multi-version (ASICBOOST ?) for scrypt

Encounter a problem related to the pool or have a request for a feature? Post your issue here and we will help you out.
Forum rules
Welcome to the System Support forum! Encounter a problem related to the pool? Post your issue here and we will help you out.

Keep in mind that the forums are monitored by PROHASHING less closely than the official support channels, so if you have a pressing issue, please submit an official support ticket so that our Support Analyst can look into your issue in a timely manner.

We cannot answer financial questions related to your account on a public forum, so those questions should always be submitted through the orange Support button on prohashing.com/about.

For the full list of PROHASHING forums rules, please visit https://prohashing.com/help/prohashing- ... rms-forums.
Post Reply
User avatar
dnprod
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2017 3:19 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

multi-version (ASICBOOST ?) for scrypt

Post by dnprod » Sat Nov 17, 2018 11:06 pm

so, poking around inside my L3+ miner it seems it pretends to support multi-version
will the pool take advantage of this if enabled >1 or is the pool only expecting it on sha256d/bitcoin miners?

i'm going to enable it anyway, say multi-version=8
User avatar
CSZiggy
Posts: 662
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2018 2:44 pm

Re: multi-version (ASICBOOST ?) for scrypt

Post by CSZiggy » Sat Nov 17, 2018 11:17 pm

"To enable multi-version needs to be >1, the number being how many bits of the version number you're allowing it to modify for ASICBOOST. Enabling this will cause a new field in mining.submit which includes which version number it ended up using for the share solve, the pool server needs to be able to parse that and be able to validate it."


I'll wager with the extra characters tacked on, the pool rejects them all.
User avatar
dnprod
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2017 3:19 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: multi-version (ASICBOOST ?) for scrypt

Post by dnprod » Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:55 pm

i've not had any rejections with two boxes running with multi-version=8
but cant tell if it's made any performance improvement either.
gerenally with stratum protocol, anything not specifically looked for is ignored.

it would be comforting to *believe* it was helpful :)
Post Reply