Bitcoin Forum
May 28, 2024, 01:23:19 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 [48] 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 »
941  Bitcoin / Mining software (miners) / Re: [ANN] Eloipool - FAST Python3 pool server software - GBT/stratum/dyntarget/proxy on: December 08, 2012, 05:43:19 AM
By the way, what is the use of GotWorkURI? Shares found from getmemorypool work cannot be submitted via getwork, or can they?
942  Bitcoin / Mining software (miners) / Re: [ANN] Eloipool - FAST Python3 pool server software - GBT/stratum/dyntarget/proxy on: December 08, 2012, 05:35:40 AM
I was not running bfgminer with --debuglog.

I restarted eloipool to change some of its config, so it is too late to look at the RBFs variables.

The only trace of data I have on eloipool is the share-logfile. But I need to write some custom code to re-hash the share data there, to find out if the share hash with a 19.5M difficulty is in there. That's what I am doing now...
943  Bitcoin / Mining software (miners) / Re: [ANN] Eloipool - FAST Python3 pool server software - GBT/stratum/dyntarget/proxy on: December 08, 2012, 04:36:48 AM
I have been solo mining against an eloipool instance (revision 475de39) for the last few days, using bfgminer 2.9.3 and 'getwork'. eloipool is configured with a ShareTarget set to 0x0000000000fff... to emulate difficulty 256. I wanted to give this setup a shot before trying the newer Stratum protocol. I thought it would be a robust way to mine, using mature code paths (both at the bfgminer side, and at the eloipool side).

I was wrong.

I solved a block today. I know it because bfgminer currently shows "Best share: 19.5M". However eloipool silently ignored the solved block. There goes 25 BTC...

Furthermore, it is almost impossible to do a post-mortem analysis. I found out that checkShare() in eloipool.py has buggy logging code, so pretty much no useful information has been logged. Indeed, the checkShare.logger object has a default level of 'WARNING', so logfunc() below will never log INFO and DEBUG messages:
Code:
        logfunc = getattr(checkShare.logger, 'info' if blkhashn <= networkTarget else 'debug')
        logfunc('BLKHASH: %64x' % (blkhashn,))
        logfunc(' TARGET: %64x' % (networkTarget,))

Either eloipool silently ignored the block due to an internal bug. Or it crafted an invalid block which was sent to my bitcoind, who in turns ignored it because it was invalid. I am quite disappointed.

In case you care to investigate, Luke, here is my config.py:

Code:

### Settings relating to server identity

# Name of the server
ServerName = 'mrb eloipool'

### Settings relating to server scaling/load

# Share hashes must be below this to be valid shares
# If dynamic targetting is enabled, this is a minimum
ShareTarget = 0x0000000000ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff

# Automatically adjust targets per username
# 0 = disabled
# 1 = arbitrary targets
# 2 = power of two difficulties (zero bit counts)
DynamicTargetting = 0

# How many shares per minute to try to achieve on average
DynamicTargetGoal = 8

# Number of seconds hashrate is measured over
DynamicTargetWindow = 120

# Minimum and maximum of merkle roots to keep queued
WorkQueueSizeRegular = (0x100, 0x1000)

# Minimum and maximum of BLANK merkle roots to keep queued
# (used if we run out of populated ones)
WorkQueueSizeClear = (0x1000, 0x2000)

# Minimum and maximum of BLANK merkle roots to keep queued, one height up
# (used for longpolls)
WorkQueueSizeLongpoll = (0x1000, 0x2000)

# How long to wait between getmemorypool updates normally
MinimumTxnUpdateWait = 5

# How long to wait between retries if getmemorypool fails
TxnUpdateRetryWait = 1

# How long to sleep in idle loops (temporary!)
IdleSleepTime = 0.1

### Settings relating to reward generation

# Address to generate rewards to
TrackerAddr = '1xxx<obscured-address>'

# Coinbaser command to control reward delegation
# NOTE: This example donates 1% of block rewards to Luke-Jr for Eloipool development
#CoinbaserCmd = 'echo -e "1\\n$((%d / 100))\\n1579aXhdwvKZEMrAKoCZhzGuqMa8EonuXU"'

### Settings relating to upstream data providers

# JSON-RPC server for getmemorypool
UpstreamURI = 'http://<obscured-user>:<obscured-password>@localhost:8332'

# Set to True if you want shares meeting the upstream target to wait for a
# response from the upstream server before logging them. Otherwise, for such
# shares, upstreamResult will always be True and upstreamRejectReason will
# always be None. Note that enabling this may cause shares to be logged out of
# order, or with the wrong timestamp (if your share logger uses the log-time
# rather than share-time).
DelayLogForUpstream = False

# Bitcoin p2p server for announcing blocks found
UpstreamBitcoindNode = ('127.0.0.1', 8333)

# Network ID for the primary blockchain
#UpstreamNetworkId = b'\xFA\xBF\xB5\xDA'  # testnet
UpstreamNetworkId = b'\xF9\xBE\xB4\xD9'  # mainnet

# Secret username allowed to use setworkaux
#SecretUser = ""

# URI to send gotwork with info for every share submission
#GotWorkURI = ''

# Share hashes must be below this to be submitted to gotwork
GotWorkTarget = 0x0000000000ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff

# Aim to produce blocks with transaction counts that are a power of two
# This helps avoid any chance of someone abusing CVE-2012-2459 with them
# 1 = cut out feeless transactions; 2 = cut out even fee-included transactions (if possible)
POT = 2

# Avoid mining feeless transactions except to satisfy POT
# Note this only works if POT is in fact enabled in the first place
Greedy = False

### Settings relating to network services

# Addresses to listen on for JSON-RPC getwork server
# Note that Eloipool only supports IPv6 sockets, and if you want to bind to an
# IPv4 address you will need to prepend it with ::ffff: eg ::ffff:192.168.1.2
JSONRPCAddresses = (
('', 28332),
)

# Addresses to listen on for Bitcoin node
# Note that Eloipool only supports IPv6 sockets, and if you want to bind to an
# IPv4 address you will need to prepend it with ::ffff: eg ::ffff:192.168.1.2
BitcoinNodeAddresses = (
('', 28333),
)

# Addresses that are allowed to "spoof" from address with the X-Forwarded-For header
TrustedForwarders = ('::ffff:127.0.0.1',)


# Logging of shares:
ShareLogging = (
{
'type': 'logfile',
'filename': 'share-logfile',
'format': "{time} {Q(remoteHost)} {username} {YN(not(rejectReason))} {dash(YN(upstreamResult))} {dash(rejectReason)} {solution}\n",
},
)
944  Economy / Auctions / Re: Yubikey (MtGox coupon for it) on: December 07, 2012, 08:33:05 AM
Yeah... Turns out there is a bug on mtgox.com that marked the coupon code as "used" when it was not (because I had partially filled out the Yubikey request form myself, and then cancelled my request.)
945  Economy / Auctions / Re: Yubikey (MtGox coupon for it) on: December 07, 2012, 07:55:02 AM
Gene from MtGox replied:

Quote
Gene, Dec 07 16:52 (JST):
Hello Marc,

Sorry about that and I did check with our developer on this and provided you the update.Sorry for the information provided earlier to your friend.You will be able to provide Yubikey coupon code to a friend if you do not require.

Thanks,

MtGox.com Team

So he did give you incorrect info, SynOps. You *should* be able to use the coupon code I emailed you.
946  Economy / Auctions / Re: Yubikey (MtGox coupon for it) on: December 07, 2012, 07:49:38 AM
I confronted Gene with his 2 contradicting answers to each one of us. We will see what he replies.
947  Economy / Auctions / Re: Yubikey (MtGox coupon for it) on: December 07, 2012, 07:43:28 AM
SynOps, I just asked MtGox Support. The same support representative (Gene) answered me, and said it should be transferrable:


{quote}
Marc Bevand, Dec 07 16:28 (JST):
This is a follow-up to your previous request #45227 "Re: [MtGox] You are eligibl..."

Can I give this Yubikey coupon code to a friend?
There is conflicting information on bitcointalk whether coupon codes are transferrable or not.

---

Gene, Dec 07 16:38 (JST):
Hello Marc,

Thank you for your email.You will be able to provide Yubikey coupon code to a friend if you do not require and they can login to their mtgox account and follow the instruction provided in the email.

Let us know if you have any questions.

Thanks,

MtGox.com Team
{quote}
948  Economy / Auctions / Re: Yubikey (MtGox coupon for it) on: December 07, 2012, 05:46:55 AM
I had heard from MtGox these codes could be transferred.

This guy agrees too: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=129571.msg1383815#msg1383815


Let me ask MtGox myself... if they confirm this cannot be done, I will refund you.
949  Economy / Computer hardware / Re: [WTS] A metric ton of NEW 5970s, 7950s, 1200W PSUs, mobos 5 PCIe x16 slots on: December 07, 2012, 03:26:49 AM
Sold 1 more PSU. Updated OP.
950  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: [Announcement] Avalon ASIC Development Status [Batch #1] on: December 06, 2012, 08:29:57 PM
Time until Inaba/BFL_Josh comes to defend BFL in this thread:
5... 4... 3...
951  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: [Announcement] Avalon ASIC Development Status [Batch #1] on: December 06, 2012, 10:10:15 AM
Thank for sharing the info.

However you did not black out the top pixel line of the price digits, so we can still make them out by comparing them with other non-obscured digits in the document:

Pilot / Engineering Wafer Lot Price = either $1x,xxx.xx or $4x,xxx.xx
Production Wafer Unit Price = $4,xxx.xx
Mask Set Price = $2xx,xxx

It is probably possible to make out some of the unknown 'x' digits by counting the spacing between the pixels, but I was too lazy to do it. The most significantly digit is the most important one anyway.

This price quote is a proof to people who don't believe that ASICs are cheap to manufacture, after NRE costs are recovered. A 12-inch wafer costs $4k for Avalon. They will likely make about a thousand chips per wafer assuming a 50 mm˛ die. Which means each chip technically costs about $4. There is going to be ten chips or so per Avalon device, so $40 of ASIC chips in a device that is sold $1300. That's a profit margin of $1260! (I am simplying here, there are other minor costs: chip packaging, other components, PCB, etc, maybe $100-$200 maximum). Of course this insane profit margin is only valid once NRE costs ($200k+) are recovered. But some/all ASIC vendors will eventually recover them... so expect ASIC prices to eventually drop massively.

Actually this is very wrong, at this point in time, when we initially made the 300 order limitation, we were right at our break even point, and currently due to fees and other some problems, we are in fact in the red. Also while we can not reveal our chip numbers per unit, but it is much greater than 10 chips. Everyone is simply under the impression that 7GH/s chips are the "norm".

If you can get me those other components you mentioned like PCB, PSU and other stuff for 100-200 dollars maximum, maybe we should hire you to manage our component purchasing! a single good PSU is near $100...

Of course, I am simplifying and ignoring other costs: human resources (engineers), shipping, assembly, etc. And yes Avalon, as a standalone device, is a more complex/expensive than the competition devices, so add $100-150 to my numbers as I wasn't thinking about it. I have no doubt all ASIC companies are in the red initially. It will take you guys months to start being in the black. But after that point, you do agree with me that it will be mainly profits... (and good for you! or else you would not have started the business venture at all).

(PS: the number of chips per Avalon is mostly irrevelant to these price estimations. I estimate you will have about 500mm˛ of die area per Avalon device. Whether it is 10 x 50mm˛ chips or 20 x 25 mm˛ chips is irrelevant to my numbers. 500mm˛ of wafer space will cost $40 regardless.)
952  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: [Announcement] Avalon ASIC Development Status [Batch #1] on: December 06, 2012, 09:50:12 AM
Thank for sharing the info.

However you did not black out the top pixel line of the price digits, so we can still make them out by comparing them with other non-obscured digits in the document (I almost wonder if you did this intentionally):


Pilot / Engineering Wafer Lot Price = either $1x,xxx.xx or $4x,xxx.xx
Production Wafer Unit Price = $4,xxx.xx
Mask Set Price = $2xx,xxx


It is probably possible to make out some of the unknown 'x' digits by counting the spacing between the pixels, but I was too lazy to do it. The most significantly digit is the most important one anyway.

This price quote is a proof to people who don't believe that ASICs are cheap to manufacture, after NRE costs are recovered. A 12-inch wafer costs $4k for Avalon. They will likely make about a thousand chips per wafer assuming a 50 mm˛ die. Which means each chip technically costs about $4. There is going to be ten chips or so per Avalon device, so $40 of ASIC chips in a device that is sold $1300. That's a profit margin of $1260! (I am simplying here, there are other minor costs: chip packaging, other components, PCB, etc, maybe $100-$200 maximum). Of course this insane profit margin is only valid once NRE costs ($200k+) are recovered. But some/all ASIC vendors will eventually recover them... so expect ASIC prices to eventually drop massively.
953  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: [Announcement] Avalon ASIC Development Status [Batch #1] on: December 06, 2012, 08:20:43 AM
I might be a little tired, but I had a really hard time following you.

I edited my post to make it more clear: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=120184.msg1381594#msg1381594
954  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: [Announcement] Avalon ASIC Development Status [Batch #1] on: December 06, 2012, 07:36:16 AM
It could be read either way. English is not their primary language, so the semantics of certain sentences is ambiguous. I was just relating how I primarily read and understood BitSyncom's posts.
955  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: [Announcement] Avalon ASIC Development Status [Batch #1] on: December 06, 2012, 07:18:57 AM
You guys are all excited, but, to me, it sounds like BitSyncom is about to announce a bad news.

"deciding what to say" -> it is only when the news is bad that time is spent deciding how to say it.

"my engineering team has always been very skeptical regarding our competition for various reasons. It is my job not to under estimate the competition, but now I am forced to agree with them" -> the "them" refers to his engineering team. IOW the engineering team was skeptical of the competition's power efficiency claims, but BitSyncom disagreed, was more optimistic, and thought it was achievable; however the engineering team now confirmed their skepticism by having numbers showing that their own efficiency will be worse than the competition (which makes sense given that Avalon is 110nm and should be theoretically 3x worse in terms of power efficiency than 65nm (BFL)), so BitSyncom is forced to revise his optimism and forced to agree with his team that Avalon won't be competitive.

"what I'm talking about is actually the very opposite" -> he was expecting better results, but the engineering team's number look bad.
956  Other / CPU/GPU Bitcoin mining hardware / Re: nVidia GeForce GTX 680 on: December 06, 2012, 05:58:15 AM
To all those that say sell: STFU you are brainwashed noobs
If you want to play games, you must have a Nvidia card, if you want to do anything else try ATI.

To the others, work was going to invest in a Tesla box that would put out 6-10 TFlops based off 1-2 TESLA K20/K20X/K10 and i was thinking of doing a week long burn in with Bitmining, then seeing about setting it to run BC at a low priority.

But either way I dont pay for Power at home or at work, so BT/watt never has mattered.

So who wrote the last code for the Fermi cards that was optimized? Are there any groups that would take writing the code as a commissioned job?

People are right. Your profits on Nvidia will be miserable. This is not worth it, even with free electricity.

I wrote a miner from scratch in "Radeon pseudo-assembly" (CAL IL) 2 years ago. I estimated here that in theory a GTX 680 should be capable of 300-475 Mhash/s with a properly optimized kernel. That means a Tesla K10 (which is faster than K20 and K20X on integer or FP SP workloads) should be capable of 430-690 Mhash/s (linear scaling of cores x MHz). At current difficulty you would mine 1.9-3.0 BTC per month. If it takes a $100/hour consultant 10 hours to write an optimized kernel (it took me 20 hours to write my first version), then it would take 2+ years to recoup your initial investment. Given that ASICs are coming out in the next few months, you will basically never make your money back!

Now you see why we tell you to not bother mining on Nvidia...
957  Economy / Auctions / Re: Yubikey (MtGox coupon for it) on: December 06, 2012, 04:19:59 AM
SynOps wins! Please send 1.25 BTC to 1DSH4XgiyJ3DQ2HEuA4FSEsRBgWc5VTJUc and I will message you the coupon.
958  Bitcoin / Press / Re: 2012-12-05 MIT Tech Review Custom Chips Shovels in a Bitcoin Gold Rush on: December 05, 2012, 09:29:43 AM
Upvote the story on HN if you wish: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4875556
959  Economy / Auctions / Re: Yubikey (MtGox coupon for it) on: December 03, 2012, 07:25:04 AM
I am going to close this auction in 2 days, on Wednesday. Looks like SynOps will win it!
960  Economy / Computer hardware / Re: [WTS] A metric ton of 5970s and new 7950s, 1200W PSUs, mobos 5 PCIe x16 slots on: December 02, 2012, 01:49:37 AM
I have 5970s back in stock! I received them as warranty replacement units from the vendor, so they have never been used for mining, and are in very good condition.

I also have 2 brand new 7950s.

Updated OP.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 [48] 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!