know more about the weaknesses of these payout methods and why the more obviously faulty proportional is preferred.

Also, it strikes me that without any information about the pool at all it is still quite possible to pool hop using the block chain.  Simply mine with the pool for 5 minutes after each block discovery and mine solo the rest of the time.  You are only making money on the blocks which the pool itself finds but you're doing better than 100% nonetheless.  This would be particularly effective against a large pool and the only way I could see them blocking it is penalising you in some way for disconnecting from the pool, or detecting your behaviour and banning you.  Both methods defeat the only advantage to proportional that I see: it's simplicity.

Are there other advantages to proportional aside from simplicity (versus PPLNS)?  I feel there is something very wrong if this is the only advantage to proportional payouts.  Another payout method could be to pay an equal chunk to each user reguardless of their hash rate and this would have the advantage of being even more simple than proportional but very little else going for it.  Just as with proportional, people would take advantage, others would complain, and pool operators would be trying to block/ban people who took advantage and/or hide information to make their pool more attractive to 'honest' miners, all for some algorithmic simplicity.

Sorry, I went a bit far there.  Which pools do you know which do PPLNS?  To me this is more attractive than +5% to be honest.

Another 50 bitcoins minted - good work, guys!


Cool that you like it I agree with what you're saying, and I do think most people will want transparency.


I will add OpenCL mining on CPU soon. Hopefully that will be quite fast. It will require installing AMD or Intel OpenCL drivers to run though.


Yes, very good explanation - shows why pool hopping will always be a problem with the proportional payout method.


Yes, PPLNS doesn't necessarily pay for all shares submitted while working on a block. To some it would probably seem unfair not to get paid for all their work. If you think about it, it doesn't really matter as long as you mine 24/7. But if you mine a little now and then, PPLNS can become very random for you.

Also, proportional is easy for people to understand, and they can even keep score on their end and verify that the pool server isn't cheating them of shares. This isn't easy if the pool server calculates your payout with some complex formula based off of a large amount of numbers. I liked proportional because it is so transparent. But the problem with pool hoppers seems to be growing in the pools, and I see many pools run other payout methods now. I don't want users who come and go to "cheat" money away from the 24/7 miners in my pool.


It's a pretty new method still, but you can find at least one here in the forum, among the big stickied pools.

There is also a very interesting payout method called shared-maximum-pay-per-share. It seems more fair than PPLNS. But it sounds a little unconfortable to delay payments. And what will potential new users think about a pool that is behind on payments? There is some info on it here: http://eligius.st/wiki/index.php/Shared_Maximum_PPS

I think PPLNS and SMPPS look like the best two. Not sure which one I like better.


There will also be a place to see complete earning history with transactions like in internet banking. The 5% bonus will show up as a separate transaction in your account. That and more is coming soon.