The official link for this coin is:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4641258.0

This is the unmoderated version that Bitcointalk requests to be created if anyone is unsatisfied with a self-moderated topic. From the original post above:


The dev has created this as a self-moderated topic to allow him to delete anything that would warn would-be masternode investors that it's a scam coin.

There is a single developer of this coin which he describes as a 'better' version of Stipend who he argues have developers of a lesser quality than himself.

The original chain stopped at block 999 due to issues in the developers code. The original chain has been stopped, miners balances are going to be nullified and the new chain will be starting shortly.

As per the developer in relation to Github:


Are you aware of any other coins that are unwilling to publish their code for review? The industry is almost entirely open-source. It's highly unusual to not publish your code and the sole reason I can think of for this is to avoid developers reviewing it and highlighting issues. The prior version of his code did have issues which I highlighted on their Discord and on their Bitcointalk announcement - before all messages were deleted and I was banned from their Discord. This is probably the main influence for not publishing the current version of their code.

After their chain stopped at height 999 due to zerocoin not being implemented properly, the fix involved changing the zerocoin start height (nZerocoinStartHeight) in chainparams.cpp to block 1000000000 - effectively disabling it for 1,902 years. This is one of their main selling points - apart from their 'working product' which is nothing more than a basic template that could be set up by any competent developer in less than 30 minutes.

Masternode sales start soon and will be priced at the same as a Stipend masternode - currently 0.29970 BTC.

Be careful out there.

Looks like you had a lucky escape. What's your improved setup? Are you now powering two risers per SATA cable or did you move away from SATA altogether? Out of interest, what type of GPU's were they?

Thanks in advance for any info

Thanks for the response. I've seen some horror stories with accompanying pictures but a lot seem to be doing exactly what you say to avoid, i.e. powering more than two risers with the one SATA cable and, especially worrisome, doing so with AMD cards which seem to draw more power from the board.

Like I say above, I wouldn't feel comfortable powering more than one Asus RX 570 Strix OC riser from the one PCIe SATA cable but I'm going to go ahead and allow myself to power two of my NVidia cards with each PCIe cable.  

There's a lot of conflicting information regarding the safety, or lack thereof, of using SATA connections to power powered risers in a mining rig. Lots of threads give blanket 'yes' or 'no' answers to whether it's safe to do it. However, my research suggests that there is no one-size-fits-all answer.

My understanding is that each SATA connection can handle 54 watts - or 4.5 amps on a 12 volt connection.

Looking at the Tomshardware test results of power draw from the motherboard for something like an Asus RX 570 Strix OC, it appears that it'd be unsafe to use SATA at all (5 amps from motherboard on gaming settings).

However, looking at the results for my AORUS GTX 1080 Ti Xtreme, it only drew 3.2 amps from the motherboard on 'gaming' settings. It looks like we have no issues here and, in fact, significant leeway.

When we further look at the specs for the 6 pin PCIe connection powering the string of SATA connectors, it appears that it can handle 75 watts - or 6.25 amps on a 12 volt connection.

Given the above information, I feel that it should be safe to power two powered risers from each string of SATA connectors powered by a 6-pin PCIe cable. The gaming settings would result in two SATA connectors drawing 6.4 amps from a 6.25 amp rated cable - but my mining settings currently draw 10% less overall watts from the wall when compared to their gaming settings.

Am I looking at this correctly?

Regarding the April 30th batch, I wouldn't like to see the payback time for a 12th/s unit consuming 2000 watts  come May.

At $0.10 electricity, it'd cost $4.80 per day to run. It'll make $10.71, or $5.91 profit, per day after paying that at today's difficulty level.

If we assume a 35% increase in difficulty by May, you'll make $7.93, or $3.13 profit, per day on day 1 and this will decrease significantly through time.

Even with free electricity, $7.93 per day decreasing by about 15% every month takes 6 months to make back the cost of the unit - and this is a highly optimistic scenario of free electricity and excluding the cost of delivery, import taxes and the risk of encountering issues with the unit.

At the start of the second year, with 15% monthly difficulty increase, you'd be earning less than $1.50 per day excluding electricity costs.

Has anyone any opinions on this? Also, any experience on how long Novatech take when backordering items (I assume this is a 'how long is a piece of string' question) 

Amazon have removed the EVGA SuperNOVA 1200 P2 for £263.99 pre-order but I see it available to back-order with Novatech for £259.99.

I'll go ahead and order from there if confirmed that it's definitely the option to go for.

Investigating further with my very limited knowledge, I suspect the EVGA may be worth the extra outlay. The configurations I'm considering are as follows:

HX1200i - 5 PCIe slots available (£213.98):

1: To splitter and onto GPU 1 slot 1 and 2
2: To splitter and onto GPU 2 slot 1 and 2
3: To splitter and onto GPU 3 slot 1 and 2
4: To splitter and onto GPU 1/2 slot 3
5: Direct to GPU 3 slot 3


EVGA SuperNOVA 1200 P2 - 6 PCIe slots available (£262.99):

1: Direct to GPU 1 slot 1
2: Direct to GPU 2 slot 1
3: Direct to GPU 3 slot 1
4: To splitter and onto GPU 1 slot 2 and 3
5: To splitter and onto GPU 2 slot 2 and 3
6: To splitter and onto GPU 3 slot 2 and 3


It looks like the Corsair would have most cards powered by 1.5 PCIe slots whilst the EVGA would have all cards powered by 2 PCIe slots. Am I looking at this correctly?

The best price I could find was €3348 for the 6 cards (€558 each) including delivery to Ireland. As with most graphics cards these days, it's out of stock - delivery date to be confirmed soon.

I'm awaiting an order of six Sapphire Radeon RX Vega 56 Nitro+ graphic cards which, unfortunately, need 3 x eight-pin PCIe power connections each.

I believe the rig should be fine if powered by two 1200w PSU's and am just trying to figure out which to order.

If I can get away with the Corsair HX1200i, I'll go ahead and order two of those:



Alternatively, I'll splash out the extra cash and go for two of the EVGA SuperNOVA 1200 P2:



The second PSU above seems to have an extra PCIe slot available.

I'm new to this but would I be okay to power three cards off each HX1200i? I'd use a 6 pin periph slot on the PSU for each of the risers. One of the eight pin slots would be needed for the CPU and five leftover would be used as follows:

1: To splitter and onto GPU 1 slot 1 and 2
2: To splitter and onto GPU 2 slot 1 and 2
3: To splitter and onto GPU 3 slot 1 and 2
4: To splitter and onto GPU 1/2 slot 3
5: Direct to GPU 3 slot 3

After reading some online advice, I cancelled my order for 18AWG splitters and placed an order for the 16AWG splitters below (at more than triple the price  ):

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/5PCS-LOT-High-Quality-25cm-Vieo-Card-8pin-Female-to-2-8pin-6P-2P-PCI-E/32767416770.html