Where is thee Onda B250's power pins, anyone?
three? power pins? The power on button location? The two pins that I can connect a power button. The only button I can see the BIOS reset button which restarts the CPU but also resets the BIOS to default. The Onda D1800 is configured from the factory to boot automatically when power is applied; perhaps the B250 is configured similarly. Did you try doing that? Otherwise, the pin header for the usual power switch, power LED, reset switch, HDD LED should be located in the corner near the ATX 24 pin connector. |
|
|
|
I design power electronics for a living and I can assure you that products are almost never made to be capable of running at 100% max power continuously. Is it good engineering to put in some kind of thermal throttling? Absolutely, but higher temperature operation always results in reduced lifespan (the rule of thumb - based on the Arrhenius equation from chemistry, oddly enough - is that every 10C increase in temp cuts lifespan in half).
And as QuintLeo pointed out, laptops are not really intended to be used 24/7 anyway. Heck, cordless tools, automobile engines, arc welders and all sorts of other commonly used things would quickly die if run at max rated output.
In computers, SERVER designs are intended to run at 100% load 24/7 - but that's about the only thing in Computers that is designed for that sort of condition. LAPTOPS are too cramped to provide the kind of cooling design to ALLOW for that sort of use - the primary design consideration for almost all LAPTOPS is "long battery life" and doing everything practical to save on power usage. Cars can handle running 24/7 - if you run them WAY UNDER their max speed. Even most "endurance" type race cars aren't designed to handle running more than 1 day at a time - and a LOT of them break during races DESPITE being "designed to handle the stress". You actually just completely agreed with what I wrote! Servers are an exception, perhaps, in that they are designed - or specified, anyway - for operation at maximum load, but like anything else they will last longer if run at reduced load. Oh, I see a mistake in what I wrote: the last line should read, "...would quickly die if run at max rated output continuously," to reiterate the similar statement made earlier. |
|
|
|
What you did is flawed on multiple levels. You did two tests consecutively, and then also looked at the payout. The difficulty of the algo you mine will have changed in the meantime, making the 2nd run easier/harder to mine, but never the same. You also looked at payouts but never mention what currency, because if it is anything other than the coin you mine, and it looks like you are talking about BTC, then the market will also have fluctuated the price by the time of the 2nd run. Shortly put: don't trust what you just did ...
I just noticed that myself and added an edit to my previous post. Well, we all have our  moments. |
|
|
|
Thanks Giveen..Funny How people with absolutely nothing to contribute always chime in..
While you do have a point there, implied in what giveen1 wrote is that mining requires a fair amount of technical expertise and computer savvy; if you possess neither of those then a far better use of your time and money would be to simply buy those coins you think will do well. |
|
|
|
good. but 1 thing. all tests running at different times are shit. difficulty changes and that is enough. but luck changes as well. whatever. all pointless. only same pool, same cards, same settings, same rig, same time frame, different miners.
It doesn't matter if the difficulty changes if you run the test for 24 hours and use the average difficulty from whattomine.com for the past 24 hours. Pool luck *can* affect earnings, but if the pool finds blocks every few minutes and the test is, once again, run for 24 hours then missing or gaining a block or two won't affect earnings by more than a few tenths of a percent. For example, if a block is found every 5 minutes on average that works out to 288 blocks per 24 hour period; gaining or losing 1 block would shift earnings by 1/288, or 0.35%. |
|
|
|
So I've been testing Bminer for a few days now and I am going back to DSTM's miner (zm). First off, everyone else should be doing their own tests and make their own judgement. Take my results with a grain of salt. I started this test because I tried out no devfee option on this miner and saw pretty much no change whatsoever on the hash rate which was really strange. Hardware: 5 x GTX 1070 Testing methodology: Start miner. Take note of Sol/s. Wait 24 hour. After the first 24 hour, take note of Debit AP. Wait another 24 hour, take note of Debit AP. Note: Second Debit AP is what I used in this table to keep this short. Of course, testing for longer than this will give more accurate results but this is enough for me. DO YOUR OWN TEST. | Miner | | Average Sols | | Dev Fee | | Payout Last 24HR | | Bminer | | 2510 | | Yes | | 0.12886265 | | Bminer | | 2510 | | No | | 0.12936028 | | DSTM's (zm) | | 2440 | | Yes | | 0.14198767 |
As I said before, there's no difference in hash rate whether you're running with dev fee or not. During these tests, I check whattomine everyday for their 24 hour estimated rewards; it was around 0.145. This is just an estimation but I think it's a good guideline of what you should be paid as it has been accurate for me for months and months. I think the hash rate shown is padded and I will be going back to DSTM's in the mean time. Can other people test no devfee option? Anyone else keeping track of their payouts? this is ridiculous. what kind of scientific methodology is that? decide for whatever you want if you play with random results. go back in the thread. I was running both miners for 4 or 5 days on the same rig with the same system config and 4 same cards for each miner. This means that I averaged out most of if not all randomness which is there to average out. And I got ca. 6-7% better results from the pool hash rate stats and not some random debit credit which also depends on a hell lot of factors beyond your control. really, before you post any message like that think whether you compare apples to apples or it is google to apples and then stop complaining about what you see. because you just cannot compare the way you do Actually, threeflappp's testing methodology looks fine to me. A 24 hour test is more than sufficient if the pool finds blocks every few minutes and this length of time also corresponds to whattomine's estimated payout based on the average difficulty over the past 24 hours. Running the test for more than 1 day makes it much more difficult to track the average difficulty unless you consistently record actual and estimated payout amounts every day at the same time. One last point: your overly defensive tone while being a newbie sure seems strange... Usually new members on a forum are well-advised to do more reading and less attacking. EDIT - I should add that there is a critical component to threeflappp's test: what whattomine predicted the earnings should be for each 24 hour period. Without this info the test is completely and totally useless. |
|
|
|
...
I just concluded another test of hsrminer on the Trezarcoin official pool and so far the results don't look good but I need all the blocks to confirm before I bury the hatchet on this one. Let's just say that with average difficulty over the last 24 hours (which would be conservative, because current difficulty spent most of the day below that) I should have earned 38 TZC but so far the sum of confirmed and unconfirmed is around 29.
Difficulty on ZEN has been really high today so it's as good a time as any to have the 6x GTX 1060 rig do another neoscrypt mining test. The results reported in the quote above were with hsrminer claiming it was hashing at 4.32 MH/s. The KlausT fork of ccminer (v8.19) is reporting a hashrate of 4.06 MH/s after 10 minutes of operation (it does take awhile for neoscrypt to get up to speed for some reason), so about 6.4% less than what hsrminer was claiming. However, I only got credited for 29 coins instead of the 38 that whattomine said I should have received given the hashrate and average difficulty, which comes out to a 24% haircut... If I get screwed by the same percentage with ccminer then either both are lying at exactly the same magnitude or else I can't trust whattomine and/or the pool. I just concluded the 24 hour test of ccminer klaust 8.19 and its effective hashrate came in at 3.68 MH/s vs. 4.06 MH/s reported, while hsrminer's effective hashrate was 3.30 MH/s vs. 4.32 MH/s reported. Since these results are so different and I only tested hsrminer for 4.5 hours I am going to give it yet another chance and do a full 24 hour test on the same pool once my existing balance fully clears. This way I can have more confidence that the average difficulty is truly average and eliminate as many variables as possible. |
|
|
|
And note...that all 3 Molex...on the board must be supplied with power. Heh. These boards don't come with manuals. I supplied the three SATA inputs with power, but the three Molex connectors are labeled "POUT." I thought that meant "power out." Thanks. I'll try that. Yeah, I had to learn all this stuff the hard way too on account of the lack of documentation and the Aliexpress listing expressly stating not to use the onboard video when it should have said you /have to use/ the onboard video...  Oh, and these boards absolutely require 1.35V DDR3L SODIMM (laptop) memory. I had success with a 4GB stick of Crucial DDR3L-1600, but Windows 10 is quite sluggish with that little amount of memory while mining. Then again, not sure you can expect more out of a Celeron mobile CPU that draws 15W. |
|
|
|
Read this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2690585.0And note that the onboard VGA port is used by default and that all 3 Molex and all 3 SATA power connectors on the board must be supplied with power. You should be fine with a 650W or bigger ATX power supply. |
|
|
|
Go into the wallet program folder and look for a file without an extension. For example, I have two wallets (by accident) and I not-so-creatively named them edollar1 then edollar2.
There's nothing like that in there. $ ls
edollard edollar-wallet-cli edollar-wallet-cli.log edollar-wallet-rpc Okay, you probably should have said this was on Linux... but regardless, there does seem to be a log file so open it up in a text editor and search for the word "wallet". |
|
|
|
Update 20-01-18
Due to a bug in Visual Studio CUDA (Nvidia) didn't work. I recompiled and nvidia cards should be working now
Testing this out on a couple different computers and I really like the color scheme. So far it works fine in CPU-only mode with a Ryzen 5 1600 (440 H/s) and an FX-8300 (340 H/s), but GPU performance is rather lackluster with an RX 570 (getting about 550 H/s from the GPU itself, while Claymore v3.9 gets 720 H/s), and it doesn't work at all with a GTX 1080. |
|
|
|
Working. Just had one more question. I created a wallet then I forgot the name of it. Is there a command to list wallets?
Go into the wallet program folder and look for a file without an extension. For example, I have two wallets (by accident) and I not-so-creatively named them edollar1 then edollar2. |
|
|
|
With all thermal management features modern CPU's use, having thermal induced damage in modern hardware it's simply not justifiable anymore.
If a CPU runs at spec'ed temperatures and they do not rise, the cooling system is properly designed. Now they have to have surrounding components that can handle that too. If OEM's can't provide that, they are providing a bad product and cutting corners. Yes, most do it.
My Core i7 7500U has a Tjunction of 100ºc. It runs @ 70ºc 24/7 with 2 threads on xmr-stak.
I design power electronics for a living and I can assure you that products are almost never made to be capable of running at 100% max power continuously. Is it good engineering to put in some kind of thermal throttling? Absolutely, but higher temperature operation always results in reduced lifespan (the rule of thumb - based on the Arrhenius equation from chemistry, oddly enough - is that every 10C increase in temp cuts lifespan in half). And as QuintLeo pointed out, laptops are not really intended to be used 24/7 anyway. Heck, cordless tools, automobile engines, arc welders and all sorts of other commonly used things would quickly die if run at max rated output continuously. EDIT - appended continuously to last sentence... forgot that the first time. |
|
|
|
...
Sure, I could use remote control, but I've found that screen sharing apps eat a little bit of hashing power when you're connected.
I was surprised at how much of a hit to hashrate teamviewer causes, even on a Ryzen 5 1600, and a KVM switch isn't a good choice for me at the moment because the Onda 6-GPU boards have a VGA port while everything else I have shanghaied into mining uses DVI/HDMI/DP (though I guess I could get a bunch of DVI to VGA converter plugs). |
|
|
|
Saw your conversation and wanted to get an opinion.
Im mining on MPH now, but saw some reccomendations for Ahashpool. Checked it out, and it seems interesting (more algos and coins), but it seems to autoexchange everything to BTC only. I prefer to get my earnings in ETH since i believe more in it and dont have the transaction price/time issues (im mining with only 2 x gtx1070, so transaction price is important).
Any reccomendations on best pool to autoexchange to ETH? Or MPH would be the best option?
I'm not entirely sure, but I *think* Zergpool.com will let you specify another coin besides BTC for autoconversion. It also let's you mine multiple coins with the same algo (e.g. - Neoscrypt), auto-converting them all to a single coin that you specify (both with a payment address and by setting the password to c=XXX, where XXX is the coin symbol; e.g. - BTC). The homepage for the pool shows conversion to BTC in all the examples, but it seems to suggest that other coins can be chosen. I am testing Zergpool right now with a single RX 570 mining Neoscrypt auto-converting to BTC, but if the test results are promising - and so far they are - then I will next try setting a different target coin, likely ETH as well. BTW - only a little more than a day to go in the Nemosminer/MPH vs. NiceHash test w/ dueling 1080s and NH is still well ahead... |
|
|
|
So, I d/l'ed the wallet about an hour ago and I am only seeing a single connection to the network and even that is spotty. How many peers is your wallet connected to?
Lol, right as I type this I am now connected to 2 peers... Still, the above question pertains.
Two days later and my wallet is only about 60% synced up... I've seen slow wallets/blockchains but this is ridiculous. Looks like I am going to have to hunt down the blockchain file and manually d/l it. |
|
|
|
Is there a way to unsubscribe from threads you have posted in; that is, to remove those threads from the "Show new replies to your posts" function?
No, but you can use the "Watchlist" option instead (last option from the list, upper left). It gives you the ability to sub/unsub. I'll give that a shot; thanks. The only way to remove threads from the "Show new replies to your posts" function is to delete all your post in that thread. It's one of the forums frustrations when you post an early reply to something and then it evolves into a spam megathread. Yeah, the "nukular option," to use George W.'s phrase...  Watchlist is working more or less like "Show new replies..." does on most other forums. I can only imagine how long the list of threads is on the show new replies screen for some of you hero/legendary types as mine already takes up half a page. |
|
|
|
... The investments examples you mention typically have up-front and fixed terms for the APR, etc. So these would be much more analogous to the other kinds of PoS models I mentioned in the previous post--both are geared around a more steady/predictable annual rate-of-return. As explained, the TZC PoS model is truly variable depending on network factors and other conditions--like most PoW. So while you say that the savings/CD model is "the closest analog to staking coins", I would argue that its the other PoS model--i.e., x% PoS--you would need to compare to in order to make that claim. That's my take on what (I think) you are saying. But perhaps I misunderstood--feel free to clarify.  Hmm, I think I see your point of view now. Guess the trap was sprung on me! I was going to argue that the wallet itself should provide an estimate of the time it would take to receive a block reward from staking because it has all of the necessary data points to do the calculation, but I can see how it would be self-defeating if that number wildly changed as a result of receiving/sending TZC - ie, using this as an everyday payment method. However, I do think a web-based calculator, officially provided by the dev team, should be a priority as staking is a primary function/feature of TZC. In fact, one of the main reasons I am mining it right now is to have a decent number on hand for staking (because, let's face it, there isn't much ability to actually use cryptos for everyday transactions just yet). |
|
|
|
Nothing is wrong.. Nicehash is the marketplace.. get that! They need a person who will BUY your hashing power.. and if his/her highest bid is everyday lower.. you will get lower reward... easy as that...
You are not mining BTC or anyother coin on nicehash.. you are selling your hashing power to the highest bidder..
Is this why NiceHash sometimes switches to algos that are clearly not the most profitable at the moment? For example, I am doing a comparison between it and Nemosminer on MiningPoolHub with both getting a single GTX 1080 and I just caught NH switching from Equihash - which was projected to earn $4.31 per day - to Nist5 - which caused projected daily earnings to plummet to $2.10. Based on what you wrote my theory is that there wasn't enough Nist5 hashpower available to fill outstanding contracts so miners got switched to the algo even though it wasn't even close to being the most profitable. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
