With regard to ID being an int, I was going by JSON-RPC 1.0 specifications, is there an updated one somewhere? The 1.0 (and 2.0) specs say ID is of any type, but maybe I'm looking in the wrong place? (I used this doc: http://json-rpc.org/wiki/specification) For difficulty, it's being sent following mining.subscribe as per the spec, yeah? Do you have a link to the documentation on how that should be handled if EMC isn't doing it right? mining.subscribe comes before the auth, so difficulty would naturally follow prior to auth, no? Since minining.authorize can happen any time in the session, difficulty should come before that (for example, if you decide to add workers in the middle of a session). |
|
|
|
|
As long as you don't touch the Slurpee machine.
|
|
|
|
|
I was using 3334 for testing. I switched them all over to 3333, so that should work.
|
|
|
|
|
EMC should now support Stratum on all servers. You can connect to port 3333 for Stratum.
Give it a shot and let me know how it works... but it is working great in my testing. CGminer had some issues and I've sent in a pull request, hopefully Con will accept and merge it in the main branch soon.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, we are trying to reach out and improve customer service. We are just making our way through the back log of voice mails now, but going forward, it will be a point of contact phone wise for people. That's one area that we have basically been totally non-existent in and it's something we are trying to rectify.
Our VM backlog was... huge to say the least.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm trying to get all the common, simple questions into the FAQ. I certainly welcome any help on that front!
|
|
|
|
|
You and about 400 other people, Garr...
Anyway, for the record, Bitsnpieces is Frizz23, aka CptNemo, aka about 20 other accounts on the BFL forums. I'm sure he'll come back and say "No I'm not" - but since he is on a dynamic IP connection and he used the same IP on multiple accounts, it's highly unlikely that it was a different person. Especially when the same type of posts are made by brand new accounts from the same IP block allocated to Frizz's ISP. Frizz has migrated to using proxies now, but it's pretty easy to pick him out the minute he posts, since he can't conceal his writing style and odd turns of phrase that aren't very common.
So yes, Bitsnpieces was banned for having multiple accounts only to stir up trouble.
|
|
|
|
|
If you mean like see them in BFGMiner or something, they won't all fit on a screen, no matter how big it is (I tried for a screenshot) ... the text got so tiny as to be illegible and it still only had about 120 on the screen.
|
|
|
|
I know that bASIC started almost a year ago.
Tom is just more conservative in what he does and did not want to announce anything until it was final or close to it.
Of course he got pushed around for not releasing power specs earlier, but he also didn't want them to be off. Since the way his product is being developed, he really won't know the true specs until he is putting the boards together and testing them.
The good thing is people will know the accurate power and get their board shortly thereafter.
So you're saying the bASIC was started design a year ago, a full 6+ months BEFORE Tom was harping about how ASICs are bad for Bitcoin and people should be wary of them? Really? I eagerly await your justification of this post then: I hope my prediction is wrong. I hope ASICs wont be used in a way where the Bitcoin devs have to take measures such as I described above, but it is certainly probable enough to where the community needs to identify it. I hope I dont have to come back in a year and say I told you so, only time will tell... However... to anyone who believes this fallacy that BFL or any other corporate ASIC mining manufacturer is going to limit their sales in order to protect Bitcoin - you need to get over that. Fallacy #2 ASICs will be cheap and plentiful for all to use and enjoy yeah right! The first Bitcoin mining ASICs that are mass produced (BFL singles ARE NOT ASIC they were Identified as XILINIX FPGA by ngzhang) are likely to be used and abused by its makers for massive mining profits, the first ASICs to be sold will be sold for thousands. The corporate entities that invest the money and time needed to create these chips are not going to just make them and give them away. Fact #1 Right Now the only groups that can achieve access to Bitcoin mining ASICs are those with the money and connections to get them made Fact #2 Last Summer difficulty and Bitcoin value SKYROCKETED purely on the backs of GPU mining - Can you IMAGINE what Bitcoin would be like now if only the Wealthy Had Access to GPU's in the Summer of 2011? I built a 10 ghash mining farm (back when 10ghash was alot) little by little on the mining profits of one single 5870 purchased in the early spring of 2011. A lot of others in this community have gained similar or greater Bitcoin success because Bitcoin mining can empower even the most modest of Miners, this has changed a lot of the last year but its still realistic to some degree, a lot of you may think ASIC is your chance, everyone wants to be a (God I hate saying this) " Early adopter " right? Like I said at the beginning of this rant (  ) I hope I am wrong, I really hope this horrible feeling about what I am hearing about certain people who are working on acquiring ASIC based Bitcoin mining is wrong, all I am asking anyone to do is keep your eyes and your mind open to whats really going on before you jump on the band wagon and support something for the wrong reasons. I was one of the first people to be skeptical about BFL when they first came on the scene, and I admit I was wrong at that time about them, but this "FAQ" that encourages people to buy BFL Singles now and not worry about ASIC later because they will give you a full trade in value? Its just another piece of this puzzle that makes me entirely too uneasy... From a business stand point that makes absolutely zero sense.... ...just food for thought and motivation to prove me wrong... Enjoy!  |
|
|
|
|
No, the intent is to have one monolithic device, but yes, it contains some slightly different Single SC with additional connectors and a few other things, including faster clock and cooling.
|
|
|
|
|
One week of mining revenue is less than $600 or so, if that. Nefario is also in another country. Basically, all the accumulated fund of BFLS right now would go towards paying a lawyer who may or may not be able to get anything done and even then, the money probably wouldn't be enough to actually get something done.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I would like to and I have no problem with it, but my one reservation is that if I start it for some and not for others, its' going to be some tough accounting to get everyone caught up if and when GLBSE does come through with the data or I institute a program without the GLBSE data. I'm open to suggestions on how to handle that, though.
|
|
|
|
|
That's a good idea Epoch! I wonder how many people withdraw their full amount each week?
Server: I have actually been working quite a bit on an automated payment program for BFLS shares. It is, for the most part, ready to go, I just need to get verified share information. I have run a number of tests on it and it's been working fine through the built in bitcoind sendmany rpc call. The only thing I need now is verified share data; I put that in the DB backing the program and everyone gets paid properly each week (I will probably increase that from weekly to every couple days actually, since it's all automated).
I have not been idle since GLBSE went down.
|
|
|
|
|
I have been pursuing other avenues of acquiring the information, but so far they've been fruitless.
I'm hoping that the data will come through, otherwise I may have to look at what data I have and if it matches up close enough with what I think it should be, just pay people out of that, but I really want to avoid that, because there will inevitably end up people complaining about something.
|
|
|
|
|
There is nothing I can do until GLBSE gives me the information. I'm not sure what updates you want: nothing has changes as of yet thus no updates. If something happens in that sphere, I will be here providing an update.
|
|
|
|
|
We refocused on the ASICs and pretty much stopped all FPGA development.
|
|
|
|
|
That's correct, each minirig holds 17 - 24 individual boards that individually enumerated on the USB bus. That was not the original design or intent, but with the ASICs being pushed forward, development on the Minirig halted abruptly and the move to unify all the USB devices into a single device was never completed... so you basically have a framework scaffold for a bunch of super singles that run at 1400 MH/s.
|
|
|
|
No, I have split that unit into two separate computers because it was a bit unstable. Although I have since found out that USB3 is the ultimate culprit of that instability. It seems that plugging in a massive number of devices to a USB3 port freaks it out and they go into a connect/disconnect cycle, whereas connecting the same number of devices to a USB2 port works just fine. This post shows the devices: https://forums.butterflylabs.com/showthread.php/267-How-many-Minirigs-(not-SC)-are-out-there?p=3815&viewfull=1#post3815 But they hooked up to two separate machines now instead of 1. There are about 240 devices in that picture (not counting the 120 on the right, which are connected to a separate set of machines), so they are split roughly evenly between two machines, both at around 120 something each. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
