Baikal seems still to be sitting on a bunch of devices. They just onlined 7.5MH on my pool

Are there 100 days to go before the fork?

So I should receive my 2 x GiantN in a few hours (according to the courier).  I will report back.  I do have a question about the Monero fork though.  We know from the X10 reverse engineering thread that even X10's shipped in November have references to the Giant-N and cryptonight in their code, so it is fair to assume Baikal has been hashing cryptonight since November.  Now what would YOU do if you were baikal, facing the hard fork?  We know the X10 is ASIC's, not FPGA's, we don't know about the Giant-N (yet; I might take it apart), but assuming the Giant-N is ASIC, then the obvious thing for Baikal to do would be to switch all their (hundreds) of Giant-N machines to Monero (off of all other cryptonight coins), and set up some master nodes and gain 51% of the network hash rate.  Then, when the fork happens, the fork fails because the V7 algorithm doesn't have 51% of the hash rate.  Am I missing something here?  I mean the fact that Bitmain doesn't even know the exact hash rate or power consumption of their X3 means it isn't even online yet, so it is fair to assume Baikal is the only company capable of attacking the V7 fork with real hardware.   At the current Monero net hash rate it would take Baikal 21,880 Giant-N machines to gain 51% of the hashrate-- assuming not a single of their Giant-N are already hashing Monero.  Perhaps that's unrealistic.

Helps if you read the manual (which is actually very well written). Im surprised how many ppl dont.
On Page 23:


http://asrock.pc.cdn.bitgravity.com/Manual/H110%20Pro%20BTC+.pdf

Did some more research on the right way to configure a dual PSU setup. This Biostar 12 GPU dual PSU mining setup guide states:

http://www.biostar.com.tw/app/kr/event/crypto_mining/page4_2.htm




Given Biostar makes mining motherboards, USB riser kits, GPU's and they also have a financial incentive not to warranty thiose products, I believe they have an objective view on how to setup dual power supplies correctly. So I accept powering the riser and GPU with the same PSU is the correct way.

I just rewired the risers and cards on my rigs so that the riser and VGA power connector on the cards are on the same PSU. The power consumptin from both type of setups is the same. The same Biostar mining guide also says you should only use a max of 2 risers per PSU power cable.




On a side note I want to say that I ran my dual and triple PSU rigs with all the risers connected to PSU that powers the motherboard and the secondary PSU only powering the VGA 6/8 pin power under a heavy dual mining load 24/7 for almost a year and nothing bad came from it and my rigs are very stable.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, you do NOT need to use the Molex connector on any motherboard when powered risers are used. Doing so is dangerous as seen in this case. Built in safety nets are bypassed when using that out-of-spec setup. There is very little power draw through the USB riser cable. It's primary function is to pass data, not power. If there is more than a couple watts passing through, then the powered riser is not doing it's job and is junk. The molex connector design on MB's was only put in place to facilitate multi GPU's directly connected in the slots for Crossfire/SLI configurations on Gaming MB's that had two or more cards running in the full length slots. It is an unnecessary design to have it on a mining board with 1x slot when powered risers are used. Molex connectors weren't even designed to exceed 36 watts so it's pointless to even have one molex boost 12 PCIE slots, it would theoretically only supply 3 watts per slot anyway. It is a design flaw that the Chinese just winged at and completely ignored the power limits and design standards of the components used. This fire hazard could have been avoided if the molex connector simply had not been used. The MB would have likely just shut down in the OP's situation instead of running current through an unmonitored bus. I would be more worried about having a separate switching PSU power the GPU PCIE 12V bus than the 6/8 pin 12V PSU. There's two high current differentials waiting to create a disaster right within the GPU itself.

Too late buddy Only good thing that comes from Baikal is that it should be FPGA

Bitmain or Bailkal might have been mining with some machines on CN in the last month - but the hashrate before that does NOT support any sort of a "mass deployment" of ASIC having happened by ANYONE.

200k Vega sales would account for most of the CN hashrate growth between November and early Febuary, when the DIP in hashrate happened, and there are reports of a MASSIVE botnet deployment that also happened sometime late last year or early this year.

These coins have little liquidity though, hard to dump them in the market when there's so little volume traded daily

You must connect the SAME psu that powers the riser to the same GPU 6/8 pin 12V connector. The purpose of the power to the riser is to give a current boost to the PCIE 12V bus feeding the GPU (up to 54 watts), not to feed power back to the MB.  If you have been doing it the way you described, only luck has been on your side. I know others do it this way as well, but this is actually wrong and is one of the reasons people have stated they can only run 2 risers on the same molex cable bus before it gets hot. It's overheating because the voltage potential between the molex 12v bus on one PSU and the 6/8pin 12V on another PSU is out of phase and causing a balancing current draw. But the part you said about not using the molex on the MB is correct.

Likely the reason why the OP burned up his MB is because he used the molex connector on the MB in the first place. You can't do this while using more than one PSU with the risers or GPUs. The reason is because of voltage phases with switching power supplies. He also may be on to something with one of the GPU PSU's being off and the MB trying to power the GPU alone, but this is a design flaw with all these Molex motherboards. There was never a provision for additional power to be supplied the way they are doing now. In normal circumstances, without the molex power being there, his MB would have simply shut down from an overload and prevented this hazard. but because that molex connector is running 12V on it's own bus, bypassing other circuits and thermal overload protections, it just ran away with the current. His PSU should have also prevented this from happening but the molex bus is allowed to do it's own thing and doesn't have the overload protections that the 24-pin bus has in place.

I'm an electrical engineer, and I have yet to understand how the MB manufacturers have got this so wrong. You can NOT use one PSU to power the risers and another to power the 6/8 pin GPU connectors with switching power supplies. This will create a potential delta of 12 along the same bus if and when one PSU is out of phase with the other on the same circuit. I don't think most people understand how a switching PSU works. It's basically a square wave cleaned up, but under heavy load it still shows itself as a square wave. For argument's sake, think of one PSU at a +12V peak for 60 cycles (an example, but it could be higher) and another at anything less than 12V or even zero, for 60 cycles on the same circuit. Whatever the difference is, the phase will create a voltage potential that shorts the circuit or the power bus in this case.

Do NOT use the molex connectors on the ASRock or Gigabyte mining boards. It is not necessary and is actually dangerous when using more than one PSU. It's a design flaw to even offer them. You would only ever need to use the molex connector if you had one single insane PSU run all the GPU cards and didn't use powered risers.  I have been running both the ASRock and Gigabyte mining boards with 12 cards and have never used the molex connector on the MB.

All I have read on these forums is power riser+GPU should be on same PSU.

Hi guys,

Today it seems I fried my Asrock H110 Pro BTC+ mobo... Damage on the 12 connected GPUs I still have to assess

The connector of one of the 3 power supply cables to the mobo caught fire. Luckily I had the reflex to pull the power cord from the socket the moment I saw the flames... You can see the damage in this picture. The connector and part of the power cable have melted and the mobo is scorched.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/44e5scw4gkqxfwv/Foto%2015-03-18%2019%2022%2020.jpg

Before replacing the mobo, I want to know what went wrong. I don't want to die in a fire because my rig acts up at night.

The wiring scheme:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/vv8s1lhvuuvcojh/rig%20sata-molex.png
The red line indicates the wire that caught fire.

What happened:
- I shut down my rig using remote desktop
- After a minute, I went to check if it was really shut down in the other room. I wasn't, it was on fire.

What I think happened: the mobo shut down PSU1, together with the connected GPUs to that PSU. However, somehow PSU2 failed to shut down, still powering the GPUs.
The GPUs tried to draw power from the mobo, which was only supplied by the one power line from PSU2 which got overloaded and caught fire.

Any thoughts on this?

I am also working on a FPGA miner,  what algorithm are you working on?  

I have taken apart both the Giant B and the Giant X10 apart myself.  The chips are definitely ASIC because they have the Baikal logo etched on to them and an unknown model number(I will post pics if anyone wants them).  Even if Baikal for some reason etched thier own logo on an FPGA, the chips are very tiny compared to any FPGA's I have ever seen.  Most high-end FPGA's are the size of a CPU. Also, FPGA's do not perform 100 times better than a GPU (like most ASICs).  They do at the best ~8 times the performance of a GPU with a $3000 FPGA.

Just because Baikal miners support multiple algorithms doesn't mean they are FPGA's.  ASICs can support multiple Different Algorithms but it takes away die space which makes the miners not perform as fast it would with 1 algorithm.  This is part of the reason Bitmain's A3 does so much better than the Baikal B (at siacoin), because Bitmain A3 has the entire ASIC die dedicated to Siacoin.   If you still don't believe me, look at Dash miners, the x11 algorithm is comprised of 11 different algorithms that can fit in one ASIC (which includes Skein).

Some of you maybe wondering how they have updated their Baikal x10 to support new algorithms.  Baikal probably has already developed them from square one (or atleast knows which one they are doing) but is waiting for the current Algorithms to be unprofitable.  I almost gurantee that one of the next algorithms for the x10 will be Nist5 becuase Nist5 uses 5 algorithms that are used in x11 except they are 512 bit. which is Keccak512, Blake512, Skein512, Gr0estl512 and JH512.

Back to the Baikal N:  I don't think a 20 kh/s cryptonight FPGA miner is feasible because there is too much latency/bandwidth involved in offloading memory into external sram's.  It would however be possible to use a high-end FPGA chip like the Virtex-7.  The Virtex-7 has about 68mb of internal block ram so you could put ~34 really fast monero cores but I don't know if it would get 20khs(but maybe).  These chips cost over $2000 each and would be unreasonable for Baikal to use them.  


Those who are mining monero with GPU, you can sleep soundly, baikal can't update their miner.

There is nothing suspicious about the Giant-N.  I was already working on an FPGA cryptonight miner before the Giant-N was announced (and obviously I am now focusing on other algorithms).  The power of 60W is realistic for one FPGA accessing many external SRAM's.  Unlike DRAM, SRAM consumes very little power.  The fundamental nature of Cryptonight is that it uses almost no number crunching (by design).  A single FPGA just accesses many parallel SRAM's and these memory accesses do not consume a great deal of power.  FPGA's consume way less power than other mining devices already.  Consider the X10 burns 250-500W and makes the same amount per day as a 2000W GPU rig.  Some algorithms burn more, some burn less, and algorithms that have no number crunching (like Cryptonight) burn the least.  The reason a Vega 56/64 burns so much power on cryptonight is because it is using high bandwidth external memory, a totally different approach than using many SRAM's in parallel.

FPGA's can be reconfigured very quickly.  It is true that certain PCB designs and part selections are better at some algorithms than others.  But it doesn't matter if Monero does a hard fork, you can still just use an FPGA to mine the new algorithm, ad infinitum.  As I mentioned before, only Ethash is truly resistant to FPGA's.  As Baikal has more and more FPGA miners on the market with different types of FPGA's and RAM (Giant-B, X10, Giant-N), a coin which 'forks' would have to know the exact internal configuration of every FPGA mining rig on the market to 'avoid' a new algorithm which could be efficiently mined by them.  To give an example, there is a decent chance that Monero's new algorithm could be (accidentally) mineable by the Giant-B or Giant-X10 or Giant-N, and all Baikal has to do is release new bitstreams (firmware for the SD card) that would update those rigs to mine the new algorithm.

As the number of different FPGA rigs on the market continues to increase, it would be very difficult to fork to an algorithm that would be immune to those rigs, unless you pick an Ethash style algorithm.  Furthermore if you add in all the cheap FPGA boards available from companies like Digikey, Avnet, Xilinx and Intel, then there is ALREADY a mass produced FPGA board that can do any algorithm efficiently except Ethash.

FYI the Monero ASIC statement is specific to ASIC's.  They specifically say they want to avoid ASICs mining their coin (they speak of FPGA's more favorably, and separately from ASICs).  Since the Giant-N is an FPGA rig, it doesn't actually fall into the category of something they would fork away from.  Furthermore, the Giant-N hash rate is not devastating to GPU's.  It has a slightly better ROI than Vega's, but in no way do Vega's become obsolete.  Baikal would have to ship out 100,000 Giant-N's to truly disrupt the Cryptonight networks, which is unlikely.

(BTW I bought 2 Giant-N from a local reseller in Vancouver.  The units are supposed to arrive on Monday.)

im pretty sure they want to  just get rid of their hardware before it becomes complete useless, suddenly the forks will only hurt people who buy this and small miners.
Baikal is for sure already building new miners for the new cryptonight algo v7...so difficulty will stay high or raise even more on all cryptonight coins

i bet my balls the hashrate grow overall cryptonight coins was by asic miners behind closed doors and the minority by botnets

Mining incentive makes sense only if there is no ICO.  Both mining and ICO at the same time only make sense if you have hidden interests, really, then it makes a lot of sense. When you still open mainnet for mining and launch an ICO at the same time, and price the ICO literally more than 10x the price of renting hashpower to mine the same amount of coins, then either (1) you don't know what you're doing or (2) you are a scammer. Good luck investing in either of those two options.

22 mil is around $6m and I feel sorry for anyone who actually spent crypto to buy in the ICO. The amount of coins sold in the ICO is unverifiable though. There seem to be quite a few folks complaining about not receiving their ICO coins. But I wouldn't worry about those ... the team could have itself mined a lot and sold for more than 10x profit. Most of the hashrate has come from solo mining.

Graft is unique among Monero forks? Maybe unique in shadyness. Electroneum and IntenseCoin both offer utility.

What do you mean 27% reserve makes sense? You must be kidding. They already take 8% + 4% for PR! How many projects do you know that take 4+8+27% ... that's almost 40%, Jesus Christ.

Anyone claiming they signed up 140+40 (one hundred and eighty) commercial entities and gives no examples, let alone verifiable ones, should be an alarm.

Sorry, but the pool fee change (a minor aspect compared to the rest) is as shady as everything else about this coin:
- it wasn't the only pool wits <1% fee
- i never saw the "community" complaining about the low fee (link please)
- a team of professionals should have thought of those arguments before launching a pool claiming they will keep a low fee. Once again, that is either (1) stupid or (2) a classic bait-and-switch.
- there was no risk of consolidation as their pool was buggy at first then never had more than 10-15% of the entire hashrate. Most hashrate came from solo mining anyway (talk about consolidation).

Thanks. My KYC was Ok. Indeed, I used Paypal to buy Graft coins. And paypal already withdraw $,  1 month ago, from my bank account!
I wait or do you think Paypal won't released my funds so I lost them (no coins and no $ back) ?

Hi,
Did anymone participated to this ICO and received his coins?
Because I don't. My Android wallet is at 0!!! It should be 1501 GRAFT + bonus!
I hope it's not a scam.
I already email the support and I'm waiting for an answer.
I really hope!

GRAFT is very good fork of monero. Plus with all master node structure to achieve the instant authorization. I am very positive about this project.

ETN market cap is 4M usd. literally just changed total supply to 21 billion. I would expect GRAFT would double ETN market cap to reach 8M at least.

I have read some comments about 27% dev reserve. Please do remember Neo has reserved 50% of coins.  

I am pointing all my hash power to the graft mining pool.