Assuming you turned the voltage up, since that's one of those things you have to do to overclock it?
What points do I measure the voltage? I plan on doing some OCing soon. On the far left and right pin of the usb connector? Also any idea why it doesn't run on my usb 3.0 hub? Nvm that part, it work when i replugged the hub in a different usb 3.0 port. Okay thats my bad i had misunderstood how to change voltage, is it safe to turn the knob while the thing is hashing to find the sweet spot? |
|
|
|
So the stick has been working well since i received it, however if i try to run it on a hub, it does not get found by cgminer. Reinstalling the zadig drivers or such does not change anything. Is there something else i need to install for the hub to work properly? (Windows 7)
I have other devices on the hub that work at the same time.
So it seem to work on a USB 2.0 hub. I guess it does not work with USB 3.0? Anyways. I got some Y Splitter and they don't seem to allow to clock any higher, having 2 port connected to it does not let me raise the clock any more than without. I seem to be stuck at 200-225hz. 250hz does not work with or without Y splitter. Disappointing. |
|
|
|
The s-7 is better then the s-5 And depending on your setup there are mufflers that work.
I disagree. To me 1 x S7 is much louder than 3 x S5's. Even with fan speed reduction to 30%. That doesn't really make sense. Your S7 = 2x fans and S5s = 3x fans, identical fans. Sound is not merely relative to the fan speed and rating. You also must factor into existence the flow of the air and the noise generated from turbulence and or vibration. So you have environmental factors to think about. S5 - has lower restriction of airflow. The fin design of the heatinks allows for air to pass through with less resistance and turbulence. S7 - has compact heatsink design and completely enclosed aluminum housing. This creates a lot of turbulence and resistance. Just like water. What generates more noise, a river without rocks/rapids or one with rocks/rapids? Keep in mind not all S5 are the same. I have units with 4 different types of heat sinks. So it is important to know when compare which models people have. 1. The standard curved fin 2. The new ones like on the S7 3. Some CNC'd flat ones simliar to #1 but no curves 4. I forgot but I am pretty sure I received 4 different kinds from Bitmain New S5's with S7 heatsinks, are you talking about the S5+? And also there were batches with mini heatsinks individually on each chip. I'm considering adding some to the hotter chips since i have the materials for it but i'm not sure if it does anything at all, would be good to know. It Works for the S7, not sure if it would work with a S5. |
|
|
|
what is the diameter of the S7 fan ? i want use a duct adaptor for 2x 200mm fan (high flow, high pressure, low noise).   I am pretty sure they are standard 120mm frames so you just need to figure out how to square down your adaptor to properly push the air through the heatsink. It should help with the fan's noise, but not so much with the air turbulence noise. Phil really made a difference with the noise with mufflers, could be something worth looking into as well. |
|
|
|
We can say mining is a kind off dead now as now most of the btc dont want to invest money on. Asiic miners and waste money on bills... So slowly slowly miners are packing up from mining
Individual distributed miners yes. The conglomerates are continuing to amass given the 50% growth we've seen over the past couple of months. I'm earning just fine, the key is just having cheap electricity, under 0.04$/kWh really make it a completely different games for home miners. Of course the biggest growth will be in data centers, but also home miners that decide to man up and get into this new thing called "Bitcoin" when they realize they could make bank because they pay 0.02-0.04$/kWh. if they culd porvide a cheap cloud , more cheap that hashnest, many miners could actually join the network, but with the maintanance fee their result is above 0.05, it's like you pay 0.1 because if it were 0.05 the roi would be 6 months I'm hoping having brings some of the hosting centers down a little. Not sure if they will but I will keep hoping on it. Not sure what will happen at having really. Will be interesting. They could provide for cloud, but i don't really get it. I'd rather just mine it myself, if i have that much cheap electricity, having to deal with customers, questions, configuration, shipping out miners, egh, sound like a pain. I'd just grab all the S3's i could and sometimes S5's and enjoy the high turnover and short ROI. The way cloud mining is setup, it sound like they just make their ToS into a miner trap. Like Bitmain's 50$ per unit handling of the unit + shipping, tend to make people leave their units there and no claim them. Look at the prices of S3. |
|
|
|
Avalon now have a partner in USA that will manage the RMA and the sell. This is a really good new imho. We will probably get better support and cheap shipping price.  That's quiet a relief, its pretty much more of a real warranty if we don't need to pay insane costs to ship it back to Bitmain. The efficiency is relatively low compared to whats coming and even what's already out. So hopefully the price will match. I might be interested in buying them if they were at 700-825$ per unit. I'm under the impression there will be a premium like for the 4.1, so maybe they will try to sell it for 1000-1100, however. |
|
|
|
So i asked previously in the S5 thread but received no replies. I am wondering i anyone knows the answer to this?; So, i'm wondering, is the 16 pins pinout otherwise the same as the 18 pins. In short i'm wondering about running a 16pins blade into a 18pins controller safely. I'm pretty sure i read somewhere that it was done, can't find it now, so i'm wondering on how to do it safely.
Anyone knows? Any information would be greatly appreciated, thanks.  |
|
|
|
This is crazy. Can't believe its not rising.
Maybe some farm burned down.
I'm also surprised, it would not take many S7 to raise the difficulty at least a bit more than this. What is going on? They shipped much less than we guessed, or is it because they took orders for tons of miners when they aren't shipping out the miners? Also their hosted mining rate mining compensation is kind of a joke, they're taking like 0.1$/kWh? |
|
|
|
Finally , Avalon get the Avalon6 spec in public officially .  Avalon6 Specification Hash rate： 3.65T±10% Power at wall 1100W（power efficiency 90%）。 Quantity of chip 80 Power connector 4x 6PIN，you need to connect all 4 connectors when running Cooling fan 12038, current min: 1.6A ,Max:2.8A Max speed: 3800RPM Temperature Max Temperature of intake :38℃ Controller Raspberry PI（version 1，B，B+），。 Each Raspberry PI can control 60 units AUC max 6 units can be connected in series with each AUC Protection The machine will not start when the fan is damaged 。 Dimension 136×150×334mm Weight 4.8kg INGRESS PROTECTION IP20 Power supply 1200W 80 plus gold power supply recommended Voltage: min:11.7V max: 12.2V YES!! Can't wait to get one of these on order. Fingers crossed for a decent price point with the anticipation of them being sold at least a slight premium. Edit: Would be great if you could run these off the same controller as the 4.1 as I have 2 already running. Ohhh, these look nice. Better designed than the Bitmains one since all the connectors seem to be in the back, though i don't see an Ethernet port, so i'm guessing they use a external controller? Still look easy to stack, properly enclosed. I wonder what the back hex grill is for, however? |
|
|
|
|
So the stick has been working well since i received it, however if i try to run it on a hub, it does not get found by cgminer. Reinstalling the zadig drivers or such does not change anything. Is there something else i need to install for the hub to work properly? (Windows 7)
I have other devices on the hub that work at the same time.
|
|
|
|
Actually, the S7 is not critical at all since it has probably none of the parts I want - or at best, very few - for this project.
The parts that come off an S1 or S2 I might prioritize higher when I've exhausted my own stock. I don't have any S2 boards to part out (all mine are museum) but I have enough S1 boards to provide caps for 50 pods. I'll burn through those, but 30x S2 boards would run power for over 100 pods. However, an S5 board provides about 5 times the value in parts I'm short on compared to an S2 board (when component cost is considered). The design has changed a bit such that the S1 and S2 now have more valuable parts than I had originally assumed so they will be prioritized a bit higher.
However. Only trading pods for the hardware required to make more pods is not sustainable.
Only about half the cost of the pod is recycle parts, so for every pod that goes out in trade for hardware I have spent a decent number of dollars which did not come back. Additionally I spent a lot of time pulling, cleaning and readying parts for assembly on something new. I know a lot of people will be paying money for pods, but a lot of other people will not. If I don't keep a practical ratio on things, I'll end up with a whole lot of parts I can't use and a lot of PCBs I'll get ten cents a pound for and will have basically paid a lot of people to take my miners. Unfortunately, I can't trade old PCBs for sandwiches at a very favorable rate, nor can I pay the rent with them.
You can't just send me parts and assume I'll send a miner back. I will not send a pod to anyone, no matter how many boards he ships to my door, without having agreed upon the terms of the transaction first. The agreement will be based on the availability of parts I already have and how much I value the parts being provided at that moment, which means that at different times different boards will have different values because I'll need them more or less than at other times. If I find that I have enough boards already on hand to build every pod I feel like putting together ever again, I'll stop taking trades entirely and only sell for money (or other things which I find interesting or worthwhile, surprise me).
How about a combination thereof? You need parts, but you also need money. PCB's don't make for very good snacks, that much is understandable. For instance i could offer a combination of one dead S5 board + some Working S1 boards + some money, if i was to get several miners back, i could get a significant upgrade over the S1's i'm running now and you'd be making miners out of the parts i gave you(in equivalence) + some from you + you'd also have money to cover your time. |
|
|
|
It was said that, the second any of these satoshi is connected to a dirty satoshi, since its not possible to discriminate individually, then all sats from that transaction are dirty. And i said that is ridiculous and discriminating as such is just doing so for the sake of the arguments. Its ridiculous but that seem to be what is being said and that however is something i directly do not agree with. it appears to be a difference of what you define fungibility is to you brg444 and how I choose to define it to me. To each his own. I'm trying to say that the issues non-fungibility would cause in previous currency does not apply to Bitcoin. What i call it, what you call it, it does not matter. If it does not cause any problem, then it does not cause any issues. Its quite simple. Since whether it is fungible or not become irrelevant. Whether we agree or not on if BTC is fungible or not, also become irrelevant. We can discuss it for academic reasons, but saying it create problem in practice is a bit silly. |
|
|
|
...
What's the absolute max you'd pay for an SP20 nowadays?
I sold a few days ago, my last SP20 for 1.65BTC+ shipping costs to Portugal. Dats like a lotta' money though... :/ Also to you guys who were talking about wiring the unit up... My Photon 1200 did come with 2 8 pin to single 6+2, as well as the more typical 8 to double 6+2... Suppose I grabbed a couple more of these for the other PSU's (CX750m) for example. With a good thick wire gauge 8 pin to single 6+2 connector, could that cable give the 300 watts? I think the main issue is wire gauge here, is it not? Obviously the 8 pin can supply 360 watts, I know that. But to supply almost that much through a single connector, I'd imagine I want it to be a pretty damn high quality cable. Well if it has available slots, it will work. But it being a 8 pins does not change anything, the extra 2 wires are grounds, and ignored completely here. And an actual 300 watts is probably a bit much, but as i tried to say, you won't actually be feeding 300 watts. And i say again, it will work, but it has to be very good connectors to handle it over a long period of time and we can't tell you that. I do not know how a SP20 will handle multiple PSU with slightly different voltage input. The best might be running the SP20 on the single PSU at 1000w~ at the wall, if its rated 1200. |
|
|
|
It was said that, the second any of these satoshi is connected to a dirty satoshi, since its not possible to discriminate individually, then all sats from that transaction are dirty. And i said that is ridiculous and discriminating as such is just doing so for the sake of the arguments. Its ridiculous but that seem to be what is being said and that however is something i directly do not agree with. |
|
|
|
Looking for a quick sale - moving to florida and need the money to start a new "life" so-to-speak.
S5 for $350 & S3 for $125
Hello, if you want a quick sale, may i recommend you set your prices at comparable rates to the others sellers. Notably 250-325$ shipped for S5's and 60-80$ Shipped for S3's. If you happen to have a way to ship to Canada Québec at a good rate, i may be interested in picking up some S3's shortly, or maybe even some S5's if you still have them in a week. |
|
|
|
Are we discussing the fact that Bitcoin is not perfectly fungible, or how big an issue a lack of fungibility is?
Personally, i'm saying the concept of grading a currency's fungibility is fine, but its not a problem or even really applicable for Bitcoin, since fungibility not meant to apply to a transaction history. Its possible to argue semantics, but the fact remain that it is not an issue and as long as there are exchanges who take any for the full price, it does not matter if some does not. And since those exchanges thrives on the value of bitcoin and getting the most traffic possible, refusing certain BTC based on transaction history is simply not going to happen. TLDR: Fungibility does not apply to a currency,s transaction history, ledger. That BTC has a public ledger does not change that fact. You can start cherrypicking but the clerk at the market you're buying stuff from really does not give a damn about the Bill,s transaction history, but it could be asked, just as it could be checked for BTC. BTC is not any different, its just transparent. My main concern is people saying that bitcoins imperfect fungibility is not and could not be a problem at any magnitude.
Outright saying fungibility does not apply to Bitcoin is pure ignorance of the facts.
Thats because fungibility cause a problem for normal currency, but it does not for Bitcoin. Its like a different universe with different laws of physics. Its facts, not ignorance. Your own analogy of bills dated or marked with perfume was debunked by me showing a clear difference in the enforceability of acceptance of denial of physical cash vs Bitcoin. You never retorted but rather ignored the glaring problem with your analogy. Go back and read your own post. Its because you aim on a specific word or sentence and ignore what the analogy its trying to explain. Its like a angry bull that is seeing red; I'm saying, the transaction history of Bills but even more so the transaction history of FIAT which most of it is done Online is the same as Bitcoin. The transaction history is there, its available, just not publicly. Yet FIAT is still finely fungible and in that aspect, BTC is just as well, the difference is that BTC's ledger is publicly available, for transparency. That does not change anything. Everyone is able to discriminate either way, it just does not matter if they do. So for FIAT and for BTC, fungibility is not a problem. |
|
|
|
Are we discussing the fact that Bitcoin is not perfectly fungible, or how big an issue a lack of fungibility is?
Personally, i'm saying the concept of grading a currency's fungibility is fine, but its not a problem or even really applicable for Bitcoin, since fungibility not meant to apply to a transaction history. Its possible to argue semantics, but the fact remain that it is not an issue and as long as there are exchanges who take any for the full price, it does not matter if some does not. And since those exchanges thrives on the value of bitcoin and getting the most traffic possible, refusing certain BTC based on transaction history is simply not going to happen. TLDR: Fungibility does not apply to a currency,s transaction history, ledger. That BTC has a public ledger does not change that fact. You can start cherrypicking but the clerk at the market you're buying stuff from really does not give a damn about the Bill,s transaction history, but it could be asked, just as it could be checked for BTC. BTC is not any different, its just transparent. My main concern is people saying that bitcoins imperfect fungibility is not and could not be a problem at any magnitude.
Outright saying fungibility does not apply to Bitcoin is pure ignorance of the facts.
Thats because fungibility cause a problem for normal currency, but it does not for Bitcoin. Its like a different universe with different laws of physics. Its facts, not ignorance. |
|
|
|
I dont think they even had good internet right?
Posting here+ offering offline services like photo editing doesn't require a high speed internet. You can also offer btc for goods services , and many more, not everything requires a good/stable internet. You can mine on poor cellphone wifi connection so i don't think mining in such area with slow internet is really all that much of a problem in the first place. And sadly the discrimination of earning, or well at least mining Bitcoin is well here and its called your electricity costs. The only other thing i would consider as BTC earning is trading it or investing it. The other things you can do that input your times isint particularily BTC specific. I find that internet connection matters in mining. Everytime I launch ethminer to mine Ethereum on Suprnova, I lost my internet connection, that come back only when ethminer has been closed. That is weird, i do not have that issue. I have some miners on slow wifi as well and beside occasional short disconnects, their performance isint impacted, they have the same hashrate accepted on the pool side. And ethminer is a pain, there's tons of thing that make it crash, so annoying. Had to change antivirus for one. Also if you have super slow internet speed you could also setup a proxy on your home network and then submit everything with one connection. That way you can have a big mine using nearly no hashrate. The only problem is that you lose a tiny bit of time when you submit, so on fast block switch or in the event where you find a block at the same time as someone else, then only you are penalized. If you mine on a pool it should not really be a problem either way. Since BTC itself has very slow blockchange rate, because of the average mining time. Yes, that's quite weird. But tell me, what did you mean when you said : "you could also setup a proxy on your home network and then submit everything with one connection" ? I have already only one connection, but maybe I misunderstood  ? Yes okay. Each miners you have open up a connection to the pool, and those all use a small amount of bandwidth. So instead you point your miners to your home's proxy, and only the proxy talk to the pool. So small or big farm won't use more bandwitdh, the combined difficulty of all your miners might become 10k or 100k, that way you will have very little shares to discuss with the pool, but you will still get your full hashrate. However this isint very important unless you're on dialup-like internet. But all in all, my whole farm only take a couples kB/s of data so, not a whole lot. I guess it would be different if i had 25 or 250 miners but i dont. And correct. You can use your cellphone to tether its internet connection for your miners. It works fine here. |
|
|
|
If the time comes that certain coins are considered permanently clean and others permanently dirty in a future regulated world system,
the community as a whole should purposefully contaminate all clean coins found on the blockchain.
And what incentive does anyone have in doing that? Should we use the Bitcoin Honor System(TM) and hope people are willing to devalue their clean money? I have a better idea. Fungibility. I see a pattern happening here: 1. Issues raised with Bitcoin's fungibility get brought to light 2. Supporters of bitcoin's "fungibility" propose solution X 3. Those who want to see reality for what it is go on to debunk solution X given it is a patch to the system and not an actualy addition to bitcoin's protocol which attempts to fix bitcoin's fungibility issues in a ROUND-ABOUT-WAY. 4. repeat step 2 for solution X+1 until X+n is reached 5. agree to disagree There are so many supposed solutions to fixing bitcoin's fungibility problem but they don't hit the issue head on. It is always some sort of of chain (outside of bitocin protocol) PATCH which does not fix anything deterministically 100%. Fungibility isint a problem in the first place. Its not because a dead man said it need to be fungible than the principle still hold true. I very much doubt he could foresee hundreds of years in the future that money would become digital and ethereal. Now we're in the era of Security. So in the future if you took your bitcoins to all bitcoin merchants to spend them or exchange them and you are denied doing so because of your coins being tainted that's not a problem? I would see it as a problem. Most merchants that accept online transactions, FIAT AND BTC don't give a shit about USD or BTC, they get paid in the currency they want. And payment processors that handle BTC live on BTC, so suiciding by refusing 90% of coins is not going to happen. Wrong. You are comparing a digital transparent decentralized ledger (virtual and globally accessible in an instant) to physical analogies of perfume and dates printed on piece of paper? come on you can't compare the two as if they are equal ways to black list a currency from usage. You can clearly see where bitcoins come from and go to ON THE BLOCK CHAIN with the touch of a button and some software for parsing the block chain . <------ EFFICIENTYou can't clearly see your examples globally and instantly for blacklisting. <-----not EFFICIENT^ Nor can you easily trace the exact/full history of each physical fiat bill efficiently. 90%? Where did you come up with that number? You don't know the exact mechanism for black listing to be put into place at some future date. There are probably 50 shades of black listing that will probably spring up at some point depending upon each government/regulatory department's discretion. No, not wrong. Comparing it to fiat is just fine. You're using an idea, term and criteria that was built with no knowledge of how things could be in the future. The point is, *you* are using a term used for criteria on previous kind money and *you* are applying it to Bitcoin. *You* are basing your perspective on dated concept that hold no value here. And you. The 90% come from you. Even in the case 90% of merchants, and thats magnitude higher than it could happen in the worse case scenario. Then those going through that system would just collapse. Payments processor pays merchants in the currency they want, if they stop accepting any non clean 0x coins, the BTC portion of their dealings would just die. You're suggesting a problem based on fungibility when there is actually... None. Is there a problem with spending X vs Y bitcoin? No. Will there be one? No. So what i been saying in the few posts, if that wasn't clear enough, is that your whole perspective, your whole argument is based on a fallacy. 1. Fungibility is a concept used on money previous to bit coin - yes 2. Fungibility of fiat is different from bitcoin. Fiat fungibility is decreed by law (at least in the U.S.) bit coin fungibility is decreed by no CENTRAL authority/business/company. So the topic of fungibility is up to the marketplace and any laws/regulations that are enforced upon said businesses. Fungibility of precious metals such as gold and silver has its own take on it in its respective market place much like bitcoin. Only thing with precious metals you can't black list certain atoms of silver or gold.  You can't tell where a paper dollar has been by looking at it. You can't tell its completely transactional history by looking at it. Nor can you tell where an atom of silver or gold has been and its transactional history from the day it was dug out of the earth. Their respective histories are hard to identify. Bitcoins on the block chain are easily identified.3. You tried to equate all shops in the world stopping accepting bills with a particular date on them or perfume on them. THIS very comparison when used as an analogy of bitcoin blacklisting in reference to the concept of fungibility (every unit of account in a system is interchangeable and indistinguishable) is a flawed comparison as one is a physical form that cannot be efficiently executed (your example) and my example where a bitcoin business or government authority posts a digital list of addresses that are not to be accepted for commerce, which every person with an internet connection has access to, can be done efficiently. The two scenarios are worlds apart in terms of the ability to execute such tasks separately. 4. You say that fungibility holds "no value" here? How is it not a valuable topic of discussion or concern when a bitcoin user (BOB) buys bitcoins from someone buy does not realize those coins were stolen from an exchange (via a hack/heist) now bob is being told his coins are not accepted at particular merchants and in some cases his coins could be confiscated if he deposits it to an exchange and they refuse to allow him to have it because "coins are blacklisted" by a government authority who regulates said business. <---- You see no value in fungibility here at all? 5. The 90% did not come from me. Please post a quote/link. I never mentioned 90% to my knowledge. 6. Bitpay just stopped accepting "tainted" bitcoins from their own black list not even a month ago. LINK: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3mea6b/bitpay_is_blacklisting_certain_bitcoins_rejecting/7. Is there a problem? In my view yes there is. At the moment it isn't at the crux of everyone's attention like THA BLAWK SAIZE DEEHBATE but it will be if users start getting turned away from using/spending/exchanging their bitcoins because those coins have a history from a past theft/crime. My argument is based on fact. MTGOX refused to allow bitcoinica coins to go back to their depositors after bitcoinica was hacked. BTC-e disallowed withdraw/exchange of the coins from the evolution marketplace theft. Bitpay is black listing certain bitcoins and rejecting customers. Fallacy? No.... fact! Get it straight. As I said, right now the issue of fungibility is not a hot topic like other topics but it is a huge issue for users that want to have a currency that is fungible and allows them to have financial privacy. At some point I see the topic of bitcoin fungibility being in the bitcoin headlines more and more as time goes on. Time will tell if I am right. You have not referenced any links/quotes/examples that prove my argument is flawed. You still do not understand one word of what i said. You don't even understand the 90% bits. You say its a problem, its only a problem if nearly all do it. Hence 90%. I'll simplify. If 5% of the volume from sellers and exchanges decide to block any non clean BTC coins, what does happen? That business will be brought to the rest of 95%. If 40% of the volume from sellers and exchanges decide to block any non clean BTC coins, what does happen? That business will be brought to the rest of 60% And thats goes on and on, until about 90%. If that didn't explain clearly enough, i'll explain that too; As long as people can go somewhere and get full value with their coins, the other portion that does not value those coins at the exchange rate will just be walked around. Its not a complicated concept. TLDR: Fungibility is not a concept relevant to BTC. Conclusion: Everything you say is based on a Fallacy. Keep telling yourself that. Just because you say something does not make it true. Let's agree to disagree. Well we can do that, but i'm not saying i agree or do not agree. I'm saying you're raising alarm about a fire where there is none. I'm just stating empirical facts; Are exchanges over or devaluating certain Bitcoins depending on their history? The answer is simply no. Therefore you are wrong, no matter what i think. But i can agree to stop arguing. We both made our points clear and others who read this are welcome to make their own opinions, since i think from both aisle, all that was said should give all the needed information. |
|
|
|
We can say mining is a kind off dead now as now most of the btc dont want to invest money on. Asiic miners and waste money on bills... So slowly slowly miners are packing up from mining
Individual distributed miners yes. The conglomerates are continuing to amass given the 50% growth we've seen over the past couple of months. I'm earning just fine, the key is just having cheap electricity, under 0.04$/kWh really make it a completely different games for home miners. Of course the biggest growth will be in data centers, but also home miners that decide to man up and get into this new thing called "Bitcoin" when they realize they could make bank because they pay 0.02-0.04$/kWh. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
