I wish it was the easy. You see you have to make a custom driver and inject that into bmminer. You can't really get the source of that since you are hacking it together. Also that is correct I do not have the source for bmminer. Sure you can try to decompile the binary but it will not be anywhere near the proper source code nor will it compile properly without hacking the shit out of it. Also controlling voltage/ frequency is not possible with just scripts running on the machine. The bitmain bmminer driver they implement locks all of that out except for the ones they have hidden or tucked away. They don't allow individual chip tuning only full dashboard nore pretty much every feature we have added. We can't give the source for something we don't have or something we patched. If you want that go ask bitmain but good luck they will tell you nope.
Also not including bmminer means it won't mine essentially bricking the asic.
Lastly we don't provide a binary of cgminer or bmminer. We provide a Linux operating system with binaries from various third parties which some do and some don't respect the license they are under. That is like asking the car dealer how the airbag is made. It's just a part they use so they have no idea.
Firstly, thanks for the info about injecting a custom driver into bmm/cgminer, I have no idea about how one would go about that, I imagine from your description that it's not like a separate driver called by the bmminer executable (like a graphics card driver called by the OS) but rather by "injecting" it you are combining it into the cgminer executable? I didn't mean not including it, but rather not removing the one that is already on the machine, but I guess if you need to replace it with this custom driver injected version, well that rules that idea out. It appears however, regarding your idea of getting around the GPL by distributing an operating system, you are unfortunately completely wrong about that as well. All GPL3 applications bundled with a Linux distro must provide access to the source code for the application.Even the Linux kernel itself is GPL3 and the source code is available for that. According to greater minds than I, any application included in a linux distro that is released under GPL3 must be able to give e access to the source of said application. Of course if the application is not published under GPL then its proprietary and you dont need to provide acces to the source. i.e. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#MereAggregationhttps://searchdatacenter.techtarget.com/answer/Clarifying-the-GPL-Why-Linux-distros-cannot-be-copyrightedhttps://www.zdnet.com/article/using-gpl-software-in-embedded-applications/ |
|
|
|
I'd just like to say I have no axe to grind, I am not a programmer, and I'd dearly love to have a legitimate software update that lets me underclock my locked bitmain hardware. However I understand the logic of what is being asked, and I spent all of 5 seconds finding the actual answers rather than just posting a link to the license text. Everywhere I can see in the GPL FAQ it says you have to provide the source code. I understand also that bitmain hasn't provided the source code so anyone offering modified firmware can't do it either. Its a similar scenario to handling stolen goods, just beecause the person who you got the goods from "stole" them first, doesn't mean you can resell or give out the "stolen" goods as legit, especially seeing as you know that they were stolen goods in the first place. I also get that there isn't really much that anyone can do about it, ck doesn't care, and kano doesn't have the resources to fight a multi-billion dollar company like bitmain, but that doesn't mean that kano doesn't have the right to point out that distributing cgminer in a software package without the source code is wrong. Things you can find doing a quick serach of the FAQ using the word "source" Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public?The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.
But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL.
Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you.
What does “written offer valid for any third party” mean in GPLv2? Does that mean everyone in the world can get the source to any GPLed program no matter what?If you choose to provide source through a written offer, then anybody who requests the source from you is entitled to receive it.
If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later. When users non-commercially redistribute the binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this written offer. This means that people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along with the written offer.
The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can order the source code from you.
Can I release a modified version of a GPL-covered program in binary form only?No. The whole point of the GPL is that all modified versions must be free software—which means, in particular, that the source code of the modified version is available to the users.
I downloaded just the binary from the net. If I distribute copies, do I have to get the source and distribute that too?Yes. The general rule is, if you distribute binaries, you must distribute the complete corresponding source code too. The exception for the case where you received a written offer for source code is quite limited.
I want to distribute binaries, but distributing complete source is inconvenient. Is it ok if I give users the diffs from the “standard” version along with the binaries?This is a well-meaning request, but this method of providing the source doesn't really do the job.
A user that wants the source a year from now may be unable to get the proper version from another site at that time. The standard distribution site may have a newer version, but the same diffs probably won't work with that version.
So you need to provide complete sources, not just diffs, with the binaries.
I know I'm probably not aware enough of the technicalities "firmware" upgrade process, but can you not create a firmware that doesn't include bmminer? Just leave the one that's on the miner in place when the upgrade script runs? I'm assuming that you haven't modified and recompiled bmminer code because, well you don't have the code to modify (see above), so your just scripting around the voltage/frequency settings and maybe written a custom "optimization" app? No idea. But if you left out the bmminer (cgminer) executable from your firmware then you wouldn't need to provide the source code (that you haven't got anyway)  |
|
|
|
Once again, no Low Power Modes for the T models. I guess they are trying to differentiate the features between higher and lower cost models |
|
|
|
The answer is rather simple, throw hash at small PPLNS pools so they aren't small any more. Oh and don't fragment the PPLNS scene even more by creating another small pool.  The last reason of mining for 5 months and losing out because of your network outage caused you to ramp down is true of massive PPLNS pools more so than small ones. The ramp time on a big pool for pplns can be in the matter of hours. The bigger the pool is the smaller the ramp, even 5ND was small when difficulty was much less in the past. I can remember kano pool having a ramp time of 36 hours in the good ole days. |
|
|
|
|
As per topic does anyone have a psu from an Innosilicon T3-50T
One of mine has died.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
Also on a small pool when a block is found you get a much larger slice of the reward. It's always been the case that if you need a constant drip drip of regular daily/weekly/monthly income then a payment system that delivers that is going to right for you. Over longer periods of time, however you will make more on a pplns pool, luck being equal. However, once the pool gets small enough that it's not hitting at least one block per diff change then it becomes very hard to stay the distance, although it can be very satisfying to do so if the small pool has a very lucky sting of fast blocks. It's not like the bigger pools have been that lucky lately either, a quick glance at slush, viabtc and antpool show varying degrees of luck, and it's all luck, finding a block, getting a block with large transaction fees. Some pools also hit you with fees two ways. E.g. viabtc's PPS+ charges a 4% PPS fee on the block reward and a 2% PPLNS fee on the transaction fee reward. All pools are subject to the following: So here's a table of Bitcoin block finding probabilites: Difficulty CDF Probability Above
50% 0.3934693403 1 in 1.6
100% 0.6321205588 1 in 2.7
200% 0.8646647168 1 in 7.4
300% 0.9502129316 1 in 20.1
400% 0.9816843611 1 in 54.6
500% 0.9932620530 1 in 148.4
600% 0.9975212478 1 in 403.4
666% 0.9987188536 1 in 780.6
700% 0.9990881180 1 in 1096.6
800% 0.9996645374 1 in 2981.0
900% 0.9998765902 1 in 8103.1
1000% 0.9999546001 1 in 22026.5
1400% 0.9999991685 1 in 1202604.3
Meaning that, for example, there is a chance of hitting a 300% block 1 out of every 20 block found. Kano pool although it felt like forever between the last block 5 months ago and the most recent block, it wasn't even 300% and the expected number of blocks over that period of time was somewhere between 10 and 15 depending on difficulty and pool hash rate. |
|
|
|
Well i know that i was talking about SPV mining, but don't nearly all pools conduct spv mining? If kano does not then he must state things as they are, in his reply to my topic he makes it seem like he is magically beating the odds, which is not the case.
Not only does kano.is not conduct SPV mining, neither does ckpool nor does your pool. Empty blocks was not what this topic was concerning. Also fully validating blocks the way he does it "taking your words for it because I don't know if he does" lowers the pool chances of finding blocks, those who mine to his pool waste a portion of their hash power "doing nothing" until the previous block's transactions are validated and thus risking a potential empty block (The exact reasons why most large pools do the opposite)
I am not implying that one thing is better than the other to bitcoin as a whole, simply stating the potential risk and loss in the way he conducts his pool, as you may already know most miners would prefer not to risk losing a block by wasting a few seconds of mining for the sake of block rewards ( the majority probably don't care about anything but fiat profit), if Kano does that he should make it clear and then miners can chose if they want to use his pool or not, but he doesn't do that, he simply uses that fact to advertise his pool, the same thing he is doing now in this thread and his thread by attacking Ckpool, Laurentia pool and nearly all pools, every pool except for his is a terrible pool according to him.
Just to be clear, no-one is attacking ckpool or Laurentia pool for mining empty blocks. I'm not sure why you brought empty blocks into the discussion, the first mention of it in this thread is in post 18 |
|
|
|
I never said i had no way to tell, I said I don't care, there is a difference.
Surely if you mined on a small PPLNS pool then you would care if a block was missed due to it having a massive impact on your earnings along with everyone else on the pool. The bigger the pool the less likelyhood of it having an impact on you, especially if the pool is PPS. But the danger is, it is all relative, if a big pool is losing blocks due to bad code or infrastructure, or you build a big pool based on bad code or infrastructure then it does become a big deal. Because a big pool will lose lots of blocks, or at least potentially a string of them before its noticed and something is done about it. Fact is some big pools have lost lots of blocks due to either bad code or due to not being aware of what is going on down to the minutiae of information or not having the log files to check back, or just not caring. The history is there to see. I can understand it not being a big concern on your part because of your mining strategy, although I would question why anyone would continue to mine on a solo pool that has demonstrably lost blocks on more than one occassion. The potential loss of earnings is just too high. |
|
|
|
Hey Diesel,
Yes, all of us long-term kanopool miners lost months of shares when the N (number of shares) changed from 5Nd (5 times current network diff) to just 3 days some time back. Kano explained why, and with your miners off you lost all your shares after 3 days once that change happened.
Bummer, but it is the way if a smaller pool is to survive.
Well that sux. Guess I should have consulted here before disconnecting; but then again it would not have changed my decision - the 220V circuit powering the miners had to go for another piece of equipment and offices were being added and the fan noise would have been unacceptable. So I didn't really have a choice. I could have spun up another location but my miners were already only marginally profitable under "normal" luck so start-up expenses would have tilted everything back to unprofitable and it would not have been worth it. Guess I am just out 800-900$ Not really. Assuming 5ND was kept instead of changed to 3 days in Jan: Say you had 54TH mining end of Feb, and turned them off March 1st, ramp down time was around 146 days in Jan, it would have been more in March, but for arguments sake lets keep it the same. Block was found on 2th May, which is 81 days after you turned off your miners. So by then you would have ramped down by at least 55% or roughly 24TH. Pool N avg was 7.45PH when the block was found and the block was worth 8.31423879 BTC So your pool reward percentage would have been 0.024/7.45*100 which equals 0.322147651% That's 8.31423879 x 0.322147651% or 0.026784125 BTC BTC price was aprox $9750 so the most you could have lost was pretty much $261 If you would have kept mining the entire time after the switch to 3 days you would have made 0.05356825 or around $522 when the block was found in May |
|
|
|
I can get you proof that there were blocks found by Vnish's firmware. Please. |
|
|
|
I also think his attitude has a lot to do with this, I rather mine with to a pool whose operator would respond to me with total respect and patience regardless of the risk, rather than mining on a "better" pool owned by someone who is disrespectful.  , but that is just me. I've found neither of them to be disrespectful to me personally. |
|
|
|
There any undervolt/overclock firmware for the T17e yet?
There isn't even the option to enable the options for voltage and frequency in the web code like there is with other 17 models |
|
|
|
|
And verily the drought was broken!
|
|
|
|
|
Did it stick after reboot?
Also any power readings?
|
|
|
|
With the halving biting deep into miners income, some have been able to scrape by at current BTC price levels by running their miners in Low Power Mode (LPM), this is just running the miners at lower speeds/voltages rather than Asicboost (originally tagged as LPM on the S9's) Unfortunately however, not all of the current *17 range of Bitmain miners support this mode. My current understanding is this: LPM Supported  - S17 (Low, Normal)
- S17-Pro (Low, Normal, Turbo)
LPM NOT Supported  - S17E
- S17+
- T17
- T17E
- T17+
- T19
- S19-Pro
- S19
Seeing as it is possible to underclock and undervolt by manually hacking the gui or with third party firmware I feel it's not unreasonable to ask Bitmain to enable LPM on the miners that don't current support it. Having contacted them directly and not having much luck I thought it might help if I had an idea of the miner community's opinion on the matter. Please vote here and we can bring this thread to their attention, who knows, it might work.  I'll leave the thread unlocked, but moderated in case it wanders off topic, otherwise your thoughts would be appreciated. Yes I'm aware there are other manufacturers, that may or may not have low power modes :P
No I don't know if its physically impossible for the hardware to do this, but I doubt it.
As mentioned I'm aware of third party firmware that may enable this, but not everyone wants to pay a dev fee or risk using non-official firmware
2nd Jun 2020 - Added T19
27th Aug 2020 - Added S19-Pro and S19
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah there's an entire thread about it in the pools section of the forum, where hopefully this will be moved.
|
|
|
|
|
You could run it on solo.ckpool.org if you fancy a lottery, in more ways than one.
Or you could run it on kano.is for a normal pplns pool.
[disclaimer]
Other pools exist, I'm just going by personal experience
[/disclaimer]
|
|
|
|
hi i have dragon t1 what i do to overclock??? must change framware? You can overclock/underclock just by moving the performance slider. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
