The pics with Henrietta are taken with my 5DMk2, though I scale them down for the web of course.

We actually agonized a lot over the plastic issue and went through scenario after scenario due to specifically that fact.  There a bunch of vias on the bottom of the board, and we were originally going to cool it from the bottom instead of the top, but simulation after simulation showed it was more effective from the top, so that's what we went with.  But the vias are still there for a bit of extra oomph when the clock rate is bumped up.

There's a pic of the back of the board on the BFL forums.

Excellent, thanks for the info, Tom.  It's good to see some solid info.

This looks like it might be a likely candidate for the chip if it's sASIC: http://www.easic.com/low-cost-power-fpga-nre-asic-90nm-easic-nextreme/easic-nextreme-overview/


With this new info, it makes it a bit easier to guess at his power, though it's still speculation.  I'd estimate somewhere around 200w for a 54 GH/s unit, if he's using a CBIC.  If it's an sASIC, it would likely be more.

Yes, I mind.  We don't want the crazy to leak out and make a mess of the BFL forums.  Keep your crazy to yourself!

Do you like, seriously, honestly believe what you're saying or are you pandering to the crowd?  I've been wondering about that...  The only time I edit my posts is to change some grammar/spelling or phrases. I leave the content largely alone.  HerpDerp aside up there, you can see when a post has been edited and I rarely edit my posts. 

I look forward to your compilation, I think you may be surprised by what you find.  Here's what I think, though:

You are subscribing to the groupthink that's in this thread that I am somehow "trolling" when I press Tom for legitimate questions and call him out on his ... misinformation ... I understand perfectly well how it feels to have your choice of hardware brought into question (It's no different than the OS wars or Apple vs PC).  You want to lash out and blame the person questioning your choice/decision.  I mean, they must be trolling and being a "jerk" because they don't agree with your choice, right?  Evidence, facts and reality don't count when you've already made your choice, because you must have made your choice on sound evidence, right?  It couldn't possibly have been an emotional choice that turned out to be questionable, right?

So here's a challenge to you:  Go back through my posts by hand (presuming you have not finished your script) and you evaluate my posts without your biased viewpoint (if you can) and you point out where I've been less than truthful or have brought up subjects that aren't relevant to the topic at hand.  Also look for these supposed posts where I'm being totally irrational and spewing hate and bile all over the place.  If you find any (I doubt you will), I want you then to look at what they are in response to.  Are they in response to frothing, irrational stupidity or are they in response to well reasoned, polite response?  You might actually find a real pattern if you can do all that.  It shouldn't take too long for the pattern to emerge.

It's great to be able to see what you want to see in things, without that pesky reality getting in the way, isn't it?  Makes your life a lot easier, I'd wager?

Interesting... I would like to know more about that at some point.  I've not run into any problems and my server load is dramatically decreased.  Regardless, though, I'm not sure that pools ignoring some transactions in favor of others is necessarily a negative thing.  Right now, I limit the amount of transactions I put into any one block and I don't see any major issue with favoring higher transaction fee transactions over lower ones. 

If there are no higher fee transactions waiting, then the lower fee ones will get processed and that's as designed as far as I know.  I'm not saying it's a bad thing to "fix" GBT, but I've not run into any problems so far and I'd like to know at what point GBT becomes more cumbersome than getwork from a transaction standpoint.

Ok, I can buy into that they don't want to be a co-defendant and that's all well and good.  But the link you posted, which is the one I base my opinion off of reads very differently.  For example:

This is their job.  They are suppose to figure out the complex legal issues for these sorts of things.

But as I said, I can buy into it for future purposes.  But they way they've worded all their stances on Bitcoin has turned a number of other organizations off to Bitcoin.  I think EFF has handled the whole situation poorly and made no effort to correct it.  Is that enough to withhold donations?  I'm not sure how I feel about that yet.

US3 didn't like the move.  It's been fixed now though.  US2 and US1 should have been working fine though.  Is anyone having trouble with US2 or US1?

So it is... time zone data on the new server was set to CDT and not UTC.  I fixed that, the DB should start populating properly now.

Psy and Epoch are correct.

8 @ 6

Countdown timer says it hasn't, but who knows.

8 @ 5

Ok... I think I have everything moved.  Please report any errors.

Yeah, US1 is set at I think 30 SPM target over a 3 minute period, so that's about right. 

On another note, I am going to try moving the DB in a few minutes, so the website will go offline.  Mining nodes should remain up though.

Well, I've been mining with GBT for about a month now on a lower power netbook with no problems (and no bitcoind), so I'm not sure what you're referring to exactly?

I am?

Why FPGA's Should Not Be The Future Of Crypto Currencies

FPGA's are not a natural technological generation leap like going from CPU to GPU was. FPGA's are simply specialized processing units made specifically for Bitcoin. Which i do not beleive is following the original intentions of Satoshi, for many reasons.

Moving from GPU to FPGA mining will not be the same as going from CPU to GPU mining. The reason here is because CPU's and GPU's have decentralized distribution. They are mass produced by huge companies  giving you the option to buy their products in any city, no matter where you live! This allows us to be in control of when and where we get our mining hardware, and to a certain degree, at what cost. (Which helps the decentralization process). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralization

While on the other hand, FPGA's are mass produced, supply is controlled, price is controlled, they are in limited quantity, can only be bought from a few companies/sources, that in reality nobody even knows for sure they can trust. So what will happen is all the miners in the world will be forced to rely on those few companies for FPGA's. And we will be subject to their pricing. They will also control the supply of the mining rigs, which can have an effect on the bitcoin economy that is similar to the effect that the U.S Federal Reserve and banks have on the money supply. I'm not talking about the amount of money/BTC, but when it is available/mineable to the miners. This allows FPGA manufacturers to be in control of when and where we get our mining hardware. (All this hurts the decentralization process)

People will have to rely on the small quantities that these companies produce, which causes people to have wait for their hardware, which in the end causes people to potentially lose money. This is exactly what is happening right now. Many people are waiting to see what happens with FPGA's, so that they can start buying mining  hardware again. So, basically if FPGA didn't exist people would continue to buy GPUs as i type this, which would have meant more profit for those people now and in the future, which would have meant more money in those peoples pockets. This is where the 'Federal Reserve effect' comes in, because now mining hardware companies can control when people buy/receive their hardware, plus control when people get more or less profit through controlling the mining hardware supply. Also, buying FPGA's from a few small companies means whenever those companies come out with a new model, this process will start all over again. More lost money, more time lost waiting for release/shipping.

Another downfall of FPGA, is the fact that FPGA's will make everyone have to 'restart from scratch' buying mining hardware all over again, when most people already  have their mining hardware in the form of GPUs, and it is already paid off. Now you will have to sell all your GPUs, then have to buy $1000's of dollars of FPGA's just to be able to keep up with all the other players with the increasing difficulty. After that, you will have to wait all over again to get your return on  your investment! Which could take half a year or more, once difficulty adjusts, which should just take about a month or so.

Once FPGAs come out, the difficulty will adjust accordingly. Which will just cause everyone to make the same amount of money as they were before FPGA's. So the question is, is it necessary for us to go through all of what i mentioned above, to just end up making the same amount of money as you were before with GPU's, just a month or so later, with FPGA's?

Because of the above mentioned costs, plus the added cost of FPGA'S, this can hinder the widespread global adoption of Bitcoin just because of the sheer expense. This is especially true for people in other smaller, less wealthy countries. It is much easier to obtain a used GPU for those people. People that could be helping to build security and decentralization for Bitcoin!

FPGA's threaten to ruin any anonymity that Bitcoin has left. This is by potentially making it easier to track who is buying the mining rigs through the few small companies that sell the FPGA's. Which could potentially be bad if Bitcoin ever became illegal!

There are also many more smaller disadvantages of moving towards FPGA that are of less importance.

So now it comes to the advantages of FPGA. That's where everything boils down to in the end. The problem is there are not enough advantages to using FPGA, for them to outweigh the disadvantages it brings to the table! In my opinion, network security and lowered power consumption cannot make up for the potential problems that it brings. This is an economy. This is not about power consumption! It will all come down to economics in the end. And that is what I'm talking about. And that is the infostructure that Satoshi built Bitcoin on!

The  Bitcoin developers, and the Crypto Community in general needs the recognize FPGA's as a threat, and we should all do something to stop this from happening. I do not think that Satoshi would think the way these FPGA's are to be distributed would be good for the Bitcoin economy in general.  There are a few things we can do to combat this, like changing the algorithm to prevent the usage of FPGA's. Or, we could all switch to another crypto currency that that uses a different algorithm that is resistant to FPGA's, like Litecoin, so that we can save Bitcoin and our crypto-independence!

By Switching To Another Bitcoin Algorithm, Or By Using Litecoin We Can Save Our Crypto-Independence!

The only options we have now is to change the Bitcoin algorithm, or for everyone to switch to another FPGA proof crypto currency. The ideal situation would be for the Bitcoin developers to change the algorithm, but that does not seem to be what they plan to do. So that's where Litecoin comes in. While Litecoin is not FPGA proof, it is FPGA resistant. It runs on an algorithm called scrypt that is highly memory intensive, which makes it much harder to produce a FPGA for Litecoin. Even if a company would find a way to produce a FPGA for it, it would take at least a year to design, produce and ship them. So it would be our 'safe heaven' from FPGA, saving us from the many disadvantages and negative effects that FPGA threatens to bring to Bitcoin and the cryptocurrency world. At the very least, it would be buying us more time to work on something to prevent mining hardware companies from taking over our crypto currencies. People will be able to continue to FPGA mine, continue to profit, once again allowing us to be in control of when/where we buy our mining hardware, as well as, at what cost we buy it at. Allowing the control of the crypto world to stay in our hands, not the hands of greedy companies!

Jay1337

Why GPU's Should Not Be The Future Of Crypto Currencies


GPU's are not a natural technological generation leap like going from paper to CPU was. GPU's & mining software are simply specialized processing units made specifically for Bitcoin. Which i do not beleive is following the original intentions of Satoshi, for many reasons.

Moving from paper to CPU mining will not be the same as going from CPU to GPU mining. The reason here is because paper and CPU's have decentralized distribution. They are mass produced by huge companies  giving you the option to buy their products in any city, no matter where you live! This allows us to be in control of when and where we get our mining hardware, and to a certain degree, at what cost. (Which helps the decentralization process). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralization

While on the other hand, CPU's are mass produced, supply is controlled, price is controlled, they are in limited quantity, can only be bought from a few companies/sources, that in reality nobody even knows for sure they can trust. So what will happen is all the miners in the world will be forced to rely on those few companies for CPU's. And we will be subject to their pricing. They will also control the supply of the mining rigs, which can have an effect on the bitcoin economy that is similar to the effect that the U.S Federal Reserve and banks have on the money supply. I'm not talking about the amount of money/BTC, but when it is available/mineable to the miners. This allows CPU manufacturers to be in control of when and where we get our mining hardware. (All this hurts the decentralization process)

People will have to rely on the small quantities that these companies produce, which causes people to have wait for their hardware, which in the end causes people to potentially lose money. This is exactly what is happening right now. Many people are waiting to see what happens with GPU's, so that they can start buying mining  hardware again. So, basically if GPU didn't exist people would continue to buy CPUs as i type this, which would have meant more profit for those people now and in the future, which would have meant more money in those peoples pockets. This is where the 'Federal Reserve effect' comes in, because now mining hardware companies can control when people buy/receive their hardware, plus control when people get more or less profit through controlling the mining hardware supply. Also, buying GPU's from a few small companies means whenever those companies come out with a new model, this process will start all over again. More lost money, more time lost waiting for release/shipping.

Another downfall of GPU, is the fact that GPU's will make everyone have to 'restart from scratch' buying mining hardware all over again, when most people already  have their mining hardware in the form of CPUs, and it is already paid off. Now you will have to sell all your CPUs, then have to buy $1000's of dollars of GPU's just to be able to keep up with all the other players with the increasing difficulty. After that, you will have to wait all over again to get your return on  your investment! Which could take half a year or more, once difficulty adjusts, which should just take about a month or so.

Once GPUs come out, the difficulty will adjust accordingly. Which will just cause everyone to make the same amount of money as they were before GPU's. So the question is, is it necessary for us to go through all of what i mentioned above, to just end up making the same amount of money as you were before with GPU's, just a month or so later, with GPU's?

Because of the above mentioned costs, plus the added cost of GPU'S, this can hinder the widespread global adoption of Bitcoin just because of the sheer expense. This is especially true for people in other smaller, less wealthy countries. It is much easier to obtain a used CPUs for those people. People that could be helping to build security and decentralization for Bitcoin!

GPU's threaten to ruin any anonymity that Bitcoin has left. This is by potentially making it easier to track who is buying the mining rigs through the few small companies that sell the GPU's. Which could potentially be bad if Bitcoin ever became illegal!

There are also many more smaller disadvantages of moving towards GPU that are of less importance.

So now it comes to the advantages of GPU. That's where everything boils down to in the end. The problem is there are not enough advantages to using GPU, for them to outweigh the disadvantages it brings to the table! In my opinion, network security and lowered power consumption cannot make up for the potential problems that it brings. This is an economy. This is not about power consumption! It will all come down to economics in the end. And that is what I'm talking about. And that is the infostructure that Satoshi built Bitcoin on!

The  Bitcoin developers, and the Crypto Community in general needs the recognize GPU's as a threat, and we should all do something to stop this from happening. I do not think that Satoshi would think the way these GPU's are to be distributed would be good for the Bitcoin economy in general.  There are a few things we can do to combat this, like changing the algorithm to prevent the usage of GPU's. Or, we could all switch to another crypto currency that that uses a different algorithm that is resistant to GPU's, like Litecoin, so that we can save Bitcoin and our crypto-independence!

By Switching To Another Bitcoin Algorithm, Or By Using Litecoin We Can Save Our Crypto-Independence!

The only options we have now is to change the Bitcoin algorithm, or for everyone to switch to another GPU proof crypto currency. The ideal situation would be for the Bitcoin developers to change the algorithm, but that does not seem to be what they plan to do. So that's where Litecoin comes in. While Litecoin is not GPU proof, it is GPU resistant. It runs on an algorithm called scrypt that is highly memory intensive, which makes it much harder to produce a GPU for Litecoin. Even if a company would find a way to produce a GPU for it, it would take at least a year to design, produce and ship them. So it would be our 'safe heaven' from GPU, saving us from the many disadvantages and negative effects that GPU threatens to bring to Bitcoin and the cryptocurrency world. At the very least, it would be buying us more time to work on something to prevent mining hardware companies from taking over our crypto currencies. People will be able to continue to GPU mine, continue to profit, once again allowing us to be in control of when/where we buy our mining hardware, as well as, at what cost we buy it at. Allowing the control of the crypto world to stay in our hands, not the hands of greedy companies!

Jay1337

Requiring a full bitcoind instance on a mining node is ludicrous, at least in the current implementation of bitcoind.  It's far, far, far too resource intensive to put on most serious mining setups.  I don't want to run heavy weight computing back end, just to satisfy the ridiculously complex blockchain processing for a machine that is intended to solely mine, which requires few resources.

Now, if you want to redesign a bitcoind that doesn't require heavy computing resources, then I'm listening, but until then, it's a non-starter.  A mining backend is a netbook, DD-WRT router, Raspberry Pi, Sheeva Plug or Android tablet.  Trying to run a full blockchain on any of those would be an exercise in futility.

1 board per device, with the exception of the Minirig, which has 24.

Ok... I think I have the NMC thing worked out.  I was going to move the DB, but I think I will wait until tomorrow.  I don't' want to move it before I go to bed and wake up and find things gone all wonky, so I'll leave it until tomorrow so I can keep an eye on it.