The issue is energy in = energy out.

Making a compact device which requires large amounts of energy isn't tough but cooling it is.  It is going to require massive airflow.  So think pair of 5970 with fans @ 100% and some Delta screamers @ 80 db forcing hundreds of cubic feet of air per minute into the case.  Maybe another Delta screamer out the "exhaust" grill to lower air pressure.

Sitting on your desk I would imagine that will be very obnoxious.  There is a reason my 5970 farm is in in the garage.

Also stealing is stealing.  If I ask my employer can I charge my android phone or kindle at work they would say "no problem".  If I say can I plug this loud, hot, power guzzling device that produces $500 per month for me and consumes $100 in company electricty I doubt they would say "no problem".

I haven't check yet but I am pretty sure they wouldn't like it.

With watercooling you could get the noise down but you greatly increase the cost and complexity and stealing is still stealing.

I have found the grain of rice method doesn't work well on GPUs.

With a CPU you have a single heatsink which mounts to the flat heat spreader and applies a lot of pressure.

With a GPU the heatsink covers multiple components and is tightened down with multiple screws.  Very hard to get the same amount of direct pressure on the GPU die.

The other advantage of CPU is the heat spreader is larger than the chip surface so if thermal compound doesn't get all the way to the corners it doesn't really matter because there is no heat source there.  With GPU what you see is the actual chip package and even the corners are putting out significant amount of heat.

For CPU the single grain of rice method works fine.  For GPU I use the thin line and spread with a credit card.  It doesn't need to be perfect the heatsink will apply some pressure and spread it out. 

Still regardless of the method you want as little as possible.  I try to get it thin enough that it looks almost translucent.

Dual GPU Single slot?  Sounds like a horrible idea.

Solar or wind power has nothing to do with blowing a fuse.

I stand corrected.  Good to know.

well at least your name fits.

Please don't use strawman to support your argument.

What if fee policy was 0.01 BTC?  Less than 10% of txs in last 20 blocks had a fee of 0.01 or higher.  Hell less than 1/3rd have a fee of any kind.    Thus a requirement to include 50% of txs mandates including free txs also.  Any fee policy no matter how low (even min 1 satoshi) would face exclusion.

So at least be honest with the ramifications. 

API for the winz.  So glad that thing exists.  Boy it certainly was a smart idea for *someone* to start a bounty for that.

The modification I was proposing wouldn't affect relaying so tx would be relayed to every node even my node would continue to relay it.The tx is valid so rejecting it is inappropriate I just don't want to mine it.

As far are mining it into a block.  If every single miner on the planet (and all new miners coming online) had a min fee rule with no exceptions higher than your fee then it would never enter a block.  However that is obviously unrealistic.  If 10% of miners had such a rule then 90% of network would still include it in the next block so your expected confirmation time would simply be 11 minutes vs 10 minutes.  If say 99% of network excluded it from the next block (due to insufficient fee) then your expected confirmation time would be 16 hours.  Obviously both of those numbers are expected confirmation time, the actual time would be subject to variance just like any confirmaiton time is.


The later.  My proposed change would only affect what tx go into the next block and only for those miners/pools which implement the patch.  Any valid tx would continued to be relayed.

Proposal:
A patch to bitcoind that modifies tx list returned by getmemorypool by excluding tx below a user defined fee.

Background:
The getmemorypool RPC call returns the components necessary to build a block header.


https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Original_Bitcoin_client/API_calls_list

The getmemorypool RPC call is used by p2pool to generate blockheaders for getwork requests by miners.  The default action of "getmemorypool" is to return all valid tx not yet known by the node to be in a block. I am seeking development of a patch which will exclude transactions with a transaction fee below the min fee set by the operator.  The list of tx returned should simply be the tx with an appropriate fee.

Implementation:
I imagine the easiest way to accomplish this is to have a new RPC call "setminfee".  By default "setminfee" is set to 0 BTC.  The modified "getmemorypool" would check the min-fee value (default 0) and exclude any tx with fee < min fee.  I am open to alternative implementation however a reason should be provided.

Bounty:
Make me an offer.  Honestly I have no idea the amount of work this will involve.  I don't want to vastly overpay or insult anyone with a low ball offer.

Not sure what the longest fork is but generated coins are not spendable for 120 blocks to ensure a fork can't result in spent coins being lost.

So miners are required to include tx that don't meet their fee requirements?  If they don't they risk having the valid blocks not forwarded?

I never said you will have problems.  If you keep it off any traces you are fine.  If you don't well you blew up a $400 GPU for no good reason.

Back when the choice was AS or that white goop which comes in $0.99 packs it might have been worth the risk.  Now that there are two dozen high quality NON CAPACATIVE ceramic based compounds the risk seems unwarranted.

When installing waterblocks I have found about half of all GPU have excess thermal compound on the traces.  If it was AS5 they would all be dead. 

Still your right it you are flawless in laying it down and never make a mistake, never put too much on, never allow any to fall on the traces then it will work fine.

reread what you quoted.

Whatever.  AS5 will damage a graphics card if you get it on the unprotected traces which surround the die.  I got no problem using AS5 on CPU with a headspreader.  If you use too much it isn't going to damage anything, on a AMD GPU if you use too much it is going to squeeze out right onto those unprotected traces and you end up with a $400 paperweight.

If it is a bad VRM you will be able to see it in GPU-Z.  Goto sensor tabs look for VRM temps.  If one shows no value or significantly lower than the others it is likely bad.

The bad news is this is just academic.  It can't be fixed without extensive work.  Hell most OEM don't even fix them.  They just toss them and give you an RMA that was easier to fix (like dead fan).

Did you ever try to run it that slow before?

Possibly one of the VRMS are bad.   At higher clock the remaining VRM can't supply enough power to keep it stable and the card crashes.

drugs.  when you need em you got to have right now.

Yeah AS5 is good stuff but I don't like to use it on GPU because it is conductive.  Most of the name brand ceramic based thermal compounds perform within a few degrees of each other.

alcohol works but it doesn't really dissolve the TIM.

If found this works good.  Yes a ripoff @ $7 for small bottle (good for 10 GPU at least) but it works very well.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835100010

For cleaning up bad thermal paste jobs which got some of the resistors I have found a method which works well.  Using the #1 cleaner in the link above, let it dissolve some of the thermal paste, mop it up with qtips.  You aren't really scrubbing it (which just smears the paste around to other resistors) more using the qtip like a sponge.  It will take 3 or 4 passes but you can get any surface perfectly clean.