Anyone have such high HW errors? What does this indicate?
[Getworks] => 1963
[Accepted] => 27062
[Rejected] => 963
[Hardware Errors] => 866
[Utility] => 30.57
[Discarded] => 3649
I did when I was overclocking with --avalon-options 115200:24:10:45:300 Changing to --avalon-options 115200:24:10:42:300 cleared it up for me (thanks to luffy for suggesting it). Supposedly the fourth parameter is a "controller timeout". I'm not sure why reducing it helps. I tried different parameters, including the default 45/282 value, the result is almost the same, hardware error rate about 3% of accepted, and my ambient temp is -3 degree now [fan1] => 0 [fan2] => 720 [fan3] => 720 [temp1] => -3 [temp2] => -1 [temp3] => 28 [temp_max] => 28 |
|
|
|
|
Anyone have such high HW errors? What does this indicate?
[Getworks] => 1963
[Accepted] => 27062
[Rejected] => 963
[Hardware Errors] => 866
[Utility] => 30.57
[Discarded] => 3649
|
|
|
|
My view is that the association is silly. The max_blocksize rule was added by Satoshi after the system was already running, in order to remove an attack vector via spamming of the transaction queue, until such time as a more elegant solution could be found. It was never even intended to be a permanent rule. The only reason that a "hard fork" might be required to raise or remove that rule is if some people don't agree that we should raise the limit. Complete consensus is required to avoid a hard fork, and a hard fork is the last argument of otherwise independent bitcoin users.
Ok, I understand what you mean, I should not use "hard fork", non-backward-compatible client upgrade is the better description. You can have such kind of upgrade without causing a hard fork, if majority of users agreed Forcing a hard fork in order to alter some aspect of the network doesn't even mean that you'll succeed in altering your desired aspect, but the resources required to fight the good hard fork fight are quite high, and completely unrecoverable. Yet, if a minority of users and miners decide to make that fight, there will be a blockchain fork, and the majority of the losses will fall upon the minority group until they can either muster up the resources to dominate the network or quit the fight and take their balls and go home.
It's not necessary to be a fight, two forks can co-exist since they serve the different interest from different users, its just those pre-fork coin can be spent on both fork, and it benefit the early adopters again (Pre-fork coins will worth more, people will try to get as much coin as possible before a fork happened  ) So, theoretically, all that is needed to change the 21 M BTC limit is to get everyone to agree to that change; but that isn't something that is up for debate here. No matter who or why, there is no way that a consensus to change that metric in Bitcoin is going to happen without a blockchain fork; and it would be a harsh fight. That number isn't so arbitrary, unlike the max_blocksize rule.
It does not matter it is MAX_BLOCK_SIZE or nSubsidy, as long as they can be changed through a software upgrade, there is a POSSIBILITY that a future software upgrade will change some bitcoin characters. This possibility is the biggest risk and uncertainty of bitcoin I remember that Gavin said he worried about a fork when block reward drops from 50 to 25 coins last winter, since there was someone coded a client with 50 coins reward forever. But it seems that fork had some technical problems and was not able to maintain the stable block generation, so it ended without many people knowing of it |
|
|
|
Yes, I understand that now. I was under the impression that the coin limit was somehow fixed forever and could not be altered (like a transaction deep in the blockchain can't be changed anymore). But that's obviously not the case.
This text is recorded in the coinbase of genesis block "The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks" Related article http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/4092926/Second-bank-bailout-plans-condemned.htmlThis event was from England, so I guess that Satoshi is an english scholar. England has always been famous about so many great economists. Such a genius design of bitcoin is surely based on some deeper thoughts in macro economy So in a worst case scenario where people have large disagreement with bitcoin's future direction, at least they will have a consensus that bitcoin will never take the same route as today's debt driven monetary system, since that is recorded in the genesis block In fact, even the coin generation rate are changed in future, the bitcoin is still FUNDAMENTALLY different than today's debt driven money issurace: Each coin is debt freeThis is maybe the hard-wired fact that OP is looking for |
|
|
|
How was I "not quite true"? Because I didn't bother to specify details? Was I wrong about the reasons for the change? The comment wasn't deliberately misleading, either. There was a change to prevent direct to IP connections, as that had become viewed as a potential security risk. If the comment was wrong, that was likely accidental.
It's not quite true because you're implying there wasn't a limit. There was a blocksize limit all along, it's just that Satoshi decided it should be reduced from 32MiB to 1MB. Look at the early commit history of Bitcoin sometime; Satoshi made really misleading comments all the time hiding major changes. Maybe because he usually made several changes at each commit, or he just want to avoid confusing and panic at early stage of the development |
|
|
|
Yes, I understand that now. I was under the impression that the coin limit was somehow fixed forever and could not be altered (like a transaction deep in the blockchain can't be changed anymore). But that's obviously not the case.
Great idea Some basic rule can be fixed into genesis block, and each new client version must follow these rules. Unfortunately Satoshi did not make this happen, or it's already hidden in the genesis block? Maybe a hash of some string there is just 21M  |
|
|
|
Not relevant. We are talking about Bitcoin as a transaction system and a store of value. The blocksize limit is a different issue.
Although different, it is closely related. To raise the blocksize limit, you have to do a hard fork, and a hard fork might affect "store of value" property of bitcoin A hard fork means there is a change in bitcoin protocol, that will shake people's belief on many claims of bitcoin, just like OP wondered, technically speak, all of bitcoin's claims can be changed with a client upgrade, then who is going to guarantee the consistency? This "Hard Currency" start to feel soft If a hard fork will never happen, then "store of value" property will be intact. But this transaction system will become slow and expensive over time due to the block size limit, it might not be very practical to use bitcoin, when you need to wait for days/weeks for a confirmation (if you don't want to pay very high fee) What is your view on this? |
|
|
|
|
I ran into the same problem tonight, it is caused first by 30 minutes of no internet connectivity due to my ISP's problem with their gateway (20 minutes), then cgminer restarted itself several times by cron and eventually entered into a mode that only throw error message like this in status page:
Socket connect failed: Connection refused
Socket connect failed: Connection refused
Socket connect failed: Connection refused
Socket connect failed: Connection refused
After network connection alive again, even a hard restart won't change the cgminer's error, so flash the firmware is the only choice and it fixed the problem for now
|
|
|
|
This is probably a dumb question but... I live in Canada, will I need a special transformer for the ASIC or it's okay to plug it in directly from my outlet?
If you have a power cable for PC, it should work. The PSU used in Avalon is actually a PC compatible PSU, draws 620W @ 120V-AC |
|
|
|
|
I guess batch 3 will be those 28nm ASICs and become another game changer, so many exciting things happening in hardware front
|
|
|
|
Same with PSU, it is located near the end of the heatsink where hotest air is sucked into PSU
another cutout, rotate PSU by 180 degree there are NO heatsinks near the PSU. the PSU fan is not power enough to maintain a low temperature. the front fan will help the PSU to cool it self. this is the last time i post about heat dissipation design, do what ever you want to do to your own machine and void your warranty please. Thanks, I fully follow your advice  I added a 120MM FAN at the exhaust near PSU to draw out the hot air, now module temp is 28 degree at ambient temp of -2, intake Fans at 720 RPM [fan1] => 0 [fan2] => 720 [fan3] => 720 [temp1] => -2 [temp2] => -1 [temp3] => 28 [temp_max] => 102 But I don't understand why the temp_max has ever stayed at 102? Is it real or a bug mentioned in change log? Since it works, I have not updated firmware to the latest |
|
|
|
Currently you can not reach that goal without a hard fork, and a hard fork as you have seen in recent event, is a very dangerous thing if not planned and handled very well
We already have reached that goal. No fork required, because that was part of the original design. Where is this conclusion come from? If I remember correct, Gavin said that there is a consensus to raise the block size limit, I tends to agree that it is technically necessary Before, I was very afraid of a hard fork, I thought it will be the end of bitcoin. But as the latest event showed, the community leaders have the ability to maneuver in a storm, so a planned hard fork might not be that dangerous |
|
|
|
I still have some question: What kind of loss were generated by the latest fork accident and how is it solved in the end? As stated by BTCGUILD, they lost about 250 coin during the fork, and I think there will be some merchants affected by the invalid blocks of that short lived 0.8 chain, how much are they and who has compensated for them? It is a good chance to look at how many merchants actually use bitcoin network to do the transaction. I doubt that 90% of the transaction is just miner's payment bumping around  |
|
|
|
OP: you're right. But I think you miss the point of the Bitcoin project: to create a decentralized payment processing network. Your observation would be better put: "we're not done yet!"
Just a decentralized payment processing network? I think bitcoin is much more than that As an end user, I don't care too much about the transaction system being centralized or not, as long as it provide certain function. Bitcoin can not protect consumer (charge back not possible), it can not replace other payment services like VISA/PAYPAL Many people are attracted by bitcoin because of the fundamental flaw in today's debt-driven monetary system since the abandon of gold standard (unsustainable growth) , there is a strong demand for a type of honest money |
|
|
|
Then BTC will become a medium of exchange that can satisfy increased transaction volume with larger and larger block size, the price stays stable. And LTC becomes a store of value that could not handle too much transaction but the price is rising 50% per month, everyone is eagerly waiting in line to get their transaction in queue  Why would people invest in a crypto-currency that can't even run it's own network and approve transactions? If it got to the point where the transaction list was so far backlogged that people could't even spend their money, I'd say that crypto-currency has pretty much failed. The reason is simple: price rise 50% per month, because limited supply, no one change the protocol, stable like a rock. People will bid up the transaction fee to make the processing faster |
|
|
|
I believe the market should have solved this on their own.
Einstein, what do you think happened? Or did you see anyone holding a gun to the heads of miners forcing them to follow their orders? You see, even the protocol isn't set in stone. If the majority of hashing power (or whatever non-full nodes) vote for a new protocol and use software that implements it, then that's the new bitcoin. That's what makes bitcoin _decentralized_.
You are misinformed. Had many miners not switched back to 0.7 no one would have been forced to do anything, we would have just had two hard forks of the blockchain and those who favored the 0.7 fork could use that and those who favored the 0.8 fork could use that. Of course who knows what that would do to BitcoinA and BitcoinB and their usefulness but my point is that the quoted above is factually incorrect. So, like any government in the world, now we have the left wing and right wing, bitcoin users finally have a choice I'm still not very clear how this fork will affect the merchant, will their business transaction get random error or they can select which chain to use by simply switching to a different client version? |
|
|
|
This fork is not PLANNED, since devs did not have time to identify the cause when it happened, the only reasonable reaction at that time is a roll back, this is common sense in software upgrading procedure
The 0.8 version of the mining software adhered more closely to Satoshi's white paper than 0.7 did. They should have stuck with 0.8 for this reason alone.
I think the 0.3 version is more close to Satoshi's original design, since then lot's of improvements were made |
|
|
|
I understand from technical point of view, the transaction function is very important, but there are other aspects more important than transaction function. Anykind of alt-coin can provide transaction function, litecoin even designed to process the transaction faster than bitcoin. Crypto currency's value is not only decided by its transaction function
Gold is not good at providing fast and large transaction, but that doesn't stop it from being the monetary base of world's bank for centuries, because it has superior consistency and stability, no one on the planet can change the character of gold, no matter how big power they have
With Bitcoin there is no reason we can't have both fast and easy transactions and a store of value at the same time. Maybe that is possible, but don't be too greedy and reqire too much at a time Currently you can not reach that goal without a hard fork, and a hard fork as you have seen in recent event, is a very dangerous thing if not planned and handled very well |
|
|
|
Wow, nice pictures. I wish I'd been the guy to do it, but I instead just plugged mine in first thing.
I think it's a shame how some ppl are failing to appreciate the design that went into the Avalon cases, and are planning to drill them full of holes, or get rid of the case completely. I can only hope that they'll sell what's left of the Avalon to me after they kill it.
I'm a hardware fan, it is something close to the physical world I think the placement of WR703 is questionable: It is directly exposed under the hot air blowed from the heatsink, and 43 degree is not an ideal working temperature for such a small device without cooling. I have seen someone placed it outside of the box and that makes some sense Same with PSU, it is located near the end of the heatsink where hotest air is sucked into PSU Currently my unit is put on balcony and the temperature there is -2c degree, but my weather sensor still reports a 37 degree at exhaust |
|
|
|
Gavin's quote is talking about "pressure" from the amount of transactions these businesses will put on the existing limits of the block chain. He's not talking about direct pressure from the businesses...
Using the chain != Petitioning the Bitcoin foundation
I understand from technical point of view, the transaction function is very important, but there are other aspects more important than transaction function. Anykind of alt-coin can provide transaction function, litecoin even designed to process the transaction faster than bitcoin. Crypto currency's value is not only decided by its transaction function Gold is not good at providing fast and large transaction, but that doesn't stop it from being the monetary base of world's bank for centuries, because it has superior consistency and stability, no one on the planet can change the character of gold, no matter how big power they have |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
