|
This is doing quite a good job of annoying me.
I have 6 cards plugged into MSI 890FXA-GD70 motherboards... all with pcie 1x extenders that I have cut/shorted myself.
I can start up all 6 cards fine. The rig runs great for a few hours.
Sure enough... sometimes 5 minutes in, sometimes 12 minutes in... card number 4 (according to aticonifg, and always/only-ever card number 4) will receive the dreaded "Verification Failed, Check Hardware!" message.
I am not even 100% sure what card it is because all of them feel hot to the touch on my setup.
I have the exact same setup on a MSI 790FX-GD70 board... and I have yet to notice this, but then again there are only 5 cards on the board.
Anybody else experience this problem? Know any possible solutions?
|
|
|
|
One thing that might make the display of the wallet less confusing (maybe) would be to show all the properly available decimal places.
1.0000000000
for example.
or 2.500000000
not just 2.5
Why truncate the display at all?
Thanks for your hard work!
ditto. and, why was the 'generate coins' option removed? will you bring it back or is that only for elitists who can understand setting up scripts? I somewhat agree. Theoretically a 10mhash CPU could generate 0.35 BTC over the next month if the difficulty stayed stagnant. It won't, but still that is a great way to distribute small amounts of currency to new interested users. Sure, flash a warning perhaps that it might deplete their CPUs lifespan and increase their electrical bill... but don't restrict them from the possibility that was once there. A lot of people don't want to have to install more than 1 program in the course of a their days. One is more than enough to frustrate many of my friends. |
|
|
|
Very hard to estimate, it depends on who you are dealing with. I've had a Debian server rooted simply because it was running a vulnerable exim package for which no fix was available at the time. I required mail receive capability, so without watching Full Disclosure 24h/day or running an IPS there's no way I could have prevented it. If you are talking about a desktop machine and local attacks, the attack surface is huge. For example someone might send you a crafted pdf that smashes KDE/Gnome when it tries to generate a thumbnail. Someone might send you a crafted USB stick that smashes the userland file system driver or even the kernel when plugged into a port. A headless machine that's not listening to any ports and it's not used is probably secure, even if connected to the internet. Anything else, it depends who you are dealing with and how far they are willing to go (find new exploits, compromise other devices with which you exchange physical media etc.) BTW, I bet there are many programs listening to outside connections on your Ubuntu machine. Use this command to list them: Anything with 0.0.0.0:[portno] or :::[portno] as local bind address is a potential remote vulnerability. What if the Ubuntu install is behind a router that isn't forwarding any ports to the machine? I can get by with only 8 connections... |
|
|
|
I don't think we should add anything that reduces security of the bitcoin client right now :p These kind of things can be implemented as a layer above Bitcoin, no need to build it into the client.
Agreed. In fact, change "right now" to "ever" and that's how I would put it. |
|
|
|
|
I figured you coding types would know best...
How difficult is it to "hack into" a default ubuntu install that is connected to the internet 24/7 from behind a router.
Is it even possible at all? If there are no remote login programs enabled by default? (I am not even sure if there are any, I am more of a windows user.)
- Worried Paranoid Bitcoin Holder
|
|
|
|
How does one read the wallet.dat in plain text? Say I wanted to print out the keys and recreate it later in digital form, is that possible?
It is possible to do. You have to encode the wallet.dat file to some kind of alpha-numeric format first however instead of binary code I believe. |
|
|
|
I guess one solution would be to only store the flash drives in local bank's safety deposit box at which you had account information, and to leave the data unencrypted on the drive. Not too sure I even trust my bankers from not entering my safety deposit box however. That seems like too wide of a hole to leave open.
two cheap (128 meg) usb drives, or even multiples for redundency. Wallet.dat file, equal amount of random bits. XOR the two together. Keep the original set of random data on one drive and the random-like output on the other. Destroy the wallet.dat file. Keep the two drives in physically secure locations, but in different ones. For example, one could be in a safety deposit box, the other in your file at your attorney's office. Or another safety deposit box at another bank. Gun safe at the house. Your dropbox account? You could have multiple copies of each, as long as they were never kept together. A thief could then steal one, and you would still have at least one copy of each to be able to recreate the wallet.dat file, and the thief would just have a thumbdrive with useless data. Mark each of the thumbdrives so that it's obvious what they are and which they are. Perhaps a sticker on each that says "codex" and "key". Both are necessary for recreating the wallet.dat file, forever; but it doesn't require that you remember a complex keyphrase, nor is it a very complicated process that can't be simply explained in your will. This sounds like the idea of the year in terms of securing bitcoins. It's perfect. My only question is... is it at all possible to re-create a wallet.dat file from one half of it? Perhaps we will never know until it happens..? |
|
|
|
|
Thanks for that.
O.K. so I just loaded up my "backed up" wallet to a new ubuntu install and began downloading the blockchain.
How does my bitcoin client "know" that I have a balance on that wallet but that it is still "unconfirmed"? Doesn't it need to download the block chain to know that first? Or is individual transaction information associated with each address encoded in the wallet.dat file each time a transaction is made?
|
|
|
|
|
And why is it not necessary to backup any of the other files in your bitcoin folder in order to re-create your wallet?
Also: will the "format" of a wallet ever change? Will it ever need to? Even in 50+ years?
|
|
|
|
So with all this talk about hacking, everybody is rightfully paranoid about their wallet.dat security.
I was thinking... wouldn't it be possible to generate a bitcoin address whilst OFFLINE/not connected to the internet? On a fresh ubuntu/linux install...
If you send the coins to that wallet after encrypting it securely and uploading it to a few remote cloud storage type services... and then sent some bitcoins to an address you had generated in the wallet... that wallet would still contain the coins you sent it correct? Even if it was NEVER connected to the network?
So that in 20 years if I wanted to access my "rainy day" fund, I could retrieve my wallet.dat file that had been encrypted on "the cloud", pop it into a bitcoin client, and my coins would magically appear? (After a massive block download wait I assume).
Am I right?
What is wrong with this idea? Anything?
I am only worried about trying it because it means I would never actually have any proof that the bitcoins were indeed in the wallet, if I never connected to the network that is.
Couldn't somebody else create a wallet and generate the same address as me, since I never told the network about my address?
There is nothing theoretically wrong with this suggestion. You can check that there are bitcoins in your wallet by checking the individual addresses in the blockexplorer. You only need the wallet if you want to spend the coins. I'd be most worried about cloud services being around in 20 years. and/or losing/forgetting my strong passwordThis is my biggest worry as well. I have thought about this quite a bit. What kind of password can you create that is easy to remember, but hard to brute force? And even still... amnesia is a bitch. It would suck to get hit by a truck, memory erased, AND forget the password to your millions of dollars in bitcoins that are your only possible solution to the current problem. I know I am being paranoid but... I can't even remember my parent's birthdays or my own sometimes for that matter. I guess one solution would be to only store the flash drives in local bank's safety deposit box at which you had account information, and to leave the data unencrypted on the drive. Not too sure I even trust my bankers from not entering my safety deposit box however. That seems like too wide of a hole to leave open. |
|
|
|
|
So with all this talk about hacking, everybody is rightfully paranoid about their wallet.dat security.
I was thinking... wouldn't it be possible to generate a bitcoin address whilst OFFLINE/not connected to the internet? On a fresh ubuntu/linux install...
If you send the coins to that wallet after encrypting it securely and uploading it to a few remote cloud storage type services... and then sent some bitcoins to an address you had generated in the wallet... that wallet would still contain the coins you sent it correct? Even if it was NEVER connected to the network?
So that in 20 years if I wanted to access my "rainy day" fund, I could retrieve my wallet.dat file that had been encrypted on "the cloud", pop it into a bitcoin client, and my coins would magically appear? (After a massive block download wait I assume).
Am I right?
What is wrong with this idea? Anything?
I am only worried about trying it because it means I would never actually have any proof that the bitcoins were indeed in the wallet, if I never connected to the network that is.
Couldn't somebody else create a wallet and generate the same address as me, since I never told the network about my address?
|
|
|
|
Ya, phoenix goes wonky when the pool connectivity gets weird, but it's been a lot faster for me than poclbm. I switched to 2.4+phoenix a while ago. I don't have the stale share problem other people complain about. Here are some recent stats from my local miner:
[394.30 Mhash/sec] [1537 Accepted] [41 Rejected] [RPC (+LP)]
2% is either equal to or lower than what I had with poclbm last I checked.
Anyway, so I think this is what you need for v2.1 x32:
export AMDAPPSDKROOT=/opt/ati-stream-sdk-v2.1-lnx32/
export AMDAPPSDKSAMPLESROOT=/opt/ati-stream-sdk-v2.1-lnx32/
LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/opt/ati-stream-sdk-v2.1-lnx32/lib/x86:$LD_LIBRARY_PATH
ldconfig
Also, for C), I forgot to include the #!/bin/bash line... so I hope you see that is supposed to be a shell script that launches start_miner.sh with a 1, then 2, then 3, etc. I was under the impression that LinuxCoin's start_miner.sh had a numeric parameter that started miner 1, miner 2, etc.
Ok well I THINK I have sdk 2.1 installed on all of my mining rigs now.. so 0.05 BTC coming your way supa if you will post your btc address. I entered all of that code (changed it for 64 bit version where needed) and received no errors. And poclbm was able to run properly, albeit a few mhash/s slower than poclbm but that is expected. How can I be sure I am running 2.1 instead of 2.4? And how can I be sure that 2.1 is running when the compute re-starts? Thanks for all the help! |
|
|
|
Also, for C), I forgot to include the #!/bin/bash line... so I hope you see that is supposed to be a shell script that launches start_miner.sh with a 1, then 2, then 3, etc. I was under the impression that LinuxCoin's start_miner.sh had a numeric parameter that started miner 1, miner 2, etc. The start_miner script in LinuxCoin is sort of an interactive gui, lets you enter flags and parms without going CLI. I think OP means a startup script that just switches everything on as the computer turns on, and I've forgotten which /etc file in LinuxCoin you need to add it to. I dunno where I saw it, but something had a miner script that took an arg that it passed to aticonfig -i$1 and poclbm -d $1. I thought it was LinuxCoin. Clearly, I was mistaken. Oops.  Could I not simply use your shell script to open up individual ./poclbm.py instances in separate terminals? That is my ultimate goal... to open up the computer and have 6 terminals pop up and start mining right away. |
|
|
|
|
Definitely ddos or something going on... all 20 of my gpus stopped running ... :S
|
|
|
|
somebody was selling them @$50 each the other day. If all sales went off without a hitch, these guys are laughing all the way to the bank.
Agreed. Bitcoins are selling for much higher than market rates through eBay. Some sellers have over 1,000 + feedback... I doubt they will get canned. Good possible market?! |
|
|
|
|
Candies, rainbows and streets of fucking gold...
Because gold would be worthless at that point.
|
|
|
|
I think the plan is good, but I don't think Ubuntu is the right choice. It's a big system, so there are many possible security flaws. I think I'd go with something like OpenBSD instead.
Damnit. I am creating the bootable ubuntu USB disk now  If I am going to get serious about this however there is good reason to switch to the best possible operating system. In everyone's opinion: what is the most secure linux operating system available out there to date? I would use a minimal Ubuntu, not the full blown thing. Get rid of everything unnecessary. And how exactly does a linux noob do that? By downloading the "alternate" version and installing to USB hdd with only the "desktop" option installed perhaps? |
|
|
|
I think the plan is good, but I don't think Ubuntu is the right choice. It's a big system, so there are many possible security flaws. I think I'd go with something like OpenBSD instead.
Damnit. I am creating the bootable ubuntu USB disk now If I am going to get serious about this however there is good reason to switch to the best possible operating system. In everyone's opinion: what is the most secure linux operating system available out there to date? |
|
|
|
Receiving payments to a existing address will never be a problem.
They only time you have to worry about a wallet getting out of date is if it is a backup of a wallet that is in use. Then you must update at least every 100 new addresses.
You create a new address when sending coins (unless there is no change to be returned), after receiving coins at the currently displayed address for the first time, when you successfully mine a block solo, or when you click the new address button. When those things have happened a total of 100+ times any backup will have an incomplete set of private keys.
Isn't it possible to set the client to use more than 100 addresses by default? If I were making an encrypted ubuntu usb drive, I would like to set it to 1,000,000 addresses by default obviously, since I wouldn't want to have to keep creating new copies of the operating system/usb drive. Right? |
|
|
|
Only a fool would sell a 5970 for 25 bitcoins right now.
Electricity is no issue for me. I sold my 5970 for $800 and bought 6 5830s for $700. More than doubled my hash rate. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
