No, indeed not. For the time being the failover mechanism in ckproxy is the equivalent of the "round robin" in cgminer.

Directly. It sanitises to slush stratum based pools only, though there are quite a few of those.

He posted the link to it earlier.

https://bitbucket.org/ckolivas/ckpool

He's running ckpool in standalone proxy mode.

Is this proxy available for download?

Canary, have you been able to determine how to RMA a bad board we purchased in your GB? I haven't been able to get a answer from anyone yet?

Got my 2 tubes running on 1 controller, no problems, no hiccups, no issues at all.
Getting a steady and stable 1.6T since last night on poolside on Slush. Sorry, my kill-o-watt died so I can't verify draw at the wall.
I'm using bfgminer 4.7 as a proxy, but I hear Slush got it working w/o a proxy so I'll have to try that.

Otherwise, I LOVE this product. The engineering on the kit is far superior to the usual BTC world crap. The tube concept with one fan and interlocking heatsinks is great and very efficient for cooling. And I really like being able to run 8 tubes from one controller. The other good choice was using a thermal pad instead of paste, mainly due to the apparent lack of workers skilled in thermal paste application techniques.

So kudos to friedcat, and kudos to canary for running this GB and superbly handling the daunting task of packaging all these units, and so quickly!

Now if only AM could improve efficiency a hair, they could give Bitmain some tough competition.

Hi everyone.

I am having an issue with this purchase and I am hoping someone here can help me. I came across the ad for this buy and decided I wanted to purchase one of the tubes. I did not have the required BTC in my wallet so I sold some GH/s from CEX.io and sent it to the address listed in the ad. I posted my tx ID on this forum and purchased and emailed the shipping labels for the tube. I received an email back from Canary saying everything was fine and all I needed to do was sign the message and send it to him. I had no idea what Canary was talking about and was informed that I could do it from my wallet. When I told Canary that it did not come from my wallet but from CEX.io I was told the ONLY option was to sign the message or the BTC would be returned to the sending address. I immediately emailed CEX support and explained the situation to them and I was told that the receiving address at CEX was static but the sending address was not and if the payment was returned I would lose it.

 I then notified Canary about this and was told it wasn't true and that the ONLY option was to sign the message or he would return the BTC to the sending address. I once again emailed CEX support and my ticket was elevated to the supervisor and they responded with the same information and an offer to contact Canary and confirm the transaction came from my account. This was rejected by Canary. Canary posted a message to the admin of the GASH.io forum stating the problem and after some confusion the admin at GHASH told Canary the same thing CEX had. The admin also offered to confirm the transaction came from my wallet but once again Canary rejected this.

Canary states that I can not prove the funds came from my account. I have asked Canary if anyone else has claimed this transaction ID and to this point he have refused to answer the question. I also asked why the confirmation from CEX was not adequate and again no response from Canary. Canary also will not answer any questions about this transaction. Canary will only state that the ONLY option is to sign the message, which is not possible or return the BTC to the sending address which means I will lose it.

I sent the BTC to the listed address in good faith and have offered to show that the funds came from my account on CEX. I am at a loss at what to do now. If anyone has any ideas I would very much appreciate hearing them.

Thank you,

Stephen Scott

about a dozen Tubes are available.  beginning to run low.  can ship out in the next 2.5 hrs today.

what version does it show after the flash I am showing 1.41 still.

okay I have it assembled.

I am using a 5 volt dlink 1mp wallwart   so it works fine.  the controller has flex on volts.   5 to 12? at 1 amp seems to be good.

I am using an evga 1300 psu 4 pcie cables attached
dip switches:

  set 1
then 2
then 3
then 4


I typed in
192.168.0.254:8000/FlashMega and I am at this spot. flashings seems slow so far 10 minutes.

Any time estimates for flashing?

I don't regularly test it, but it did at one point.
Very recently, git has some changes that could interfere with that, so if you have any issues, please let me know.

I am seeing this as well.  An older version of Bfgminer seems to be more stable.  It also seems to stop when a block is found on the

network.

Edit: Just checked, now the boards are showing F/W version 1.53.  Must of just updated last night of this morning.

I think warranty is done through the reseller, but I could be wrong. So far I have identified one board for sure to be replaced, one that's behaving erratically and one entire Tube that's nonfunctional but it's probably one board hosing up the serial line. Tomorrow I should have a final count on what does and doesn't work.

The Cubes required the proxy because they only ran getwork. These guys do stratum natively, but apparently they don't do it quite right. Either that or every pool ever has implemented their standards wrong but every other hardware ever somehow compensated (which seems unlikely).

If I knew any python, and had any time at all, and knew more about the stratum packet formats, I'd consider tearing into the proxy and seeing if the erroneous portion can be spoofed and get a proxy going that'll fix the issue with these at least until there's a firmware update.

People are yelling, screaming, crying, and whining because either they feel entitled to something that they are not, or they employed flawed ROI calculations when originally making their decisions to purchase mining hardware -- most likely by assuming a fixed fiat value of daily earning potential at acquisition and erroneously applying it as a constant in their break even and profitability calculations (or failing to account for the possibility of its rapid decline).  And rather than blame themselves for being in trouble on their investments, they want someone else --anyone else, to blame for their poor current situation.  If westhash never came into existence, they would be blaming some other demon right now.  [It has been mildly amusing though, so by all means please keep it up.]