As someone once said, 'if you can't blind them with brilliance - baffle them with bullshit'.....
Translation: Our supposed chip is 3d (stacked dies) and for whatever reason we decided to waste precious die space by encrypting the normally un-encrypted data IO between the chip and the controller. The chips is an ASIC - look it up in Wikipedia.
Actually this part just looks like a very bad, non-technical translation of a sensible technology. When routing signal between the chips it is worthwhile to replace wide parallel buses with narrow serial ones. The circuit is called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SerDes . Now when you have multiple serdes-es working in the same equipment it is further worthwhile to shape the electrical noise with a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrambler . The modern scramblers/descramblers are usually trivial encryption/decryption circuits designed to provide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decorrelation to minimize mutual interference. Much better translation would use alternative names for the same things: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal-whitening and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitening_sequences . Notwithstanding the above I agree with the general trust of your post regarding 'baffling with bullshit'. But this particular piece of bullshit looks more like a standard marketing baloney very badly translated from Russian to English. Or maybe it even wasn't direct translation but a multi-step one with German somewhere in the middle. Edit: I particularly agree with this statement: But perhaps their target is not the end users but some naive venture capitalists.
|
|
|
|
You can try to sound all high and mighty but you just come across as an asshole.
The machine does not work as claimed out of the box. Your argument is completely meaningless. I dont care if you think its acceptable to go around individually asking every pool in the world to upgrade, that is not an acceptable answer.
Nobody buys a miner expecting they have to contact every single pool they want to use it on and hope that each of those people is willing to go out of their way, for free, to modify code to make it work.
Yeah, go ahead and tell that to those who bought the first color TVs or those who bought first smartphones with a web browser on a small screen and no support for Macromedia's Flash. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LudditeI try to commiserate with you about how do you feel about being on the receiving end of obsolescence caused by the technological progress. But I can't seem to muster more than about ±5% of expected variation. |
|
|
|
Thanks to philipma1957 I've typed in the visible information from the original image of the Halong's QA tool. Everyone is welcome to make their speculation. We especially welcome those who can read Chinese and translate the column titles. | 10.31 | 83/76/0 | | 14.70 | 75/77/78 | | 15.29 | 74/77/76 | | 14.50 | 76/70/72 | | 14.65 | 77/72/74 | | 15.65 | 75/73/77 | | 14.89 | 75/70/67 | | 15.25 | 81/73/83 | | 15.47 | 78/77/76 | | 14.98 | 75/75/77 | | 15.14 | 77/73/77 | | 14.94 | 82/80/77 | | 14.92 | 79/76/77 | | 15.28 | 82/77/81 | | 15.14 | 79/74/81 | | 15.54 | 85/80/78 |
|
|
|
|
April 24 Update.
Halong Mining is insisting that we ship 1000 miners starting this Friday that performs anywhere from 0TH-16.2TH while majority are 13-14TH/s units. They insists these were tested in-spec miners as advertised. The below photo comes from QA system screenshot in China as of the 24th in the evening.
As a service to community I wanted to retype the data from that screenshot. But unfortunately it got already replaced with a new one showing better numbers in a narrower range and this time it doesn't show the titles of the columns, which were in Chinese characters. All I remember that there was at least one row showing 10.XX TH/s and XX/XX/0 in the next column. Maybe someone here has a browser with larger on-disk cache and can dig up the original image? It is fun to watch the propaganda sausage being made. |
|
|
|
I kinda like reading your posts. It is like watching in real time the rise of class consciousness in the oppressed proletariat. I had this in school in the political science classes and at that time I could not understand most of the material. Why people won't learn? They certainly can read and the libraries are free of charge? What is their problem? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_ManifestoNow we have nearly-free flat-rate Internet and the problem is very similar. The information is out there, free for anyone to read. But the mining proletariat prefers reading propaganda, indulge in fanboism and other partisan behavior. Nowadays I would blame it on overabundance of information. I have to at least give to you that you've shown at least a single thought of your own and didn't just regurgitate somebody's else ideas. Up till now I haven't seen anyone referring to accepting ASICboost-ed blocks with rolling version numbers as "temporary workaround". So this must be your own thought. /* snip philipma1957 quote */
so ur confirming that the t1 is hardware locked to only allowing asicboost correct?? address all of the issues before u start spewing nonsense phil. u can have a million pools able to mine using asicboost but by ignoring the issues u put ur rep out there and tell folks its ok to be duped and lied to. its ok to use miners that are hardware locked to 1 form of mining and at present 1 coin. that customers should expect to be ripped off by a company they trusted with their money. in the end it only shows that free machines will change ur mind and ur able to be bought and traded just as easily as the folks u deemed unfit to provide their opinion lol. its a shame that ur willin to promo a company for so little. I guess the truely trusted members should be the ones that get 0 hardware from companies or that do get hardware to test and immediately send it back or give it away to the community....basically folks that dont gain something to sway their opinion one way or another. once u decided to accept free hardware to change ur opinion u turned into someone u openly made comments about on the forums lol. sad
/* snip 2112 quote */
no one is sayin it cant be done. almost anything is possible really. its possible to own my own tiger....i can drive a new car every day of the week....i can live in a 50 room house with 8 pools but none of that changes the facts i keep mentioning. they lied to customers and misrepresented the specs of the miner in order to gain sales. Folks that are paid shills have and still are (phil) trying to bolster the rep of these companies so they get a little money or hardware in return which is equally as wrong.
the correct solution to this problem would have been to not lie to begin with. they could have produced a chip that had the best of both worlds. the fact that u consider a change to pool software to allow for things a solution proves ur ignorance. a solution is one that doesnt cause other people (pool opps etc) un needed stress and annoyance. what ur suggesting is a band aid. its like using duct tape to fix a leaky pipe. it may work in the short term as a work around but the issue should have been resolved at the earliest design stages and the face that they pre sold machines knowing they were lyin to customers proves they were bein greedy and r now havin less and less positive comments posted about these machines.
/* snip Bob-Bit quote */
right u r my friend. i think he meant "temp work around" because theres no way he meant solution. nothin like hearin folks that think altering the code of their site simply to allow a lyin companies products to be used there. theres no possible way thats a solution.
|
|
|
|
Yeah, it's definitely limiting. What if a person had planned to point their miner at a list of profit switching pools and profit switch from the list of them? (Maybe, Nicehash, Zpool, and Miningpoolhub for starters) There could be 150 different SHA-256 based coins mined and auto exchanged for BTC in that scenario, and there'd be no way to make it work with all of them even if the pool wanted to, the coin developers would all have to get involved, and there would need to be consensus.
Oh, well, I understand the perils of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bottom_trawling or being a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bottom_feeder . At those depths the alt-/shit-/scam-/etc- coins have so little daylight coming in that those coins and pools have less than one full time developer available to implement the changes. But this is your opportunity to move up the food chain. Even with very little coding skills you could see what were the changes made by -ck in his pool code and by the Core team in the official Bitcoin client. Even if those highly visible projects wouldn't accept your pull requests some of those less visible repositories would welcome them. This is the way to personally affect your destiny, you don't have to always be the one that's getting oppressed. |
|
|
|
that means u didnt understand what we posted at all. stop talkin about the pools and what needs to be done to allow for asicboost on a mining pool. we have stated that THE HARDWARE OF THESE MINERS REQUIRES ASICBOOST TO MINE PERIOD. this means that u cant mine another coin....they can only mine btc at select pools period. its locking a user to one thing and 1 thing only. that isnt what they paid for at all. they got lied to and duped. so again do u understand now?? ur telling me that folks have to "pester" other coins to allow this to work. if bitmain made the s9 to allow asic boost to be turned on and off at will (via the firmware like posted before) y did dragonmint not do the same?? y did they force it??
Why I would care about understanding what you (and your ilk) posted? I understand the source code of Bitcoin and the alt-coins developed based on Bitcoin's code. They respective coin daemons supported ASICboost long before the patent was published. The entirety of problems with ASICboost was that their code outputted a warning about "unexpected packet version numbers" (or some such). This is the fun and interesting part about Bitcoin (and other cryptocoins): the source code is the law. One could safely ignore what do people say and write and just look at the code. I'm not even posting this to convince you. All I need to know is that you are voicing the problems that are facing many other miners. The solution for their problems (of lack of support of ASICboost) is to modify/loosen some conditional tests in their mining pool software. Somebody less mentally agitated than you will read what I wrote and actually implement those changes. Your level anger is directly proportional to your inability to code the appropriate changes. If you knew how to code you would've known how easy is to effect the required change. So the real problem is your learned helplessness. |
|
|
|
That still doesnt excuse the fact that this is a Bitcoin Classic miner only. It cannot mine ANY other sha256d algo. They also didnt mention that until months after pre-order.
Apparently you've fallen for some propaganda. The miner doesn't know what coin it is mining, all it cares is that it has the well known 80-byte header structure with 32-bit nonce in a known position and SHA-256 applied twice. In addition to the above boosted miner cares about the position of packet version bits in the header. All Bitcoin-derived coins use the same header format and nearly identical software. To enable ASICboost for them is nearly trivial and involves mostly removing (or loosening) some corner-case checking code. ur not understanding...u cant go mine peercoin with these machines. u cant go mine bch with these things. u cant go mine a new coin that comes out tomorrow (idk of ne but lets say one dropped tomorrow). ur stuck mining btc only with no choice. ur also limited to 3 pools now. if the pool turned off asicboost support right now all of the dragonmints would die. understand now??
I understand coin mining quite well, I worked on and modified mining software and developed FPGA mining hardware. It is you who doesn't understand the code and had fallen for propaganda. All you need to do is pester the alternative coin mining pool operator to ignore certain bits in the packet version field and slightly augment the handshake that establishes the connection to the pool. The required changes are nearly trivial, couple of lines of code. |
|
|
|
Well how about that. Yet another good reason to add to my list of "never sell shares or take investments". Why would a lawsuit in any way solve that problem? After the initial offering, isn't share price determined entirely by market speculation?
Well, of course speculation isn't everything. The main influence on price of shares is through the actions of the company's management; what they do and what they don't do. Apparently "what they don't do" is the major opening for shareholder litigation. So the smart lawyers convert that to "we did it, but we didn't see the promised return on investment". |
|
|
|
They also supposedly had some kind of "in" with Intel for chip fabrication. If the buzz from them had panned out, they would be a major player in terms of Bitcoin mining hardware.
Instead their one hardware product has been completely orphaned, and their current business model has no mention of Bitcoin mining chips nor Intel.
Yeah, the story is as old as shareholder litigation in the USA. It is a long term defensive strategy. IANAL, but the way it was explained to me is as follows: Large company listed on US stock exchanges is bound to be sued nearly anytime anybody is unhappy with the price of their shares. Those lawsuits are quite expensive to defend against. The best long term strategy turns out to be investing small sums in scatter-shot way in all kinds of businesses related to their main business. Even if that joint venture is a scam, not a real business, the large corporation for a period of time gains inside knowledge of the operation. That knowledge is being obtained cheaply on a friendly terms, not in a very expensive way of discovery during a litigation. In other words the large corporation obtains inside knowledge to successfully defend itself against future lawsuits. That defensive information is obtained extremely cheaply (compared to the actual adversarial litigation) that even investing small sums in hundreds of businesses is cheaper than a single completely unanticipated and unprepared defense. |
|
|
|
Quoting in entirety to preserve for posterity. I am developing a highly secure network that uses Secp256 for encryption and the main interface into the network uses
SOCK4/5 to act as a proxy stub.
Browser ---HTTP/SOCK4-5--->Local Node----------->Remote Node--------->Internet
or
Internet (Port forward)--->Local Node-------->Internet
Much like bitcoin the network is decentralized and down the road it will provide file-shares, Tor type .onion sites with
redundancy and a message service with end to end encryption without the bullshit we are getting from Telegram and WhatsApp
Now lots of people want free file sharing and private secure VPN services but few of them would want to port forward services
in the routers firewall or even understand how to do this so my proposal is that if miners will host some network nodes and then in return
the client nodes could provide mining services since some channels are bidirectional so in effect mining requests can be pushed to
client nodes.
Browser ---HTTP/SOCK4-5--->Local Node----------->Mining Node--------->Internet
Local Node<----------<Mining Node<------Sock4/5-------<SHAL256
Unfortunately the software is under development and has not been ported to Linux and will need hosting
on windows based platforms so miners will need a windows machine on the LAN but after that it's just a
question of using web-sockets for an interface into the network.
I don't know if a protocol already exists that works with SOCK4/5 for mining but I am sure it can be done without having to
hijack peoples machines so maybe someone here can fill in the missing blanks for me.
|
|
|
|
Is also a safe bet that Intel would not bow to customer demands to know specific process parameters and chemistries.
/* snipped a case study of attempted theft of the intellectual property */
I don't doubt what you wrote, but I just think that it needs to be way more carefully explained, with many more technical and legal details. Here's a short snippet about Intel's collaboration with Mentor Graphics from the above link: Mentor's circuit simulation and sign-off tools are fully enabled for Intel® 10 nm tri-gate process technology for customers of Intel Custom Foundry. The Calibre nmDRC* and Calibre nmLVS* platforms help teams optimize their designs to meet process requirements, providing industry-leading cycle time and physical verification accuracy. Customers are now able to apply these differentiated capabilities to designs targeted on Intel Custom Foundry's design platform. The Analog FastSPICE* circuit simulator for nanometer analog, mixed-signal and RF verification delivers foundry-certified SPICE accuracy and industry-leading performance, capacity and device noise analysis.
Which basically means that Intel had shared very detailed electrical and mechanical information with Mentor Graphics to build a detailed analog model of the actual circuits manufactured. The analog SPICE models are electronic, but many electrical parameters have direct equivalence with the mechanical and thermal parameters of the process. In turn anyone licensing Mentor Graphic's toolchain would easily reverse-engineer those. So when you say "customer demands to know specific process parameters and chemistries": they will get the final specifications of the finished products, but won't get the access (or just very rough access) to the intermediate steps of the fabrication. My guess is that when NODEheaven "reached to Intel", his query got the same handling that e.g. "reaching to American Airlines about chemtrails" would have gotten. Any semiconductor-related business must be getting so many public inquiries about "coin mining ASIC" from crackpots that one has to really stand out to get any other handling that simply trashing. |
|
|
|
AFAIK Intel has never contracted out their fabs to anyone outside of the Intel family.
I can understand why - doing so inevitably leads to process IP leakage. One way it happens is from a customer pushing to get enough information so they can leak to another fab under the guise of "creating a 2nd source 'just in case'..."
Then what is "Intel Custom Foundry"? https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/foundry/overview.htmlEven somebody on this forum tried to manufacture Bitcoin ASIC using the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achronix technology, which is another fabless company. And according to the Wikipedia they fabricate at Intel and TSMC. That was when Intel's 22nm process was the state-of-the art. IIRC that Bitcoin ASIC on Achronix was something obviously stupid, like they wasted chip space on testing logic despite SHA256D being self-testing and PoW mining being a lottery. Personally, I think the American-headquartered companies with fabs (like Intel, etc...) are just much better at enforcing the legal contracts with their partners about mutual-nondisparagement (or whatever is that legal concept called) in their fab-for-hire business. So there's much less opportunity for some dumb rumors to spread, like the recent "Samsung enters Bitcoin mining business." I really don't feel like digging back through the history in this forum. But if somebody is interested and they want to verify what I just wrote, then you are free to dig for the actual references to the Achronix Speedster and how quickly the rumors about Intel's involvement in coin mining had gotten quashed. |
|
|
|
What 'we' want is the the miners to work on ALL pools - not just ones that have their code tweaked to accept Little Dragon's AB design that Halong is using. Nothing at all was said about this until 3 months after sales started. Folks purchased them under the impression they would work on ALL pools - not just a very select few.
The real question is: what is preventing pools from adding the support for ASICboost? The official Core Bitcoin client always accepted blocks that were mined with boosting. The recent change was just to remove warning about unexpected forks or version numbers or some such. The required code change is pretty much trivial. Personally, I see quite a few people felling ashamed that they gotten themselves drawn into the ASICboot propaganda and counter-propaganda. This just increases the inertia of the adoption of it. Certainly, on the pool side the patents don't apply. Edit: So you ninja-edited your post: Then there is Halong and Little Dragon Technology LLC's (holder of the AB patent) intense secrecy as to who actually owns/runs them. Hell they won't even give a City/Provence/street address for contact. All they give is their Lawyers:
More or less standard operating procedure when developing a product that could be subject to contested patent. It appears that your familiarity with patent system is only at the head-end: how to get a patent and hang it on the wall. You don't appear to show any familiarity with the ass-end: how to extract the royalties from unwilling competitor and how to defend yourself against litigation trying to turn your precious framed certificate into a roll of toilet paper. |
|
|
|
trying random numbers for bmminer.conf for parameter { ... "multi-version" : "1" } but haven;t noticed any changes.
I also have tried this..........it doesn't appear to work
Thanks, guys. Please follow the developments in the old "Bounty for Cracking Bitmain S9 BMminer" thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1569129.0which was moved to the Economy->Marketlace->Services and post here if anything changes. |
|
|
|
|
Did anyone here in this thread managed to enable the ASICboost on their S9's and try to mine on one of the two pools that support it? The old rumor had it that S9 does support ASICboost under the name "multi_version" (or some such), but it was tried only on the testnet pools.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm curious one fact related to this project: now that we have nontrivial pools supporting ASICboost, does anyone know how to enable it on those miners? The rumors had it that it has only been tried on testnet pools and that there's some secret switch named "multi_version" or something similar.
|
|
|
|
Measure the DC voltage (if any) between the individual heat-sinks; while operating, but open, with additional external desktop fan providing additional cooling.
I'll try to accommodate this. Unit wasn't friendly with me when I had the fans disconnected or even connected, will try a workaround. Thanks in advance. If you can't do this with the unit open then just measure the voltages on those heatsinks that can be reached through the case openings with the case closed and just the fans temporarily moved aside. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
