Power consumption is of course a factor but if you are talking pure hashes per sec to purchase price these things dont yet compete. Or am i missing something? When the difficulty is high enough that 6990s just barely turn a profit over the power cost, FPGA mining will become very cost effective. |
|
|
|
4. remove the u
When everyone talks about uBTC and nobody cares about "BTC" you can drop the u and call it BTC.
No. Changing what BTC or Bitcoin means is simply not a good idea. It is far too late to do that. You need to introduce a new unit with a new name (try to avoid prefixes) and NOT change that. |
|
|
|
I think the amount of money involved is getting large enough to hold some people (at least moraly) accountable of something goes wrong. I disagree. |
|
|
|
What is the current state of the DE0-nano (how many MH/s, room for improvement)?
It fits with the unrolling parameter set to 3 (just). This results in one hash per 8 clock cycles, or 6.25MH/s at 50MHz (Max 79 MHz). Depending on price/difficulty it would bring in $5-10 per month. As with any development board, it isn't a cost effective mining solution. It is, however, a good choice if you're looking to learn. |
|
|
|
it reports 48C for the junction temperature. I might just keep it at 50 to be safe. Altera commercial FPGAs are rated for 85C JT. After doing some digging to get the JTAG device ID (the JTAG debugger in Quartus doesn't seem to think this is worth mentioning) I finally have it running on a DE0-Nano. I started with the plastic cover on, took it off and found the FPGA quite hot to touch. With it sitting over a not-so-small PC case fan with the cover off, it has dropped to (what feels like) under 40C. It has successfully produced a block on the testnet  |
|
|
|
I'm worried about this scenario:
If we did make bitcoins 1000000 times smaller, and in a years time I've still got the current client (3.20), and I sent someone 10 BTC (thinking I was sending 10 new BTC), would it actually send 10 old BTC (=10,000,000 new BTC)?
Yes. |
|
|
|
Changing the value of what is called a "Bitcoin" is a very, very bad idea. Nothing kills a new product/service/currency like confusion/uncertainty/doubt.
If we want smaller, more usable units, then we need new names.
Eg.
1 Bitcoin = 100 Bitdollars
1 Bitdollar = 100 Bitcents
That's not confusing? I like the analogy to a stock split. Imagine if they changed the IBM ticker when they did a stock split. It is less confusing than "Hey guys! Your balance is now one million times bigger! However, you have the same amount of money..." |
|
|
|
|
Changing the value of what is called a "Bitcoin" is a very, very bad idea. Nothing kills a new product/service/currency like confusion/uncertainty/doubt.
If we want smaller, more usable units, then we need new names.
Eg.
1 Bitcoin = 100 Bitdollars
1 Bitdollar = 100 Bitcents
|
|
|
|
Why do you think that less demand is the same as no demand? This is an extremely common type of fallacy on internet forums. I am no closer to understanding it now than 8 years ago when I first observed it. Bitcoin was first with a new technology with several advantages of the the existing ones, and got kickstarted by the unwavering support of a bunch of libertarian hippies Bingo. Bitcoin gets the kickstart + novelty value. All bitcoin2 has is "Hai guise! We're a clone of bitcoin but with (more coins/faster generation/less fees/more fees/insert other parameter that was changed)! Plz come and mine." If you want to compete with bitcoin you need something completely new with its own novelty value. |
|
|
|
What is Bitcoin then more than a Ponzi scheme? Not this again! |
|
|
|
some thing else WILL TAKE ITS PLACE. Yeah. Bitcoin in its current implementation may die out, but the idea will live on. Perhaps soon we will have exchanges for the competing cryptocurrencies. |
|
|
|
The value of bitcoins is dependent on hash. No. You don't understand bitcoins, sorry. Read the thread, hopefully you will understand. If not, again, sorry. The sentence that I quoted does not make sense. I am sorry that you don't understand how to form sentences. Go back to school and hopefully you will learn. If not, neck yourself join the circus. |
|
|
|
Velocity of money means a decrease in the exchange of money. That's what it means. No. Velocity of money is the average frequency of the exchange of a unit of money per time unit. Considering that bitcoins are easily divisible, a decrease in the velocity does not necessarily mean a decrease in the number of transactions. A currency that will be worth more in the future will decline in transactions because there is little reason to spend it, when you earn money by holding it. People don't just spend money because they worry it will go down in value. They spend it because they need to buy things. A decrease in transaction fees leads to a decrease in mining profitability, which leads to a decrease in hash. ...Which leads to a decrease in difficulty, which leads to an increase in the profitability of mining. Of course, miners can just refuse to include transactions with low fees, encouraging people to pay higher fees, making mining more profitable. The entire system self balances. A decrease in hash will compromise the network. Current indications are that it is more profitable to be honest than to try to compromise the network. |
|
|
|
Yeah, unfortunately with transaction fees you have to deal with the velocity of money. In a deflating currency, the velocity of money declines, less transactions No, you get smaller transactions, not less transactions. less fees. I don't think you know how the fees work. |
|
|
|
The value of bitcoins is dependent on hash. No. |
|
|
|
(Mining profit = block reward + fees)
(Mining profit = (block reward)/2 + fees) in 1 year
(Mining profit = (block reward)/4 + fees) in 5 years
(Mining profit = (block reward)/8 + fees) in 9 years
It should be obvious that if you remove a source of mining income, miners will profit less. You are incorrectly treating "fees" as a constant. The issue with your presentation, and everyone else that has explained this, is that "transaction fees will support mining."
1) There's no proof of this.
There is strong evidence to suggest that fees will increase significantly over time. 2) It really does not matter.
I think I am finally beginning to understand your misunderstanding. You seem to think that: - Incentives only work if they are "new" coins
- Therefore, inflation is necessary to provide an incentive
- Therefore, anyone disagreeing you must be afraid of inflation
Your premise (first point) is wrong. Your second point is wrong due to relying on the first point. Your obsession with point three is baffling. |
|
|
|
In the past graphics cards were notoriously crappy with their cooling "elements". How is it now? They are big and loud. Cooling is not an issue if the case has sufficient airflow. You may have to manually adjust the fans, because the drivers may think 92C is not a good enough reason to go above 34% fan speed. |
|
|
|
Check with PowerPlay. Make sure no heatsink and no fan is selected, and the toggle rate is ~65%. See what it says the JT is. With a 50Mhz clock and the toggle rate manually set to 65%, it reports 48C for the junction temperature. I might just keep it at 50 to be safe. |
|
|
|
Try commenting out line 107, the virtual_wire for "NONC". It isn't currently used and should save a few LEs.
It worked! There was enough room left to add a blinking LED when it finds the golden nonce. Just. It seems to be reporting an Fmax of 82.31Mhz. Is this actually safe without a heatsink? |
|
|
|
June 2nd, 2011 - Flexible Unrolling Added: Smaller Device Support
Thanks to the patch submitted by Udif, the code now supports a configurable amount of loop unrolling. The original design was fully unrolled, with 128 total round modules. By adjusting the CONFIG_LOOP_LOG2 Verilog define, you can choose to unroll to 64 round modules, 32, 16, 8, or 4. This makes the design smaller, at the equivalent cost of speed, which should allow it to run on many more FPGAs.
If you're interested in trying the code on a smaller FPGA, open the projects/DE2_115_Unoptimized_Pipelined project in Quartus. Then go to Assignments->Settings->Analysis & Synthesis Settings->Verilog HDL Input. You should see a CONFIG_LOOP_LOG2 macro setting, which you can set from 0 to 5. 0 gives full unrolling (largest, fastest), and 5 gives the smallest design. You will also need to go to Assignments->Device and choose your FPGA, and set the correct clock pin in Assignments->Pin Planner. Then just compile and program!
If you would like help adjusting the design for your specific chip&board, just let me know. You just need to know the pin location of a clock source, and which Altera FPGA it is (specifically, including package and speed grade).
+1 Well done! No luck for DE0-Nano users. With the setting at 3: Error: Fitter requires 1397 LABs to implement the project, but the device contains only 1395 LABs With optimisation set for minimum LEs, it uses 22330. There are 22320 available. Oh well, it fits with 4  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
