@jretropie said in Intel Xeon 8180 - 150-200k nonces/min:

plotting speed probably even double if he use AVX2. (Notice that he use xplotter 1.0 only support avx.

good catch on that, I never checked to see if it put 1.1 in my plotting screen when I tried the AVX2 version but the performance difference between AVX is stunning, you're right he just might double his performance by getting the latest version...

now if only someone had direct contact with him to let him know, it might change his views on some things and get him even more excited for burst, so he does something other than make crazy hand gestures about it heh...

@gadrah_ maybe a short highlight of the recent mentions by LinustechTips (twice I've seen) and now the Minergate blog could be pointed out for everyone reading...

Well when a place with millions of users talks about Burst, you should pay attention! In a recent blog posted by the Admin over at Minergate, proof of capacity was mentioned as a possible future for crypto... Burst highlighted!

"""Why Proof-of-capacity could be the future of cryptocurrency"""

https://minergate.com/blog/why-proof-of-capacity-could-be-the-future-of-cryptocurrency/

look like Burst was mentioned AGAIN on LinusTechTips when he was testing new chips from Intel, a dual cpu system with 56 cores costing around $25,000 give or take a bit, and he was plotting 6 instances at once with it... Burst mention at 8:25

@verdommeman said in info: i7-8700k i get 20k+ nonces /min:

@verdommeman btw it took me 5 times to submit this topic , it gave error couldn't find category

two things... first is the bandwidth for the forums has gotten a 10x increase so things should be buttery smooth for everyone now from what I hear others saying.... second if you try using blagos avx2 addition you should get closer to 39,000 nonces/minute like I am with the i7-8700 (non-k) version...

https://github.com/Blagodarenko/XPlotter/releases

Well the title pretty much says it all, a well known and popular technology show mentioned Burst and they are plotting drives and performing things their own way, he goes on to talk about his system plotting multiple drives at once and he's going to grab drives up from the office and run them all weekend to get going...

someone from the community might want to reach out if they aren't already in contact with them and handle some PR, as this could bring tens of thousands of people in a short period of time to the community, and it might help them answer some questions they might have, it sounds like they are talking to someone, but who knows if thats in any "official" capacity or just an anonymous name on discord...

thats the video on their youtube channel, and you should jump ahead to 28:00 minutes in the video where they begin the discussion on Burst and hard drives... with 5 million youtube subscribers, and multiple places they post things, this could bring a lot of notice to Burst if people make it that far in the video, and when they post a video about their experiences and trial and errors, it will definitely highlight...

@max629 said in Processor speed needed to mine Burst:

How fast does your processor need to be to mine Burst? I'm mining on a couple of PC's & a laptops no problem but a laptop & notebook I have the miner won't start up. The laptop has a 1.6ghz Intel & the notebook has a 1.8ghz AMD.

its not about how many ghz your cpu has, its about the instruction set it has, any speed will work, some may take longer depending on how fast your hdd is spitting data at it, but you more or less need to make sure to use the correct instruction set...

most modern cpu's have AVX2, older cpu's have AVX, and some even older only have SSE, so its a matter of using the correct version for your cpu, because if you try to use AVX2 on a cpu that only supports SSE, basically, "the miner won't start up"...

speed in this case is less important than instruction sets... so the miner will run...

@ejonesss one thing most folks don't consider is that programs with relatively few downloads in todays internet world will automatically be flagged as "suspicious" since they haven't built up enough reputation for the scanners to mark them as okay... so when people talk about "false-positive" flagging, its generally this occurring... simply put, it was smart of the scanning companies to flag "new" programs as something to be concerned about, but they have done a TERRIBLE job at letting end users know that is why the particular program was flagged and removed... they should clearly inform the user the scanner didn't find anything, but because its such a new program the person may want to reconsider using it, and then make them jump through hoops and click a bunch of confirms before letting them... since thats how most malicious software spreads, its so new it doesn't have entries yet as malicious or safe, so its assumed malicious by default...

this doesn't mean you should ignore those warnings though, always take them serious and never just assume this is the cause, I just wish they all were better at reporting why things are marked sometimes as suspicious and removed...

@haitch isn't this a bit of an overkill for a minecraft server? haha