I sent you merit for doing this before posting, most folks won't do any basic troubleshooting and expect to find all the answers online.

Things to be done:


Check the screws on both the PSU and the hashboard rails.


That will just be a waste of compressed air.

if all fails, try the freezer trick, you might get lucky.

This is normal nothing is weird about the result, it's a bit confusing but let me try to explain.

Board 0 is bad
Board 2 is good

The control board connects to hash boards this way

0 control board > 0 hash board >Bad
1 control board > 1 hash board >NA
2 contorl board > 2 hash board >Good

Say you switchboard 2 and 0, the reading on the contorl board which is what you see in the kernel will be

0 control board > 2 hash board >Good
1 control board > 1 hash board >NA
2 contorl board > 0 hash board >Bad

Notice that despite the fact the reference on the control board has changed, the control board numbering remains the same, board 0 is still bad, if however, you get this

0 control board > 2 hash board >Bad
1 control board > 1 hash board >NA
2 contorl board > 0 hash board >Good

That's good news, it means both boards 0 and 2 are fine and something is wrong with the wires or the PSU busbars, and that is very, very unlikely to be the case, so good luck.

While I don't like Slushpool at all, I don't think it's the cause of your problem, it's likely just a terrible coincide.


The S17e uses 135 Asics on each hashboarrd, your board 0 (usually the most left when facing the miner's front-side) shows 0 asics, and chain 1 which is the middle board is showing only 134 (so it's missing a single asic), this problem is very common with all the 17 series, the heatsinks solder they use on those is pretty bad and eventually, chips start dying.

There is a good chance that your board 1 will come back to normal after a couple of reboots, chances are slim for board 0, some times people get lucky with custom firmware so you might check if any trusted devs have the S17e on their list.

And please, use the code tag when posting Kernel logs.

Maybe, but unlikely, the miner has temp sensors that stop it from mining when temps go past a certain degree, if you have not disabled that then it's unlikely that you toasted them.


Yes you could measure the voltage and resistance of each individual chip using a multimeter, or buy a special fixture tool, but your problem seems like a bad control board, I believe that if you Sdcard the miner using recovery files and then flash 2017-2018 firmware your miner might just come back to life.


If it's a bad heatsink or two, yes, you just need the adhesive and a heat gun, but this isn't a common fault with the S9s, usually, when an S9 hashboard is dead it's so because of a toasted chip or a few of them, which means you will need to order some chips and obviously a fixture tool which doesn't make much sense since this is just a single S9.

It all depends on what you are trying to achieve and obviously your power rate, if the cost of electricity is too high then eco will be a winner in most cases, even with the lower hashrate you get since eco improves the gear's efficiency, if you think the difficulty is going to spike and you want to maximize your gains now then you might want to overclock the gear and go with the +/performace settings, everyone has a different sweet spot for tuning their miners if it was up to me, I'd just keep the factory mode.

You won't get anywhere, trust me, we have gears running just fine for 4 years and we have gears that failed after running just for a few weeks, some for days, some for months, there are no official statements from the manufacturers but for an example Jihan wu the former CEO admitted that the 17 series had high failure rate, he did not the deny the claim he was replying to which states >30% failure, and that was just a couple months after they hit the market.

But then, the next batches "supposedly" improved, and since the 30% came in after a short period of time, it increased for most others, if you ask Phill he will tell you his failure rate on the 17 series gears from Bitmain is pretty low if you ask me, it's well beyond 50%-60 by now IIRC, both of us are telling the truth but which piece of info are you going to use?

if you look around the support section, you'll find people reporting dead miners after a few weeks of purchasing them, some will say they bought this off Alibaba which has probably mined for way too long already, if you ask the Avalon fans they will tell you a very low failure rate, if you ask someone who happened to buy T17es from Malaysia batches their failure rate could be close to 100% by now, you will get completely different results and non of it will be a fair representation of the overall market.

If you trust the seller always go for the S9J version, if you don't, then ask for the S9I version, avoid the original S9 unless it's cheaper by say 20-30%, and of course, avoid both S9k and S9SE like you avoid putting your wet fingers inside the electricity box.

I was going to respond to your PM but then I saw this post, sorry for the delay. The short version of the story is you have two dead boards and only one works fine, did you just buy the miner used? also, keep in mind sometimes if the PSU is bad it could result in the same error, but in most cases, it's just a bad hashboard that's beyond a simple fix.

Are the rest of the miners you have giving you the same error? I suggest you post about them 1 by 1, don't create a new topic but 1 post per miner in this topic, wait for members to respond, troubleshoot, and move on to the next one, this way you keep it simple and easy for us to follow and won't spam the support board.

It's inner Mongolia for the record, and you are right about this, the difference overall for this won't be noticeable, one Chinese miner I know told me they would be moving to Sichuan anyway since the rainy season is just a few weeks head, around April is where the hashrate swap happens in China, expect to see some weird ups and down within the same epoch but overall, nothing will happen.

My guess is that the Chinese look after one another's business, they gave miners enough time to reallocate, and asked them to shutdown just at the beginning of the moon soon, this means miners in Inner Mongolia have until September to worry about what to do with their gears, with the super cheap hydropower there, all gears would ROI by then and the only losers will be those buying the gears at the peak of the cycle.

The result will be pretty much the same regardless of which firmware you try to flash


I can't tell, but we at least know your miner isn't making the hacker richer now, you still need to fix it, let's hope the Sdcard flash does it.

I asked someone and they said you could use the same control board on both S17+/e and S19, he said he is 90% sure but I want to be 100% before I give you the final answer, and thus, I asked another person and posted in a telegram group to see if all 3 answers match, which I think, they will. I will let you know when they reply.

Edit:

Final Answer: S17+ / S17e and S19 use the same control board

Check the repair service locations on www.zeusbtc.com/Repair.asp, you might find something close by, or if you have local mining groups on facebook and telegram you might find someone who can fix them if shipping elsewhere will cost an arm and a leg.

Also, some issues can be fixed at home, so if you would like, post your problems here and we might help you fix some of them.

Right.


Not sure if all the cryptography experts and professors who do this full time agree with this definition, the word "vulnerable" is widely used on the acedmic level as long as there is at least a theoretical threat on something.


Looking at the source code alone isn't enough, it's easy to tell people to use open source wallets but then how do you know the version on your device is actually the one you read the code for? I mean unless you compile the whole code yourself there is really no guarantee that what you use is what you see on Github.

What do you mean it does not work? did you actually make a text file with the name get-user-list.php and saved it in (C:\xampp\htdocs), also is your Apache Server running? I think there is a mistake in the document, file sserver is in this path > btcpool-master\docker\btcpool\test\btc\cfg. So you need to open sserver.cfg with a notepad and go to line 107.


change the path to:


This assumes you saved the get-user-list.php file directly in htdocs without a sub-folder, I think the explanation by SwimmingTiger on GitHub is straightforward, he skipped a few things based on the assumption that anyone who gets this far should at least have a basic idea about what they are doing.

*If you don't want to touch the sserver.cgf you can simply create a new folder with the name 'userlist' inside C:\xampp\htdoc and then create the userlist.php inside, this leads to the same result but with a shortcut.

Let me know how it goes.

Good job. I added them to the list.

في الواقع لقد استمر التعدين بكروت 4 قيقا لفترة لابأس بها وهوا لايزال مستمر للبعض, طبعا الفضل يعود لاستخدام  zombie mode الموجود في lolMiner , طبعا لكي تتمكن كروت 4 قيقا من تعدين الايثيريوم يجب عليها الاستغناء عن جزء من الهاش ريت لتعويض الفرق في DAG وكل ماكبر ال DAG نقص الهاش ريت واعتقد اننا وصلنا لمرحلة اصبح فيها تعدين اي عملة افضل من الايثيريوم لان الهاش ريت الان انخفض اكثر من 70% ان كانت معلوماتي صحيحة.

Connecting your miner to a PC isn't all that simple, I have written a simple guide which you could follow here > https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5122949.0.


I don't use Avalon gears, but common sense is that if the miner is set to static ip, you have only 2 ways to sort this out, 1- Reset the miner to factory (which you seem to be having issues with) 2- Configure your router to work with the miners static ip, contact the person you bought them from and ask them about their gateway/router IP address and use that on your router.

I am sorry I can't help any further, if this was Bitmain related I would have probably helped you a lot more, try to reach out to HagssFIN, he is an expert in troubleshooting Avalon mining gears.

This miner is infected/hijacked, the nicehash worker the uses Hong Kong server is an old virus/trojan call it whatever you like, noticed that in your settings you used EU and U.S servers but on the status, it shows the HK one, whenever you try to change the settings and save, it will show saved but it won't get saved, flashing a different firmware won't be possible either, you have to Sdcard the miner or use another "more difficult" trick which I "invented" lol but it's stressful so start with a Sdcard first.

Also keep in mind that this spreads really fast, if you have other miners that use the same password like this one or have SSH enabled with its default password, chances are, they are already infected as well, you have to isolate this miner ASAP.

No, I am not, those terms are used in research papers. you can google elliptic curve Shor's algorithm +break/vulnerable/risk and you will find a bag full of studies and research papers that use those terms, I fully agree that as of right now and while quantum computing isn't a current threat and won't be until they become powerful enough to efficiently run Shor's algorithm, I don't see why those terms are "wrong".


Yes exactly what I was referring to, should have made that a bit clearer "edited my previous post", and yes, they fixed this with the rfc-6979 update in 2013 this is why I mentioned if his wallet isn't from 2013 or prior to that, he shouldn't worry about that.

When people tell you old addresses/wallets are not good/safe, they are probably talking about the old ECDSA weak-randomness vulnerability which would put your funds at a huge risk if you spend twice from the same address, that was fixed using DSA RFC 6979 in 2013, so unless you come from that era, you shouldn't worry about this particular case.

The second reason as to why they would tell you so is the fact that once you spend from an address you reveal your public key that uses ECDSA which is "breakable" by shor's algorithm that quantum computers can utilize, so all your old addresses which you used to spend from are now theoretically at 'that' risk.

When you use a new address for every transaction - your public key is secured by both SHA-256 and RIPEMD-160 that are not vulnerable to Shor, a thick level of security if you may.