This is the problem, Chain 1 shows only 40 asic when it's supposed to signal 48 chips, so there seem to be an issue with the 40th or 41th chip, usually, with these 17 series mining gears it's a loose heatsink that needs soldering.

With that being said, where is your chain 0 and chain 2, does this miner run with only 1 hashboard?

اعتقد ان جزء من المشكلة هوا وجود تصادم او تكرار في المحاولات بين الاعضاء, في اعتقادي ان الاغلبية يبد التجربة من ال 0 ويتجه تصاعديا ولهدا السبب لم نستفيد من تعدد المشاركين, لقد شرحت في منشور سابق عن مايعرف ب ExtraNonce وكيف تقوم الاحواض بتجنب تكرار نفس الارقام بين الماينرز, اعتقد انه ماكان يجب فعله من الاول هوا استعمال ال ExtraNonce حتى في هده المسابقة حيت يقوم كل مشترك باضافة اسمه في المنتدى الى الهاش مثلا الهاش الاخير بعد اضافة الرقم العشوائي من قبلي كان


يعني اقوم انا بالبحث عن هدا الهاش + اسم المستخدم الخاص بي والنتيجة تكون


مثلا الاخ خالد سيكون هاشه بهده الطريقة


بهده الطريقة نكون على يقين ان محاولات خالد ومحوالاتي لن تتكرر مهما حدث, يجب ان نتذكر ان المهم هوا عدد المحاولات ولايجب ان تكون تصاعديا, يعني فرصة ان تكون الاجابة بين رقم 0 و 10 هي نفسها في اي عشرة محاولات اخرى يعني حتى لو قمت بالظعط العشوائي على ازرار الكيبورد سوف تحصل على نفسة النتيجة, فقط تأكد من عدم تكرار نفس الادخال.


هل الامر واضح, ان كان كذلك ارجو اخباري كي اقوم بتعديل الصعوبة واعطائكم هاش جديد لنبداء به.

I don't think I can agree with this analogy, you see, your mechanic makes sense, if your car has a problem - it must be fixed, you can't ignore it, and delying it can only cause more harm, even if you were to sell the car without fixing it, it will be worth its price minus the fix.

On the other hand, the block size isn't really a problem, and even if it was a problem then delaying the fix works, in other words, the longer we stick to 1MB the less the size can get, and then eventually, the equipment needed to run a full node will become cheaper as we move forward, and the internet technology is going to improve (regardless of how fast that may happen).

Now back to why do I think the block size isn't a problem, people are still using bitcoin, they have not abandoned it, bitcoin still works just fine and has more transactions than most other coins combined.

What's even more important than all of this, is what do you expect from increasing the block size? most people I discussed this matter with think that when bitcoin becomes cheaper to transact, more people will use it, and adoption will go to the moon, but I don't see that happening for a few reasons.

1- Other coins with instant confirmation and almost zero fees are not being accepted everywhere and don't have a fraction of bitcoin adoption.
2- The main layer isn't suitable for micropayments and every day's transactions,  you are always subject to wait for hours until your transaction is confirmed, and if confirmation isn't important then people can still do with 1MB blocksize and pay the lowest fees possible.

There are many other reasons why blockchain as-is isn't fit to do the kind of things some people expect, increasing the block size could "solve" some "issues" but it can create worse issues.

يبدو ان صعوبة 0000 اكثر من قدرة المشتركين, كما ذكرت فأن متوسط المحاولات المطلوبة للحصول على 0000 هوا 65,536 , حسب تجربتي لحل الهاش يدوي اعتقد ان 3 هاشات في الثانية هوا معدل معقول جدا, يعني انه بالمجمل نحتاج الى 21,845 ثانية او 365 دقيقة او 6 ساعات لحل البلوك, لو كان هناك 6 اعضاء يتنافسون لحل هدا البلوك فسوف يكون متوسط زمن هدا البلوك هوا ساعة واحدة نظرا لان سرتعهم ستكون 18 هاش في الثانية.

وبكن يبدو انه لايوجد 6 اعضاء يحاولون حل هدا البلوك, وربما يكون شخص واحد يحاول ولم يجد الحل حتى الان, لذلك ماهو اقتراحكم هل نعيد الصعوبة الى 000 او 00؟ اما ماذا؟

It depends on what you can afford, but I'd say the average packages that the average can buy would be anywhere between 20GB to 30GB monthly quota and at a download speed of 1-2 Mbps and an upload of 0.2-0.4 Mbps.

Due to the nature of my job I can afford a 5Mbps up and 1Mbps down with above 100GB of quota and free download at certain periods, but I pay a little bit more than 20% of the average salary for a nurse, school teacher, or a police officers, but eventually when this package doesn't make economical sense (if I lose my job ), I will have to go back to those limited and slow packages.

And if you think that is bad, I have seen worse elsewhere.



There are at least a few countries where the average wage is below $50 a month, there are a few tens of other countries with monthly wages of below $200 and perhaps only 50 countries or so with wages of above $500 a month, so $200 is a lot of money for the majority of people given that most populated countries have low wages, it has been a while since I looked at the numbers but I can safely bet that at least 8 out of 10 human beings on this planet earth have wages that are below $300.

This isn't exactly bitcoin-related, but the majority of wealth sits in the hands of a minority of other people who are mainly located in EU and USA, it is just the way it is, and for those who can afford a full node with 5-10 hours of a moderate job, I do understand if you find it difficult to believe that others have to work for 2-3 months to afford an SSD that can accumulate the current blockchain size, and as hard as it is now, it will only get worse when the blocksize is increased.

With that being said, not all "poor" people will want to run a bitcoin node since even the current 300GB and the 1MB size is way too huge for them, but when we make suggestions of increasing block size to 16MB or lift the cap altogether, we have to evaluate the technology capabilities worldwide and not just within 5-10 developed countries, just my 2 bytes on the subject.

So we raise the block size to 8mb and then what do we do whenever that isn't enough? I am not against reducing or limiting the scaling problem by increasing block size but it doesn't really solve anything, no matter what you do, you can never beat the ordinary system in terms of speed and cost, blockchain is slow and expensive, this isn't exactly an issue it's more like some of its main characteristics, Paypal payments that are done on one server or a few at most will always outperform blockchain at its main layer, this isn't my opinion it's just how things are, saving a transaction on tens of thousands of computers isn't suppose to be faster and cheaper than visa or PayPal.


The second point which I feel the need to explain since you mentioned that you are from Germany which also goes to folks in the U.S and the other first-world countries, the internet is decades behind in most other places, where I live even with the current block size only a few people can run a full node or directly mine to their own node, 1MB of bandwidth is a big deal here, it's hard to believe because you just pay a fraction of your salary for a 100mbps or even 500mbps connection with unlimited quota, but elsewhere, you can hardly get a 1mbps line with very limited monthly quota, as it stands now, I can't even propagate a 1MB block in a timely manner. By increasing the block size you simply send many players out of the game.

Another point is the fact that your transaction will be saved on tens of thousands of computers and it would take years and billions of dollars to re-do the blockchain, it really has to come at a cost, getting your transaction on the blockchain is more secured than saving your money in the safety deposit boxes at your local bank, it is worth a lot, and someone has got to pay for it,  and at the end of the day, why would you want your 1$ transaction to be saved on the main layer?

One last thing, let's assume we solved the issue of block size, what about confirmation time? say the transaction fee is zero due to unlimited block size, will you be able to pay for coffee when relying only on the main layer? will the shop wait for 10 or 20 minutes until the transaction is confrimed before serving you coffee?

موضوع جيد وان مهتم بالتحليل الفني للعملات, ولكن كنت اتمنى ان تقوم بارفاق صور للتشارت كل تحليل تقوم به, الصور ابلغ من الكلام والشرح بدون صور فيما يتعلق بالتحليل الفني من الصعب فهمه جيدا, اتمنى ان تحذو حذو الاخ rep في موضوعه المشابه لموضوعك https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5115701.180.

بالتوفيق.

Almost all control boards of the 17/19 series that are bought separately from Bitmain (not with a mining gear) come with a firmware that says "Test Firmware" in bold red, which allows you to flash any other firmware, but the version they sent you could be a different one and it might be useful to some devs like thierry4wd and Marc, so could you please upload it and paste the link here?

The temps look fine to me as well, the fans seem to be spinning at about 50%, so unless it's freezing cold where you live - then all good.

Here is a sample of one of the S17 pros I have



Fans are set to 90% and ambient temperature is between 10-15c.

12.3% isn't realistic by any means, I doubt these numbers can be sustainable for the remaining 8-9 days of this epoch, the average hashrate for the past epoch was 133, so 12% of that is 16EH, how is it possible that a whooping 16EH came online now and not 10 days ago? but well, btc mining is crazy so you may never know!

With that being said, I still believe that we won't go past 5% by much, maybe 6-7% in the worst-case scenario, but not 12% or more, the reason why I tend to make my predictions a bit more flexible is that fact that BTC dominance is going higher and thus hashrate from other coins is migrating to bitcoin right now, so all the new hashrate we see now isn't exactly fresh hashrate, a good portion of it was already there, and when those other Sha256 coins start picking up, that hashrate will go back.

I don't see why they wouldn't, IIRC someone from the U.S said they ordered something from them, you can also check on Aliexpress, i believe it is the same product but a bit more expensive on Zeusbtc, but they have a good reputation and I have personally traded a lot with Kevin from Zeusbtc.

Then what was all that about


I do understand that Bitmain support is terrible, but this basic information that they should know, no? I would like to see what's in the master reset firmware they sent and if it's any different from that default-test firmware that comes with the separately purchased control board, jimjam123 can you upload the firmware they sent you?

Not sure what's the point of continuing to discuss this matter, https://whatsminer.net/ is an official distributor for MicroBT, both have been in business for years and sold tens of thousands of mining gears, those who are not in the mining industry might have not heard about them, but they are the second-largest mining gear manufacturer after bitmain.


All mining gears are sold out, you need to get them from resellers or wait for a few months, check the market place in this forum, there are some legit resellers.

Those two links need access permission, at least use a proper server to upload those image, use https://imgbb.com/  or https://imgur.com/, but eventually you going to need to post that kernel log to get a definite answer, you don't need physical access, just ask whoever took those pictures for you to copy-paste the kernel log after the miner has been online for 30-45 minutes.

Tell them to find the kernel log at this extension /kernelLog.html, so it's <IPaddress>/kernelLog.html.

once you get the log, use the code function to paste it, something like this:

The cheapest glue/adhesive or whatever you want to call it is the black glue form China, you can find it on https://www.zeusbtc.com/ , depending on where you are shipping it to - this might not be an option because it can't be stored in room temperature for more than 10 days, it needs to be stored in the fridge.

Another alternative would be Arctic Silver but it's very expensive, the good thing is you don't need much of that paste if you are only fixng a few heat sinks.

As far as the heat gun is concerned, anything will do, watch this video to learn how to fix the heatsink.

I think you shouldn't send it to bitmain, they will likely keep it forever, what I would do is put this one out for sale, I am sure someone with many S19s would want a spare control board, and then get another T17 control board from someone else and make sure it has the 17 series firmware on it and not the S19.

With that being said, expect the buyer to contact you saying the control board didn't work on their S19 either, where are you located? I might help you locate some resellers to help you sell/buy/exchange the control boards.

This is irrelevant, I just showed you how a mining pool like F2pool can make 1/2 a million dollars a year by mining the way they are now, not sure why you bring in orphan race here, the previous block (which has transactions in it) has been verified by the pool that found it, it's almost impossible for an invalid transition to make it through, all that you need to do is verify the hash of the last block, this doesn't result in any forks as you claim, we have an average of 2 empty blocks a day, if what you are saying is correct then we would have 2 forks on daily bases.


Not sure how does it fail badly, at least 99% of the hahsrate is at the hands of mining pools that mine empty blocks, those pools that don't are too tiny to be considered, your pool loses 0.0167% of it's hashrate by refusing to mine empty blocks, it's good for bitcoin as a whole but not for your clients, it doesn't matter how you look at it.


If that happened, then it only did because the pool's hashrate increased or its luck did, the fact that other pools were mining on a different blockchain doesn't increase other pools' ability to find blocks.

The location of those "sleeping" mining gears is important, old gears in Europe and countries with 10 cents per kWh or higher are still not profitable "yet", but I tend to believe that there aren't much and could be ignored.

As far as the overall difficulty, don't worry, we will get there, I believe this epoch will be +(maybe 3-5%), and then things will get worse the further we move from here, many new generation gears are coming online next month, but the production is kind of slow, so I doubt we will see those 15-20% increments, they should be small and steady.


Next halving is just a couple of years ahead, no rush.

اثفق معك, يجب ان تكون توقعاتنا منطقية, من وجهة نظري اخذ الذهب كمثال امر جيد, فمثلا حجم سوق الذهب الحالي هوا 10 ترليون بينما الحجم السوقي للبتكوين هوا حوالي 0.5 ترليون, يعني لو فرضنا ان البتكوين استطاعت الحصول على استثمارات مساوية للذهب فنحن نتحدث عن حوالي نصف مليون دولار لكل بتكوين (500 الف دولار), بعد فهم هده النقطة كل شخص يمكنه ان يحكم عقله, هل من الممكن الوصول الى حجم سوق الذهب؟ هل يمكن ان نصل لضعفه لكي نصل الى مليون دولار للبتكوين؟ هل سيفقد الدولار قيمته لهده الدرجة؟

Both the block rewards and the transaction fees are independent entities, before the total 21M bitcoins are mined, blocks without transaction fees can happen, after the 21M production is over, blocks without block rewards can happen.


The miner receives a block reward (6.25 as of now but cuts in half every 4 years or so) regardless of the existence of transactions.



All the rewards (transaction fees + block reward) will go to the address that is in the coinbase transaction, this is all that the blockchain understands, as far as "group mining" it's called pool mining, miners get paid based on the amount of work they put, the number of trials (hashes) submitted by every miner determines their share of the total reward ( different pools pay in a different format, read about PPS vs PPLNS)


Only some (very a few if any) decentralized exchanges work on the bases of smart contracts (yes possible on BTC too) where the buying and selling do happen on the main chain, but that is a tiny bit of volume which could be ignored, so safe to say that the majority of volume happens outside of the main blockchain, if you buy BTC from an exchange you get your own BTC address but not your own wallet, just like your bank account number, it's unique just for you, but the money in it is essentially owned by the bank.

So in reality all of the exchange happens only on the database of the exchange, just like how things go when you transfer money from your bank account to your wife, the bank simply changes the balance sheet without moving anything.  



It's the name of the "packages" owned by x address, if you have two of 10$ bills your balance is $20 and you have 2 UTXO each is $10


In bitcoin, you can't send a portion of the UTXO, so if you have 1 UTXO of  1 bitcoin and you want to send 0.3 to your friend, you will need to send 0.3 to him and 0.7 to yourself (your own address), your own address can be the same one you sent from or a new one, there are no rules in the blockchain that state you must use a new address, but wallets do create a new address for you to receive the change of 0.7BTC just for privacy reasons, as well as more security, this is a long story but you should understand that BTC address isn't exactly a public key, but once you spend from it, the public key becomes available and thus it makes it slightly easier to know your private key, by slightly easier I mean instead of it being "very, very, very, very difficult" it becomes "very, very, very difficult", notice the 1 missing "very" from the second one, I had to make it clear enough that even after revealig your public key it isn't by anymeans easy to guess your private key, but once and if quantum computers become a thing, then re-using the same address will be a stupid idea, because "Elliptic curve cryptography is vulnerable to quantum"






All that matters is the size of the transaction, transactions with more UTXOs will have a larger size, also the address you send from whether it's a legacy or Segwit address makes a lot of difference, your wallet software will calculate the size in bytes and x that by the number of satoshis that everyone is currently playing, so if your transaction is 100 bytes in size, and you pay 1 satoshi you pay 100 satoshis, but every wallet calculates the "best" fees differently depending on their code and how it analyzes the mempool and current situation.

You should also know that a transaction with 100BTC may still pay less than that with 0.1BTC, it all depends on the total size of the transation and how much people are willing to pay, the miners will pick the once that pay the most per byte.


I believe there are some rounding rules that will handle this, I will dig into this and get back to you.