Better to mine multiple machines with same wallet or not in same pool or not?



  • @ZapbuzZ,

    IMO, there is no difference if I mine 100TB on one machine with one account or have 10 machines with 10TB each and 10 different accounts. Not sure where you're coming from. The more capacity you mine the more block rewards you deserve, period.



  • @rds i totally get that and the more i think about it the more i am confused.. the only reason i can see it would matter is if each ID had some type of multiplier or some type of bonus for having the ID...

    Kind of like SAT testing where you get 200 points for just spelling your name right. if you had 3 names you were guaranteed 600 points?

    that might be the worst analogy ever.


  • admin

    @ZapbuzZ There is no issue with having multiple ID's, for people learning about Burst it's probably easier to use a different address on each machine. But once you're comfortable with manually plotting you can have the same account mining on multiple PC's with no overlap.



  • @darindarin ,

    As I think I've said before in other threads, I mine one account, 2 machines, 5 local wallets. For me the main advantage to that is diversity. If one machine dies, the other is still running. If one wallet dies, the others are are still working. I choose not to use multiple accounts because i'm too lazy to replot and my mining account is always swept to keep minimal Burst in it. One account is easier to sweep than 5. If you pool mine, your passphrase is sent to third parties. If one of those third parties want's to hack my mining account, they will only get less than 20,000 burst.



  • Also like to inquire if plotting an M2 drive at the end of my plotted drive farm (nonce-wise - let's say I have 35tb plotted for an account and then I'd add this plot sequentially) - would it not be better to have it be at the 0 nonce starting point due to the other drives read times being much slower?

    If that isn't clear for some that might be reading this - this might help:
    plot order: 8tb / 8tb / 8tb / 8tb / 8tb / M2 drive 1tb

    would this sequence yield different results:
    plot order: 1tb M2 drive / 8tb / 8tb / 8tb / 8tb / 8tb

    The NVMe M2 drive is outstanding and the pci adapter (which I had to use) works just fine - had to add a microsoft patch to get it working on my Win 7 machine. It tops out at 3.2gb/s as it's the 'low' EVO model which seems to be better bang for the buck. Useful for intensive time lapse/video editing. Definitely not a cost effective route for Burst mining unless you happen upon a truckload of them somehow.



  • oops my foot in the mouth sorry guys and @haitch happy mining guys!


  • admin

    @rds Your passphrase is not sent while pool mining, only while solo mining does it get sent to the wallet server. In pool mining the pool pass-phrase is sent to the wallet server.



  • @xburst plot orientation depends on mining software. But typically the slowest ones are the ones in the middle of reading position in the drive letter listing in config file.


  • admin

    @xburst If you're using Blago's miner or jMiner, the reads are done in parallel, up to the number of threads your cpu has. eg, a quad core with hyper threading can read 8 drives simultaneously, so if you have less drives than threads, the order doesn't matter.



  • @haitch & @ZapbuzZ - much appreciated info - hopefully useful to others down the line! I am waiting on a USB3 hub so for now most are trying to work via USB2.0 - I know that will increase the overall read times as I had been using up all the available USB3 sockets earlier.



  • @haitch said in Better to mine multiple machines with same wallet or not in same pool or not?:

    @rds Your passphrase is not sent while pool mining, only while solo mining does it get sent to the wallet server. In pool mining the pool pass-phrase is sent to the wallet server.

    I hear you, but when I have to supply the passphrase, I'd rather it be an account that is not holding much on average. I remember a scenario awhile back where the Bitcoin core wallet when mining had a small window where the passphrase was accessible and some mining accounts were hacked, a few had many bitcoin in them and they were lost.



  • @xburst said in Better to mine multiple machines with same wallet or not in same pool or not?:

    @haitch & @ZapbuzZ - much appreciated info - hopefully useful to others down the line! I am waiting on a USB3 hub so for now most are trying to work via USB2.0 - I know that will increase the overall read times as I had been using up all the available USB3 sockets earlier.

    USB 3.0 over 2.0 will increase read times by 5-8 times.



  • I did a tiny test the other night as far as mining two different wallets on two different machines in the same pool. One laptop with 1.2tb plots and one laptop with a 64g plot.

    1. Both miners would start up fine but after that first block would pass neither miner would start back up for the next blocks. Everything just stalled. Re tried and re tried same result each time.

    I was wandering if this was because both miners are coming from the same IP address?

    1. Each time network quality would start at 100% but shortly after startup would dwindle down to less than 50% on both machines. With one machine I'm usually at 100% network quality.

    Could this be my internet connection? Think I'm on 10 megs..Or again IP addresses? One laptop was on wifi the other Ethernet cable.



  • Right now trying one wallet, two machines, one pool. 1.2tb on one and 800g on the other.

    1. Getting tons of SENDER: can't connetct. Error: 10060
    2. Network quality slowing on the down trend. About 8 blocks in one machine down to 74% the other is at 42%.
    3. Miners are starting slow. Last miner to submit on each block so far.
    4. Annnnnd now its frozen again. The block chain is 2 blocks ahead.

    Looks like one machine is the best I'll be able to do. Might try each machine in a different pool tomorrow.



  • This post is deleted!


  • @Dillion,

    You must have network issues. I run one machine solo with 3 local wallets running at the same time pointed to 3 different ports, 127.0.0.1:8105, 8115 and 8125. I run a second machine solo with 2 local wallets pointed to 8105 and 8125. All 5 miners are scanning the same Burst account.

    I also run this same configuration on Burst.Ninja. 3 miners pointed to the pool on one machine and 2 miners pointed to the pool on the other. It can be done, you have to figure out what is going on with your network. I had local wallet syncing issues for awhile I thought about pulling my hair out but I got them resolved over time. When I shut down a wallet that is showing up to current block, I copy the 2 files in the db folder to a backup folder so if in the future one wallet forks or gets stuck I load the known good backup db and get it going again. I haven't had to do that in a few weeks though.

    When solo mining I monitor Burst.Ninja on a web browser to see if my miners are on the right block. Burst.Ninja is by far the most reliable pool in the system, IMO.



  • @rds Very fricking interesting. I never thought of more than one wallet from one machine. Can't really fathom how that would work.



  • @Dillion , it works well. If one wallet gets stuck I only loose 1/5 of my mining capacity.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to Burst - Efficient HDD Mining was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.