I don't get the 6-pin splitted to feed risers.

The 6-pin or 8-pin cables that you plug into the GPUs only carry 12V but the riser also needs some of the 5V feed included in SATA/molex.
Edit: nevermind I see there are risers that only take 6-pins and stepping the 12V down.

Whatever the case might be, I think either the PSU is faulty or something is very wrong since I never heard people also frying stuff like CPU/RAM/disks with the motherboard.

I'd be curious to see some pictures.

You might want to check this out: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1921659

Not cheap but it's nice quality. I have a couple of them ordered, should be here in a couple of weeks.

Seems that way. I would have paid good money for it though - if legit. But it would be way too much effort to fake this.

Thanks.

There's a lot of misconceptions and backwards logic in that slack.

You don't design a coin with ASICs in mind, you try to make a stable coin and if it grows large enough that it can support the R&D cost of ASICs someone will invest into them. Coins usually try to move away from ASICs (which is mostly why there are 40+ mineable hashing algorithms) but this coin is running towards ASICs. Coming from Spreadcoin that's all for decentralization and moving to ASICs which are not well centralized it's weird to say the least.

There will be a Spreadcoin swap but HLM will "maintain as close a build to DASH as possible until we dec-couple from their releases".

So it's safe to say that it will start with X11 which means due to multipools and the general nature of ASIC owners, most miners won't even know they were mining HLM as they get paid out in BTC.

And due to the speed of ASICs and the limitation of a single algo difficulty retarget the network will very likely have super fast and super low periods - unless a huge amount of ASICs will mine it 0-24h.

The more I read about HLM the more I think the coin takes 2 steps back for every step taken forward.

"DGW uses multiple exponential moving averages and a simple moving average to smoothly adjust the difficulty".

The difficulty retarget will increase or decrease the difficulty based on the hashrate to try and aim for 2.5 minutes between blocks. But it's not predictable without knowing future hashrates and variance.

If you think the hashpower will increase 50% in June then profitabatility for the same hash will decrease 50%. The difficulty doesn't matter as long as the retarget is doing its job.

Slack is annoying, not everyone is using it so all info should make it here considering it started here.

Anyway, what's wrong with spreadx11 algo?

If it will be plain old x11, many people will just dump and move on.

Why do you need DGW/historical data for difficulty based profit calculation?

Current profitability, or how many seconds it will take on average to find a block with a given hashrate is: (2^32 * difficulty) / (hashrate * 1e6)

Hashrate in Mh/s.

First things first, VRMs apparenty can handle much higher temps than the core itself so 90°C is fine by some. But I don't believe that.

I used to have a bunch of Asus GTX 780 Ti cards with ~91°C VRM temps which I could get down to about ~84°C. What I did was I bought a couple of thermal pads and put them on the VRMs so they were connected to the heatsinks through the pads, because otherwise there were no connection by default. I still think that specific Asus design was faulty.

I had Gigabyte 780 Ti's as well, but while they had no temperature sensor in their VRM, as per a cheap IR gun they were much cooler as they made contact to the heatsink by design.

So if it worries you, based on the design, I would buy some cheap thermal pads to put between the VRM and the heatsink.

coin-qt.exe -datadir=<dir>

VA doesn't really matter, always check the manufacturer's site for an uptime graph to see how long the UPS will hold at what capacity.

For example, my first UPS was an Eaton 5E 2000i 2000VA/1200W. But I quickly realised that it can only handle 500 watts load for 9 minutes. You can see the graph here: http://powerquality.eaton.com/5E2000iUSB.aspx?cx=84

My UPS was faulty (it constatly output 250 volts instead of 230V which is above spec for most 230V hardware) so I sent it back and got an Eaton 9130i (1000VA/900W). The numbers are lower yet it can handle 500 watts for 16 minutes (http://powerquality.eaton.com/PW9130i1000T-XL.aspx?cx=3).

So yeah, always check out the uptime graphs.

Thank you!

Or you know, don't "invest" in ICO's in general.

The official bootstrap is old. Doesn't help me sync beyond block 37257.

Can someone send me a bootstrap (simple copy of blk0001.dat file) please?

I've been seeing a miner mod called "ccminer/enemy-0.2b" on yiimp's benchmark page and this miner seems to be pretty fast in every algo.

Anyone have any info on this fork? PM if you know something.

I can't sync ahead of 37257 no matter what I do. Not even from the bootstrap or even with the older wallets, without even a config file and with a new wallet.

That's crazy. I have 4 x AORUS 1080 Ti (4*300 watts=1200W) on one of those PSUs and at around 100% power target some cards will turn off with an error. Not a regulat driver crash error which you can come back from with driver reset, but one similar when you pull the 6/8 pin off the card mid running and you have to restart to fix it. If I don't run all 4 cards at once or if I run them at lower power target they're working fine for days.

And to add an additional 2 x 180 watts?

Unless you're heavily reducing the power target there's no way they're all running off of a single 1300 watts PSU, not even if they're founders edition. I can only think of a couple algos that would use so little electricity that they could work at 100%.

If you have to rely on others to clone a coin for you, you shouldn't have a coin.

Why would anyone tell you?

A non-mineable PoS ICO shitcoin with massive market manipulation so nothing extra really going on, business as usual.