Thanks so much for this. I don't think the first command is necessary (edit: just to get your rigs running - see below, it may be for stability) - just the second got everything running for me. When I ran the first command, I then had to do:

So to get my remote-rigs running again I just had to:

Wow that was an interesting morning. Thanks to everyone that identified the problem and posted a solution so quickly.

Oddly enough, a couple of rigs kept running - I can't think of anything about them that was different from the others. Though they also had the update and upgrade flags set to 1.

For me, just running 

sudo dpkg --configure -a

And then rebooting did the trick.

I've had the same problem - I don't think it's HBCC, becasue I can restart the miner without touching HBCC and speeds are back to normal. That made me think it was temp - but even with fans over 4000rpm in a cool room it would still happen.

I tried both using the iGPU, as others have suggested, and going into Control Panel - System - Advanced System Settings - Performance Settings, and then switching to adjust for best performance (Disabling all the windows animations). That worked for me.

Just Google Image search any member of their team - that's all you need to know.

People who posed for stock photos made an impossible miner.

https://hminers.com/about-us/

How does it do while also mining ETH?

Edit: n/m, I see you're already working on that.

Edit2: Is there any reason dual-mining any algo that doesn't depend on mem (eg, -500+(- technically) memclock algos, like skunk) can't dual-mine ETH? That's where the 1080ti could really shine...

Hmm, their office is a 10-minute walk from me... seems like a waste of 10-minutes.

Edit: Mark Seniom has a twin! George Zimmerman: http://www.zenithprepacademy.com/coding/uberz#team

A quick google image search turns up dopplegangers for their entire team, for that matter.

I edited to make clear I'm talking about enforcement, not just the right to request. Someone with the binary can request the source code, and has the right to receive it, but only the copyright holder can enforce those rights. (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhoHasThePower)

As for the second part, nothing prevents the copyright holder from releasing code under GPL, and then releasing a separate version under a different license for resale. But that right only belongs to the copyright holder - not anyone who received GPL-licensed software. They must distribute the code, or they are violating the copyright holder's rights under GPL.

This isn't technically accurate - GPL is based on copyright law, and only the owner of a copyright has any right to enforce the terms of the copyright. A user with a binary can request the source code, but the obligation to distribute it is an obligation to the copyright holder, not the user. The user has no rights to enforce a copyright they do not own, and thus would have no standing to force distribution of the source code.

You are correct that under GPL a user an distribute a binary, but the user would have to be careful and be sure they actually received it under GPL. As I mentioned before, the copyright holder could enter into a separate license allowing someone else to distribute binaries without source code for a fee.

Edit: It actually is technically accurate - anyone who received a binary licensed under GPL has the right to request it - but that's it - only to request, not to receive. The owner of the copyright is the one with the rights to make sure that anyone who requests it actually receives it.

I had to switch back to mod 3 for exactly this reason - my risers were failing at a much higher rate. Mod 3 was very stable for me, and the incremental increases afterward couldn't make up for the downtime caused by instability.

Also, just to add my two cents on GPL (I'm a lawyer, but this is not intended to be legal advice to anyone), calling something beta, and calling a fee a donation, does not alter the copyright owner's rights under GPL. Unless the copyright holder agrees otherwise, the source code and GPL must be distributed along with any binaries to those that request it, or the copyright owner's rights are violated.

That said, I "donated" (and I'm glad I did), but didn't receive (or request, for that matter) source code. But *I* have no right to the source code, because I'm not the copyright holder. The only one who could enforce GPL if they wanted to is the holder of the copyright. Likewise, the copyright holder could enter into a separate license with SP to distribute binaries without the source code if they wanted to (not saying that happened here - it looks like it didn't, but something to keep in mind for anyone who isn't a copyright holder when they complain about GPL).

One more thing to keep in mind - had I received the source code, I would have been under no obligation to publish it or share it (unless I published/shared the binary), nor would I have any incentive to do so. There's nothing wrong with SP modifying and selling GPL licensed code as long as the terms of GPL are followed, but only economic incentives would prevent redistribution of that code.

Maybe some, short term, but I don't think the bulk of miners are into speculating, and mining bcash would be just that... speculating.

This is the best answer. It depends heavily on the quality of the PSU. I have a bunch of high quality Corsair and EVGA PSUs that I've run at close to 90% the rated capacity for years without an issue. Before that, I tried to save a few bucks on lower-quality PSUs and learned my lesson quickly - cheaper PSUs are more expensive in the long-run.

Keep in mind also that PSUs are more efficient closer to 50% load - that could save some $$ in the long run over running them at 80-90% rated capacity (along with less chance of damage and higher resale value).

But if OP is going for density - why not contact the manufacturer and ask if you can run at 80% of 120% peak output rating without voiding the warranty? That should tell you all you need to know - if the manufacturer will stand behind it, it should be good. I'd still make sure everything is as fire-proof as possible - no matter what load. All it takes is a bad riser and some dust...

I'm sure if they opened the dropdown menu in GPU-Z we could see what card is actually mining.

Edit: Also, looks like Windows to me.

If it's running on a dedicated mining rig, you may as well trust it's clean. The worst an attacker can do theoretically is redirect some hashes to themselves - and this is something you (any many, many other people) would be able to detect right away, and then get rid of the bad software.

Mining software pops on virus scans because attackers put them on machines not meant for mining.

Difficulty goes up every couple days - and Bitmain is flooding the market with ASICs. You'll be lucky to get 12 LTC back from that contract. I'll offer 10.

Sorry bro.

https://bitcoinwisdom.com/litecoin/difficulty

Looks like anyone can activate ASICBOOST on their Antminer?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/63yo27/some_circumstantial_evidence_supporting_the_claim/dfy5o65/

f2pool has about 6.3Mh right now

3 - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1584617.msg16043214#msg16043214

I've found the reboot to safe mode step unnecessary. Also, adding or swapping a card seems put the old driver back in somehow - maybe Windows stashes it somewhere else, if so, I wonder if modifying and signing that one would fix that issue.

I think this is it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1584617.msg15943054#msg15943054

I've been running on Windows 10 and it's been stable. I still have to boot into disable driver verification mode.

Does anyone know a way to set up an auto-reboot so that it goes into this mode?