 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 »
|
|
quote for the K325 in 100pcs was 187USD
|
|
|
|
|
getting 25k slices and 600DSP blocks for 100$ is better than 50k slices and 840DSP blocks for 200$.
The package is cheaper too so the price might be even better in favor of the K160 and higher volume = lower price.
Another benefit with a smaller package is easier and simpler pcb layout and it hurts less for each part that doesn't work due to bad soldering etc
|
|
|
|
|
From the prices given by the local distributor it seems K160T-1FBG484 gives the most bang for the buck.
The K325T costs about two times more and it's easier to deal with a smaller package.
There is no schedule yet for the 28nm version.
|
|
|
|
Quote from: grabber on May 26, 2013, 07:31:02 PM Can you share some more information with us? Hashing speed, watt usage, estimated price, drivers etc? It would be nice, if it will turn into a "product" which is able to sell. But really nice work anyway. I assume Hashing speed and watt usage will be very similar to ztex 1.15y since its the same IC. Very small variations between different implementations of LX150 That's correct. The current fpgaminer implementation is only at 180MHz but 200 should be reachable with some Xilinx tool massaging. Most LX150 will overclock above 200MHz on this board giving a total hashrate above 800MH/s even with the included bitstream. ~Pusle |
|
|
|
So what happened to the diff clock driver, did you ever get it to work as expected? Yes, it's not a perfect square but it works nicely. I've tested many different drive strengths and termination resistors which didn't have much effect on overclocking. There seems to be a wide margin. The included files are set to LVDS 2.5V for the synth, which is the recommended setting For extreme overclockers you may get a little more speed using SSTL 3.3 as it's even more square and faster rise/fall time. However with SSTL the signal swing is so large it's way out of spec and not recommended. |
|
|
|
This is an open source quad spartan-6 LX150 board designed by The Seven and myself in collaboration. Since it was completed way behind schedule we didn't see much point in releasing this version. However some people kept asking for open source boards recently so we figured why not. Version 1.0 has been manufactured and tested, but rev 2.1 has not. The differences are however minor. The software is not very complete nor user friendly at the moment but The Seven has been mining with this board for a while now. The plan is to make a 28nm version of the P7 platform where the software will include support for the LX150 version as well. We will try to give as much support as possible through this forum and IRC, but the files are delivered as is with no warranty of any kind. Use at your own risk. Read the txt file included for more information. ~Pusle download link: https://mega.co.nz/#!PcNlnBKJ!PN44_C7M2L0aiEd8BxyZNEbpGtJoytkXHbfSBkTAdFQ  |
|
|
|
|
This should teach everyone how absurd it is to make data illegal
Information does not commit crimes
|
|
|
|
|
If BFL uses standard cell, I think they would have to go with 45nm to have chance to meet their spec.
What is the mask cost of 45nm these days?
But I figure they will go with a 45nm multiple wafer run, ie several designs on one wafer to cut down the initial cost.
They will quickly get delivery problems but now they have proven their product.
I guess the next step is to get enough preorders by then to cover the cost of a full mask set.
|
|
|
|
Money is a tool of exchange, which can’t exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. And what happens when the goods and services are provided by machines? What use does money have then? Then the free market will self regulate and the human population will shrink to the number that can be employed to service the machines! but then the number of machines needed will shrink coz there are less people left needing products and then ....  |
|
|
|
|
People talk about the resale value separating GPU from FPGA/ASIC.
Much more important is the divide between GPU/FPGA vs ASIC when it comes to reprogramming.
P2P Crypto currencies are here to stay, Bitcoin, Bitcoin 2.0 or something else. They will need hashing power.
I will spend my money building general purpose computing power since profit maximizing isn't what drives me.
Sure I might buy some ASICs too at some point but knowing that it's betting on just one horse.
Even bitcoin might change algorithm if threatened.
Being future proof is worth something even to non-idealists hedging in the market.
|
|
|
|
|
It is possible to make permutating algorithms for FPGAs rendering ASICs pointless.
Like this thread stated earlier, FPGAs and GPUs are not driven by the bitcoin related market.
This means that for each new process node (28nm, 14nm etc) the generic hardware is available to all and prices are not influenced by bitcoin mining.
For the ASIC market to function properly there would have to be a lot of competition to drive down margins.
They must also make enough money to follow the advancements of the silicon industry at all times.
Currently bitcoin is nowhere near the size needed to support this.
This fact makes it much easier/cheaper for irrational players to attack the network compared with a system where ASICs didn't have any advantage.
With the current algo bitcoin really needs ASICs to protect itself.
If there is a 51% attack, I think algorithm changes are inevitable.
|
|
|
|
|
Err, isn't "Simultaneous switching" issue about I/O pins? not internal core logic.
|
|
|
|
|
You have probably thought of this stuff already but here goes:
Hookup an oscilloscope to the vccint, close as possible to the fpga.
Make it look smooth on the scope at all times by:
-Make sure new midstate load etc doesn't results in spikes.
-Stagger the rings start time/midstate load/nonce wrap
-Use phase offset to interleave clock transitions for the different rings
-Ramp the clocks up gradually from idle
It could also be the PLL suffering from too much noise. Try changing the loopfilter/bandwidth of the PLL.
Might be hard but try an external high-speed clock source (connection/termination to the board is critical)
|
|
|
|
Basing on the square mm and a clock speed of 1 Ghz the raw manufacturing cost would be closer to $0.10 per GH/s. Now granted you have the NRE, the capital cost, the profit magins, yield losses, salaries, etc but even with 1000% markup <$1 per GH/s would be possible.
One way to look at it is the SHA-256 hasher only took 20kGE. Lets say scaling it to 1 Ghz required twice as many GE and you want to make it perform a double hash; so 80 kGE. Obviously you wouldn't make a chip that small. But hashing is perfectly parallel. Instead of 1 single hashing engine running 1Ghz you could lay down 20 parallel engines. So that on each clock 20 nonces are calculated simultaneously (20 GH/s @ 1Ghz). Even that would only be ~ 1.6M GE. Tiny small by modern chip standards (which have transistor counts in the billions). The $20 CPU in your smartphone likely has a higher transistor count.
Either this company is the most incompetent on the planet, or your estimates are way off. http://www.cast-inc.com/ip-cores/encryption/sha-256/index.htmlUsing this IP core a 10x10mm die @130nm (200kgates/mm2) would give about 3Ghash/s. |
|
|
|
|
The way I understand it is that adding more rounds makes it harder to find a short cut/weakness.
The fixed length for the second sha256 stage also removes one type of "attack" often used against such algorithms.
|
|
|
|
|
yes you're right. So the term "CCR" is incorrect when used for an account like this.
This method does let the customer choose the level of risk vs payback. A sliding scale between a storage/safekeeping and investment/returns.
It would be up to the bank what they keep in reserve to pay out the full amount on withdrawal.
Perhaps if all the accounts with corresponding bitcoin addresses was published a real CCR monitor system could be designed?
|
|
|
|
|
With bitcoin it's actually possible to monitor how much of your funds are left as a reserve with your bank.
If you transfer 100BTC to your bank account, and have selected a 50% CCR option, the balance of that account should never go below 50BTC.
Sure you might not get much interest in this case but you can chose your risk vs interest payment on an individual basis.
The account/wallet monitoring of the blockchain could be an app you run yourself or a 3rd party service.
|
|
|
|
Why can't states have land/resources? In fact I think that's what a state should have, and use those resources to provide materials, services and jobs for its people. This way you won't even need taxes to fund infrastructure etc which are wastly more efficient to do in centralized form. I'm not saying it should be 100% of the economy, perhaps 10-20% . This is also where the die hard libertarians fall short. Something DID come before you, a long chain going back to the land/resources. So who owned those in he begining? God? Native peoples ? and sold them for booze and fake pearls or taken at gunpoint.. The state should retain control/ownership over some but not all land/resources, and develop those using both public and private companies i competition. So I guess it's fairly predictable that the particular brand of anarchist libertarian on this forum wouldn't have thought through his philosophies enough to realize that eliminating redistributive policies would also completely eliminate the fictional "labor advantage" of people who have to travel a thousand miles in order to work...
It is kind of surprising though that evorhees at least can't intuitively make the connection between the FED's substantial inflation tax and wages lost to immigration. Would you call the Federal Reserve "moral"? Do you consider the petrodollar "moral"? It seems rather odd to couch the exploitation of what is effectively modern-day tribute labor in terms of morality, especially when the armies that extract that tribute are financed via wealth-redistribution. And you go so far as to label the corporate beneficiaries of this theft the "moral" ones? I disagree. This is a huge issue, and one that is intimately tied with the fundamental reason for Bitcoin's existence. It's too bad that more of you don't recognize this.
What I think he means is that our current monetary system IS a huge redistribution system to benefit the rich. Especially the dollar. If the dollar wasn't used in world wide trade like oil etc, the US would not have been able to run super deficits year on year and print like there is no tomorrow during this financial crisis. |
|
|
|
|
They can't deny sending them. The problem occurs when you exchange from bitcoin to another currency.
When the bicoin economy becomes large enough this is a non issue.
As others have explained nobody can prove if you knew your coins were "tainted" or not.
Exchanges trying to act as policemen helps nobody and undermines bitcoin as a whole.
If one exchange breaks the agreed upon principles and acts stupidly then use another.
|
|
|
|
|
With todays fiat system private banks can create money. This is not possible with bitcoin.
The total amount of bitcoin in the world is still controlled by the bitcoin network and outside of banks control.
Fractional reserve can still easily exist with bitcoin, but only if users allow it.
I would only deposit my money into my own account/address with the bank.
Then I could monitor what the bank did with the money. I'd either have an app on my own computer or
buy some monitoring service from a 3rd party.
I guess you could also have bitcoin scripts making it impossible for the bank to move your money without
your "signature". But then why not just do your own banking and have that safety key with a 3rd party service.
If you don't hate fractional reserve like I do, feel free to put your money in a bank without these safeguards.
But remember this is like investing in the stock market. Suddenly all your money can be gone.
|
|
|
|
|
