ASIC's will devalue bitcoin's
If you can produce something more efficiently it has less value.
Look at Gold - Gold increases in price due to mining costs.
If someone came along with a machine that could just suck the gold right out of the ground and did not need to mine - what would happen to the gold price?
The distribution of ASIC's has totally upset the balance.
If scrypt coins require more power and resources to mine - long term they would have more value.
Gold is rare and difficult to mine - hence its value.
If I developed a quantum computer and it mined all the remaining Bitcoins in 1 week then what? Do they still have the same value?
To further the analogy if gold could only be mined by hand tools its value would be substantially more than it is now.
Umm, it's not like ASICs can increase the amount of available coins on the market so no you are wrong. the available amt of coins on the market is always increasing and difficulty adjustments dont occur instantly, either i've talked to a few people and my theory is the recent drop was the ppl with the avalon 2 units selling as fast as they can. the continuing pressure for the last few months is probably just asicminer selling 25btc every block it gets Yea but the rate of new coins remains steady no matter how many ASICs there are and how efficiently they are mining... So applying the "If you can produce something more efficiently it has less value." formula to the value of BTC is wrong. it doesn't last difficulty cycle I believe the avg was around 7 per hr? (ed: hmm more like 7.5) |
|
|
|
ASIC's will devalue bitcoin's
If you can produce something more efficiently it has less value.
Look at Gold - Gold increases in price due to mining costs.
If someone came along with a machine that could just suck the gold right out of the ground and did not need to mine - what would happen to the gold price?
The distribution of ASIC's has totally upset the balance.
If scrypt coins require more power and resources to mine - long term they would have more value.
Gold is rare and difficult to mine - hence its value.
If I developed a quantum computer and it mined all the remaining Bitcoins in 1 week then what? Do they still have the same value?
To further the analogy if gold could only be mined by hand tools its value would be substantially more than it is now.
Umm, it's not like ASICs can increase the amount of available coins on the market so no you are wrong. the available amt of coins on the market is always increasing and difficulty adjustments dont occur instantly, either i've talked to a few people and my theory is the recent drop was the ppl with the avalon 2 units selling as fast as they can. the continuing pressure for the last few months is probably just asicminer selling 25btc every block it gets |
|
|
|
|
these are off the market, probably for good. getting a deposit from buyer & then the rest within a few days
|
|
|
|
Are there any New's with BFL SC Asic on p2pool ?
my Jala's are just arrived and i want to put it on p2pool
Short answer: don't waste your time, they can't mine efficiently on p2pool. Long answer: see my guide. now that the firmware is open-sourced, i've been wondering if someone will tinker with it to enable custom nonce ranges. i won't have time for a while to even look at it... it's sad because BFL stated it would work with p2pool https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=90658.msg998190#msg998190haha, i lol'ed @ I dont use P2Fool because the payout over a month or so was so far below what even deepbit would of made me with PPS it was laughable sickening. |
|
|
|
|
hmm, actually looking at ssateneth selling the same exact cards for $335 + shipping ($350?)
i think maybe i'd have to think about it some. but feel free to PM me
no, i won't ship to bulgaria or romania or whatever else unless you prepay bitcoins
|
|
|
|
|
These all work fine, just have some dust. I'll clean up what I can from the outside. One is running at 810-810 (1.05v/1.05v) and the other two are running at 1.0375v (790-790 & 790-790) right now, cause of high ambient temps, 22-23 hrs of the day they're under 75oC, one or two of them may hit 76 or 77 for an hour or two in the afternoon. So, yes, I've been using them for mining. All of them were purchased used, I don't know what the previous owners did with them, but I haven't had any issues with the cards (two I've had for about 3-4 months? the other for about 2 weeks). Easy to change voltage on them in msi afterburner, I used to run my old two (that I already sold) at 915-915 or so during winter (@ 1.1125v, never went higher than that, VRMs were close to 100oC even in 30oF ambient). Ummm, I think that was 830mhash or so? I run them at the lower memory setting, so it gets a few mhash less (re: 915-155 or something instead of 915-330 or whatever is optimized for 256 worksize).
I sold my last one for $335 on eBay, about $300 or so after fees (yay for the eBay shop). This was about a week ago. Looks like they're still going for around $325-$350. (a $265 one, but from Thailand, etc)
So these for $285 each which includes shipping (UPS Ground). I also still have one 5870, an ASUS non-reference 5870. It's a bit funky in that it only has 1 display port, but it has that cool looking fan on it. If you buy all three for, hrm.... was going to say $820, but then I'd only clear about $790 or so probably after shipping... so..... $840... then I'll throw in the 5870 as well (I guess it's like a $90-$120 value).
All packaging will be done by UPS, because I'm lazy. Cards only, no accessories.
|
|
|
|
i have 3x5970 and a 6990 i can sell you? hoho |
|
|
|
Hallo all,
i just started mining a moth or so ago.
I started at bitminter but there are under doss attack the last days, so i singed up with BTCGuild.
I now use cgminter for mining, but it is only using 60% max of my GPU.
I have 2 GPU´s in my desktop, one sappire HD5750 and one sappire HD7770 and both run at max 60%
I also have a laptop and that is also just running at 60%.
How come this happens, and how do i fix it so it uses 100% of the cards.
Greets Bonee
increase the intensity or # of gpu threads |
|
|
|
|
I would just do away with the case entirely
|
|
|
|
|
7790's are about 15% slower than 7850's for bitcoins (duno about scrypt currencies).. they only use about 70-75 watts
|
|
|
|
Hi all,
Is there currently a free GPU mining pool I could join?
Thanks!
p2pool use 5.9.24.81  |
|
|
|
Both of you guys have been extremely helpful to me so I'm reluctant to get in the middle here but isn't that what happens when you submit work for an old block.I found this in my log...
[2013-06-19 19:14:18] Stratum from pool 0 detected new block
edit: I realize I could have nothing useful to add here you two obviously are in a different league than me.
edit2: I'm sorry I do see your point now what did happen to '68f2aca3'?
that's the big question i didn't build off of 68f2aca3... |
|
|
|
|
I guess most of the clowns up above never upgraded past the 0.0005 versions.
this is lol:
debug.log:2013-06-20 14:42:31 socket no message in first 30 seconds, 0 1
debug.log:2013-06-20 14:42:31 socket no message in first 30 seconds, 0 1
debug.log:2013-06-20 14:42:31 socket no message in first 30 seconds, 0 1
debug.log:2013-06-20 14:42:32 socket no message in first 30 seconds, 0 1
debug.log:2013-06-20 14:42:33 socket no message in first 30 seconds, 0 1
debug.log:2013-06-20 14:42:35 socket no message in first 30 seconds, 0 1
debug.log:2013-06-20 14:42:36 socket no message in first 30 seconds, 0 1
debug.log:2013-06-20 14:42:36 socket no message in first 30 seconds, 0 1
debug.log:2013-06-20 14:42:37 socket no message in first 30 seconds, 0 1
debug.log:2013-06-20 14:42:38 socket no message in first 30 seconds, 0 1
debug.log:2013-06-20 14:42:40 socket no message in first 30 seconds, 0 1
debug.log:2013-06-20 14:42:40 socket no message in first 30 seconds, 0 1
debug.log:2013-06-20 14:42:43 socket no message in first 30 seconds, 0 1
debug.log:2013-06-20 14:42:43 socket no message in first 30 seconds, 0 1
debug.log:2013-06-20 14:42:43 socket no message in first 30 seconds, 0 1
debug.log:2013-06-20 14:42:44 socket no message in first 30 seconds, 0 1
debug.log:2013-06-20 14:42:44 socket no message in first 30 seconds, 0 1
debug.log:2013-06-20 14:42:44 socket no message in first 30 seconds, 0 1
debug.log:2013-06-20 14:42:45 socket no message in first 30 seconds, 0 1
debug.log:2013-06-20 14:42:45 socket no message in first 30 seconds, 0 1
debug.log:2013-06-20 14:42:45 socket no message in first 30 seconds, 0 1
debug.log:2013-06-20 14:42:45 socket no message in first 30 seconds, 0 1
debug.log:2013-06-20 14:42:46 socket no message in first 30 seconds, 0 1
debug.log:2013-06-20 14:42:46 socket no message in first 30 seconds, 0 1
debug.log:2013-06-20 14:42:47 socket no message in first 30 seconds, 0 1
debug.log:2013-06-20 14:42:47 socket no message in first 30 seconds, 0 1
debug.log:2013-06-20 14:42:48 socket no message in first 30 seconds, 0 1
debug.log:2013-06-20 14:42:48 socket no message in first 30 seconds, 0 1
debug.log:2013-06-20 14:42:48 socket no message in first 30 seconds, 0 1
debug.log:2013-06-20 14:42:49 socket no message in first 30 seconds, 0 1
debug.log:2013-06-20 14:42:50 socket no message in first 30 seconds, 0 1
debug.log:2013-06-20 14:42:51 socket no message in first 30 seconds, 0 1
debug.log:2013-06-20 14:42:51 socket no message in first 30 seconds, 0 1
debug.log:2013-06-20 14:42:52 socket no message in first 30 seconds, 0 1
debug.log:2013-06-20 14:42:53 socket no message in first 30 seconds, 0 1
debug.log:2013-06-20 14:42:53 socket no message in first 30 seconds, 0 1
debug.log:2013-06-20 14:42:54 socket no message in first 30 seconds, 0 1
it took me about 10x longer than normal to get connected to 500 nodes
"addr" : "xxxx:8333",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1371739889,
"lastrecv" : 1371739889,
"bytessent" : 10997,
"bytesrecv" : 12191999,
"conntime" : 1371739017,
"version" : 70001,
"subver" : "/Satoshi:0.8.1/",
"inbound" : false,
"startingheight" : 242447,
"banscore" : 0
(this one is mr fancy pants)
"addr" : "xxxx:8333",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1371739882,
"lastrecv" : 1371739884,
"bytessent" : 13150,
"bytesrecv" : 115633854,
"conntime" : 1371739018,
"version" : 70001,
"subver" : "/Satoshi:0.8.1/",
"inbound" : false,
"startingheight" : 242447,
"banscore" : 0
"addr" : "xxxx:8333",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1371739888,
"lastrecv" : 1371739889,
"bytessent" : 6929,
"bytesrecv" : 42675157,
"conntime" : 1371739012,
"version" : 70001,
"subver" : "/Satoshi:0.8.0/",
"inbound" : false,
"startingheight" : 242447,
"banscore" : 0
moral of the story: downgrade versions, or modify source yourself
doh, fixed an IP
|
|
|
|
|
my p2pool back up with zero transactions now, due to 0.0001 fee being too small for someone to flood network with
|
|
|
|
|
changed this in net.h:
inline unsigned int ReceiveFloodSize() { return 1000*GetArg("-maxreceivebuffer", 1*50); }
inline unsigned int SendBufferSize() { return 1000*GetArg("-maxsendbuffer", 1*100); }
for it to take longer to use up all my memory, also this:
int64 CTransaction::nMinRelayTxFee = 1000000
yet,
"addr" : "xxxxx:60331",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1371737909,
"lastrecv" : 1371737918,
"bytessent" : 525043,
"bytesrecv" : 40556302,
"conntime" : 1371737637,
"version" : 70001,
"subver" : "/Satoshi:0.8.2.2/",
"inbound" : true,
"startingheight" : 242446,
"banscore" : 0
how is that even possible?
on the plus side, i think it was the stored transactions that fall within the 0.0001 new minrelayfee that were causing the memory usage to get to >10GB within a few minutes, since i'm holding steady at 500MB now with 500 connections
|
|
|
|
|
If I use my usual 750'ish connections, it goes above 1GB memory in about 10 seconds. Reaches 10GB in a few minutes.
I'm not accepting all these new horse battery staple transactions, either
Windows client is standard client with 8 outgoing connections. Started with entire blockchain
|
|
|
|
nogleg.com and nogleg.net are both running on ubuntu here it is on windows 7 ultimate edition, 64 bit it'd probably be more, except it was saturating my upstream. and, yes, my blockchain is up to date  |
|
|
|
|
"addr" : "xxx:8333",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1371735350,
"lastrecv" : 1371735347,
"bytessent" : 34484995,
"bytesrecv" : 1582697,
"conntime" : 1371735153,
"version" : 70001,
"subver" : "/Satoshi:0.8.2.2/",
"inbound" : false,
"startingheight" : 242445,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "xxx:8333",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1371735350,
"lastrecv" : 1371735342,
"bytessent" : 13728018,
"bytesrecv" : 1584120,
"conntime" : 1371735153,
"version" : 70001,
"subver" : "/Satoshi:0.8.1/",
"inbound" : false,
"startingheight" : 242445,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "xxx:8333",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1371735350,
"lastrecv" : 1371735349,
"bytessent" : 7512448,
"bytesrecv" : 1580997,
"conntime" : 1371735154,
"version" : 70001,
"subver" : "/Satoshi:0.8.1/",
"inbound" : false,
"startingheight" : 242445,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "xxx:8333",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1371735349,
"lastrecv" : 1371735349,
"bytessent" : 88559980,
"bytesrecv" : 81707,
"conntime" : 1371735154,
"version" : 70001,
"subver" : "/Satoshi:0.8.1/",
"inbound" : false,
"startingheight" : 242445,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "xxx:8333",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1371735349,
"lastrecv" : 1371735342,
"bytessent" : 23535,
"bytesrecv" : 1203573,
"conntime" : 1371735154,
"version" : 60001,
"subver" : "/Satoshi:0.6.3/",
"inbound" : false,
"startingheight" : 242445,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "xxx:8333",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1371735349,
"lastrecv" : 1371735349,
"bytessent" : 52893,
"bytesrecv" : 82593833,
"conntime" : 1371735154,
"version" : 70001,
"subver" : "/Satoshi:0.8.1/",
"inbound" : false,
"startingheight" : 242445,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "xxx:8333",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1371735349,
"lastrecv" : 1371735349,
"bytessent" : 91552895,
"bytesrecv" : 81040,
"conntime" : 1371735154,
"version" : 70001,
"subver" : "/Satoshi:0.8.2.2/",
"inbound" : false,
"startingheight" : 242445,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "xxx:8333",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1371735350,
"lastrecv" : 1371735349,
"bytessent" : 84017011,
"bytesrecv" : 6589163,
"conntime" : 1371735154,
"version" : 70001,
"subver" : "/Satoshi:0.8.1/",
"inbound" : false,
"startingheight" : 242445,
"banscore" : 0
},
closed off bitcoind at 3GB memory this time, about *more like 180 seconds in
so, any solutions? besides making light of some horrible bug?
|
|
|
|
|
This was about 30 seconds after a restart & the very top of my list, so he had me on addnode also, but:
"addr" : "xxx:55443",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1371730754,
"lastrecv" : 1371730765,
"bytessent" : 268610,
"bytesrecv" : 93228,
"conntime" : 1371730635,
"version" : 70001,
"subver" : "/Satoshi:0.8.1/",
"inbound" : true,
"startingheight" : 242438,
"banscore" : 0,
"syncnode" : true
},
{
"addr" : "xxx:56947",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1371730758,
"lastrecv" : 1371730764,
"bytessent" : 267688,
"bytesrecv" : 5629,
"conntime" : 1371730635,
"version" : 70001,
"subver" : "/Satoshi:0.8.0/",
"inbound" : true,
"startingheight" : 242438,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "xxx:1217",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1371730754,
"lastrecv" : 1371730765,
"bytessent" : 268438,
"bytesrecv" : 3439,
"conntime" : 1371730635,
"version" : 70001,
"subver" : "/Satoshi:0.8.2/",
"inbound" : true,
"startingheight" : 242438,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "xxx:8333",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1371730754,
"lastrecv" : 1371730758,
"bytessent" : 6273,
"bytesrecv" : 81803,
"conntime" : 1371730635,
"version" : 70001,
"subver" : "/Satoshi:0.8.1/",
"inbound" : false,
"startingheight" : 242438,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "xxx:8333",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1371730763,
"lastrecv" : 1371730763,
"bytessent" : 15118,
"bytesrecv" : 2092,
"conntime" : 1371730635,
"version" : 70001,
"subver" : "/Mini-Grokking Satoshi:0.8.1.99/",
"inbound" : false,
"startingheight" : 242438,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "xxx:8333",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1371730754,
"lastrecv" : 1371730740,
"bytessent" : 5044,
"bytesrecv" : 78106,
"conntime" : 1371730635,
"version" : 70001,
"subver" : "/Satoshi:0.8.1.99/Eligius:2/",
"inbound" : false,
"startingheight" : 242438,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "xxx:8333",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1371730754,
"lastrecv" : 1371730758,
"bytessent" : 6572,
"bytesrecv" : 77576,
"conntime" : 1371730635,
"version" : 70001,
"subver" : "/Satoshi:0.8.2.2/",
"inbound" : false,
"startingheight" : 242438,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "xxx:3505",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1371730767,
"lastrecv" : 1371730760,
"bytessent" : 13978337,
"bytesrecv" : 1379,
"conntime" : 1371730637,
"version" : 70001,
"subver" : "/Satoshi:0.8.2.2/",
"inbound" : true,
"startingheight" : 114994,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "xxx:41332",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1371730754,
"lastrecv" : 1371730752,
"bytessent" : 270796,
"bytesrecv" : 73563150,
"conntime" : 1371730642,
"version" : 70001,
"subver" : "/Satoshi:0.8.2.1/",
"inbound" : true,
"startingheight" : 242438,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "xxx:33972",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1371730762,
"lastrecv" : 1371730762,
"bytessent" : 274862,
"bytesrecv" : 227,
"conntime" : 1371730760,
"version" : 70001,
"subver" : "/Satoshi:0.8.1/",
"inbound" : true,
"startingheight" : 242438,
"banscore" : 0
}
----
It looks like it was causing me to send out a good amount of BS data too... hmm, well, I guess you can't really notice it here. The guy above was just requesting blocks. But in a prior log, I had sent out some godawful amt of bytes to a bunch of peers (a bitcoind instance that had been running for maybe 5 minutes)
|
|
|
|
|
I noticed bitcoind was taking 10GB of memory, so I restarted it & it quickly started climbing again.
I noticed this peer:
"addr" : "xxx",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1371730754,
"lastrecv" : 1371730752,
"bytessent" : 270796,
"bytesrecv" : 73563150,
"conntime" : 1371730642,
"version" : 70001,
"subver" : "/Satoshi:0.8.2.1/",
"inbound" : true,
"startingheight" : 242438,
"banscore" : 0
-------
This was after being connected to me for about 30 seconds.
It was occurring on both of my nodes, both from same IP.
I firewalled & started it w/ 5 max outbound but still with listen on... so far after about 30m, the memory behavior has been normal, it's using 400MB right now.
But it's not like I can keep the person from using a different IP, even if I block an entire subnet?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
on mobo or overall.....
