I know about that. I was concerned with high variation from the expected result..
That is dependent upon which pool you are mining. Pool luck, payout method, (PPS, PPLNS, etc), pool size all have a role. Also you were only hashing for 5 hours... That's not a very large set of data from which to draw conclusions. Wait for 24-48 hours to see how things are playing out. |
|
|
|
One other small item to remember. In less than 1.5 days, the difficulty will adjust upwards, by about 4-5%. That will likely reduce your Bitcoins earnings per day by a similar amount. Sorry if I am being a wet blanket.
Take the word "likely" out of your sentence. When the difficulty goes up your expected earnings WILL go down by the same amount the difficulty goes up. See the formula I posted if you have any doubts about how it works. |
|
|
|
Most operations in SHA-256 are bitwise operations--xor, rotation, etc. I'll be referencing Wikipedia in my descriptions. In a rotation, all bits are shifted around a certain number of spaces. For example, rotating right 3 bits yields where a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j are bits. Basically, each bit is moved over some spaces, and bits on the end are moved around to the beginning after being "shifted off". The ">>>" symbols used in crypto to describe Σ-zero and Σ-one steps of SHA are these rotations exactly. Simiarly, bitwise operations such as XOR exist. They handle each bit separately using the following tables: A | B | A AND B | A OR B | A XOR B
==================================
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0
0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1
1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1
1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0
For example, (E∧F)⊕(⌐E∧G) means: (E AND F) XOR ((NOT E) AND G) which means to take NOT E, AND it with G, and then XOR that with the result of ANDing E and F. Addition modulo 2^32, shown as red boxes on the diagram on Wikipedia, means that the two inputs are added (carrying as with regular addition), just in binary. If the result overflows 32 bits, then we ignore the overflow. For example: * (see note)
1111 1111111 (carry)
10110100110110111101110001011000
+ 11011010101101100000000000000001
----------------------------------
= 10001111100100011101110001011001(result)
While usually the leftmost 1 in the carry (marked with a *) would be brought down, it is considered overflow in this case and ignored, since it falls as the 33rd digit. Only 32 bits are retained, since the compression function works with 32-bit-length data. Our result is thus 10001111100100011101110001011001 and not 110001111100100011101110001011001. As a summary, SHA-2 (SHA256 being a member of the SHA-2 family) compresses a 256-bit length of data by first splitting it into 8 blocks, and then performing the following operations (where A- H are input blocks and A' through H' are output blocks): A'= W(t)+K(t)+ H+ch( E, F, G)+Σ1( E)+ma( A, B, C)+Σ0( A) B' = AC' = BD' = CE' = W(t)+K(t)+ H+ch( E, F, G)+Σ1( E)+ DF' = EG' = FH' = Gch(E,F,G) is (E∧F)⊕(⌐E∧G) ma(A,B,C) is (A∧B)⊕(A∧C)⊕(B∧C) Σ0(A) is (A>>>2) ⊕ (A>>>13) ⊕ (A>>>25) Σ1(E) is (E>>>6) ⊕ (E>>>11) ⊕ (E>>>25) Hopefully this makes sense. If not, feel free to ask and I'll try to clarify. You are a godsend  !! Thank you so much! I would have loved to give you some BTC but I'm broke as of now  I did have a few quick questions. 1.) I'm familiar with the fancy E ( Sigma, I should say ) but how exactly does it apply? 2.)What exact is the "ch" and "ma"? I'd like to state that I'm only 14. I'm attempting to digest this. Your explanation would probably make a great deal of sense to someone with a higher understanding. I'll make sure to save your BTC address and this post so I can donate to you when I get my hands on some moolah So I'd also like to apologize beforehand if I seem extremely dim  Kid, if you're following this at 14, you're doing better than 99% of the people out there. I don't think "extremely dim" comes anywhere near the picture, never mind into it. |
|
|
|
I'm running my Antminer S3 in its test environment (My living room) and hashing away happily in my miner pool. Since about 7am pst (now 12pm pst) I have amassed 2 million shares and 0.00041134 earnings.
I'm averaging stock speed of about 440GH/s and .00013 BTC per shift.
This comes out to about 7 cents per hr at the current exchange rate.
Am I doing it wrong?
Your expected earnings per day can be calculated using the following formula: Earnings per hour = 25 / (18736441558 * 2**32 / 440000000000 / 3600)
Earnings per hour = 0.00049209
Or you could use an online calculator  |
|
|
|
|
I think the best answer to your queries is to make sure you do your homework prior to purchasing any mining equipment. While I have not been as successful as some of the previous posters (25000% ROI is pretty downright amazing), I have had positive ROI. I suppose an answer also depends upon your definition of the word "success". If that definition is strictly motivated by making money, then it means you need to make more coin by mining than you spent on the mining process. If, however, that definition is based on supporting the idea of bitcoin and doing your part to ensure its long-term viability, then the act of mining itself means you've been successful.
Here are a few of the things I've employed along the way in my Bitcoin journey:
1) Do not pre-order hardware. As tempting as that new and upcoming mega-miner might be, it is nothing but vaporware. Even if the company manages to actually produce units, virtually all of them fall short of expectations in either performance or time to market.
2) Sell your older hardware. Once you've actually decided to make the leap into a hardware purchase, don't keep it forever if newer technology does the job better and more efficiently. For example, I sold my Antminer S1s and replaced them with S3s. The S1s had already paid for themselves and then some.
3) Do not worry about BTC->fiat conversions on a daily basis. You're mining to earn Bitcoins. Stop thinking about today's drop of 1.85%, but rather think about your long-term goals.
4) Diversify. This applies to the pools on which you mine as well as the way in which you earn your coin. As the old adage goes, "don't put all of your eggs in one basket."
5) This is an investment, not a get-rich-quick scheme. The days of leaving your computer on overnight and waking up to an extra $100 in your pocket are long since over. You're not going to wake up tomorrow and be able to quit your job, marry a super model and take her to your mansion in the Hamptons.
6) Do not spend more than you can afford to lose. If you've got $1000 that you were thinking of taking to the casino, then you can afford to blow $1000. If you've got $1000 and can either pay your rent, or buy a miner, you can't afford the miner.
7) Skip cloud mining. If legitimate, cloud mining companies exist to make cloud mining companies profit. Most are nothing more than Ponzi schemes. They don't exist to make profit for you. The same applies to renting mining rigs. Do the math. If a company offers to rent you a 1TH/s rig for 0.2BTC a week, figure out if that miner will earn you 0.2BTC or more in that week. If it won't, skip it. Good luck finding anyone who will rent you a rig for less than what that rig will mine for you.
|
|
|
|
|
Might want to check your numbers... For example you list the S3 at 470gh/s and 370 watts making 0.009931BTC a day. All are wrong. Hash rate is 440, power is 340 and expected earnings are 0.01181BTC.
|
|
|
|
Why is this not documented? No wonder P2Pool isn't taking off. We need all critical code paths documented and logic explained.
On a side note, I refuse to believe that what I am experiencing is just variance and bad luck. It has been over 24 hours and I still haven't found a share with my 2 x S3s running at 1TH/s. There is definitely some sort of incompatibility between S3s and P2Pool.
While I love the idea behind P2Pool, sadly I won't be able to be a part of it until this is fixed. However, I am not hopeful that it will be fixed as let alone identifying the problem, it isn't even acknowledged yet. Pointing my miners to Eligius.
Try running a local p2pool node. Point your miners to it, and see what p2pool says for "expected time to share". M I've tried that as well. I live in San Francisco and I have dedicated servers in a datacenter in San Francisco as well. I set up a full Bitcoin node on one of them and set up P2Pool. My latency was under 20ms and my DOA was around 2%. It was pretty much the most optimal setup that you can get without having them on the same network. Expected time to share was about 5 hours and I haven't gotten any shares in over 24 hours with that setup either. Why is this not documented? No wonder P2Pool isn't taking off. We need all critical code paths documented and logic explained.
On a side note, I refuse to believe that what I am experiencing is just variance and bad luck. It has been over 24 hours and I still haven't found a share with my 2 x S3s running at 1TH/s. There is definitely some sort of incompatibility between S3s and P2Pool.
While I love the idea behind P2Pool, sadly I won't be able to be a part of it until this is fixed. However, I am not hopeful that it will be fixed as let alone identifying the problem, it isn't even acknowledged yet. Pointing my miners to Eligius.
I've got 5 S3s pointed to p2pool and have found 11 shares in the past 24 hours. There's nothing wrong with how they function with p2pool. I wish you the best of luck on Eligius. Wizkid's got a good pool there. While Eligius is really good and I am fine with switching to them, I really want to stick with P2Pool if possible. It is the "right" way to mine in my mind. I have two S3s and you would expect them to have found around 4 shares since your 5 found 11. Variance, bad luck etc. but still 0 shares? That doesn't make much sense to me. We can't just decide not to even try to debug a distributed system because it has a random component. It's like saying it's not a bug, it's a feature. I agree it sucks that you haven't found any shares but what exactly would somebody debug? If every S3 suffered the problem (like the S2's documented loss of hash rate) then there would be something to look into. If your miners are reporting good hash rates with low errors, low rejects and low DOA then they're working properly. Didn't you previously post that the same hardware was finding shares a few weeks ago? If that wasn't you then I apologize. My point though is that the most likely answer is simply bad luck. There just isn't enough evidence to point to problems with the hardware. |
|
|
|
Why is this not documented? No wonder P2Pool isn't taking off. We need all critical code paths documented and logic explained.
On a side note, I refuse to believe that what I am experiencing is just variance and bad luck. It has been over 24 hours and I still haven't found a share with my 2 x S3s running at 1TH/s. There is definitely some sort of incompatibility between S3s and P2Pool.
While I love the idea behind P2Pool, sadly I won't be able to be a part of it until this is fixed. However, I am not hopeful that it will be fixed as let alone identifying the problem, it isn't even acknowledged yet. Pointing my miners to Eligius.
I've got 5 S3s pointed to p2pool and have found 11 shares in the past 24 hours. There's nothing wrong with how they function with p2pool. I wish you the best of luck on Eligius. Wizkid's got a good pool there. Ok... did a little investigating on this issue. First off, setting the difficulty to /0 or +0 actually initially sets both to the highest possible values. First the code in work.py in get_user_details:
So for sure don't set your miners to /0
I'm going to keep digging through the code to see what more I can learn from it.
Keep digging...don't think your assertation is correct. I know from experience that /0 absolutely sets your miners to get shares at the smallest possible p2pool share difficulty (currently at 4608650.012 for BTC). That's why I'm still looking. I want to be absolutely sure. To this point, however, there is nothing in the code that I've seen to indicate anything other than what I've posted. Besides, why take the chance? If you intend to set your difficulty manually to some silly low value, just use /1 instead. Basically, my search is now concentrating on finding some comparison to the effect of "take the greater of my desired share difficulty and p2pool's minimum share difficulty" during miner payout calculations. If your assertion is correct, then I need to find some other piece of code that says, "if desired share difficulty equals 2**256-1, set share difficulty equal to minimum p2pool share difficulty". |
|
|
|
On number 2 I have been wondering about this. This isn't really about shares, but diff with high hashrate miners question. When Mr 80TH's shows up on pool it's just killing everyone else it seems. Default diff is 999 or so. Based on what you're saying that is not actually correct because if you get a share it's worth more. Currently one address around 12TH/s and you just see all the estimated earnings going down for smaller miners. Have your smaller miners use /0 or whatever you think is appropriate so their share diff is not raised from the larger ones. On my front end I show the miners share diff and expected time to share by address so they can adjust it as necessary. This is if you use a public node...if you have your own it really shouldn't matter. Did you lift some of your suggested settings from Norgz' Antminer settings page? http://www.norgzpool.net.au/antminer.htmlNope, have not seen that site before. Their recommendation on /0+220 seems good for S1's. You could play with the 220 until you get a pseudo share diff that your comfortable with. In regard to the --scan-time 1 --expiry 1 settings I read a detailed post (I think from ck) saying those were essentially obsolete. Wish I would have saved it. Ok... did a little investigating on this issue. First off, setting the difficulty to /0 or +0 actually initially sets both to the highest possible values. First the code in work.py in get_user_details: desired_pseudoshare_target = None
desired_share_target = None
for symbol, parameter in zip(contents2[::2], contents2[1::2]):
if symbol == '+':
try:
desired_pseudoshare_target = bitcoin_data.difficulty_to_target(float(parameter))
except:
if p2pool.DEBUG:
log.err()
elif symbol == '/':
try:
desired_share_target = bitcoin_data.difficulty_to_target(float(parameter))
except:
if p2pool.DEBUG:
log.err()
Now the code for bitcoin_data.difficulty_to_target: def difficulty_to_target(difficulty):
assert difficulty >= 0
if difficulty == 0: return 2**256-1
return min(int((0xffff0000 * 2**(256-64) + 1)/difficulty - 1 + 0.5), 2**256-1)
The only time I can find any mention of the dust threshold of the coin in the code is when you have not set a difficulty. In this case if the expected payout per block is less than the dust threshold, it resets your desired difficulty such that your expected payout is greater than that threshold. Here's the code: if desired_share_target is None:
desired_share_target = 2**256-1
local_hash_rate = self._estimate_local_hash_rate()
if local_hash_rate is not None:
desired_share_target = min(desired_share_target,
bitcoin_data.average_attempts_to_target(local_hash_rate * self.node.net.SHARE_PERIOD / 0.0167)) # limit to 1.67% of pool shares by modulating share difficulty
local_addr_rates = self.get_local_addr_rates()
lookbehind = 3600//self.node.net.SHARE_PERIOD
block_subsidy = self.node.bitcoind_work.value['subsidy']
if previous_share is not None and self.node.tracker.get_height(previous_share.hash) > lookbehind:
expected_payout_per_block = local_addr_rates.get(pubkey_hash, 0)/p2pool_data.get_pool_attempts_per_second(self.node.tracker, self.node.best_share_var.value, lookbehind) \
* block_subsidy*(1-self.donation_percentage/100) # XXX doesn't use global stale rate to compute pool hash
if expected_payout_per_block < self.node.net.PARENT.DUST_THRESHOLD:
desired_share_target = min(desired_share_target,
bitcoin_data.average_attempts_to_target((bitcoin_data.target_to_average_attempts(self.node.bitcoind_work.value['bits'].target)*self.node.net.SPREAD)*self.node.net.PARENT.DUST_THRESHOLD/block_subsidy)
)
I'm going to keep digging through the code to see what more I can learn from it. |
|
|
|
Although there maybe some great places to find cloud mining offers, I believe a good majority of them have some hefty fees. You could try renting a rig but the profitability is extremely low for obvious reasons Rig leasers need to make money too  I think you might want to correct that last statement to read, "...profitability is nonexistent...". Company X will not rent you a rig for less than they'd make keeping the coins it can mine in the same timeframe. For example, if a rig is expected to make 1 BTC a week, a company is not going to rent you that machine (one that they are maintaining, paying costs for, etc) for less than that 1 BTC. The only exception I could think of would be a "try before you buy" kind of promotion. Some of the cloud mining providers did the same sort of thing by offering up small GH/s contracts for free... or giving them away in contests. |
|
|
|
For the same power rating, doesn't 240v takes less current from the mains than 120v? So what is the reason to use a 120v mains ?
This is the fate we suffer for being early adopters. Back when electric service was new, the higher voltages tended to burn out the lightbulbs too quickly, so the 110/120V standard was adopted for residential power transmission. By the time engineers figured out how to make stuff that wouldn't burn out with the higher voltages, the US didn't change because there was too much infrastructure already in place. Well US service is 240V. It is 240V split phase producing 120V between either leg and the ground and 240V between both legs. There are no 120V mains in the US (or it would be very non-standard and archaic). You're absolutely right... I just didn't want to get into it and confuse the OP by saying, "Well, we really are a 240V split at the center pole into 2 120V lines and a ground in your home". That just seemed too much, so I stuck with the history lesson on why we've got 120V in our homes |
|
|
|
For the same power rating, doesn't 240v takes less current from the mains than 120v? So what is the reason to use a 120v mains ?
This is the fate we suffer for being early adopters. Back when electric service was new, the higher voltages tended to burn out the lightbulbs too quickly, so the 110/120V standard was adopted for residential power transmission. By the time engineers figured out how to make stuff that wouldn't burn out with the higher voltages, the US didn't change because there was too much infrastructure already in place. |
|
|
|
Not to be too simplistic but the short answer is variance.
Just because the hashrate appears to be jumping around doesn't mean that it really is. Overall bad luck on the network can make it appear that the hashrate has dropped. And the inverse is true for good luck.
Further, network hashrate is just an estimate based on how quickly blocks are found. If a block isn't found every ten minutes, then the hashrate may appear to be dropping. And if blocks are found quickly, then the hashrate will appear to be rising.
I'm sure someone has a more eloquent and accurate explanation. I'm certainly no expert on the technical aspects of BTC.
You did a great job of explaining it. Obviously there is new equipment added and old equipment removed, which has an effect on the total network hashing rate, but the swings of 40PH/s aren't caused by this. Nobody, contrary to what the conspiracy theorists would have you believe, decides to turn on a bunch of hardware to then just turn it back off. There is a very key statement that needs to be understood: the bitcoin protocol has no idea whatsoever the hash rate of the network. It calculates an approximate hash rate based upon target difficulty and solved block time. The formula is: Difficulty * 2**32 / hashes per second = time in seconds to solve a block
Since we know the difficulty and the time, we can solve for the hashes per second. As you can see, as time goes up and down, hash rate must also go up and down since the difficulty remains constant, at least until the adjustment at the 2016th block when the difficulty adjusts itself to make time equal to 600 seconds. |
|
|
|
Thanks guys my avg town electric is 0.09 - 0.10 is that okay for S1? and is it worth getting 2 more S1 or just save to grab 2x S3 instead? I just think it will take a while to get one S3 with 2x S1 don't you guys think?
Mining calculators are your friend 2 S1s get you 360GH/s stock. Right now, that expects to earn you 0.009663 BTC a day. In about 3 days, that's going to change. Current projects are about 6% increase in difficulty (which can and likely will change). For the sake of this discussion, we'll go with the current predicted difficulty jump. That same 360GH/s will earn you 0.009129 BTC a day. The S3 goes for 0.68 BTC from Bitmain. Assuming you could order just 1 (MOQ from them is 2), and also assuming a VERY modest difficulty adjustment of 5% a jump, you can expect those 2 S1s to have earned you enough BTC to buy an S3... never. They will eventually make more than the $260 you'd need to put out for their purchase (right around the middle of November), but they'll never make that back plus the 0.68 BTC to purchase an S3 before they cost more in electricity to run than the BTC they produce. So, either you're going to pull the trigger on the S1s now and disregard the thought of them mining enough BTC to get you an S3, or you'll save up and grab an S3 when you've got the funds. hmmm. if that is the case I am not feeling to happy about my deal now. =/ 3 month old machines and I barely going to get anything out of them if it go up in difficulty. Well if i was to sell that local with 500watt PSU and 485watt PSU both 80 Plus Bronze. What would be a good price to ask for all of that? I'm confused... are you selling the S1s, or trying to purchase them? That's the way of the mining world, my friend. Equipment is pretty much obsolete the minute it is initially sold, and becomes even more so as time progresses. Those S1s were absolutely great machines in November/December of last year and in fact were pretty much responsible for about 20% of the entire hashing power on the network if you can believe Bitmain's claims. Now, 9 months down the road, they're last-gen tech. Bitmain has replaced them with a newer model that gets over twice the hashing speed for less power consumption. Will those S1s still earn you something? Sure. Are they going to be a magic money maker that drops $100 a day into your pocket? Not a freaking chance. If that's what you're looking for, those days are gone unless you're a corporate entity with enough purchasing power to get a boatload of miners on the cheap from the manufacturer... or you're the manufacturer. If you've got enough cash to grab 3 S1s at $130 each, save up just a bit more and pick up an S3. |
|
|
|
At stock speeds the S3 pulls 340W from the wall, meaning it will pull less from the PSU itself depending on efficiency. What PSU are you using that keeps shutting down? I don't know that I'd trust it . How many rails does it have? Can it supply enough juice (watts/amps) to the PCI-e? Bitmain has recommended connecting 4 if you're over clocking, or 2 if running stock. There's nothing that says connecting 2 on 1 blade and 1 on the other will work. Even if it did work as you hope, then you'd have 170W draw on 1 cable and 85W draw each on the other 2 (assuming the 340W power requirement). |
|
|
|
|
If your paper will be on hash power and power efficiency efficiency, you'll want to look at the history of mining rigs in general. From the inception of Bitcoin and CPU mining, onward to GPUs and then to FPGA's and finally to today's terrhash-class ASICs. The power efficiency of CPUs is well documented and I'm sure you can find plenty of white-papers and research on the same from Intel/AMD/Motorola/etc. The same can probably be said about GPUs - they're a known commodity and processing power / power consumption information would likely be readily available from nVidia/AMD.
ASICs are a different beast. There are multiple manufacturers and players in the space that are here and gone, and the technology is advancing incredibly rapidly. For example, in about 18 months chips have advanced from 110nm to current 28nm with 20/14nm in the works. The power needs have also correspondingly dropped from over 10W / GH/s to under 1W / GH/s.
As far as algorithms, there are all kinds. SHA-256 and Scrypt being the two most prevalent, but you've got some other variants like X11, which are combinations of different types of hashing that work together to provide the basis for the coin.
I suggest you spend a bunch of time here on these forums as there are any number of great threads describing in detail the information you're researching.
|
|
|
|
Kinda looks like a cow barn from the mid-west though. I've never seen a datacenter with A line roof before lol... oh well, I guess they can do what they want with that money factory they built.
They're called "mining farms" for a reason... |
|
|
|
You'll earn minimal payouts with them. Which means effectively zero. Go run a difficulty calculator and find out how long you have to wait to find a block. Decades, maybe centuries, with a USB miner from last year. That's why I started that paragraph out with phrases like "hobby" and "not suitable for profit". Try millennia for expected time to find a block with a U2 (2GH/s - just about 1276 years)... might want to see if you can get in good with a local vampire... EDIT: Yes, I am well aware that the last block will have been mined far before that 1276 years is up... |
|
|
|
Thanks guys my avg town electric is 0.09 - 0.10 is that okay for S1? and is it worth getting 2 more S1 or just save to grab 2x S3 instead? I just think it will take a while to get one S3 with 2x S1 don't you guys think?
Mining calculators are your friend 2 S1s get you 360GH/s stock. Right now, that expects to earn you 0.009663 BTC a day. In about 3 days, that's going to change. Current projects are about 6% increase in difficulty (which can and likely will change). For the sake of this discussion, we'll go with the current predicted difficulty jump. That same 360GH/s will earn you 0.009129 BTC a day. The S3 goes for 0.68 BTC from Bitmain. Assuming you could order just 1 (MOQ from them is 2), and also assuming a VERY modest difficulty adjustment of 5% a jump, you can expect those 2 S1s to have earned you enough BTC to buy an S3... never. They will eventually make more than the $260 you'd need to put out for their purchase (right around the middle of November), but they'll never make that back plus the 0.68 BTC to purchase an S3 before they cost more in electricity to run than the BTC they produce. So, either you're going to pull the trigger on the S1s now and disregard the thought of them mining enough BTC to get you an S3, or you'll save up and grab an S3 when you've got the funds. |
|
|
|
For most mining gear you only need an Ethernet connection to run your miners. You access your setup and monitoring software via webpage on a computer or other device. No USB necessary.
Wait are you talking about cloud mining? I'm talking about a physical piece of mining hardware I have attached to my laptop. Lol, nope. I'm talking about hardware mining. Gear from Bitmain, KNC, Spoondoolies, Bitfury, Cointerra, BitMine.ch, etc. do not use USB to access or control the hardware from a PC. They have their own built in controllers (often RPi or Beagle Bone) that you connect to via ethernet. BFL does require connection to a host PC (or other computer device) via USB though. But you don't want to go there. Oh wow, I wasn't aware of that. I always thought you needed a "host" computer. Anyway, is there anything simple that can be plugged into a USB and not cause too much heat? and again can you do more than 1 miner in 1 laptop? I'm not very familiar with Rockminer's gear but I think they may have a small USB miner. And yes, you should have no difficulty hooking several up although you may need a USB hub. Any of the USB miners will do that (Antminer U1, U2, Bitfury, IceFury, etc). Get a powered USB hub, hook that into the USB port on your laptop and run your favorite mining software. Also, the R-Box by Rockminer works the same way... plug USB cable into your laptop's USB port. Ok thanks. Are there any concerns with heat or using too much electricity through the laptop when running more than 1 USB miner? I'm talking about something that costs like $100 or less. The RockMiner gear uses external power - not your laptop. You remember those gridseed orbs? The RockMiners are kind of like them. Plug your USB cable into the miner, plug the other end into your laptop. Then you plug the barrel plug into the miner, and the other end into the wall. It uses a power brick, just like your laptop does... or you can buy an ATX PSU and some PCI-e to barrel plug adapters... whatever floats your boat. The RockMiners have a fan built into them. Basically it's a PCB with ASICs, a big fat heatsink and a fan. The true "stick" miners like the U1, U2, etc are self-contained. Plug them directly into your USB slot. If you're going that route, then a powered USB hub is recommended. Get one that can provide a decent amount of amperage to each port so there's enough juice to power all of the sticks. I feel it necessary to state here that these types of miners are far more suitable for "hobby" than any kind of profit. You'll earn minimal payouts with them. With your $100 budget, you're looking at a pretty limited set of choices. I'm pretty sure those R-Boxes go for about $65 a piece (includes the power brick and USB cables). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
