The product above is sold in France so my guess is that the French use it, I know Italy make such cables too (Not sure if they do use it), anyway reading further about this matter in this topic, and if I understood it correctly it does say that NEC code (used in the U.S) allow for smaller N conductuer in certain cases, also in this article which uses the IEC code (Used in Europe) states the following:


These standards aren't so easy to understand, but my take on it is that in some SPECIAL cases (when you are 100% the load across all 3 phases will always be equal or pretty close to equal), using a smaller neutral conductor is fine, perhabs that's why these companies make these "3.5 cores" or else - nobody would use them, but having said that, it's always better SAFE than sorry, so just go for 4 cores of the same size that can handle 125% of the load.

NotFuzzyWarm understands these stuff much better than most people here, so perhabs he could chime in with some information.

Loyce, can we get an update on this graph? I also noticed that some of the old graphs are no longer avaiable, I wanted to have a look at my old record which was uploaded to tinypic.com and now they took it off.  , did you start uploading on loyce.club just recently?

It isn't really "labelled and sold" as such 4X16mm², but rather 3x16mm² + 1*8mm², maybe I haven't made that clear enough, here is an example:



So these cables could be "3x95 + 1x50" or 3x120 + 1x70, not sure about the U.K but i am sure this is international, if i am not mistaken, some people refer to it as 3.5 core cable instead of 4 cores, I mean who wouldn't want to save a ton of money when buying cables of extended length? espcially if it goes to a warehouse / garage that mostly uses 3-phase machines where current in N is always near 0?

With that being said, since you can't guarantee this in a standrad single phase operaiton like mining, it would be pretty risky to do so, it's safe to have N size just the same as the phase wire size.

Those temps are dope, i am glad it worked out for you, thierry4wd is indeed a skillful dude but he lacks financial support or else he would be on a different level now, I also like that fact that he is planning on a single time-payment rather than sharing your hash power.

Sadly since it's summer time, i can't ask you to test the overclocking settings on this miner, hopefully you can try them out a few months later when winter comes by.

For thierry4wd well done, make sure favebook gets free access for the updated versions of your firmware since he was nice enough to test it for you.

Yes 3 phases and one neutral, most 4 wire cables (1 large cable with 4 wires inside) has a neutral wire with just about half the cross section of the other wires used for L, simply put, in a perfectly balanced load system the current in N will be 0 amps, I suppose the techincal term is (3 phase star connection), you could use this equation to find out the N current:


source: https://www.quora.com/How-do-I-calculate-the-neutral-current-of-a-three-phase-transformer-under-unbalanced-load-conditions-and-under-balanced-load-conditions

So as long as you got all 3 phases drawing the same amp the current in N will be 0, and here is an example of all R,Y,B drawing 10 amps each

(10^2+10^2+10^2-10*10-10*10-10*10)^0.5 = 0 amps in N

Now let's assume R = 20a, Y = 40a and B = 60.

(20^2+40^2+60^2-20*40-40*60-60*20)^0.5 = 34.6A

Now assuming your total load is 120A so 40A on each phase, you go ahead and do your cable size and say you get 16mm2 can handle 64 amps, so you buy 16mm2*4 cable where in reality that cable will have 3*12mm2 + 1*8mm2 for N.

8mm2 is only good for half those 64 amps so that's 32 amps, despite the fact that on all phases you stay below 64 amps, just by having such an unbalanced load, the N will have to pass 34.6A where it could only handle 32A, and this causes the  netural to be set on fire and if by any chance it touches one of the phases, fireworks will start.

A safe approch we use here would be not buying those cables with 4 wires, but instead buy 4 seperate wires of the same size, and they assume that in the worst case your numbers will be:

(0^2+0^2+60^2-0*0-0*60-60*0)^0.5 (0 Amps on 2 phases and max amps on a single phase) will result in 60 amps on the N wire, so even the worst unbalance will survive, but such wiring cost alot more than going with the regular 1*4 cables, and since people "suppose" they have contorl over the load, it makes sense to go with the cheaper option and balance the load across all phases so that my N wire has close to 0 amps run through it.

208v isn't low enough to toast those PSUs, but running them on unregulated voltage can easily kill them, depending on the electricity infrastructure, voltage drops could be so severe and that 208v point might not have been there all the time, there is a chance that you got a bad batch if that was the case we would be hearing more complains from more people, I am fairly active on all mining groups across all things internet (this forum, telegram groups, FB, and etc.) bad/low-quality batches are usually heard off in a short period of time, so I tend to kind of negate the batch issue, because there is no way that they would make only 6 bad units.

So my thought which is the same as the initial one is that the PSUs are causing the issues, I haven't looked inside a Whatsminer PSU but I am pretty confined that all new PSUs are pretty hard to fix or at least hey were not made to be fixed, but there is always hope, what I would do is get a used/new PSU and test it on all those units, for obvious reasons in somewhere where you know your voltage is stable above 200v.

Not the case with M21s, I managed to run this in extremely hot days (beyond 40c) and honestly it runs way cooler and much better than MOST bitmain gears, but I understand that different models/batches will perform differently.


What was the voltage they ran on? the way you describe the issue tells me that your miners' PSUs weren't so happy with the voltage they had, either too high or too low.

هل تذكر نصيحتي لك بعدم الاكثار من الكروت على لوحة واحدة؟ اعتقد اني قد تكلمت عن هدا الموضوع اكتر من مرتين, كل مازاد عدد الكروت كل ماكترت المشاكل, وخصوصا عند تجاوز عدد 6 كروت, الان لديك مشكلة في احد هده الكروت او كرتين او اكثر, عليك ازالة الكروت واعادتها بالواحد, والكرت الدي يسبب المشاكل يعني انه بحاجة الا تعريف جديد او انه به مشكلة اخرى.

نصيحتي لك, ان كنت تريد الاستتمرار في الاستتمار في مجال التعدين, اشتري Motherboard جديدة بكامل ملحقاتها وقم بنقل كرتين الى اللوحة الجديدة اولا لتفادي مثل هده المشاكل في المستقبل وتانيا لكي تتيح لنفسك فرصة التطوير في المستقبل.

Not sure if my "vouch" counts, but thierry4wd is pretty well-known around the mining board, mainly in the software suboard, I am surprised that you two don't know each other.


Do you mind telling us more about the firmware, what does it do? did you manage to unlock the frequency and voltage features? also were you able to alter the temp-sensor to allow hashboards to mine if at least 1 out of 4 temp-sensors are detected?

2.78% difficulty drop along with 20% price increase is something I will take with absolute pleasure.  

However, i still wouldn't fomo just yet, we are back below 11k which could actually be just a minor correction, I still think that we MUST close this weekly candle above $10500 for us not to dip below current prices again, as far as difficulty goes, I highly doubt we see crazy jumps in the near future, remember that the largest supplier of mining gears is out-of-stock and facing some real internal issues, old gears alone won't be able to make any crazy jumps, I think if price goes up, difficulty will take a much longer time to catch up, and that is paradise for miners.

It won't stop mining at 80c, not even at 100c, or at least this is what the default firmware allowes you to go to, since S9 has a max temp of 135c 80c is pretty cool, and i have seen those S9 run above 100c for a very long time without a hitch, now going 200c is a different story, I believe that some of these custom firmware have an option to disable the fan-check function in cgminer use for immersion cooling) where fans are unplugged anyway, so maybe it was activated by default or you have mistakenly activated it? hard to tell, you have to check with the firmware devs to confirm that.

Now back to your T17e it does say "PCB max. 80" but that is far form reality, all these 17 series have a terrible solder that will fall-off with the slightest increase in temps, there is no exact figure that these gears will run safe, but the cooler the better, i believe your readings of "PCB temperature as 51C" is not bad at all.

You should define what does "no longer working" actually refer to? are they burnt? are they giving you a temp-sensor error? 0 asic? less than the total number of asics they should show?

There are plenty things that could go wrong with these low-quality hashboards, some will be easy to fix, some are just not worth it, so please go ahead and explain in details what is exactly wrong with these boards and I will be glad to help you.

So were expecting just about a 6% drop half way through the current epoch, and now in just 14 blocks we will have a 2.5% drop, so in other words we claimed up 3% after a massive 18% increase in price, which means if price didn't climb so fast we would be most likely have gotten more than 6% drop, my previous assumptions that we continue to go go lower in diff or stay flat was based on the fact that price wouldn't be going any higher, I still think that current prices of $10800 won't change the equation much, but if we close this week above $10500 chances are we go to $13900 in no time, and from there many things will change, even old obsolete gears will be able to come back online.

I must have missed this part, well, "not your keys , not your bitcoin", I assume even if they were willing to help they would still charge him a certain amount pf fees, some exchanges will do that for a fixed amount like hitbtc charges $100 IIRC, some might ask for a certain percentage, and some will just tell you they can't do it, let's see how it goes for OP.

True, it's all about luck, I don't think phill is suggesting that Kano could have prevented the bad luck with the last 1000 or so blocks, but if, only if his pool's luck was better recently than earlier that would most likely be more beneficial to the pool, timining from luck perspective is indeed crucial, but it will be labeled under the same concept of luck, and here is an example:

A new guy with 500PH is looking around for the best pool, with all other things being equal, he goes to check the pools' luck, and just so happened that pool x had 96% luck for the latest 1000 blocks while another pool had 104%, since most people including large scale miners don't really understand statistics and probablity they "believe" that future incidents are related to the once in the past, where in reality bitcoin mining is merely "poison " distributed and eventually all pools will have very very close ratio to 100%.

There are other people who understand how "luck" functions, and they assume that a 1000 blocks is a long enough "events" that happened in a long enough "interval" and they would assume that IF the pool's luck is far from 100% then the pool has other major problems like code or connectivity, these conclusions are wrong but many new comers when they see a pool with 96% luck over a period of months, it will scare them away.

Now as far as Laurentia's being bad risk for miners, only time will tell, and for Laurentia's owner, I know that Kano is probably doing all of this because 1- you are a competitor 2- the pool has -CK in it and that does trigger oneway or the other, but with that being said, he did you a great favour by pointing out a few weaknesses which you should work on, get another 3rd party dev to "check" your pool's specs and code, not that I don't trust -CK, but it isn't wise to count on one person's knowledge to carry an operation of such size.

Good luck to both pools Kano and Laurentia.

Your temps are a bit high but they are not what causing the 0 asic issue, read this thread, there are a few ways you can follow to fix it, the simple once that require no skills and no special tools depend heavily on luck so you just have to try them out.

As for the temp, you could set a static speed of 80-100% and that will fix the temp issues assuming you have proper cooling.

You DON'T know if they propagate only the share or the whole block, you CAN't tell, you are only assuming that you are the only person on planet earth who knows that distributing a share is faster and more effienct than sending out a whole block, I don't know how the other pools operate, but if I had to take a bet, I bet they know better and that they utilize all aspects to keep their found blocks distribution as fast and effienct as possible, so long story short, your pool isn't proven to be the best, for all I know and since all of those large pools are based in China, they could very well be communcitng within the same LAN and ALL of them have better and faster connections to the other mining nodes (that matter), that of course is an assumption just like the many assumptions you make.

All the way up to the S7, BM did not include the changes I made in the S1,S2,S3 in the public cgminer git into their miner. The miner driver code BM added to cgminer has same glaringly obvious issues. The S9 did make 2 related changes, but not all of them. Yet they have been for a very long time the largest miner producer on the planet


This doesn't prove that you have a better network, not sure why you bring this up because I know you know very well that oprhan blocks aren't caused only buy a poor node-connecevity.


I call B.S on that as well, that's a baseless claim just like the many once you make, the only difference is that my guess is that he said that out of frustration because you pissed him off, which I suppose he would, later on, edit it or provide a proof on how is his server "more efficient than any other pool on market", and since we all know he has no proof on that, I suppose he should take that back, or he could of course follow your lead and keep claiming things with zero evidence.


Which makes me wonder Kano, you kind of had the "pole position" in the mining pool race, and yet you now sit at the very back with a tiny amount of hashrate, a fresh pool like this one which hasn't gone online yet has hashrate commitments of about 70PH, maybe (just maybe) it would be best if you hire someone else who would take care of all things non-techincal, and that starts with interacting with the forum members, I am 100% positive that your attitude is one of the main reasons why your pool isn't attracting enough miners, I mean based on the current hashrate you own, you make about 160$ a month or so, this probably doesn't even pay for the "best" servers you rent, you should really shake things up while you have the chance, and start by droping the attitude. Good luck.

Guys where you coming up wit the temp-issue from??

Kernel log says:


The second hashboard sees 0 Asics, this is 99% caused by a loose heatsink, the conductivity between one or more of the heatsinks and the chips is bad, bitmain uses a bad thermal adhesive / solder on these gears so everyone who owns a 17 series mining gear should expect these kind of issues.

Then to claim that your pool has never lost a block is not accurate, the proper way of stating this would be "your pool never lost a block that you know of" since the connection between the miner and the pool depends on both the miner's connection and the pool's connection, there is a chance that at the time when a miner submitted a share your sever wasn't listening for many reasons such as bad connectivity which resulted in a packet loss of some kind, and that person didn't happen to check his miner's status page, he could have rebooted the miner a while later, and proof of a block went missing forever, "when it's techinally possible, it can happen, it could have happened".


Most pools have worldwide node distribution, so this isn't Kano pool's exulsive feature.


Do you have access to the code and servers of every mining pool on planet earth? if not then I call bullshit, you don't know how the other pools operate, you are using CKpool which he himself admitted to be running on an inadequate server with a code which he probably hasn't improved forever because he doesn't treat his mining pools as a source of income, and just because your pool is better than CK's you have the nerve to claim without a proof that your pool distributes blocks faster than ALL pools.


Comparing your servers' specs and connectivity to CKpool and coming up with the conclusion that your pool runs on the BEST servers, and has the BEST connectivity and the BEST code is plain stupid really, the only way for your claims to be real is if they are backed by solid evidence, those include a breakdown of ALL the other pool's servers, connectivity and code, but since most of that is private information nobody in thier right mind will claim thier pool is the best when they can't see what their competitors actually have.

I do know that you are a professional developer, you probably invested all you could afford on the pool's resources, I am not debating that, but I also know that pools which generate millions of dollars in profit, and owned by multi-billion $ companies most likely have and 'can' afford a better code, servers and worldwide connectivity than a pool of your size.

Having said that, I am not against your pool, I have actually told people in this very forum that if they don't have a problem with your terrible attitude they should certainly mine at your pool, I benifit directly by more pools and more competition in the mining industry, so I indeed wish to see your pool grow bigger, but without the b.s of it being the BEST pool.

Sir!! You are a genius  .

I initially figured out the mystery BTC address might come from doge's PK.


But obviously I am not smart enough to use the hexadecimal format of the PK, so I used the PK as is and it wasn't a valid PK for BTC so bitaddress.org used the Doge's PK as a passphrase to hash a whole new PK which obviously resulted in new different BTC address, but you nailed it.


Hey thanks for sending me my BTC back.  


They can't recover the BTC sent to that addy, only you can do it, if you don't know how ask for help, and ingore any PMs from people who tell you they will help you recover your coins, any advice given must come from a trusted person on forum, the process is rather simple you can do it yourself, just follow what HCP did, if things are still unclear, ask here and members including myself will teach you how to do it.

After getting your money back, you should return the money they sent you, at least this is what I would do if I was in your place because no matter how you look it at, it's stealing!, you should inform them and if they decide that you should keep the money they sent for the inconvenience they caused you, then keep it, if they ask you to return it, please do.