This is Part 3 in a series on building a cryptocurrency mining rig.
I physically constructed a mining rig in Part 1, and made motherboard
BIOS adjustments in Part 2. Now, in Part 3, I’ll discuss how I
financially optimized my mining strategy.
I began the optimization effort by recording baseline mining benchmarks. The
following was achieved using Claymore v9.6 to dual-mine ETC and DCR:
Hashrate as reported by Claymore v9.6.
Mh/s (ETC) 1
Mh/s (DCR) 1
Watts
151
1515
960
Though Claymore provides for it, I did not attempt to dual-mine SC,
LBRY, PASC, or PASL, because I am personally not interested in
those coins from a “fundamentals” perspective.
When I built my miner, I initially chose the mining software mostly
arbitrarily. Wanting to rectify that, I next performed comparative
benchmarking to help determine which mining software to use, and whether or not
to dual-mine.
Benchmarking yielded the following data:
Comma-separated values are ETC/DCR pairs.
Claymore charges a "DevFee" of 1% when mining ETC, and 2% when mining
ETC+DCR.
"Adjusted" rates account for losses accrued by the DevFee.
Wattage was measured at the wall using a
Kill-a-watt.
Miner
Coin
Mh/s 1
Fee 2
Mh/s (Adj) 3
Watts 4
Mh/s (Adj)/Watt
Claymore v9.6
ETC+DCR
151, 1515
2%
148, 1485
960
0.154, 1.557
Claymore v9.6
ETC
156, 0000
1%
154, 0000
850
0.181, 0000
Claymore v9.8
ETC+DCR
156, 1560
2%
153, 1529
960
0.159, 1.593
Claymore v9.8
ETC
160, 0000
1%
158, 0000
870
0.182, 0000
Ethminer v0.12.0
ETC
160, 0000
0
160, 0000
880
0.183, 0000
My takeaway from the above was that dual-mining DCR:
reduced potential ETC yield by about 5% (Ethminer (ETC) => Claymore v9.8 (ETC+DCR))
By the numbers, yes - DCR was (barely) worth mining. However, beyond the
numbers, I had some concerns.
I had been dual-mining ETC+DCR for weeks before making the above benchmarks.
When I checked my mining pool, however, I was surprised to see how
little DCR I had earned. Investigating why, I discovered that the pool reported
my DCR hashrate to be less than half of what Claymore reported. (I still don’t
know which number was correct, or how the disparity came to be.)
I had additional concerns beyond the dubious hashrate numbers.
When measuring power consumption, I noticed that dual-mining was very “peaky” -
draw would swing +/-100 watts perhaps a dozen times per minute. I feared that
the temperature fluctuations that (likely) accompanied those swings would
eventually damage the GPUs via thermal expansion and contraction.
Lastly, I found Claymore somewhat unpleasant to use. Configuration seemed
awkward to me, in that it read configuration from text files (with a
proprietary syntax) from its application directory. Likewise, it continuously
downloaded .bin files (containing I-know-not-what) and logged output (again
into text files) into the same directory. This all felt terribly disorganized,
and inconsistent with sound software engineering practices.
In light of all of the above, I decided to forego dual-mining entirely, and to
simply “single-mine” ETC using Ethminer.
Thus, with a revised mining strategy, I next turned my attention to optimizing
my miner’s computational performance. In Part 4, I’ll discuss how I
was able to (dramatically) reduce power consumption without impacting hashrate.