|
What's your budget? How many SKUs in your product catalog? What kinds of needs do you have (i.e. watermarking, segregating inventory, product classes, etc)? How many different inventory locations? What kinds of inventory locations (DC, vendors, manufacturers, drop shippers, stores)? What kinds of systems will need access to your inventory picture? Does the inventory system need to take care of the financials as well? Do you tie into an order management system? What about integration with a WMS?
|
|
|
|
45 chips model frequency should be 700M not 600m lower the frequency, lower the hash rate  Can someone pls explain this to me ? how reliable is the antminer backend ? I'm pretty sure the question is more about why it is showing 3 blocks found. The only explanation I can even think of giving here is that for the very short time your miner was hashing at NH (not solo) it was mining a very low diff alt coin. It certainly didn't hit a block of BTC. The highest diff is nowhere near what the BTC network difficulty is. |
|
|
|
|
Congrats on finally ending that painful round guys. Hope to see you hit a few nice quick greens!
|
|
|
|
Over the long term, yes its best to have steady hashing... But with the 3 day sharechain, and usually ~7 days predicted block time, its better to feed p2pool in intervals from rentals when one thinks it has a better chance of blocking. The further away from 7 days it gets, the higher the chance of it blocking in the near future. While the short term 10 minute to next 10 minute has the same chance of blocking, looked at in the long term statistics, you can tell that it will block again, but do not know when. The further past the point of average it goes, the higher the chance that it will occur to stay within the normal long term values. Same with short term blocks.. they have a less percentage chance of occuring, due to luck in the long term attempting to maintain an average.
If it didn't work, I would have lost it all by now in the 3 week dry spell, as I would have just kept feeding the machine.
This is a classic case of gambler's fallacy. Just because the pool is at 95% of expected shares without hitting a block it has absolutely no better chance of hitting it now than it did when there was 1% of expected shares. If you truly did get 500% return it was because you were lucky in your selective mining and not because you have been able to successfully predict when a block would occur. I'm glad your strategy worked out for you. It's nice to see those kinds of returns. However, those returns are not sustainable and the strategy is not viable. The longer you mine, the closer to expected values you would trend. That being said, the chance of a block in p2pool happening right NOW, is the same as it was 10 minutes ago, and 10 minutes from now. That never changes except with amount of hashrate. Meaning, pouring on the hashrate, increases the chance of a block.
Correction: I didn't get this last block, but I did double what I spent due to when I thought I should start my rentals of miners again.
Strangely enough, you get it exactly right here. I think maybe where you might be mixing things up is thinking, "ok, the pool is at 95% of expected shares and hasn't found a block. If I dump a ton of hash at it, the chances of it finding a block increase dramatically and the pool should hit soon." The problem is in the very end of that thought and thinking there is any correlation between it and the 95% of expected shares the pool already has hashed. |
|
|
|
I get a payout, displayed in blockchain.info to my address, they got nothing because they stopped mining a day and a half before the block occured and there is no payout displayed in blockchain.info even though p2pool said they were going to get a payout.
I had to figure out why, so why am I getting crapped on for pointing it out?
Edit: You misinterpret me as well, I never said they didn't get a share, as I have corrected you above in the math. They got many shares, and then quit mining a day and a half before the block occured.
The only way your friend doesn't get a payout when the block is hit is if he no longer has any shares on the chain. The only way for that to happen is if somehow p2pool busts out 8640 shares after your friend's last submitted one before a block is found. Can that happen? Yes. It's one of those cases I mentioned in my previous post. P2Pool will use either the fixed 8640 shares or the average of 3 times the work expected to find a block. It's not very likely though - at least not in the scenario you've provided. To make it work, your friend would have had to stop mining and then you would have had to pick it up at a hash rate of about 24PH/s and kept that steady for about 1.5 days without finding a block (that's at a difficulty of about 241G from a month and a half ago). You could have feasibly knocked all of his shares off the chain. |
|
|
|
If you do not submit a valid share within a 24 hour period, that wallet is no longer eligible for payout (even though it will say you would get a payout) ... buddy of mine found that out the hard way.
The p2pool sharechain pays out to the last 8640 shares. At an estimated 30 seconds per share, the sharechain pays out to any share found in the last 72 hours. This is an approximate of course as 30 seconds is only the target share time and it will vary with the pools hashrate variance. Pulled from the web and this content is referenced all over the place... The PPLNS payment system is not to be considered as the best for slow hash rate miners. To get payouts, you need to: solve at least one hash every 24h hours which is higher than the p2pool share difficulty = gets at least one payout each day. solve at least one hash within the window of the current block with a difficulty higher than the p2pool share difficulty = gets at least one payout each block. After 24 hours of no mining, you get no more payout even if a block is found within the 3 days (8640 shares). Like I said, buddy of mine discovered that the hard way and lost a sweet $200 payout. That's not correct. The p2pool share chain is typically 8640 shares (there are cases where it isn't, but they happen so rarely it might as well just be 8640 shares). As with any PPLNS system, any viable shares you have are paid when the pool hits a block. You don't just suddenly lose all of your shares if you don't mine for 24 hours. They are still there and will still be paid. I mined on p2pool for a few years before I started my own pool. There are plenty of times I've been paid out on an address that hadn't mined for a day or two. It's the way the system works. You ramp up and ramp down. Also, you don't get a payout each day, unless the pool is hitting a block every day. The only time you get a payout is when the pool hits a block. |
|
|
|
|
18-24 months is not the expected lifespan of a miner. However, when the S9 breaks within 20 days of purchase... or shows up with a dead hashing board, or a dead controller. Or after 30 days one of the boards dies on you. Those stories are far too prevalent. People have spent hundreds of dollars extra to replace parts, and they suffer the down time while their miner is either completely offline or if one of the boards dies, getting half the expected hash rate.
I have an S5. One of the boards died on it. It was brand new when I got it (received it from a guy for work I did for him). It hashed for a while, and it was pretty steadily averaging 1.1TH/s. My Avalons have suffered no such loss of functionality.
This isn't to say that all S9s are faulty. It is simply my opinion on the quality of the hardware when comparing the Avalon to the Antminer.
|
|
|
|
|
I've got 20 Avalon 6. 18 are hosted in Oregon. 2 are at my home in NJ. I'd consider selling if the price was right.
|
|
|
|
Also.. how do you get your hands on an Avalon controller?
An Avalon controller is a raspberry pi  Was really hoping for higher efficiency in the new model.. Isn't that 1.5X the power for the same Hashing rate? Beats the s7, I guess. Or am I missing something? Its good to see something new from Avalon.. but I'm disappointed they didn't at least reach the bar. It's definitely a more expensive piece of hardware than Bitmain's latest. Dollar per hash and watts per hash are both better with the S9. However, Bitmain's hardware is flaky. Bitmain's customer service is painful to deal with. Bitmain's software is atrocious. So... the question becomes, "how long will my hardware function without the need for maintenance or repair?". With the S9, the answer is "not that long". Hopefully Canaan has built the 721 to the same quality standards as their previous generations. I've got 20 A6 that are all hashing away. I think I've rebooted them a few times... and I replaced the fan on one. That's the extent of my maintenance. I'm very happy with the quality and the up-front price premium is something I'm willing to pay to have the peace of mind. |
|
|
|
What if you are not in a position to move to Chine, could you reduce your electricity bill by making use of solar panels?
Of course you could... but there's the up-front investment to get the solar panels. Probably cost you less to move |
|
|
|
|
No, there is no abandoning a block. The pool is constantly creating new block templates based upon the currently unconfirmed transactions it wishes to include into a block. The pool then appropriates work to miners, and each miner attempts to find a hash that will successfully meet the requirements and solve the block.
|
|
|
|
My pleasure. Good luck hitting the solo block |
|
|
|
Ahh-Hah!!! That's where I misunderstood you Thanks for clearing it up! |
|
|
|
Yep coinbase sig is what I'm looking at from the stratum decode, so guess he must have changed the username to try and hide. Coinbase Sig Decode from stratum: 7七彩神仙鱼}ϲ_L_;__ǩ*_gv#2__2_0___/_KS_f_____🐟_Mined by zhangjia90____________________ You are looking at the wrong block. Block 437887 clearly has the following coinbase signature: 7ƒ彩ž™鱼U Q#ŒHr_`,~q1)- ŸŸMined by xinxan
 |
|
|
|
$3.30 a day can hardly be regarded as being profitable, it's not enough to feed you for one day. An altcoin will do better than that.
You misread my reply. The S9 cost $3.30 a day to run. It expected to make (after power costs) $5.33 a day. Those values were based upon a very specific set of conditions. If you change them a bit, you can see the effect. For example, let's say you live in a place where your electricity only costs you $0.02 per kWh. Let's also assume BTC is $725. The batch 20 S9 now (at current difficulty today) expects to make you 0.01284 BTC a day. That's about $9.31. Subtract your power costs ($0.61 a day) and you net $8.70. See how much of a difference that is? That's why the big farms are located in areas where power is cheap. Heck of a difference paying $0.61 per miner per day vs paying $3.06 (calculated with batch 20 S9 power draw of 1274W at the wall). If I'm investing in 1000 miners, placing my farm in an area with $0.02 kWh power costs saves me $2450 a day over placing them in an area with $0.10 kWh power costs. |
|
|
|
As -ck pointed out, the default policy (at least in 2012) is for the software to send up to 10% of the work to the backup pool if the primary has delays in sending work. If the primary becomes unresponsive, all work will shift to the backup. With --failover-only, the software will not send partial work to the backup. It's all or nothing. You can see what each option does here: https://github.com/ckolivas/cgminerAlso, I'm not sure what that "retries" option is. It isn't listed as a command line argument in the cgminer docs and is probably what's screwing you up. To do what you want, simply make your command as follows: cgminer -o stratum+tcp://solo.ckpool.org:3333 -u user -p pass -o stratum+tcp://de.ckpool.org:3333 -u user -p pass
|
|
|
|
I bounced your message past Cory Fields, who has been helping others with segwit integration and he pointed out that it wasn't clear from your message if you'd end up duplicating the OP_RETURN-- the default_witness_commitment contains the OP_RETURN + magic already. Otherwise it sounds correct.
Thanks for following up. If I'm reading your response correctly, according to Cory, I simply have to add the value in "default_witness_commitment" instead of concatenating 0x6a24aa21a9ed and "default_witness_commitment". Much obliged for the reply. |
|
|
|
Down swampy Louisiana way there dwelt an iniquitous necromancer named Toumura Maleficent Vurotia Vromira Morte whom I serendipitously thrice encountered who spent all her waking hours focused on raising long lost corrupted spirits from their waterlogged burial chambers steadfastly believing she might stumble upon abhorrent factualisms regarding omnipotent artifacts which shall more than likely reward herself untold and overwhelming powers concerning subjugation over earthly equinal lifeforms created by terrifyingly sadistic demons formerly residing among mere mortal ponies forever grazing across open fertile fields filled with golden wheat traditionally utilized in while developing procedures for discovering individuals manifesting antidisestablishmentarianism tendencies within largely liberal congregations around sprawling developments alongside meandering natural rivers flowing southerly verses northerly similarly like River Nile past multitudinous bustling metropolises including Luxor previously known as the Ancient Egyptian city of Waset or Greek Thebes once having had myriad hieroglyphs depicting femmes fatales mayhaps said seductresses hastening its ultimate demise when ... Replaced in with while, that opens up in to be used elsewhere. Then add this: earthen atmospheric conditions constitute further needed evaluations reflected by ever expanding evil forces entering into infinite territories naive humans have forsaken throughout written historical millenniums Nice addition, Zach Back to editing the prose while I ponder what the fuck are solution/design/code audits.
I'm an enterprise software architect. Part of my job is to ensure we are providing value to our clients by performing audits on the work project teams have done. Solution audits - I evaluate the solution we have defined to ensure it successfully captures the client requirements and does so in a way that is efficient, scalable and maintainable. Design audits - The solution is broken down into components. Each of these components describes a piece of the solution and how that piece will be implemented. I evaluate the detailed designs to ensure they are indeed providing the required solution components and doing so effectively. For example, can this component be implemented using product functionality rather than custom coding? Code audits - I ensure the developers use best practices, that the code is easy to read and maintain, that it is documented, that tests are included, that it performs its duty as efficiently as possible, that exception scenarios are handled, that it won't get caught in infinite loops or leak memory. That sort of thing |
|
|
|
|
I'm actually quite enjoying it. It is providing a fantastic diversion from work, although I really should be completing the solution/design/code audits I've been asked to do.
If we happen to win the award from Guinness for the longest sentence? That's just icing on the cake!
|
|
|
|
|
I would use "reward" instead of "award" here.
Study, and you shall be rewarded.
Why are you rewarding the child for misbehaving?
I award you with the gold medal for winning the race.
Leonardo DiCaprio received the award for best actor in a leading role.
Another way to look at is that a reward is given regardless of whether or not you sought it. For example, "When I changed the channel, I was rewarded with my favorite episode of the show." The show was still being broadcast regardless of whether or not you watched it. An award is not given to you unless you seek it out. You can't win the award for best actor if you're not an actor.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
