OCP (overcurrent protection) is a common feature in PSUs, however it does not function as I think you are implying; it protects components from current spikes.

There are however also overload protectors, which are essentially fuses, that kick in to protect against draw that is too high on most PSUs.

This is why you rarely see an explosive failure in any quality PSU, even at high draws. If you buy a POS like the OP, well... then who knows what will happen. A quality PSU however can be run at it's full rating 24/7 365 days a year, and it won't bitch. Look for PSUs that are rated for their supply continuous rather than peak wattage.

As I mentioned before, I ran a 750W PSU, with ~875W coming from the wall (4 or 5 heavily overclocked 5870s), which was something like 5% above its rated capacity, and it kept ticking even after weeks of this until I swapped it out for a beefier supply.

I suppose the market needs people who refuse to listen to good advice though, or else all the cutrate vendors would go out of business.

?? Paypal does not like any reversals, doesn't necessarily make them less likely to happen. I ordered some item through paypal via credit card from a person, who did not deliver, and I did a reversal, it took 10 days, then they happily credited my card. Not sure where you are getting the idea that card reversals are some sort of universal paypal no-no?

That said, I'm guessing that with an active company like BFL, and the high sticker price of their products, you will likely see some hassle with a chargeback, and agree that just because it's a card purchase it will not be as cut and dry a matter to get your $$ back.

I want to make it perfectly clear in the first line: The power ratings listed on the rails are a lie. 20A + 20A + 20A + 35A + 35A + 20A = 150A (or 1800W). The rails must in fact share power load to meet the Labels' own criteria of providing 80A across the entire 12V circuit.

I second this fellows suggestion, though it looks like it is too late. You already ordered one of the crappier units on the market, a rebranded out of date throwback:

"It's another Super Flower unit, you're looking at something inline with the Mach1 1000w but less efficient and a cheaper fan.

It shouldn't even do 80+ standard at full load and isn't even modular.

A skip if you're looking for a 1kw unit. "

Why you would want a possible repeat of your previous experience, buying another "6 rail" PSU is beyond me. Again, most of these rails are in actuality shared load (as the total AMPerage of all 12V rails is only 80A). I can't find specs on the PSU, so if I were you I'd hope that the 20A rail is set for the mobo and peripherals, while the 35A rails are for the PCI-E connectors.

If you can cancel your order and return it for a refund though, I'd highly suggest you do that. 3 5830s will run easily on a 750W which you will end up saving money on if you get even a bronze rated supply like http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817371025 (one of my favs back in the day, probably still decent).

Let's not forget a big fat storm barreling around the eastern seaboard.

Well here's the thing, my guess is that PSU is not super high quality. The specs listed are the usual nonsense I remember seeing with low quality PSUs, notice that the total Amperage of the 12V rails combined is 150A. ?? @ that (thats like 1800W...).

Likely there is some crazy ass internal structure to this that distributes whatever load it can actually handle amongst the rails in some twisted shared fashion that isn't worth figuring out. Back when I used to be really into hardware, I counseled people all the time that just because a PSU is "1000W"+ doesn't mean it can handle any kind of load on it. My suggestion is simply get a quality PSU and then forget about it, it's worth the extra $20 by far, more than any other component (except I guess GPUs for miners).

Some people have a hard time believing me, but I ran a Seasonic X750 Gold PSU with 4 5870s overclocked at full load for a few weeks straight (before my 1200W shipped). It ran at scary hot temps, but didn't miss a beat powerwise, and once I got it transferred to a slightly less intense system, put out the sweet stuff for my second rig for months on end.

So my recommendation is to make sure you are purchasing quality, at least on a PSU.

Reading this made my head hurt, but I'm sure your heart is in the right place.

I'm not really following your calculations, so I'll just jump to the end, 50x the current difficult is 165,217,800; we can round that to 150,000,000 for you. ASICs will not be released until after the coin halving, by everyones estimate, so each block yields 25 coins for our calculation. 60GHash/sec mining on 150,000,000 difficulty will generate 1 block roughly every 5 months or so, yielding 25 bitcoins. If in 5 months 25 bitcoins are worth $11 each, that is $275, or roughly 1/5ths of the cost of a Single SC. So you would be able to repay your Single SC in approximately 25 months (2 years 1 month) at that difficulty.

Hope that helped, even if it was rough calculation.

That would indeed make more sense (guess my smarting eyes missed the word weekly in the OP), and allow for numbers to be more sensible. I still question a doubling of hashing power in 30 weeks, but it's certainly possible.

Power consumption definitely changes the name of the game quite a bit.

My eyes hurt quite a bit trying to look at the tiny numbers of the first image. I'm not sure what you mean when you say current increases, that you are referencing, but it seems clear at even a cursory glance that only the .2% / day rate is within sensible tolerances.

You are already starting your curves at 200TH/sec, when asic rates are close to parity with current GPU rates (that is to say the $ value of buying an asic in that world is similar to the $ value of buying a GPU in our current bitcoin world). Even the .4% curve, over the course of 30 days, increases from 200TH/sec to 400TH/sec, or using your values: 3,333 singles at a cost of $4,700,000 of hardware has been brought online that month. Possible I suppose, but let's not forget that the incentive to buy asics is much lower at this point, with supply potentially still far more limited than the current GPU market, and for comparison the entire GPU / FPGA mining set up running now is probably closer to $7m in value. Something to bear in mind I suppose, but seems very unlikely.



For the second graph, I would think for that to be helpful to yourself and others, you would want to use the step-function change that occurs with bitcoin rather than linearity, as it will certainly impact the results quit a bit. Difficulty takes a step after every 2016 blocks, based on time over expected time. If you were to luckily hop on that early, you drastically under-represent your first 5 day earnings, which would of course account for the majority of your first 30 day return. This would also be closer to the mark on reality, as the change of hashing power will almost certainly be far more accelerated than the even distribution you are working with.


Admittedly somewhat nitpicky, but I figure for usability these are low-hanging fruits.

How is that completely different?

Bitcoin charts: 3,293,791
bitcoindifficulty: 3,294,514

They are different by less than 3/10th of 1 percent.

Not to be a jerk, but it's not that hard to see why:

Last 120    205632-205633    30/10/2012 00:16    12'709'063.05    x3.85
Last 10    205632-205633    30/10/2012 00:16    12'709'063.05    x3.85

Difficulty just changed I believe? dot-bit is basing it's calculation on the last 1 block. That's going to be a vastly flawed calculation.

What the crap do you do with a 10 room house?

You've obviously not spent much time on the forums. Litt is merely remarking on a common phenomenon with the OP. One that I used to find quite annoying, but as I've slipped away from the bitcoin world, find less abrasive.

Are his ideas perfectly valid? Well who knows. Supply and demand is not the end-all be-all of marketplace. In May(ish) there were 6.3million(ish) bitcoins in circulation and the price was around $1/coin. Since then mining power has gone up about tenfold (meaning 10x as much hardware, all of which was purchased afterwards and needed to be paid off according to OP), about a million new coins have been mined and very few lost. But the price is 6 times higher today than it was then.  Obviously a limited analysis will be correct in a limited capacity, but there is more to it than that.

Do you mean potential hashing power? Because transistor count and hashing power are not directly correlated, as noted by the 2billion transistors of RV870 monstrously crushing fermis 3billion transistors in hashing power.

I'm spending my time trying to get my 5870 tri-fire setup going

Game on!

Hash rates haven't dropped much at all yet. It's not that hard to look, I've posted this site a jillion times.



That said, as a miner I do decide my actions on an hour by hour basis, and I shut my miners down days ago. Made me sad, but it had to be done.

It is, but not in a linear up-down fashion. As with many things in life, it's complicated.  This response goes to the OP as well.

You could have simplified your post by simply pointing out they use a "z" in place of an "s", which invalidates all their writings automatically.

EDIT: To be fair the numbers they are quoting come from: http://news.ati-forum.de/index.php/news/34-amdati-grafikkarten/1815-technische-daten-der-amd-radeon-hd-7990-bekannt

now, ati-forum is not necessarily official afaik, but I imagine they try to put out reasonably good information.

Why this topic again? Neither side is going to listen to the other.


This is the only statement in this whole thread worth saying.

LOL

I'd agree that if the only valuation of the coin is in what you can sell it for in another currency, rather than what you can do with it, then this is a problem. And that is how it stands now, though as the article points out this may be an effect of being < 900 days old.

Bitcoin walks a fine line, growth too slow, can't gain any traction or interest and it dies, growth too fast and hyperinflation kills interest in it; gain too much interest and it risks the powers that be stepping in and destroying it in its infancy ala Liberty Reserve. Honestly it seems like it has lucked out thus far by toeing the line, not getting shut down while generating some interest, attention and possible future expansion.

No system is perfect, and unfortunately the decentralized nature of the beast that we all love might be the real long term problem, in that change is quite hard to come by.