I don't think it's a matter of a lot or a few, it's either 0 or x, where the value of x is irrelevant in this subject, what happens is that when your pool solves a block and propagate it to me, I can do one of two things.

1- rush to start mining the next block:

all I need is to alter in my block template is the hash of your block which is in the header.

2- Download the whole block, see which transactions did you put in your block, verify them, and then delete them from my mempool so that if I solve the block I won't include something you have already included.

I think some pools are also directly connected and share their hashed blocks outside of the node concept, maybe using stratum API of some kind, where I don't even need to check the block header, I just need to see that you solved block x which has a hash of y and without looking at anything else I start mining the next block right away.

I don't know how long does it take to download, verify and deal with the mempool, but I know it's >0 in time, Kano would know better since he owns a mining pool, or perhaps someone else who owns a mining pool will know, it could be 10 ms, it could be 10 seconds, but no matter how short, that time you spend is time that you could potentially solve a block in, so your loss will be the number of hashes you could have tried while going through that process.

This may cause a hard fork because if your block 10 has something wrong in it and I build block 11 on top of it and send it to another miner who builds block 12 on top of my block, the three of us could be mining on a different blockchain if the others rejected your block number 10 because it has an invalid transaction or a timestamp that is way back in the past or an invalid coinbase address or anything that renders a block invalid which I failed to verify.

But, most mining pools seem to trust each other's work, and so they do mine blocks without verifying them knowing very well that they could lose a huge amount of money if one of the blocks they build on is invalid (especially if they pay PPS).

Some people believe that some mining pools are refusing to add transactions just for the sake of it, i.e they could have included the transactions but they chose not to, it's like saying they left money on the table which is an irrational argument, with that being said, I do believe that antpool has probably done so in the past (the ratio of empty blocks was way too high around the blocksize-war, which could indicate that bitmain was purposely trying to prove that a 1MB block is too small and transactions were taking forever). however, with things the way they are (and have been) for a few years, I don't think anybody does stuff like that, and empty blocks are just the results of mining pools trying to fully utilize every hash they have.

Many people can't differentiate between the chip itself and the heatsink, it must be a language-related issue rather than a technical one, most gears I have seen have bad heatsinks, it's very unlikely that the chip will heat and burn because if the heatsink falls or is loose, the hash board will shut down right away, long before it heats up to the extend that will make it burn.

The problem with troubleshooting heatsinks is that in many cases you can't see the bad once with your naked eye, the heatsink will seem like it's perfectly glued when it's slightly loose and that alone is enough to shut-down the board, which is why companies like Zeusbtc manage to sell fixture devices for a premium.

Anyway, your problem is very common, it has been discussed numerous times in this thread, things from placing a heavyweight on the hash boards all the way to freezing them in the freezer have been tested and talked about, you should have a look.

This couldn't be further from the truth, this would have been true if (only if) empty blocks were mined for the sole purpose of not confirming transactions, but as long as it's due to any other reason then your whole argument is wrong.

Pool A solving block 100 before being able to settle block 99 transactions has 0 effects on pool B's probability to find block 101 and include pending transaction, in fact, that empty block has no effect AT ALL on A's chances of solving block 101, that hash only corresponded to that set of incidents and it was not affected by anything that happened prior to it nor it has any effect on the things that will happen after it's occurrence.


Again there is something fundamentally wrong with this logic, while the number of blocks mined by the whole network isn't affected by empty blocks, the number of blocks solved by each pool is.

in other words, if you managed to solve a block that only has the Coinbase transaction in its template and chose not to propagate it because it's empty then that is a block LOST, in the same time if you code your miner NOT to start solving an empty block in the first place then that time x you wait every time you sense a new block is your loss, it could be a millisecond or a fraction of that, it doesn't matter, a wasted hash is a wasted hash.

This whole argument of yours would have been valid if ALL pools would agree on not to mine empty blocks either by not propagating them or not attempting to solve them in the first place, but as long as there is a single miner that does that, then your loss is propositional to his gains with both pool size's taken into consideration, it's not like he is talking "your blocks" but with your hashrate being equal to his hashrate, his overall profitability compared to yours will be higher.

If this is too hard to grasp, think about it not mining empty blocks as being equal to not mining blocks that have less than 2btc in fees or while the temperature in Japan is below 20 or any other condition that you see fit, any rule you add to your code will reduce your total potential profit, there is really no difference between not mining empty blocks and not mining blocks that have less than 2btc in fees as far as one's profitability is concerned.

Now is mining empty blocks bad/good/ethical/scammy is a whole different story which we have already milked quite a lot.

Well assuming you correctly installed/flashed the firmware then I don't see why would your miner be dead, maybe you are looking into the wrong URL? this happens when you switch between Bitmain stock and vnish, and here is an example.

The miner's status page on stock firmware is:


on Vnish it's very different


So maybe on Braiins OS+ the cgi-bin/minerStatus.cgi doesn't direct you anywhere, just use a different browser and enter only the IP address of the miner 192.168.xx.xx.

if that doesn't work, flash the miner with bitmain stock firmware using a Sdcard.

هده التغيرات تبدو جدرية بالنسبة لي, اين هي عملة الايثير التي اعرفها انا لا راها   ;, فعلا وبدون مزاح تبدو هده العملة كعملة جديدة كليا سوف يتم اطلاقها تحت اسم ETH 2.0 مع نقل الارصدة القديمة لهده العملة الجديدة, انا لا اريد ان احكم عن هده العملة قبل انطلاقها واختبارها ويمكن جدا ان تنجح نجاح باهر (انا متفائل بنجاحها على الصعيد المادي على الاقل), ولكن من المحزن ان ننتقل من ال POW الى POW.

على العموم نظرا لانك اجريت كل هدا البحث, اعتقد انك يمكن ان تجيب على سؤالي المتعلق بهجوم 51%  الذي قمت بطرحه في موضوع اخر.



يعني هل كل  عملات الاثيريوم مثلا مهما او تلك التي ستكون staked وتقوم بتنمية البلوك تشين؟ يعني لو فرضنا انه يوجد 1000 ايثيريوم تم انشائها, 900 منها موجودة في المنصات ومحافظ لاشخاص لايمتلكون اي nodes, ويوجد فقط 100 ايثيريوم تقوم بعمل التاكيد وانشاء البلوكز الجديدة, هل يحتاج المهاجم لي 500 ايثيريوم (نصف ال 1000) او 50 ايثيريوم ( نصف ال 100 التي تقوم بالعمل نظرا لان 900 لا تفعل شي اصلا), انا حقا لا اعرفة الاجابة عن هدا السؤال واتمنى ان يجبيني شخص ما.

Where is your argument? I can't see it, you did not show us how a 51% attack is easy and profitable, everyone including those who hate bitcoin or think it's a scam agree that a 51% isn't easy and isn't guaranteed to be profitble, so what you claiming is very serious, and it requirest rock (no pun intended) solid proof, you only have a magic rock of some kind that is located in Sri Lanka which so happened to have had a dozen of blackouts 4 months ago that lasted for 7 hours according to WikiPedia, so if the government of Sri Lanka can't use that magic rock, who can? I suppose at least people who live nearby could plug-in their USB chargers when there is a blackout, but I googled that and I couldn't find anything related.

But you know what, for the sake of simplicity, let's assume that you managed to pull unlimited power out of that rock, what is next? how are you going to convert electricity into hash power and at what cost?

This was my reply to brad on a similar topic:


According to him, hosting cost usually sets around 8 cents, which isn't bad at all for S19, you will still make some decent profit ( about $11 a day based on today's difficulty and price), you could also reach out to Scott in the market place, I think you may be able to find 7 cents Khw facilities for your gears, outside of the U.S you can find a much cheaper rate, but that comes with a greater risk for obvious reasons.

اكثر شي لفت انتباهي هوا


بينما في المقابل تعليقك على ال POS بقولك


هده مغالطة كبيرة, اولا احتمالية استحواد اشخاص معينين على البلوكتشين المبني على POS هي اكبر بكثير من الاستحواذ على العملات المبنية على POW, لايوجد شي يحمي عملات POS من هجوم 51% باستتناء ان المهاجم يمكن ان يخسر, وهدا الشي مطابق لل POW لان المهاجم سينتهي به المطاف بامتلاك اجهزة تعدين تقدر بملاين الدولارات لاتساوي حتى 1% من القيمة التي اشتراها بها, في الواقع POS معرض ايضا لما يعرف ب Short Selling Attack ويمكن قراءة هدا البحث المفصل عنه https://eprint.iacr.org/2020/019.pdf

الاهم من هدا كله, يجب ان نتفق ان هجوم 51% على العملات الكبيرة بغض النظر عن كونها POS or POW لن يكون لغرض اقتصادي بحث, يعني سيكون من قبل حكومات او اشخاص اغياء يريدون تدمير تلك العملة ليس لهدف الربح ابدا, مايجب ان نعرفه هوا ان استحواد شخص ما على 51% من هاش ريت البتكوين هوا امر شبه مستحيل, سيحتاج الى محطات توليد طاقة خاصة به, والى نقل الاف اجهزة التعدين ومن شبه المستحيل ان يتم كل هدا في سرية تامة.

في المقابل, شراء 51% من اي عملة هوا امر لايتطلب اي شي بل المال, طبعا الامر نسبي, فمثلا شراء 51% من عملة الايثيريوم سيكلف 20 مليار, ولكن السؤال, هل يحتاج فعلا لي 51%؟

يعني هل كل  عملات الاثيريوم مثلا مهما او تلك التي ستكون staked وتقوم بتنمية البلوك تشين؟ يعني لو فرضنا انه يوجد 1000 ايثيريوم تم انشائها, 900 منها موجودة في المنصات ومحافظ لاشخاص لايمتلكون اي nodes, ويوجد فقط 100 ايثيريوم تقوم بعمل التاكيد وانشاء البلوكز الجديدة, هل يحتاج المهاجم لي 500 ايثيريوم (نصف ال 1000) او 50 ايثيريوم ( نصف ال 100 التي تقوم بالعمل نظرا لان 900 لا تفعل شي اصلا), انا حقا لا اعرفة الاجابة عن هدا السؤال واتمنى ان يجبيني شخص ما.

What is the incentive for a 51% attack? I don't want to go into techincal details because you don't seem to be well aware of the basics, at least judging by this part you mentioned.


But I'll tell you how wrong you are economically


The return on investment won't be great - it's the opposite, it will be the best way to burn your money, 51% on BTC is technically a possibility there is no doubt about it, but you will need at least a (rough estimate )1 billion $ to attempt an attack of such kind, so if you don't double-spend that same amount of money then you gain nothing, I am not sure how would someone spend 1 billion in a short period of time, you deposit 10% of that amount in any exchange and it will be stuck there for a very long time until they are done with all the KYC stuff, let alone liquidity issues.

The next thing you need to solve is doing this silently without brining any attention, because the moment you do, everyone will start asking for a dozen confirmation, and by the end of the day you will end up with worthless mining gears because an attack on bitcoin will bring it's value down.

The attack is doable but surely not for the purpose of profit, you will do it just to hurt bitcoin.

احسنت اخي هده نقطة مهمة جدا وكانت غائبة عني في المسابقات السابقة, لاحظت ان اهتمامات الاعضاء مختلفة جدا, ولذلك فأن الفائز قد يحالفه الحظ نظرا لان موضوع المسابقة من اختصاصه حتى ان بدل مجهود يقل عن غيره, لذلك فكرة التنوع في المواضيع ليست سيئة ابدا وانا ادعمها بشدة, شكرا لك على هده المسابقات.

هل سيكون هناك تصويت على الفائز ام انك ستختار الفائز؟

Well according to google search:


It's nowhere near 2 cents per Khw, sorry I had to google this not because I think you are lying but I guess you must have gotten something wrong, and I do tend to think you are wrong because at 2 cents per Khw Norway would have been a dreamland of mining, it's cheaper than China.


You are looking to add at least 6kw of energy consumption, that's 4,320 khw per month ( a lot of energy), not sure the landlord will be happy about this.

Anyway, if you decide to go on with the plan, try to avoid the 17 series from Bitmain, their quality is bad.

For the first miner:


I would just mine with 2 hash boards rather than sending the gear back to China, the process will take forever and someone mentioned that bitmain couldn't send them their gears back and offered to buy their gears at a very cheap price, so sending them your gears back is a huge risk.

for the second worker, did you try a different PSU?

There is no firmware on those hash boards, it's just the hex file difference, most miners will show some sort of id type for each hashboard, those need to be identical, these info can be found either on the hash board itself or the kernel log, you should look for things like typeID, major type or minor type, product id or any other info that shows at the top of the kernel log which specifies a certain value for each of the hash boards you have installed.

here is an example of mixed boards on an S9:


Chain 7 has a different type id but the miner works just fine because well, it's an S9 after all  .

Here is another example of an S9k:


There is no exact word/value to look for, but it's pretty self-explanatory.

للاسف هده المواضيع لايتم نقاشها في قسم التعدين, بالمجمل يتم نقاش اعطال اجهزة التعدين,  افضل الاحواض, كيف تغير الفولت والتردد للماينر و و و, يعني بالمجمل كل شي له علاقة بالدخل والمكسب, اما المواضيع الثقنية وكيف يعمل البلوك تشين فقلة من البشر يهتمون لهده الاشياء سواء في القسم العربي او الصيني او الانجليزي فالبشر سواسية, انا بفضل الله احب ان افهم كل شي متعلق بالكريبتو وهدا السبب يجعلني ابحث في كل التفاصيل ومع كل هدا لا اعتقد اني افهم حتى 10% من هدا المجال.

If you have a static IP address you could port-forward the router to your miner/s, but that could compromize their security, so if networking isn't your thing, then it's a high-risk move, I have to agree with phill that the only easy and "safe" workaround is via an external PC and some sort of remote managent software such as teamviewer.

The best explanation I can come up with is that the fallen heatsink was shorting something and stopping the miner from mining, once that was taken care of the other two good hash boards worked fine.


Mine with 2 hash boards.


It's unlikely that the chip is dead, your problem is just the heatsink, all you need to do is "glue it back on", check this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=378FPjkHQJc&t=834s, keep in mind that these guys make it look super easy when it really is not, at least not for me.

هدا الكلام ليس دقيق, او على الاقل ليس كما يتم الترويج له.


موجود https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/P2Pool

وهدا رابط الموضوع الخاص به https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=18313.0

لايمكن الاعتماد على العامل الزمني نظرا لان معطيات الزمن محدودة ويمكن ان يحدث تصادم, تغير المعاملات الذي بدوره يؤدي الى تغير ال Merkel root هوا الحل الانسب, ولكن المشكلة تكمن في حجم المعاملات كبير جدا, ونظرا لان ال nonce عبارة عن 32بت وعدد ال combination محدود في 2^32 اي 4294967296 محاولة, وهده المحاولات يتم استنفادها في تواني باستعمال اجهزة ال asics يعني ان حوض التعدين يجب ان يرسل التحويلات كل ثانية تقريبا لي الاف المعدنين وهدا غير منطقي, لذلك تستخدم الاحواض مايعرف ب ExtraNonce.

عند انشاء بلوك يتعين عليك اضافة مايعرف ب Coinbase Transaction وهوا الذي تحدد فيها العنوان الذي تريد استلام مكفاءة التعدين عليه, في هدا التحويل نفسه يمكنك اضافة ماتشاء في Script الخاصة به طالما ان حجم البلوك الاجمالي لم يتعدى 1ميقا, طبعا عند تغير ال ExtraNonce سوف يتغير ال Merkel Root كليا وهدا يتيح لك 4294967296 محاولة جديدة, ونظرا لان ال extraNonce لها نطاق واسع جدا جدا فيمكن اعطاء extraNonce مختلفة لكل ماينر كل ثانية حتى لو كان عددهم مليون ماينر, والميزة هنا انك لست بحاجة لارسال تحويلات بلوك كاملة للماينرز فقط ارسل لهم ال ExtraNonce, وانتظر حتى نفاد ال  429496729 محاولة ومن ثم ارسل لهم ExtraNonce جديدة وهكدا, بهده الطريقة تتأكد بأن

1- لايوجد Overlapping
2- كمية البيانات بين المعدنين والحوض منخفضة جدا.

سيتم حل هده المشكلة عبر التحول ال POS ولكن للاسف فهدا سوف ينشاء مشكلة جديدة حلها اصعب وهي سهولة السيطرة على صناعة القرارات المتعلقة بالعملة والبروتوكول بالمجمل, لايوجد شك بان POS تحل كثيرا من مشاكل ال POW ولكن سيطرة اشخاص معينين على العملة اسهل بكثير من سيطرتها على الهاش باور, كل شخص يفكر في حل مشكلة التحويلات بطريقته, من وجهة نظري انه لايجب حل هده المشكلة لانها ليست مشكلة ايضا, طالما هنالك من يدفع رسوم عالية فهدا يعني ان الامر يستحق كل هدا, في حال عدم وجود اناس تدفع هده الرسوم الفلكية فسوم تهبط رسوم التحويل, هدا مثال رائع على "الطلب والعرض", ففي نهاية المطاف عملة الايثيريوم محمية بمليارات الدولار من الهاش ريت وعند استعمالك لها فأنت تقوم نسبيا بتسخير كل تلك القوة لخدمتك فعليك ان تدفع مقابلها, ان كنت تريد تحويلا رخيص وسريع سوف يفتقد لعامل الحماية وهدا الشي متوفر في مئات العملات الاخرى.

احسنت, وبما ان الوقت كان قصيرا نسبيا في ايجاد اخر 2 بلوك سوف نرفع الصعوبة الى 0000

هاش اخر بلوك

الرقم العشوائي المضاف: aa

الهاش كامل

الصعوبة : 0000 ( 4 اصفار)

---

النتيجة الحالية

Khalid = 1+1
1+icy3 = 1

---

بالنسبة لاجابة السؤال الفائت وتعقيبا على رد يحى وخالد, اجابتكم صحيحة (نظريا) ولكن يمكن ان تكون خاطئة عمليا نظرا لاحتمالية وجود "تداخل" او مايعرف ب overlapping, يعني يمكن لشخصين ان يكونو يشتعلو على نفس ال nonce في وقت ما وهنا سيعتبر احد هاشات هاؤولاء مضيعة للوقت.

ومن هنا وبعد فهم هده النقطة يمككنا طرح السؤال المهم وهوا كيف تتجنب احواض التعدين مايعرف ب overlapping hashing بوجود الاف اجهزة التعدين كيف تضمن ان كل محاولة من مليارات المحاولات لا يمكن ان تتكرر ابدا؟

يعني في مثال الاخ خالد من 500 محاولة كل شخص يأخد 100 محاولة وبهدا نتجنب التداخل ولكن هدا ليس ممكن الا نظريا نظرا لان احد هاؤولاء الاشخاص يمكن ان يغادر في اي لحظة, يمكن ان يزيد سرعته ويكمل 100 ويصل الى 120 وبهدا يكون قد ضيع 20 هاش (101-120) حيث انه تم تجربتهم من شخض اخر, احواض التعدين ايضا لايمكنها التكهمن بتغير سرعة الاجهزة او مغادرتها او انظمامها, وليس من مصلحتها ان يكون هناك تداخل او اعادة تجربة ماتم تجربته ولم ينحج لانه هدر للمال والجهد, اذا ماهو الحل الجدري لهده المعظلة؟