anyone know why they stopped sales  They did that often with the S1 to let production and shipping catch up. |
|
|
|
What about a link to the latest compiled Windows CGMiner download...? Thanks, ZiG The link is for the source code, and it says In the readme that some of the functions only work on Linux. eg auto device detection. Seeing the fury and the blizzard are usually shipped with Raspberry Pi (zencrontrollers) it kind of makes sense. There is nothing stopping you compiling it for Windows, it's just you may not get all the options. |
|
|
|
Thanks, that's working much better I am getting around 1.4Mh/s with each of the 4 miners, and the hardware error rate has dropped right off, <1% so I can run the 328 clock again. Here I was thinking that the Pi wasn't powerful enough for USB 4 miners at once, but it obvious now that it is. Not sure what the problem was with bfgminer, I tried 4.3.0 and 4.4.0 and both were terrible with multiple miners on the Raspberry Pi, fine on just a single miner. I will stick with this cgminer 4.3.5 fork for the time being, best performance I have had so far. |
|
|
|
|
I am trying to run 4 x Zeus blizzards on the one Raspberry Pi, and it doesn't seem to be coping. I am using bfgminer 4.4.0 and even at a lower clock of 308 I am getting like 20% HW errors and all sort of problems, like sometimes not all of the blizzard will start and I have to quit bfgminer and launch it again, I often get ZUS 0: Comms error (werr=1) and other bad looking messages. The CPU load is about 1.5.
Anyone know the practical maximum of Blizzards you can run of a single Pi?
|
|
|
|
The Bitcoin protocol has a weakness with the 51% issue, having the market players discuss it as an industry is the way to find a long term solution.
You might becorrect. You might not be correct. We have no way of knowing, because GHash.IO is less transparent than many other pools. The problem is the sickness of greed. Sooner or later an entity will overtly or secretly gain 51% for greedy purposes. Perhaps, after getting 2 blocks in a row, if the same entity gets a third block; that block is given to, a random mining entity, that has never gotten a block. Could something like that decentralize enough ? Sound like nonsense to me, the chance of something like a double spend attack is almost identical for 49% vs 51% there is even a chance if you have only 10% of the net hash you can have a double spend attack, it's just not all that likely to succeed, but there still is a chance. Most of the time ghash.io runs well below 40% of the net hash, which is way off this psychological 51% that everyone seems to get so excited about. There are doezen of coins out there where 1 pool has over 70-80% of the net hash and life goes on. |
|
|
|
|
I am having a problem with the latest bfgminer 4.4.0 from github and FreeBSD 10.RELEASE.
When I have 4 x zeusminer blizzards connected on /dev/cuaU0.../dev/ucuU3 they are mining ok, with the occasional "SICK" notice popping up then resuming, however when I press "q" to quit I get the message "Shutdown signal received" and bfgminer just hangs,
it's still in the process table in the "STOP" state, even a kill -9 wont get rid of it. I have to reboot the computer, however that hangs at shutting down the USB controllers, so I have to press reset or power cycle. Fortunately the disks have sync and set the clean flag by then.
If I only miner with one zeus at a time bfgminer exits properly, but often can't find any miners next time I try and run it. Seems to be struggling with the USB ports.
Any ideas what might be going wrong?
|
|
|
|
did they ship yet ? , did they ship yet ? , did they ship yet ?
i know , the 14th
Batch 1 was originally advertised as shipping the 10th-20th., seems they have fallen behind the start 4 days, which is no big deal. |
|
|
|
If not them, then who would you compare bitcoin to? I grant you that it's not a perfect comparison, but there is no one to one comparison between bitcoin and the traditional financial world: the bitcoin network / ledger / mining combined creates new coins, processes transactions, handles transaction fees, etc.
I picked a major player in the traditional financial system to choose to compare. But if you want to say that it's a flawed comparison, then you're missing the point here. The point is if you're going to make a comparison, you have to compare bitcoin to something. And bitcoin does what credit card companies (like Visa) do, it does what Banks do in creating money, it handles transaction fees, which traditionally would be something credit card companies do. So...what would you compare bitcoin with? If you want a true one to one comparison, you're shit out of luck, because there isn't any one to one comparison since the bitcoin network does what several different players of the traditional financial system do.
The comparison flawed, it's like trying to compare cars to roads, it just doesn't make sense. The Visa style payment gateways sit on top of the currencies. Visa could easily add Bitcoin as one of the supported currencies. Visa chooses to use fiat atm, but I can see it adding some crypto in the future, and it's infrastructure or energy consumption will hardly need to change as it wont be mining the crypto. |
|
|
|
The amount of energy used for the Bitcoin Network is tiny compared to the amount of money to print, mint, guard, secure, etc for say fiat currency.
For now, perhaps. But how big would this energy consumption be if the bitcoin network were as big as a traditional major finanical company like, say, Visa? We should strive to do better than fiat is doing, not merely being not as bad as the traditional system. Visa doesn't mine coins, their network has nothing to do with the creation of money, the banks do that for them. Your comparison is flawed. |
|
|
|
Technology stills evolving, more efficient mining hardware will appears, adding that not only Bitcoin has energy consumption problems, the rest of the world needs now alternative clean forms of energy that i believe are being researched so hard right now...
Besides, current prices are too low, some things would be different if Bitcoin goes to the thousand again...
The problem would be worse if the bitcoin price rises, as mega farms could afford more energy to waste. Other payment methods use electricity as well. It is just that it is not as transparent as to how much electricity visa for example uses to process their payments. Visa must power their office buildings, computers for employees, computers that process transactions, banks that send money to/from visa (their employees, offices, and computers), printers that print customer statements, call centers to resolve disputes. Don't confuse mining crypto with payment networks, the two are not the same. Fiat doesn't need mining energy. |
|
|
|
I'm still not understanding why two PCIe cables are okay to pull 366w (183w per cable) to run the S3 in normal mode, but requires 4 PCIe cables just to carry an additional 12w per cable ( (390/2) -183) to over clock?
All you need to know is that 6pin PCI-e connector rating is 75watts. How much you choose to exceed that rating by is up to you. (and your insurance company) |
|
|
|
I would disagree with your statement about there being no such thing as "efficient" mining hardware. I would define efficient miners as machines that use less electricity per GHs then the network does as a whole.
Your theory doesn't match the facts. People just keep adding more mining hardware until the electricity consumption is as much as they can stand. The diff rises and they get less BTC than they were getting with the lower efficiency setup. |
|
|
|
Technology stills evolving, more efficient mining hardware will appears, adding that not only Bitcoin has energy consumption problems, the rest of the world needs now alternative clean forms of energy that i believe are being researched so hard right now...
Besides, current prices are too low, some things would be different if Bitcoin goes to the thousand again...
The problem would be worse if the bitcoin price rises, as mega farms could afford more energy to waste. |
|
|
|
I sent a ticket into support on 6/29 about my A2 miner being down. It shows up in the UI but I can not restart it and most importantly no hashing is being reported pool side. My ticket number is 19120. I also replied to this ticket on 6/30 just to get a update or when my miner might be back up but I have gotten no response at all. I have been with GAW since before they even had a UI available but it seems there ticket turn around time is increasing.
Please PM me on Hastrader.com or email me at amber@gawminers.com  I will be happy to look into your order. Please look into support ticket 19239. Miners went down on June 30th and issues have not been resolved. GAW have their own forums, they no longer read here like the use to. They closed their official threads on bitcointalk as it says in the OP. You are wasting your time posting support issues here unless you are just asking others for advice. |
|
|
|
So far the bot only buys GHS when I deposit BTC or get BTC from mining. It never sells GHS to buy them later at a cheaper price. Is this normal?
It's not meant to sell them. Use the normal gekko if you want that. Is the normal gekko working? I thought it is no longer maintained There are some other people maintaining a fork of gekko which still works, but I haven't found any which support all exchanges, as I believe most of the forks which are in a [semi-]working state appear to only support and test on 1-2 exchanges. Speaking of which... I found one with support for the cryptsy exchange, and I pulled in the code to enable cryptsy support ( I have not tested it yet though, so it's nothing I'm promising if/when it will actually work) Yesterday's prerelease / 2014 July 2nd (initial cryptsy support)^ The new cryptsy support is based on this fork: https://github.com/dowjames/gekkoDid you merge the crypsty code into your cex.io fork of gekko or are you keeping them separate? |
|
|
|
So far the bot only buys GHS when I deposit BTC or get BTC from mining. It never sells GHS to buy them later at a cheaper price. Is this normal?
It's not meant to sell them. Use the normal gekko if you want that. |
|
|
|
|
Can someone tell me what the flags are in 4.3.0 for the Zeus Blizzard/GAW Fury? I can't seem to find them documented.
Specifically I want to lower the clock to reduce the percentage of HW errors. Currently at around 6%
|
|
|
|
I am quite sure there will be more BTC hard forks with protocol changes. I have read some of the proposals. I don't think there has been much discussion on energy saving though.
There are dozens and dozens of theads discussing the energy consumption of the Bitcoin network and proposals on how to "fix" it - mostly by going from POW to POS but there are some others to be found with some searching. Just search for "Bitcoin" and "POS" and you will find some hard fork proposals that might interest you but, of course, do not interest any of the miners who just bought ASICs. PoS has it's problems, it's currently on the prohibited changes list. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Prohibited_changes |
|
|
|
More than half of all the 21million bitcoins that were ever designed to exist are already out there in circulation. Mining new coins is not important to liquidity, we just need to find 144 blocks each day for transactions to ride on, it no longer requires many coins in those blocks as we have enough in circulation, so it might as well just be the one coin. I don't think waiting until 2029 is the answer, the world will be struggling for oil and coal around then unless something else happens to curb world demand.
Oh. You are suggesting a change to the protocol. Not just any change but a change that would cause a hard fork. And, not just any hard fork but a hard fork that would greatly punish the miners that switch to your suggested alternate protocol (only 1 BTC/block) versus staying on the original protocol (25 BTC/block). So, it will never happen. And just so you know when I said never, I meant never and there is no need to try to argue for the various virtues of the proposal - unless you actually like talking to a walls or trying to move mountains. I am quite sure there will be more BTC hard forks with protocol changes. I have read some of the proposals. I don't think there has been much discussion on energy saving though. |
|
|
|
I think one way to slow the growth is reduce the block reward from 25 coins to just 1 coin per block, there is no way the BTC price will jump 25 fold to compensate as more then half the coins are already mined so there is no shortage of supply, and no reason for that much fiat to enter the market.
According to this formula: [...]
GlobalEnergyConsumptionForMining ~= (MiningReward + TransactionFees) * bitcoinValueInUSD / EnergyCostInUSDperkWh[/i]
your suggestion might make things 25x better. But there would be a shortage of liquidity on the exchanges driving BTC price. So it's not 25x. And it only works if people do not pay more transaction fees. More than half of all the 21million bitcoins that were ever designed to exist are already out there in circulation. Mining new coins is not important to liquidity, we just need to find 144 blocks each day for transactions to ride on, it no longer requires many coins in those blocks as we have enough in circulation, so it might as well just be the one coin. I don't think waiting until 2029 is the answer, the world will be struggling for oil and coal around then unless something else happens to curb world demand. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
