لايوجد اي نوع من "عدم التطابق" اخي يحى كما نوه الاخ اوفين في الاعلى, الموضوع يحتاج.

يجب ان نفرق بين الاتي:

UTXO
ADDRESS
WALLET

ولنبدا بالترتيب

1- UTXO او Unspent transaction output :

في البتكوين لايوجد شي اسمه تحويل رصيد من حساب لحساب, مايحدث هوا نقل ملكية جزء معين من عنوان لاخر, لايوجد شي اسمها "رصيد" محفظة على البلوكتشين كل مايوجد هوا UTXO ومن يمتلكها, يمكن لنفس العنوان ان يمتلك اكتر من واحدة, مثلا يمكن امتلاك 10 اجزاء من 0.1 باجمالي 1 بتكوين, هنا يمكن ان نقول ان العنوان يمتلك 1 بتكوين بينما في الواقع هوا لا يمتلك ذلك بل يمتلك عشرة 0.1, يمكن دمجها في جزء واحد في حال قام بارسال ال 10 Inputs في Output واحدة حيت سيكون له UTXO واحدة بقيمة 1 بتكوين.

العنوان: كما تم شرحه في النقطة السابقة, العنوان لايوجد فيه شي, هوا فقط مجرد رقم, ولكن عند البحث عنه في البلوكتشين فانت في الواقع تبحت على UTXO اللملوكة لذلك العنوان, ويقوم المتصفح بجمع تلك القيمة ويقول لك ان هدا العنوان لديه 1 واحد بتكوين بدلا ان من ان يقول ان لديه 10*0.1.

المحفظة: المحفظة يمكن ان تحتوي على الاف العنواين, وكل عنوان يمكن ان يمتلك الاف ال UTXOs فالناتج الاجمالي الذي تراه في المحفظة هوا اجمالي ال UTXOs الواقعة تحت سيطرة العنواين التي تمتلكها, يمكنك الاطلاع على ال addresses من محفظة الكتروم وسوف تتفاجيء انك تملك العديد من العنواين وليس عنوان واحد.


الان لناخد تحويل ال 0.0065BTC الذي قلت فيه انك قمت بتحويل 0.0035BTC فقط.

https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/transactions/btc/bc43cf5014707cca4fe55f4bf459d45be7a0ac567c4df4c6e2229294bdf71237

لاحظ هنا ان هدا التحويل يوجد به 2 inputs and 2 outputs.

رصيد عنوانك bc1qcgz7decp44zu8d26gjceuef0myz6j3ccljp5dm في ذلك الوقت كان 0.0065 ولكن تذكر ماقلت في الاعلى, الرصيد لايعني شي, فعنوانك كان يمتلك 2 UTXO واحدة بقيمة 0.0035 تحصلت عليها من هدا العنوان bc1qvzqk9g7fwp3vfeztfy70677y9j5l3yq3e9ex4t

والاخرى بقيمة 0.003000 تحصلت عليها من هدا العنوان  3KwPvRduFCweK27XMuos3JHZFkTs8yz1SM

يعني انك لم تستقبل ال 0.0065 في مرة واحدة.

حسنا : في ذلك الوقت ان اخبرت المحفظة انك تريد تحويل 0.0035 ماتفعله المحفظة هوا اولا محاول ايجاد UTXO بقيمة اكبر من هدا الرقم في حال وجودها سوف تستخدمها هي فقط, في حال عدم وجوده سوف تقوم باستخدام اكتر من UTXO ونظرا لانك لم تقم بحساب رسوم التحويل فان 0.0035 غير كافية لارسال 0.0035 , فلو كنت ارسلت 0.0035 - التكاليف, لكان هناك فقط مرسل واحد ومستقبل واحد

ولكن هدا لم يكن, فالمحفظة هنا استعانت ب UTXO اخرى بقيمة 0.003000 وهنا مايفسر وجود 2 inputs ستجدها مصنفة على FROM في الرابط الذي وضعته في الاعلى.

حسننا الان ماذا حدث ؟ نظرا لانه لايمكن ان ترسل جزء من UTXO وتبقي الباقي يعني ان المحفظة عليها ارسال 0.0035 + 0.003000 = 0.0065 ولك لان هدا الرقم اكبر من الذي تريد ارساله فقامت بارسال 0.0035 كاملة للعنوان الذي ادخلته حضرتك وهوا 1KMQ52hpR3Mha7RPKjcTLuffgwoF8XXBWw (يبدو كعنوان منصة لانه Lagecy) وقامت بارسال الباقي الى عنوان اخر تمتلكه المحفظة الخاصة بك وهوا bc1qu393pmyeztsret887mvxp3nx836gnaas9m3y58.


ان قمت بايعاد السناريو وارسلت 0.0035 - التكاليف كان سوف يكون تحويل واحد بقيمة 0.0035 لعنوان واحد
لو قمت بارسال 0.0065 - التكاليف كان سوف يكون هنا تحويل 1 من 2 Inputs لعنوان واحد.

You missed my thread last year? Link is in the above post.

OP, hosting your miners elsewhere comes with a greate risk, way overprices and you don't actually own the gears, reading any random hosting comtract twice will probably keep you away.

The letter K next to anything Bitmain is scary, the last time they put a K next to the S9 it was a huge disaster, I wouldn't rush buying the first model of any miner, I'd wait until enough people have tested it and reviewed it, keep in mind, that cheaper miners almost always mean less quality.

Nice stuff Phil, I hope you get to phill this little box pretty soon before the halving, is this in the same old farm which you had cooling issues with?

نسخة core هي الاولى على الاطلاق, وهي امتداد للكود الذي كتبه ساتوشي نفسه, وتوالت ادوار تطوريها وقيادتها عبر السنين, ايضا التبرعات الكبيرة التي تأتي من المؤسسات الكبرى مثل blocksteam وغيرها كلها تركز على كور لعدة اسباب يمكن لكل شخص تفسيرها بما يراه مناسب.

البعض يعتقد ان تلك الشركات تقوم بدفع تلك التبرعات والتحفيزات للمطورين لشراء ولائهم, البعض الاخر يرا ان هدا امر ضروري نظرا لان مطوري البتكوين لا يتقاضون اموال مباشرة نظير خدماتهم وعلى مجتمع البتكوين من افراد وشركات دعمهم, السبب ليس مهم مقارنة بالنتيجة, فالنتيجة ان core هي الاشهر, الاقدم والاكثر استخداما.

الشكوك الذي تراود بعض الناس مثل الذي تواجه ذلك العضو ادت الى الحاجة لي نودز او عقد اخرى يكون فريق مطويرها منفصل ع core, ولكن المشكلة هنا ان الناس اولا لا تحب التغير وتانيا لا ترى انه هناك حاجة ماسة لاستخدام نسخة اخرى النودز غير نسخة core, اعتقد مع الوقت هدا الشي يمكن ان يتغير في حال شعر الناس بالقلق من مطوري core.

كمستخدم عادي يمكنك استخدام اي نسخة تريدها , يمكنك ايضا كتابة برنامج خاص بك من الصفر باي لغة برمجة تراها مناسبة, المهم هنا ان كل تلك البرامج المختلفة تتفق في القوانين, فمثلا, احد القوانين تقول ان اي تحويل بدون توقيع صحيح لايمكن ادراجها في البلوكتشين, في حال قام برنامجك بقبولها اي فعليا قام بتغير القوانين المتفق عليها, هنا سوف تحدث fork وسوف يقوم برنامجك بانشاء بتكوين جديدة موازية لن يقوم احد بالبناء عليها وتجد نفسك وحيدا.

المعدنين يحتاجون العقد للتزامن مع باقي العقد, لاستقبال عمليات التحويل, وايضا لارسال البلوكات الجديدة الذي يجدونها, المعدنين ايضا يمكنهم استخدام اي نسخة يريدونها طالما تتوافق في التفاهامات او القوانين او مايعرف ب consensus مع العقد الاخرى.

I don't think it's an issue of money, anyone running a mixing service or any other service should be able to afford a few thousand dollars a month for a good support team, the problem is the training itself, anyone who works as a support member in Whirlwind needs to understand it inside out, or else, their job would be a matter of relaying messages to an actual person who has the answers, and that won't help much.

My guess is that given that Whirlwind is still new, it's probably only a couple devs on the team, and the resources are pretty limited if they focus on building, they can't respond to support messages or be active on form, and the opposite is correct, but good projects need good management, it's not enough to have the best software technical wise while lacking customer support.

The problem with most projects is that they grow faster than anticipated, you start a small project by yourself or with one or two friends, you write the code, test it, publish it, and then it turns out that in order to keep this live and running, you actually need 10 more people, but those are not ready, so now you and your one or two friends have even more things to do.

You go from just "develop and test" to develop, test, maintain, support, and train and find those 10 people, so overall, things get worse at the second phase of most projects.

This being a custodial service where trust is the code of it all, customer support is arguably the most important element of the whole project, If I send my coins and something goes wrong, I would want answers ASAP, it doesn't matter if my coins are stuck because of a small bug that the result of a huge improvement you added to the system, or because you migrated to a better and stronger server, as a customer I will panic and think my funds are lost forever, and it will be very hard for me to trust the service again.

Auto-Response emails are good, at least you get a confirmation that your email got there.


This buys you 1-2 days, right after that, a human response is a must, even if it doesn't solve the issue when it's complicated
As long as there is active communication, it would be fine if the problem takes a whole week to resolve, it's MUCH better than getting no response at all and the problem is resolved in 3 days for instance.

My take on Whirlwind is that at least the person who uses the bitcointalk account is indeed very intelligent, the concept and the idea of the mixer are pretty unique and interesting and have great potential, however, the overall management is pretty bad, lack of support, slow Email response, being inactive on the forum -- all fall under "bad management".

My advice to Whirlwind is to start seriously working on the support aspect ASAP.





 
 

لقد قمت بالرد على التعليق المشار اليه يمكنك ترجمة تعليقي بما ان لغتك الانجلزية ممتازة كما تبدو, لا اعرف ماهي المشكلة الشخصية بين ذلك الشخص وبين مطوري سوفتير core فأن دخلت على تقيمات بروفايله سوف تجد ان 2 من المطروين تركو تقيمات سلبية على حسابه, يبدو ان الموضوع شخصي فمهما حاولت اقناعه بعدم صحة كلامه فهوا لم يقتنع, هوا قال مالديه وان اجبت بما لدي, يمكنك الاطلاع على التعلقين والاقتناع بالشي الذي تراه اكتر منطقية, وان كان هناك نقطة معينة حول مطوري core يمكنك طرحها هنا.

Price list update 11/08/2023

Whatsminer:

Stock:

M30s+ 90TH - 98TH 9.2U/TH
M30S++ 102TH - 110TH  12U/TH
M50 122TH 28W    14.6U/TH
M50S 128TH 26W 19.1U/TH
M33s++ 225TH 31w 15U/TH currently out of stock
M53s++  280th-320TH 24W   24.2U/TH
M50S++  142th 21W  24.9U/TH


Antminer:

S19       82-86th          $8.8/T
S19pro 96-104th           $13.8/T
L7 9050m-9500m    $4450-$4980

** If your wanted quantity is 10 pcs or above, PM for discounted prices.

هده الجزئية ليست دقيقة, فالتغير لا يتطلب الاجماع, نظريا هوا يتطلب الاغلبية الاخيرة تختلف عن الاجماع, عمليا, ليس كل شخص في مجتمع البتكوين له نفس الدور او بمعنى اخر لايمتلك الجميع نفس التأثير على القرارات, اعتقد انني شرحت هده النقطة مرارا وتكرارا بالعربي والانجليزي, قد تم نقاش هدا الموضوع منذ فترة ليست بعيدة اتمنى ان احد الاشخاص رابط ذلك الموضوع لوضعه هنا فهوا يوضح الكثير من المسائل بخصوص مركزية او لامركزية البتكوين.

اما بالنسبة لصديقك فا اعتقد ان محاولة اقناعه بدون ان تكون قد فهمت كل شي حول هدا الموضوع سوف يكون صعب لانه قد يواجهك ببعض الاسئلة التي لايمكنكك الاجابة عنها, لذلك انصحك بقراءة التعليقات والبحث عن الموضوع الذي ناقشنا فيه هده النقاط ومن ثم العودة باسئلة محددة لكي نتمكن من مساعدتك.

1-bcoin node:

Totally independent from core, perfectly maintained, alive and running, used by Bitpay, Purse.io, Copay and many others.

2- btcd:

Totally independent from core, active since 2013, perfectly maintained written in golang

3- Bitcoin Knots:

Has over a 100 nodes online, all running with issues.

You wanted one, I gave you three, all those are active nodes that are not controlled by the current core devs, they all have active nodes that validate blocks based on the consensus and not what's written on core's code.

Just because MOST people prefer to use core, it means NOTHING, there are only 16429 core nodes out there, if 20,000 people run bcoin nodes they will have the majority of node software, do you think it's difficult to do that when and if needed? nop.

Now if you want to propose a change to the network, you are going to have to get the blessing of the devs that run one of the public nodes, and then you need to lobby around to convince the miners, and maybe one or two large CEXs, and walla, if your change doesn't require a hard form, you won't even need core devs to include it, if it does, you need to convince the people who RUN core to use bcoin or btcd instead, assuming the core devs refused the change while the majority of miners agreed to it.

I am not sure how to explain it better, it's not core devs fault that the majority of people use their version of node when there are others available, it's the user, you keep talking about core devs and that we should stop them from doing x and x, have you ever attempted to run a non-core node to help with that? probably not.

Also, based on your assumption that core devs control BTC, then you are simply saying that Microsoft controls BTC, are you aware that some Microsoft dev who maintain Github may very well just edit bitcoin core without dev's permissions? the question is, WILL people run a node that has a different consensus from what the majority want?

Miners chose to mine to a certain blockchain with certain rules, they also chose to mine to whatever node software they wanted, they could use Core, Bitcoin Knots, Lillbtcoin, bcoin, or even their one full node software, Bitcoin core just so happened to be the most popular piece of software, but that doesn't make it the ONLY one out there, while 98% of nodes run on core software, they do it for

1- popularity.
2- core is well maintained.

If enough people feel that they need to add more decentralization to the node level, they can just start using Core alternatives, you could write your own if you want to, it's very important to understand that what matters is the protocol consensus, not the software, Core is a medium that connects different people who happen to agree to the same rules, if everyone moves from core to XYZ node the next day, nothing will change, you will just start to have the same "issues" with the devs of XYZ.

It's not the dev's fault that people don't want to use another software, there is nothing much you can do when everyone wants to use the same piece of software, you could remove all the current devs, but the same issue will arise with the next team of devs.


There is a huge difference between "refusing the change" and not "approving" the change, if pools would want to oppose said changes, they would just fork the network, what would core do without miners? we will end up with 2 blockchains

1- very weak, broken, and approved only by core devs.
2- strong, the longest, secured by miners.

Which blockchain do you think CEXs and Wallets will support?

Miners are not fighting the core devs because none of the changes that were made affect the miner's income or how they operate, but if there will be a red line crossed where the devs attempt to fudge around with miners, it will be only a matter of time before everyone stops using core and move to something else.

Really, this is somewhat "an even fight" between all the parties, would be hard for a single party to force changes that are unwelcomed by the rest.

The devs can write whatever code they want, it's just a piece of code sitting on GitHub, it all boils down to who would enforce it, the devs have only one main advantage over everyone else which is the ability to take an initiative, but going beyond that they will need the approval of mining pools and exchanges.

Imagine a scenario where core dev wakes up tomorrow and simply change the 21M cap to 31M, they sure can do so, but it will be just a few lines of codes that changed on git, the new "version" of BTC will be sitting there alone until it's approved by mining pools, wallets, and exchanges.

The majority of the average users are driven by the large CEX and wallets operators, BTC to them will be what Binance, Coinbase, Trezeors, Electrum and etc refer to as Bitcoin, what's inside the code or how long the blockchain is, are all things that the average joe don't know about.

On the other hand, Binance will have to go through the core devs if they want to make a change, Binance could make their own Bitcoin B version of nodes but they will have a hard time convincing anyone to run it.

All the different parties involved (Pools, Devs, Exchanges, Wallets and etc) are directly influenced by the community aka the investors, this aspect alone is good enough to call bitcoin decentralized, although many people don't really understand what decentralization means, they assume that it means the inability to change, or that we have to hold an election and call the (10M people or whatever the number is) who use BTC to vote for every protocol change.

If enough large pools, a couple of large CEXs, and a few famous wallets agree with the devs to make a protocol change, it will likely go through, but that doesn't take away from the decentralization aspect, remember all those parties are controlled by the investors which is us a community.

You may think that this isn't a perfect form of decentralization, but this is the best it could get.

If RBF is not an option and the amount you sent is somewhat big, you would have to use a service like "BTC Transaction Accelerator" offered by Viabtc, those services are way too overpriced and not worth it for small transactions, the current fees for high priority is 29 sats/Vbyte, it's above the "usual", if yours is 2-3 sats and you are not in a rush, just wait a few more days, probably around the weekend.

The above conversion of mine was correct, the mistake I made was not specifying that the numbers are per day which of course made everything seems 24 times larger than what they are, but then using the correct time unit makes your source and mine identical, thanks for the correction.


Wouldn't call it unnecessary, because if you had to cool 0.25MW where either fan blowing or AC units next to your neighbor's wall, then that would be a major problem, your neighbor would be happy in the winter and mad in the summer, . but with enough distance that exhausted heat won't be felt, so ya attempting that in a crowded city is not so smart.


Those won't work for our case, there is a huge difference between sound dampening and soundproofing, what we need is the latter, sound dampening is important for recording studios and all, but they are poor in soundproofing because acoustic panels have very low-density/mass and thus they won't help much with soundproofing.



Thanks for the source, I will be looking into it, it seems interesting.


could you explain this further? how would noise escape up and not to the sides?

I received the Bitbox02 hardware wallet, they were nice enough to send me a Baseball Cap Open Source as well.




Sadly, I won't be able to test it and post a review in the coming days, I will be doing that soon, will sure keep you guys posted.

Thanks again to Albon, Becassine, and Shiftcrypto team.

Defining what posts qualify as spam is not something you can easily do, people have different perspectives. Also, the moderator might be looking for more posts no matter what the quality is, you know, just a way of "showing" that they have a huge community and he is needed, not saying the German mod is doing that, I am generally speaking.


Perhaps the German board could use someone like 1miau, pretty heavy-handed  I suppose.

Fishing for merit for the sake of financial gain is normal human nature, all boards including the English-speaking ones have the same thing in common, I see nothing wrong with it, the reason why someone wants more merit doesn't matter, as long as they are doing it the right way by posting quality posts they are worthy of merit.


One issue we face in the Arabic board is the exact definition of the technical words related to blockchain, we have a whole dedicated topic for that, the problem is, Arabic is rather complicated, in my country most people pass their English tests but fail Arabic tests, the blockchain tech as a whole is not so popular yet, so not enough qualified people have looked into it, to translate the technical terms you need someone who understands what it really means, and that someone needs to have excellent language skills.

We are slowly progressing into finding the right terms, but it will take some time, for now, if the translation sounds weird we all just stick to using the English version of the word.

10% for a few hours means it's more likely that there is something wrong than this being just "bad luck", but again, it depends on your hashrate, you mentioned "ASIC" so I assume it's an industrial ASIC miner with hashrate in the tera range, if so, then there is something wrong.

Possible scnerios:

1- Abnormal Hardware errors
2- Bad firmware
3- You using custom firmware that charges a lot of fee
4- The ethernet cable on that miner is bad
5- Your internet is too slow, can't find enough room for all miners to submit shares without packets dropping here and there

Could be more things to look at, start by looking at the status screen, you are better off making a dedicated thread in "Mining Support" since this isn't the perfect place for this issue.

The difference is; none of us is affiliated with all the custom firmware we mention here, while you are the owner of the firmware you mentioned, but now that I read more of your posts, i think you are not just spamming the forum to promote your firmware, you also seem to be pretty knowledge and could be a good addition to the forum, I gave you some merit.

On a side note: make sure you merge your two posts, it is against forum rules to post two consecutive posts like that.

The idea that theymos suggested is brilliant but doesn't really solve much of the problem unless the share/bonds holders are "average community members who care about bitcoin", what if we deploy such a pool and then Bitmain ends up buying all the bonds?

The funding itself needs to come from the community, but then running a PPS pool is no easy, there are two things that you need

1- Enough reserves to avoid bankruptcy:

Meni rosenfeld has a perfect formula for this, all you need to know is :

-Your pool fee
-Block Reward
-Bankruptcy tolerance.

The average pool fee is 2.5% as of today, the block reward is 6.25, Bankruptcy tolerance is optional, and how likely to bankrupt do you want to be? in the quoted topic the caclatuion accounts for 0.1% chance of going bankrupt, it can be increased or decreased however you like.

The formula is:

(Blockrewards  *ln bankruptcy) / (2*pool fees)

Applying the above figures we get:

(6.25  *ln 1000) / (2*0.025) = 863 BTC in reserve to be subject to only 0.1% chance of going bankrupt

Could be a higher risk of 1% and that changes the numbers to

(6.25  *ln 100) / (2*0.025)  = 575 BTC

Could increase the pool fee to 3% and that gives us

(6.25  *ln 100) / (2*0.03) = 479 BTC

going back to 2.5% fee and 0.1% bankruptcy chance after the halving

(3.125  *ln 1000) / (2*0.025)  = 431BTC

2-Have enough hashrate

This is very important, in order to be effective in the ecosystem, you need to actually find blocks, it doesn't help to have a dozen small community pools that don't find a large percentage of blocks, also, since block finding follows CDF, all pools are subject to variance, the variance is greater for smaller pools, prolonged variance can easily end up destroying the pool.

Imagine a scenario where we as a community collect 431BTC the next halving, and launch a community-owned pool only to end up with say 20 ph worth of hashrate, we would hit 3.11 blocks a year on average


The chances that we find only 50% of those blocks is 10.9%, the chance of finding only 75% of blocks is 24.9%, the chance of finding only 95% of those blocks is 38.8%, so the chances that we finish a whole year with it realized profit is pretty high.

Now say we manage to get 10EH worth of hashrate, everything changes, we should hit 1,460 blocks a year, the chances of finding only 50% of blocks is now (7.672567270428342e-100) pretty much 0% , finding only 75% of blocks is (6.983521049841958e-24) pretty much zero, finding only 95% of blocks is only 2.9% percent chance, so we will be almost guaranteed to start making profit in the first year.

So operating with a low hashrate is somewhat a high risk and higher chance for a project to fail, besides, it has little to no effect on "protecting the network" because unlike what most people think, just pointing your hashrate somewhere doesn't do anything, it's like all those folks who mine to their own node thinking they are securing the network, no you are not, you are just wasting power.

So now how would get 10EH worth of hashrate? going out telling miners "Hey come join the community pool" isn't going to cut it, we need one of two things

A- Run at lower pool fees: will require more reserves, longer ROI, not guaranteed to work.
B- Wait until there is real incentives for miners to actually use a community-owned pool.

Now B is only going to happen when one or some of the large pools try to do something stupid, miners will HAVE to move to a more honest pool, not for the sake of BTC, but for the sake of protecting their own investments since keeping BTC attack-free give it value, the opposite takes away from it, so they will be forced to use an honest pool.

What are we betting on right now is the fact that none of that large pools that make millions in profit will attempt anything stupid, we also assume that they take the right security measures so that nobody can have access to that hashrate and use it to do something stupid with it, hopefully, this remains the case forever.

We could use MDF inside, we have to build a second wall, it doesn't mean it needs to be outside the current wall, although technically, it would be easier to build outside.

Those pond fabrics seem like good sound insulators, they are high-density which is the most important element in soundproofing, will check to see if I can find them around, hopefully the price is reasonable.




source: https://www.extension.purdue.edu/extmedia/ae/ae-99.html#:~:text=Everyday%2C%20the%20sun%20beams%20to,available%20at%20the%20earth's%20surface.

1 BTU = 0.293 watts
so 10,560 BTU = 3,094 W per square foot
1 square meter = 10.76 squer foot
3,094 * 10.76 = 33,291w
1kw = 1000w
33,291w = 33.291kw per square meter.

ya, a lot of that is lost along the way, but really, 0.25mw is not a lot as far as ambient is concerned, have you ever walked next to a hotel or a large building and felt that it was "strangely warm" in the street? ya standing on the exhaust side of the HVAC or near the external ACs units will be too hot, but just by walking around, it would be hard to tell if the building is consuming 1mw or none just by the "feel of it".

0.25mw is a lot of "heat" in a closed place if the size is not too large, but as far as the outside it's too tiny to be noticeable.



what happens when you put 20 patio heaters inside the house and walk outside, are you still going to feel the heat? probably nothing much unless there is enough airflow forcing that heat to your direction, I have personal experience walking in and out of mining farms as large as 2MW, it's only warm at the exhaust side because heat is being pushed outside into that direction, walking around the other 3 walls you feel nothing.
 


I wouldn't be even attempting that in a crowded city, the nearest building is roughly 100m away.



We don't have the ACs in place yet, the noise is coming out the wall and more so from under the door, but sound travels in all directions so it goes through everything at different levels, there is at least a 20db drop between door open and close, but generally, it's not close to as quiet as we need it to be.

What altair_tech as well as china_dawn mentioned ( although the latter seems like he is trying to promote his firmware) is pretty accurate, however, I need to add a little bit more info just to clear things for those who don't know.

The underclocking of a miner requires two things

1- Firmware / CB capable of doing it correctly.
2- Hashboards that can withstand the lower voltage related to the underclock process.

Most of the time it will be an issue with the firmware or control board but in many other cases it could be one or more chips that simply can't run at the given lower voltage, so no matter what firmware you use, it just won't work unless you crank up the voltage which could make the whole underclocking operation useless.

It's even worse on these new miners because you can't set different voltages for each hashrate due to their physical design, on the older models like an S9, if there is just one hashboard that doesn't like the lower voltage, you could change it and keep the other two hashboard running at a lower voltage, sadly, not the case anymore.