I know that technical details are important, but what we don't know is what will be the hashing power and energy usage.
---SNIP---
I'm guessing total @ wall a bit above 2kW Definately need 200+ VAC circuit for most situations. A 15A 220VAC(ASSuMEd USA power std.) circuit would be minimum I'd consider for a single Neptune. YMMV  I have only 15A/120V circuits where I want to host it  , but I can probably use two of them, though; each should be enough for 12.5X120=1500W I cannot use the"sacred" dryer (240V/30A) circuit, hence I can only host one Neptune in the best case scenario. Take two 110V@16A circuits and make into a 220V@32A circuit. Then stick a NEMA L6-30R socket on it and buy a 220V PDU. Make sure the PDU has at least two C19 sockets. Then you should be able to power two Neptune's with that socket and a PDU. I'm hoping Neptune's to start shipping late April and expect plan B to start to come into effect mid May if they haven't started shipping already. |
|
|
|
From tapeout to mass production can be done within seven weeks if everything goes OK
TO - beginning of March. Tapeout to samples: 40nm, 28nm - 8 weeks 20nm - 4-5 months Prove me wrong. We'll find that one out by May. KNC went from receiving working chips to shipping miners in about one week last time IIRC. |
|
|
|
I have a second batch order.... Your opinion... Have I to request a refund ? Taped Out in March: https://www.kncminer.com/news/news-78TSMC 20nm cycle time (masks creation) is 4-5 months. Samples in July / August. Miners probably in August / September I'm worried about this... any other opinions ? From tapeout to mass production can be done within seven weeks if everything goes OK. While tapeout was in February so 20nm starting to ship late April is a very real possibility. They're just trolling hard for their own hardware sales. |
|
|
|
Those Neptunes wont be released till day 1 of Q3. Remember the Jupiter "September" delivery. They were delivered mid Oct even though as of Sept 20th they still claimed to be making the September shipping. The same thing will happen with the Neptunes.
Why would they sell them a day sooner than they have to instead of using them to mine?
Speculation on delivery belongs on the mining speculation sub board. While my opinion is the CA batch will have ROI before Q3. They're not even remotely late at all by any standards until then end of April. While they fabbed out in February so KNC starting to ship 20nm before the end of April is still a very real possibility indeed. |
|
|
|
|
Donations address added to the OP
|
|
|
|
SECURE, ENCRYPTED DARKCOIN PAPER WALLETI forked bitcoinpaperwallet.com to support Darkcoin too. I've issued a pull request on the origin, so if you're in support of this go and register your support on the pull request page on Github. To use it now, grab my repo's darkcoin I've also ported liteaddress to support DRK, so if anybody's interested in me uploading the source let me know here and I'll upload it separately. It's not as featureful as bitcoinpaperwallet.com, but it's a hell of a lot more lightweight. Keep on keeping on! A new thread to discuss your development away from all the noise here - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=510779.0 |
|
|
|
SECURE, ENCRYPTED DARKCOIN PAPER WALLETI forked bitcoinpaperwallet.com to support Darkcoin too. I've issued a pull request on the origin, so if you're in support of this go and register your support on the pull request page on Github. To use it now, grab my repo's darkcoin I've also ported liteaddress to support DRK, so if anybody's interested in me uploading the source let me know here and I'll upload it separately. It's not as featureful as bitcoinpaperwallet.com, but it's a hell of a lot more lightweight. Keep on keeping on! Donations for development [DRK] - XgzYEhmfofeS3eGCZBeArDW6mdwoRVpQHy Confirming that donation address is mine. Added to post in the other thread too.
|
|
|
|
are you giorgios lawyer or what?
No, just a customer like everyone else here. I just think that people had way too optimistic expectations for such a high risk investment. high risk for pre-order ? -> your seriously ? ..... pre-order have normal no high risk, if the company did a good job !... delays can be happen -> maybe 2 or 4 weeks... but not month an month.... You're obviously very new to Bitcoin mining hardware pre-orders. IMHO Bitminer are doing a lot better job than Hashfast and their final specs are a lot closer to the mark than Cointerra. While I'll not even mention BFL shall I. You really thinking of Bitmine?  ...not Bitmain  ... maybe you don`t know that Bitmine sold original 110nm Avalon chip hardware to clients monthes ago, forced them to upgrade it to their new hardware & even have not delievered that clients what should get their miners in November. The whole thing is a big fuck-up at all, including scamming people by shipping to Petahash their miners & flood market massive with chips. AFAIK this thing is even worse than BFL as they regulary posted some news & people got hardware from BFL even earlier. I don`t defend now BFL but they shipped me my 55nm chips after 100 days like they stated on their website. IMHO Bitmine was the worst hardware producer I`ve ever ordered - I had really no company advertised such bullshit like Giorgio & changed whole contract include TOS-editing after. Bfl had about a year delay for early orders. While they first claimed their 28nm Monarchs would start shipping last October. While they've currently claimed they will start shipping in April #AsIf |
|
|
|
are you giorgios lawyer or what?
No, just a customer like everyone else here. I just think that people had way too optimistic expectations for such a high risk investment. high risk for pre-order ? -> your seriously ? ..... pre-order have normal no high risk, if the company did a good job !... delays can be happen -> maybe 2 or 4 weeks... but not month an month.... You're obviously very new to Bitcoin mining hardware pre-orders. IMHO Bitminer are doing a lot better job than Hashfast and their final specs are a lot closer to the mark than Cointerra. While I'll not even mention BFL shall I. |
|
|
|
Cool, I think you should list the PPA and repository in the OP along with the Windows binaries link. As I just spent hours messing around with QT-creator unsuccessfully until I found this post. |
|
|
|
|
I understand keeping the alpha closed source on a test-net but bitcoind has been in beta since 2009. So how long is darksend going to be in 'beta'?
|
|
|
|
For the record - I think open source is the only way to go - however, again, I think it matters how that is done - it's not as simple as saying - "open source it".
I believe the plan - as per the dev - is to open it once DarkSend has been fully debugged - which I think is entirely reasonable. I think others want it to have a little more momentum in the market and with adoption before it goes open source - which I don't think is unreasonable either. However, it's ultimately the developer's choice - I'm sure though that he will take the input of the community seriously.
I know he has said that closed source is NOT an option in this thread - however, is this on any of the sites so its known to new users?
Because, the community knows that closed source was never an option - but I don't think others do.
Well I know a dev working on paper wallets and brain wallets for DRK. They are unsure on releasing their work to the wild on the idea DRK may be going to use a closed-source model. That's one example alone of the effect using a closed-source model would have on eco-system development outside of the core dev-team. Not publicly releasing your code until your happy with it is one thing but to try and patent it and go closed-source is another. Hopefully the ideas on using a closed model are just that ideas from some guy on the internet and not hints by the dev team testing the water. |
|
|
|
DRK has two big issues that I see: (1) Because the power draw is only 60% of scrypt, large GPU farms that mine altcoins and dump them for BTC/fiat have an incentive to target DRK. More profit even at price parity due to lower electricity costs. This will keep market supply high perpetually and hence keep the price low. (2) The legions of unremarkable clone-coins will implement DarkSend once it's open-sourced. See how zero-talent "devs" are copy-pasting Vertcoin's anti-ASIC adaptive N algorithm. For both (1) and (2) the solution is greater adoption. In the case of (1) it reduces these quasi-commercial dumpers to a smaller proportion of the market. In the case of (2), it allows DRK to achieve escape velocity and get to a point where a competing clone coin can't catch up due to lacking the network effect. So I see "marketing" as crucial, even in the short-term. In any case, DarkSend should probably be kept closed-source before hitting at least Bter and BTC38 (not that I'm in any position to advise devs). Call it an extended mandatory beta or something.  I agree, well said. Personally, I don't think DarkSend should ever be open sourced. All it will result in are a ton of junk coins implementing it, and basically a ton of coins piggybacking on the dev's code here. Yes, if adoption was greater, then perhaps it'd make sense to open source. But to me, adoption means something like being able to be used for actual purchases somewhere. So if DarkCoin turned into Bitcoin, sure, consider open source. But that sort of adoption would take years. Instead, if it was me, perhaps a verified 3rd party could look at the code for safety types of reasons every so often, rather than just release all of the code for free. If the code is released, I expect the coin to drop in price ... a lot. At this point I absolutely agree. We have no brand awareness and as my favorite saying goes... " never forsake the real for the ideal!" DarkCoins world needs to be tightly branded and every kink work out. It would be suicidal to release anything until this coin is burned into peoples mind as the "NAME" in crypto security. No Cryptoanarchist worth their salt would put their privacy and security in trust of any software that was closed-source. You just don't get the idea why opensource software is so much more secure than anything closed-source. I think we should first get DarkSend working properly, release a stable binary version, then we'll find a few researchers/software developers to do an audit of the code. This way we can build a community and establish ourselves so we'll have the network to support the coin after DarkSend is open-sourced. You "cryptoanarchists" are over doing it with wantinbg everything to be open soucre, I agree that Darkcoin should be Closed Source until it has a huge user base like Bitcoin does, then you can open source, if the devs open source Darkxoin before that, this coin will become.overlooked and useless as others mimic Darksend. Bitcoin only succeeded and had such strong grass-roots support from the very start. As it was always 100% opensource from day one. If Darkcoin thinks it can only succeed by going closed-source. Then I for one will lose all confidence in the coin and will look for an alternative privacy aware coin to support. They want to try and stay ahead of the game by leading innovation. Not by trying to hide the source from newbies. The software will be cracked on day one anyway by hackers and if they want to clone it they will still anyway. Does the Darkcoin dev team really have the funds and time for a very a lengthy and expensive patent trial. So nothing will be gained by using the closed source model but a lot of trust will be lost. This coin doesn't have the community yet, one large enough. Yes, Bitcoin started grassroots, you forget though, it wasn't built in an environment that already has bitcoin in it. It was the only one at the time so it had the time to develop first. Now, in the crypto-currency world, everything moves really fast because everyone is aware of it and working to make money off of it. Darkcoin will become open source - but too early and it will be pounced upon - is what the community is saying - and I think they are right to be cautious. I'm not saying it's the right decision or the wrong - I'm saying your above comparison is irrelevant because its out of context. If it DRK becomes closed-source it will lose its badge of merit amongst the hacker community and is dead in the water if you ask me. No one who know's anything worthy about cryptology or online privacy would put their trust in anything closed-source. If this is the way the coin is heading I'm dumping now and putting my GPU's on Anoncoin. You can't expect eco-system support from freelance dev's to a closed-source project. Any eco-system development beyond the core dev team would die a quick death. As I said going closed-source won't stop hackers cracking the source and cloning it. Unless the DRK dev-team want to take any clones to court for patent abuses. Also that wouldn't stop the Chinese or a truly anonymous dev-team from cloning it. While any opensource clones will gain support from the hacker and opensource communities that DRK would lose. |
|
|
|
DRK has two big issues that I see: (1) Because the power draw is only 60% of scrypt, large GPU farms that mine altcoins and dump them for BTC/fiat have an incentive to target DRK. More profit even at price parity due to lower electricity costs. This will keep market supply high perpetually and hence keep the price low. (2) The legions of unremarkable clone-coins will implement DarkSend once it's open-sourced. See how zero-talent "devs" are copy-pasting Vertcoin's anti-ASIC adaptive N algorithm. For both (1) and (2) the solution is greater adoption. In the case of (1) it reduces these quasi-commercial dumpers to a smaller proportion of the market. In the case of (2), it allows DRK to achieve escape velocity and get to a point where a competing clone coin can't catch up due to lacking the network effect. So I see "marketing" as crucial, even in the short-term. In any case, DarkSend should probably be kept closed-source before hitting at least Bter and BTC38 (not that I'm in any position to advise devs). Call it an extended mandatory beta or something. I agree, well said. Personally, I don't think DarkSend should ever be open sourced. All it will result in are a ton of junk coins implementing it, and basically a ton of coins piggybacking on the dev's code here. Yes, if adoption was greater, then perhaps it'd make sense to open source. But to me, adoption means something like being able to be used for actual purchases somewhere. So if DarkCoin turned into Bitcoin, sure, consider open source. But that sort of adoption would take years. Instead, if it was me, perhaps a verified 3rd party could look at the code for safety types of reasons every so often, rather than just release all of the code for free. If the code is released, I expect the coin to drop in price ... a lot. At this point I absolutely agree. We have no brand awareness and as my favorite saying goes... " never forsake the real for the ideal!" DarkCoins world needs to be tightly branded and every kink work out. It would be suicidal to release anything until this coin is burned into peoples mind as the "NAME" in crypto security. No Cryptoanarchist worth their salt would put their privacy and security in trust of any software that was closed-source. You just don't get the idea why opensource software is so much more secure than anything closed-source. I think we should first get DarkSend working properly, release a stable binary version, then we'll find a few researchers/software developers to do an audit of the code. This way we can build a community and establish ourselves so we'll have the network to support the coin after DarkSend is open-sourced. You "cryptoanarchists" are over doing it with wantinbg everything to be open soucre, I agree that Darkcoin should be Closed Source until it has a huge user base like Bitcoin does, then you can open source, if the devs open source Darkxoin before that, this coin will become.overlooked and useless as others mimic Darksend. Bitcoin only succeeded and had such strong grass-roots support from the very start. As it was always 100% opensource from day one. If Darkcoin thinks it can only succeed by going closed-source. Then I for one will lose all confidence in the coin and will look for an alternative privacy aware coin to support. They want to try and stay ahead of the game by leading innovation. Not by trying to hide the source from newbies. The software will be cracked on day one anyway by hackers and if they want to clone it they will still anyway. Does the Darkcoin dev team really have the funds and time for a very a lengthy and expensive patent trial. So nothing will be gained by using the closed source model but a lot of trust will be lost. |
|
|
|
DRK has two big issues that I see: (1) Because the power draw is only 60% of scrypt, large GPU farms that mine altcoins and dump them for BTC/fiat have an incentive to target DRK. More profit even at price parity due to lower electricity costs. This will keep market supply high perpetually and hence keep the price low. (2) The legions of unremarkable clone-coins will implement DarkSend once it's open-sourced. See how zero-talent "devs" are copy-pasting Vertcoin's anti-ASIC adaptive N algorithm. For both (1) and (2) the solution is greater adoption. In the case of (1) it reduces these quasi-commercial dumpers to a smaller proportion of the market. In the case of (2), it allows DRK to achieve escape velocity and get to a point where a competing clone coin can't catch up due to lacking the network effect. So I see "marketing" as crucial, even in the short-term. In any case, DarkSend should probably be kept closed-source before hitting at least Bter and BTC38 (not that I'm in any position to advise devs). Call it an extended mandatory beta or something. I agree, well said. Personally, I don't think DarkSend should ever be open sourced. All it will result in are a ton of junk coins implementing it, and basically a ton of coins piggybacking on the dev's code here. Yes, if adoption was greater, then perhaps it'd make sense to open source. But to me, adoption means something like being able to be used for actual purchases somewhere. So if DarkCoin turned into Bitcoin, sure, consider open source. But that sort of adoption would take years. Instead, if it was me, perhaps a verified 3rd party could look at the code for safety types of reasons every so often, rather than just release all of the code for free. If the code is released, I expect the coin to drop in price ... a lot. At this point I absolutely agree. We have no brand awareness and as my favorite saying goes... " never forsake the real for the ideal!" DarkCoins world needs to be tightly branded and every kink work out. It would be suicidal to release anything until this coin is burned into peoples mind as the "NAME" in crypto security. No Cryptoanarchist worth their salt would put their privacy and security in trust of any software that was closed-source. You just don't get the idea why opensource software is so much more secure than anything closed-source. |
|
|
|
another failed thread.
Yes total fail. Where are the settings proof etc? I'm getting 27 MH/s on a single 7750. lol The majority of people will feel no reason to lie for no reason. So the law of averages should wean the fake results out. |
|
|
|
But having a DarkSend dev team on our side is a great advantage. Another advantage would be if somebody created a some marketplace or provide services for DRK, which would make it backed by some real economy. But maybe some already exist, I do not follow all the news. Also DarkCoin already managed to create some community around it, which many clonecoins struggle with. The larger the community is, higher the chance that the coin will not be lost among its clones.
If DarkSend is out, very soon will also come out some clonecoin with aggressive marketing. Therefore at that time Darkcoin must be widely known among cryptocoin public so we definitely need some marketing.
However at this point all what's DRK standing on is promise of DarkSend. Therefore many speculators are holding or buying. However DarkSend is still in the very early stage of development and there is still a chance that there is some undiscovered fundamental flaw in design that cannot be easily fixed.
You forgot the major point that Darkcoin without Darksend is a Quarkcoin clone without the instamine. So has a lot going for it as a CPU-minable-friendly coin as well as Darksend. Yes GPU's are a lot more efficient, but not by as bigger factor as Scrypt is. Whether this helps attract more low level miners to boost the economy or whether it just helps to attract botnets more to pump-and-dump we can only wait and see. I see where you could say it's similar to Quark . . but I don't see luffa, cubehash, shavite, simd or echo in Quark. Also, a different block reward, difficulty and generation time puts this far enough away from Quark that I'd say it's not a clone. Yeah, it's not a rip-off, but its multiple hashing functions make it more CPU-friendly just like Quarkcoin. Whether this boosts more low level miners to help grass roots support. Or just helps botnets is yet to be seen. |
|
|
|
But having a DarkSend dev team on our side is a great advantage. Another advantage would be if somebody created a some marketplace or provide services for DRK, which would make it backed by some real economy. But maybe some already exist, I do not follow all the news. Also DarkCoin already managed to create some community around it, which many clonecoins struggle with. The larger the community is, higher the chance that the coin will not be lost among its clones.
If DarkSend is out, very soon will also come out some clonecoin with aggressive marketing. Therefore at that time Darkcoin must be widely known among cryptocoin public so we definitely need some marketing.
However at this point all what's DRK standing on is promise of DarkSend. Therefore many speculators are holding or buying. However DarkSend is still in the very early stage of development and there is still a chance that there is some undiscovered fundamental flaw in design that cannot be easily fixed.
You forgot the major point that Darkcoin without Darksend is a Quarkcoin clone without the instamine. So has a lot going for it as a CPU-minable-friendly coin as well as Darksend. Yes GPU's are a lot more efficient, but not by as bigger factor as Scrypt is. Whether this helps attract more low level miners to boost the economy or whether it just helps to attract botnets more to pump-and-dump we can only wait and see. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
