Stratum support is becoming more prevalent and is only supported by the newer versions of cgminer. Reproducible: Always
The 2.8.x versions also have stratum, so a version of the latest stable, 2.8.7, is also a possible option.
If you just want stratum support, net-misc/bfgminer-2.9.0 also supports it.
I will try bfgminer-2.9.0, but I had problems with 2.9.1 not working, and was told that the maintainer of bfgminer does not care for stratum and its support might be marginal.
It is true that stratum is harmful to Bitcoin, but it should work fine in BFGMiner ;)
I tested cgminer-2.9.5, and it looks like simply renaming the ebuild is sufficient for a version bump.
Ping @luke-jr. We're falling behind on cgminer. Is this okay?
2.10.2 is out.
Created attachment 332800 [details] cgminer-2.10.2.ebuild
Created attachment 340470 [details] Based on ebuild from bitcoin overlay with some cleanup.
Created attachment 340472 [details] cgminer-2.10.4.ebuild Based on ebuild from bitcoin overlay with some cleanup.
cgminer-2.11.2 is current as of 17th March 2013 currently available ~arch version in portage does not work with stratum bitcoin pools which also counts towards around 50% of the bitcon mining pools currently in operation such as BTC Guild which recommends using stratum bitcoin protocol to communicate with the servers. Yes the current version of BFGminer in portage works with stratum protocol however each software is better suited to certain types of mining hardware. With the coming appearance of ASIC mining hardware choice would be preferred for gentoo users. ASIC support and bugfixes have likely been introduced since the 2.7.x versions gentoo currently has available which are now obsolete Please bump cgminer to current https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=28402.0
More relevant info on why stratum osinfo(In reply to comment #4) > It is true that stratum is harmful to Bitcoin, but it should work fine in > BFGMiner ;) Quote from the cgminer readme about stratum protocol. Q: What is stratum and how do I use it? A: Stratum is a protocol designed for pooled mining in such a way as to minimise the amount of network communications, yet scale to hardware of any speed. With versions of cgminer 2.8.0+, if a pool has stratum support, cgminer will automatically detect it and switch to the support as advertised if it can. Stratum uses direct TCP connections to the pool and thus it will NOT currently work through a http proxy but will work via a socks proxy if you need to use one. If you input the stratum port directly into your configuration, or use the special prefix "stratum+tcp://" instead of "http://", cgminer will ONLY try to use stratum protocol mining. The advantages of stratum to the miner are no delays in getting more work for the miner, less rejects across block changes, and far less network communications for the same amount of mining hashrate. If you do NOT wish cgminer to automatically switch to stratum protocol even if it is detected, add the --fix-protocol option. Stratum reduces the amount of failed attempts to get work resulting in more reliable work yields from mining hardware functioning in public mining pools. This is neither harmful to bitcoin or network reliability in general.
If there is any hardware cgminer 2.7.5 works better on than BFGMiner, you can be sure the same performance hit also affects newer cgminer versions. cgminer only has FPGA support because it was merged in from an older BFGMiner, and does not have any ASIC support (though BFGMiner does in git). For the most part, cgminer has become just a "not invented here" fork of BFGMiner since the GPU mining it was oriented toward is now mostly obsolete. Stratum does not reduce "the amount of failed attempts to get work" or anything of that sort; while miners *don't* attempt to get work at all, a failure can actually occur easier with stratum than the standard GBT protocol since it requires a more reliable network to work. It is harmful to Bitcoin because it leaves miners in the dark as to what exactly they're doing (although BFGMiner implements a secured version that asks the pool to disclose this). I do not intend to continue maintaining the cgminer ebuilds at this point. The current plan is to mask them with a recommendation of upgrading to BFGMiner. If you still wish to have cgminer ebuilds for some reason, please take over maintenance by submitting merge requests for it on the Bitcoin overlay: http://gitorious.org/bitcoin/gentoo
(In reply to comment #13) > I do not intend to continue maintaining the cgminer ebuilds at this point. > The current plan is to mask them with a recommendation of upgrading to > BFGMiner. If you still wish to have cgminer ebuilds for some reason, please > take over maintenance by submitting merge requests for it on the Bitcoin > overlay: http://gitorious.org/bitcoin/gentoo If there are users that want it independantly from bfgminer, then I can maintain it. Let's let this discussion go a bit longer to air out all the viewpoints and then we can decide.
@Luke-Jr did you tryed to play with bfgminer with mesa opencl on radeon?
Created attachment 346524 [details] cgminer-3.0.0.ebuild cpumining support removed.
Some quick points: 1. There is a bit of a war going on between Luke and the developers of cgminer (I am not taking any position on that, but it is obviously not surprising that Luke no longer wishes to maintain cgminer ebuilds): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=140237.0;all 2. Whatever its advantages and disadvantages, stratum has become so prevalent that the old cgminer ebuilds have little value. 3. While I use bfgminer, I believe that builds of current cgminer releases should be maintained simply so users have a choice.
(In reply to throw_away_2002 from comment #17) > Some quick points: > > 1. There is a bit of a war going on between Luke and the developers of > cgminer (I am not taking any position on that, but it is obviously not > surprising that Luke no longer wishes to maintain cgminer ebuilds): > > https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=140237.0;all > > 2. Whatever its advantages and disadvantages, stratum has become so > prevalent that the old cgminer ebuilds have little value. > > 3. While I use bfgminer, I believe that builds of current cgminer releases > should be maintained simply so users have a choice. Since I proxy, and if Luke doesn't get too upset over this, I can switch my proxying to whoever else wants to maintian cgminer. I have lots of other packages to give love to and cannot fully adopt this. As for the contraversy, I am familiar, but not terribly interested. If users what to choose cgminer of bfgminer, so be it.
I'm certainly not going to try to stop anyone, but I don't really see a point to it...
(In reply to Regna from comment #16) > Created attachment 346524 [details] > cgminer-3.0.0.ebuild > > cpumining support removed. Hi Regna, are you interested in maintaining this ebuild? If so please bump to the latest and I'll add it to the tree, or is it okay to add the ebuild from April 24?
Last ping. If there is no interest here, I will be masking for removal in about a week or so.
Sorry guys, times up. I will consider removing the mask within the 30 days if someone is willing to maintain this. I will proxy. + 30 Jun 2013; Anthony G. Basile <blueness@gentoo.org> package.mask: + Mask net-misc/cgminer for removal, bug #442254 +
(In reply to Anthony Basile from comment #22) > Sorry guys, times up. I will consider removing the mask within the 30 days > if someone is willing to maintain this. I will proxy. > > + 30 Jun 2013; Anthony G. Basile <blueness@gentoo.org> package.mask: > + Mask net-misc/cgminer for removal, bug #442254 > + You masked bitcoin repo too: !!! The following installed packages are masked: - net-misc/cgminer-2.7.4::bitcoin (masked by: package.mask) /usr/portage/profiles/package.mask: # Anthony G. Basile <blueness@gentoo.rog> (30 Jun 2013) # Masked for removal, bug #442254
(In reply to Anthony Basile from comment #22) > Sorry guys, times up. I will consider removing the mask within the 30 days > if someone is willing to maintain this. I will proxy. Hi, your removal mask notifies me about this bug.... I can continue maintenance of cgminer if desired, but I also emailed Luke (who is one of the bitcoin-overlay maker) and he is willing to add my current cgminer-3.3.1 ebuild, too. So in my opinion a decision should be made: if cgminer should stay in main tree or maintenance continues in bitcoin overlay. In the latter case I would recommend to add a hint to the removal mask text - something like "cgminer ebuild has moved to bitcoin overlay" Let me know what you think
Sorry for the delay. I'm maintaining cgminer ebuilds in my overlay, here it is: http://bakka.su/git/baka-bakka/tree/net-misc/cgminer If someone else want this, I don't mind proxy-maintaining it for the main tree. And, of course, I don't mind addition of ebuilds that I attach here.
(In reply to Martin Dummer from comment #24) > (In reply to Anthony Basile from comment #22) > > Sorry guys, times up. I will consider removing the mask within the 30 days > > if someone is willing to maintain this. I will proxy. > > Hi, your removal mask notifies me about this bug.... I can continue > maintenance of cgminer if desired, but I also emailed Luke (who is one of > the bitcoin-overlay maker) and he is willing to add my current cgminer-3.3.1 > ebuild, too. So in my opinion a decision should be made: if cgminer should > stay in main tree or maintenance continues in bitcoin overlay. In the latter > case I would recommend to add a hint to the removal mask text - something > like "cgminer ebuild has moved to bitcoin overlay" > Let me know what you think The process is, ebuilds get updated in the overlay, and then merged to the main tree (which is a branch on the overlay). (In reply to Regna from comment #25) > Sorry for the delay. > I'm maintaining cgminer ebuilds in my overlay, here it is: > http://bakka.su/git/baka-bakka/tree/net-misc/cgminer > If someone else want this, I don't mind proxy-maintaining it for the main > tree. > And, of course, I don't mind addition of ebuilds that I attach here. Please submit a merge request for the overlay
(In reply to Luke-Jr from comment #26) > (In reply to Martin Dummer from comment #24) > > (In reply to Anthony Basile from comment #22) > > > Sorry guys, times up. I will consider removing the mask within the 30 days > > > if someone is willing to maintain this. I will proxy. > > > > Hi, your removal mask notifies me about this bug.... I can continue > > maintenance of cgminer if desired, but I also emailed Luke (who is one of > > the bitcoin-overlay maker) and he is willing to add my current cgminer-3.3.1 > > ebuild, too. So in my opinion a decision should be made: if cgminer should > > stay in main tree or maintenance continues in bitcoin overlay. In the latter > > case I would recommend to add a hint to the removal mask text - something > > like "cgminer ebuild has moved to bitcoin overlay" > > Let me know what you think > > The process is, ebuilds get updated in the overlay, and then merged to the > main tree (which is a branch on the overlay). > > (In reply to Regna from comment #25) > > Sorry for the delay. > > I'm maintaining cgminer ebuilds in my overlay, here it is: > > http://bakka.su/git/baka-bakka/tree/net-misc/cgminer > > If someone else want this, I don't mind proxy-maintaining it for the main > > tree. > > And, of course, I don't mind addition of ebuilds that I attach here. > > Please submit a merge request for the overlay Okay! I'll remove the mask. Nothing like waiting til the last minute guys :P Regna: i like Luke-jr's approach but if you just want to to copy the latest cgminer from your master branch, I can do that. Let me know and I'll do that and remove the mask as well as the older ebuilds.
> Please submit a merge request for the overlay Done. > Regna: i like Luke-jr's approach but if you just want to to copy the latest cgminer from your master branch, I can do that. Let me know and I'll do that and remove the mask as well as the older ebuilds. No, merge requests to bitcoin overlay are fine to me.
(In reply to Regna from comment #28) > > Please submit a merge request for the overlay > Done. > > Regna: i like Luke-jr's approach but if you just want to to copy the latest cgminer from your master branch, I can do that. Let me know and I'll do that and remove the mask as well as the older ebuilds. > No, merge requests to bitcoin overlay are fine to me. I only added 3.3.0 to the gentoo tree because 3.3.1 is not yet tagged upstream and I'd rather not have an untagged version on the tree. Is it ready yet? I removed all older gentoo tree versions. Ping me or open a bug when there is another merge request to go.
