 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
Has BCI given any explanation about what went wrong with the humanware? Did the programmer violate any internal protocols by updating the patch without checking it? What are they doing to prevent similar problems in the future?
There's a single developer, no controls, no testing. Single developer ? How do you know ? They are running a million dollar business !!! More than one according to: https://blockchain.info/aboutNo, Ben Reeves is the only person who regularly commits any code and looks to be doing it with no peer review. There's no way you can pretend the change that caused this was done with any oversight by anybody. It can't be attributed to mismanagement because well, he is management. He's the guy who started the website, and miraculously the one who caused the 900 BTC loss here as well. |
|
|
|
Has BCI given any explanation about what went wrong with the humanware? Did the programmer violate any internal protocols by updating the patch without checking it? What are they doing to prevent similar problems in the future?
There's a single developer, no controls, no testing. |
|
|
|
{
"hash":"00000000000000001461a7896f7bed46dba23c86f557f0535f8f989ffaba9408",
"ver":2,
"prev_block":"0000000000000000191b407d1d9850700cbff5ba7be2dd8f19a6e0ef599efdec",
"mrkl_root":"273f6b7c8bf1e80d470cb51d0d8d0ab065cc11d9fc84fd8813971d2344fd55ac",
"time":1419332010,
"bits":404479356,
"fee":-2500000000,
"nonce":388761917,
"n_tx":1,
"size":206,
"block_index":515877,
"main_chain":true,
"height":335519,
"received_time":1419332010,
"relayed_by":"104.236.44.210",
"tx":[{
"lock_time":0,
"ver":1,
"size":125,
"inputs":[
{
"sequence":4294967295,
"script":"039f1e051b4d696e656420627920416e74506f6f6c20746c004810d2549949aaa1150000b0000000"
},
{
"sequence":4294967295,
"script":"039f1e051b4d696e656420627920416e74506f6f6c20746c004810d2549949aaa1150000b0000000"
}
],
"time":1419332010,
"tx_index":72702525,
"vin_sz":2,
"hash":"273f6b7c8bf1e80d470cb51d0d8d0ab065cc11d9fc84fd8813971d2344fd55ac",
"vout_sz":2,
"relayed_by":"104.236.44.210",
"out":[
{
"spent":false,
"tx_index":72702525,
"type":0,
"addr":"1EXvnuRqFeoWhT91KbB92JrkVN8HzwdbMj",
"value":2500000000,
"n":0,
"script":"76a91494730452598bcfec37e626da2abd2492ab8234f088ac"
},
{
"spent":false,
"tx_index":72702525,
"type":0,
"addr":"1EXvnuRqFeoWhT91KbB92JrkVN8HzwdbMj",
"value":2500000000,
"n":0,
"script":"76a91494730452598bcfec37e626da2abd2492ab8234f088ac"
}
]
}]
}Ah yes, blockchain.info, kings of race conditions and functional integrity checking. If this happened with a transaction you could steal from anybody trusting blockchain.info's information. Is that some manually constructed JSON I'm seeing? |
|
|
|
Also, the S5 has 15 steps in the chain (30 chips) so 9V would drop to an even 0.6V per node.
There's 14 steps not 15. 0.64v at 9v. I don't know if the S5 uses isolated or level-shifted comms, or some daisychain implementation like the Bitfury chips did. Haven't scrutinized the PCB photos enough yet to make an educated guess.
If you look at the photos of the back there's level shifting. |
|
|
|
|
It's a nice idea in that you save a hell of a lot of copper, I just don't know if anybody is actually able to pull it off. There's a lot of hints here that the Antminer chips use the same masks as the Bitfury ones, the specs of the Bitfury 1 and Antminer's first chips are almost identical other than the choice of package. It's suggested elsewhere that Bitfury would be making a new chip, what if this is it re-badged? I'd have a lot more faith in it working if the design is a third generation Bitfury rather than a third generation Antminer.
|
|
|
|
Novak and I were chuckling earlier today, wondering how long it would take for someone to ground-isolate and stack three server PSUs, and stack four S5 in series to get 9V per machine.
Took me an embarrassingly long time to work out where 9v is coming from. There's one chain per blade, two chips per voltage step in parallel for a total of 28, so each gets potential of 0.64v. I'd actually already begun thinking of how to do something insane like that, except I was going to replace the BeagleBong in each with some optoisolators on the SPI chains. Wouldn't be a massive undertaking to get 0.24W/GH out of the things but I don't know how much you'd be saving over the normal DC-DC, or more importantly if it would be worth it or not. Love to get my hands on their chips and make a higher voltage blade, though I'm very inclined to think that they've bought Bitfury 3 masks. |
|
|
|
I don't really trust unregulated strings as they are, but if there's some node-level regulation at least, it's certainly got more potential for stability and reliability than just trusting the chips to all operate within a narrow tolerance of "identically".
There's a post somewhere in the depths of the forums where someone got the Bitfury chips working straight from mains voltage in one huge string. I don't know how long it lasted, but I don't imagine it would have been particularly stable with the Bitfury's internal oscillator and the wildly swinging supply voltage. Absolutely lethal device with rectified mains voltages exposed everywhere, but impressive none the less. |
|
|
|
 Intron tried a stringed Bitfury design too. The problem is that they like to fail short, and when they do all of the others in the string get a proportionally higher voltage. Cascading failure and the magic smoke comes out, or magic black goop in the case of Bitfury's chips. I think they eventually got this one functioning under a slightly different design, but it makes me nervous all the same. |
|
|
|
|
