Right now, 186THash/sec http://bitcoincharts.com/bitcoin/Unfortunately FLOPS are not a good metric for bitcoin hashing as its intrinsically an integer operation, rather than floating-point. Perhaps the hardware comparison list is a good place to start https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Mining_Hardware_ComparisonLook at the hash rate for a typical CPU and scale it up to the full network hash rate. So a top range intel processor give 5MHash/s per core. which equates to 37 million cores (or 9 million quad-core processors) for the full 186 THash/sec. Of course nobody mines with CPUs these days as GPUs. FPGAs, ASICs all give (in order of magnitude) far greater performance per dollar/watt/joule metric. If you want to compare with the top 500 supercomputers (20 PetaFlop leader), its difficult as the Petaflops tell you nothing about the integer performance. Hmm, getting out of my depth here, I guess the integer performance figures are out there somewhere, and then its a matter of scaling up vs a known CPU hash rate. Oh well, maybe experts will chip in, they do haunt newbie land from time to time. And since I've made the effort to write all this, I'm going to post it anyway. Push.  |
|
|
|
They will never make their return on investment if you take into consideration difficulty increases. As for USB Hubs, any powered USB Hub should run multiples easily, and the Raspberry Pi should detect them all from a powered hub. Although, they're undeniably pretty. ( https://i.imgur.com/BJCe9a0.jpg) EDIT: Calculator taking difficulty into the calculation: http://www.coinish.com/calc/ Click Expert, put in the 333 MH/s Not all hubs. USB3 hubs have been reported not to work with the rpi, and some are underpowered for multiple devices. Just trawl thru the forums for info, a good start is https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=220905.0Otherwise I agree completely. You won't get your btc back, but they may be fun to play with. And that calculator is one of the best IMHO. |
|
|
|
Here where ? I only hear hype and bragging to discourage the competition. A real 2nd generation chip will come from Avalon, but it's likely secret since they don't want to kill their current line prematurely.
A 28nm chip is pure fantasy at this point, the process is too expensive to make it cost effective for bitcoin mining.
Yeah, I'm pretty much with you on that one (the hype and bragging). Though the BFL chips are real enough (whether they ship any to third parties is another matter), as are Bitfury's. The are plenty of KNCMiner fanboi's over on the Custom Hardware threads. I've made some attempt to counter their raw enthusiasm, though generally been chewed out as a Cassandra or shill for Avalon/BFL. Time will tell whether they can deliver, but they are going to be expensive chips (400GHash/sec Jupiter model for $6995, which is very competitively priced by current ASIC standards, has just four of their 28nm chips). |
|
|
|
Second generation chips are already here. Avalon are 110nm for 300MH/s each (similar to ASICMiner) - first generation. BFL 65nm for (approx) 4GH/s - clearly second generation. Bitfury 55nm currently in alpha testing https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=228677.0 - second generation KNCMiner 28nm 100GHash/sec claimed, in fab, expected to ship first mining rigs in September - third generation Of course none of these have yet been delivered to board builders (and AsicMiner, Bitfury, KNCMiner have no current plans to do so). If KNCMiner are able to deliver what they are promising, this is a game changer. And who knows what else is going to come in the next few months/years? PS There is a useful comparison table here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=209750.0 (follow the link in the initial post). |
|
|
|
You might want to change your title, my first thought was ... Q: Can staying up all night effect a bruise? A: Of course, you'll be tired and could fall over which can have the effect of bruising. Pedantry: effect - cause to happen. affect - make change to http://www.diffen.com/difference/Affect_vs_Effect |
|
|
|
WOW! 1000 Watts over 4 chips is 250Watt per chip (less a bit for power conversion etc), say 150W TDP? This is definitely in the ballpark of high-end graphics/cpu thermal design. Mucho kudos if they get it right.  |
|
|
|
Hmm, not sure if I want to get into a slanging match with a space cadet, but I'd like to point out that your link quotes the payback in energy cost of the fuel used to to launch the satellites. Not so much an apples to pears comparison as a grapefruit to raisin. Fuel cost is a tiny proportion of the cost of a launch. Must try harder. |
|
|
|
Of course walletrecoveryservices could be a sock of molecular  But what am I saying, given molecular's level of trust that would be a good thing, nay? Time to brush up on my hacking skills, only a week to get that coin. But only a 1 in a gazillion chances of success! ...  cos otherwise bitcoin is toast  |
|
|
|
This is fucking retarded even for the speculation forum.
I wouldn't go quite so far. NASA did a study back in the 1970/80s (following Gerard K O'Neil's High Frontier book). and came to the conclusion that Space Power generation just did not have a ROI. They used pretty optimistic projections for launch costs too (if anything its more expensive now than it was in those days!) All this "Server Sky" is suggesting is that there is no need to beam the power back to earth, just use it in space. It certainly reduces the technical requirements, and would perhaps halve the cost. But half of outrageously expensive is still outrageously expensive. Though looking further into the future the "Singulantarians" predict enclosing the sun in a Dyson Sphere of pure computronium, and transferring human existence into the cloud. Charlie Stross did a nice take on it in Accelerando. I haven't read his Singularity Sky yet, but I'm guessing this is where the term "Server Sky" originates. TL;DR Sci-fi is fun, but don't confuse with reality. |
|
|
|
With USB-ASIC miners selling on Ebay typically around $300 for 300 MHash/sec, that means these 28 nm FPGA miners http://www.raspberrycoins.com are now more cost effective than that ASIC solution. Oh what sweet tongue'd self praise. You chose to compare your product against the most expensive ASIC product on the general market (relative to ROI), and you come out better. Give it up. 28nm FPGA's will never compete with realistically priced ASICs (and they will come to market, sooner or later, there is just so much profit being made by the manufacturers right now that real competition is bound to kick in, and soon). |
|
|
|
Excellent. I wanted the source of the material, not brontosaurus' warped view of it. Thank you for providing it.  It sounds like KNC are not doing binning. They are confident that the yields will result in a low number of completely dead chips. If they were making products with 1 or 2 chips on them, one completely dead chip would prevent that unit from being shipped as product. Since there are a large number of chips per device, it is unlikely that 1 dead chip would make the device undeliverable. Even 2-3 completely dead chips would still result in a partially functional product, it might not meet spec but it could sit in the corner at KNC and mine, it could serve as a test bed for firmware, etc. Obviously, chip binning would increase the quality of the product but by how much we don't know. Perhaps spending time and money to get a 5% increase in quality is not worthwhile if they are beating their specs by 30%. Time will tell. Chip binning can be done post hoc, to screen out dead chips of there is an unforeseen yield problem. Yeah, agreed. Though ChipGeek made the point that some chips will fail to a dead short across the power supply. These would have to be identified and the boards reworked. Hopefully a rare occurrence. And just because there was no chip test strategy in place at the time of the Q & A, does not mean that KNCMiner are not working on one right now. Given that they had not yet finalised the foundry order at the time, perhaps chip testing was on the todo list to be worked on between tapeout and wafer delivery? An update on this would be useful. |
|
|
|
I mean, no chip testing methodology - just solder them to a board and see if they work?
Please prove that OrSoc & KNCMiner have no chip testing methodology. Links to posts where they say they are "employing no chip testing" would be sufficient. Please provide citations for your statements in the future. Since I've made several posts pointing this out, I'll help out here ... Q&A
–
ChipGeek
3) Are you doing pre-package wafer test?
Marcus: No.
4) Are you doing post-packaging testing on a real production tester (Teradyne or similar)?
Marcus: No. We...and...and...I..I..I need to say a little bit about why; ah because we will have a self built in test that will automaically test...the...because the chips are so large, so that we can compensate for any losses in the Bitcoin engines. If there are any failing ones then we can compensate for that.
Me: Physically large?
Marcus: The...the die size of the...the?
Me: Yeah
Marcus: The die size will be...very large.
Me: But does that...ummm...
Marcus: That, that means that some of the parts in the ASIC might work and some will not, but we can compensate for that.
Another member: We can compensate for that.
Me: So does that mean you yield less per wafer?
Marcus: So yeah, you will always have a yield problem, and when you increase the die size, the yield problem becomes larger of course.
Me: ok
Possibly my post here was the origin of the "just solder chips on board" claim https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=231739.msg2468261#msg2468261And ChipGeek (who seems pretty knowledgeable on chip design) made the following observation https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=232852.msg2474760#msg2474760I don't want to get too trollsome on this point, just pointing out the source of the rumour. |
|
|
|
Hi Originally, I was going to give out my real identity. I haven't got anything to hide. However a friend pointed out that one day, down the track, when bitcoins are worth $10k++ each, anyone and everyone who has a few bitcoins will become a target for the russian mafia to track down and demand bitcoins in return for retaining one's kneecaps.  I suggest all people out there consider this fact - we are the new rich 1%, after all So, I've returned to this forum with a somewhat more hidden identity. Hopefully, over time, as I help people recover their wallet bitcoins, trust will build up. Regards, Dave OK, understood. Just quoting for the record. |
|
|
|
You can also get small amounts of BTC from various faucets and free sites, but the amounts are too small to buy anything with. They can help cover transaction fees, though, and if nothing else it's a free way to get some Bitcoins into your wallet just so you don't have a zero balance. There are lots and lots of free BTC sites. Here's a site that includes timers and links for a variety of free sites: http://coinfaucets.tk/. But if you try to spend all that free bitcoin dust it will bump up your transaction size which (on some clients, eg BlockChain.info) automatically increases your transaction fee. You end up spending more real BTC in order to send all that worthless dust!  Just don't let it into your wallet in the first place.  |
|
|
|
I don't create firmware, I write the software and build binaries which I load directly. However, I have committed the code supporting the higher speeds to the git master tree for cgminer and xiangfu will create new test firmware shortly supporting the new speeds. Mine has been stable at 350 now for a few hours, averaging ~82GH.
I love it how you guys keep coming up with tweaks to push the performance further and further. Oh for a time machine to go back to the early days of bitcoin with a recent copy of cgminer and fire it up on a GPU. A look at Satoshi's face when (s)he sees the nethash rate would be priceless Then again there are more fun things you can do with a time machine, eg Primer ... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0390384/They started with ASIC (well JTAG actually but its sort of relevant) and ended up with a time machine. Didn't end well though. Sort of ... be careful what you wish for, and geeks and ethics don't mix. Anyway I liked the film. [/OT] |
|
|
|
OK sounds legit, are you prepared to divulge your prior ID(s) for the purpose of building trust? Hi
I'm a newbie (at least for posting purposes under this guise - I've been around bitcoins for yonks)
|
|
|
|
Mining is currently a level field for all, rich or poor. Even if and when Bitcoin becomes big enough to spawn specialized mining firms who develop proprietary ASICs for exclusive self-mining, you could still participate by means of a mining co-operative or a publicly traded company, or a partnership...
Except for ASICMiner, Avalon, BFL, (possibly KNCMiner, Bitfury in future). The companies that developed the first ASIC chips are doing very well for themselves. The old adage remains true, in a Gold Rush only the shovel sellers make good. |
|
|
|
|
I suppose a crude way of striping EXIF would be to take a screen shot (ALT-PrintScreen) of the image, paste it into MSPaint, crop it and save it again. (I did say crude, but if you're in a hurry...)
|
|
|
|
Hmm, I might be receiving a 8 GH/s at first, but I want to get a 50 - 60 GH/s one. I have it on preorder. But I have the 8 GH/s one shipping to me now.
Definitely use a pool with 8GH/s. For the 50GH/s you would mine an average of one block a month. Up to you whether you take that risk, but also beware orphaned blocks. I'm watching this thread for a reply to a question about configuration needed to reduce orphans https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=238089.0 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
