I’m guessing that everyone probably noticed the huge hashrate drop on Bitcoin Gold network. Now it’s about 1.4 Msol/s (= 900 * 6 GTX1060 rig), and I thought “That seems way too low”. So I ran EWBF 0.3.4 on pool.gold with my 2 GTX1070, but just a bunch of rejected shares came out. Maybe that’s the reason behind the tremendous hashrate drop. Did anyone else try mining BTG after the hard fork?
1 Like
I see that I have to use a new EWBF miner for 144-5 Algo.
144_5 uses ~2.0GB vram
1050ti ~15 S/s
1060 ~23 S/s
1070 ~34 S/s
1080 ~38 S/s
1080ti ~56 S/s
EWBF Zcash miner: Expected speeds 500 sols/s gtx 1080, 444 sols/s gtx1070. 300 gtx1060 6G.
So 144-5 hashrate is about 7.5% of 200-9’s. Let’s say that the pre-hardfork BTG hashrate us 25 Msol/s (https://www.coinwarz.com/network-hashrate-charts/bitcoingold-network-hashrate-chart). In that case, the post-hardfork hashrate should be 1.875 Msol. Where did 0.375 Msol go?
Maybe some miners didn’t get the memo to change their mining program, or it was ASIC, or Malware, or EWBF got the mining speed wrong, etc. I guess we will have to wait until the mining network get stabilized.
1 Like
Jeps, you need the ewbf 0.2 miner and your sols will be lower then you used to have 
The block which triggered the new algorithm ( simple said ) had a date that shifted, so I think some rigs still run on the old software. This still is a nice case to follow, even if you don’t mine it.
What will the price do ?
How quick will the hashrate go up ?
Just checked, right now it’s 1.073 Msol/s
Can someone post up a link to the correct software for both nivdea and AMD? I would appreciate it!
NB: The difficulty dropped like a fooging rock…wow!
You mean the 144.5 miner ?
Ewbf is there with version 0.2
Will look for the links, someone already posted them, the other Nvidia miner by Fukushima ( don’t like that one, but that’s me )
And there is an Amd one, let me search the links
1 Like
The correct ones for BTG mining. Yes, I know I need EWBF v0.2, but i can’t download it b/c of the goddam virus alerts. Any help is appreciated!
That’s the Amd one
Nvidia Funakoshi
2 Likes
Is your problem that if you unpack the miner, the exe is removed ?
1 Like
Thank you but Github woefully not user friendly. Thanks in advance for anyone who puts up a direct d/l link!
Yes 
can I run 0.3.4b with the changes to the bat file as they indicate? 144_5? And windows wont let me extract it. Thanks anyhow! I will mess with it on a Win7 pc.
It’s an anoying problem with the latest update , Bminer and all other miners have this problem. Download, get the map to your desktop, look of the miner.exe still excists and then disable Win defender for that map. So yes, you understand the danger, but don’t want defender to intervene.
1 Like
I don’t think that with 0.3.4. b will work, but didn’t test it yet. Going to play with ewbf 0.3. my rigs are to big I guess, so maybe have to break them down to 6 GPU instead of the 12 now. I never thought I would say this. But I hope Bminer has the 144.5 quick, for me on Zcash it was the most stable miner in the end with my oc. ( I pay 0.24 $ kwh ) but have them all on max power. Jajajja I am a hodler hahaha profit will come. May take some years, but still a believer
1 Like
i got it - thank you - gonna try and see what happens. I extracted it 
1 Like
Nice, hope it works out 
make some hahaha
1 Like
I’m trying to figure out how to calculate expected hashrates now. What are the 1060’s getting now?
Ewbf says the next numbers
Expected performance:
96_5 uses ~1.6GB vram
1050ti ~7.5 KS/s
1060 ~13.0 KS/s
1070 ~19.5 KS/s
1080 ~23.5 KS/s
1080ti ~33.5 KS/s
144_5 uses ~2.0GB vram
1050ti ~15 S/s
1060 ~23 S/s
1070 ~34 S/s
1080 ~38 S/s
1080ti ~56 S/s
192_7 uses ~2.5GB vram
1050ti ~8 S/s
1060 ~13 S/s
1070 ~19 S/s
1080 ~22 S/s
1080ti ~30 S/s
I guess without oc. Will try tommorow, have to work and things here are still stable on Zcash. So let it run for the night to come. Put my mixrig back on ZCash since the new algo for BTG, ewbf wasn’t stable on my rig and no time ATM to test the new 0.3 
1 Like
I just tested on my 980ti here at home and it’s a whopping 9 sol! lolololo!
1 Like
Yep, this matches my rough recollection of my own implementations before launch. The reason we switched Zcash from 144,5 to 200,9 before launch was precisely because my implementation was too slow (seconds per solution), and there weren’t going to be sufficient solutions found per block interval to ensure security (it would become a race to finish a single PoW run, rather than a Poisson process). Looks like 144,5 on a GPU is now about as fast as my 200,9 implementation was on a CPU, so it should have a sufficient security margin.
2 Likes