@ muyoso, CanaryInTheMine:
Wait, what? That was a pro mining argument...
I could read it either way, now that you mention it... However, your example is about stealing and breaking the law... so whether it's pro or against, it's not a good one... |
|
|
|
|
34. When the local police department pays you a visit to check if you are growing pot and ends up asking you "Are you like Google or something?"
|
|
|
|
I like the BK analogy though, and here's a modification you might enjoy:
A person buys a hamburger in McDonalds, strolls in to BK with that McDonalds bag in hand, and asks for fries. then goes across the street to Starbucks to eat both and maybe orders a cup of coffee there... BK, McD and Sturbuks HATE to see this and some manager of Starbucks might actually ask you to leave... Is this ethical on either part? You spent money at all places!
There are establishments that clearly state: no outside food or drink permitted. Is it ethical to bring your own pop corn or say a bottle of water? Maybe yes, maybe no. But the big difference between these examples and pool hopping is that in these examples, you aren't harming other people. Pool hopping decreases other miner's average return per block. doesn't additional hashing power in a pool "harm" existing miners anyways? If so, then why not ban all additional power/users anyway? Some stores have particular items at a deep discount. They hope that people will buy the more expensive items as well. In this case, there's no implied agreement not to buy only the discounted items -- the store takes the risk that smart shoppers will get a very good deal. But the smart shoppers don't hurt the other people shopping in the store, and the stores don't try to find and kick out the smart shoppers. A store is not a cooperative.
is that why you see something like limit x per customer? Pool operators should clearly state if they don't want pool hoppers and then discourage them (payout methods, banning etc...) if they want. Sure they should. But that has nothing to do with the ethics of pool hopping. Primarily, pool hopping is unethical because it abuses the other miners. I'm sorry, but I've yet to hear ONE logical argument that proves that pool hopping is unethical. I don't like it, but it doesn't mean it's unethical if pool's rules aren't violated. I don't think people who hop see it the way you present (BTW, personally, I don't disagree with you). Hoppers do not believe they are entering an agreement. I don't believe that. I think you are giving them an undeserved benefit of the doubt. I strongly suspect that they know perfectly well that they are entering into an implied agreement with the other miners. In any event, if they don't know that, it's likely due to their willful blindness, not the fact that no such agreement exists. They are doing what's best for them. So what? If the pool does not care about hoppers, where's the ethicality issue? If the users of the pool, but not the pool owner have an issue, then they should pettition the owner to spell out the rules. or they can switch pools. Another thought, is this really about ethics or envy because someone decides to pool hop? Answer that honestly to yourself, not me. Consider if everyone was to start pool hoping, do you still believe that this is an ethics issue or just growing pains of the bitcoin network? |
|
|
|
Long story short:
As long as there is no "(Please) don't pool hop this pool" sentence stated somewhere on the pool's webpage I don't care about delayed stats, faked round shares and whatnot and hop the pool.
I consider choosing which pool to mine at any point of time my personal right and I don't see any reason not to choose this on my own (especially as there are easy and simple countermeasures like PPLNS against pool hopping).
If anyone thinks him-/herself to be morally/ethically superior to me just because he/she mines at a loss in a pool with a payout system that is known to be broken for half a year already, well that's not my problem then. Haters gonna hate.
Comparing pool hopping with shooting comrades in a war, stealing or other things that are explicitly forbidden (or illegal) is highly inappropriate imho.
Pools offer a service to miners, not the other way round. Miners are free to choose their pool at any time. If some pools think they need to use a broken algorithm and enforce it with bans (meaning they steal from miners who subit 100% the same shares as anyone else, just not all the time!) that at least for me is reason enough to raise some red flags and I'm sure as hell gonna make my way out of there.
It's stupid enough that on most pools you have to open accounts with mail adresses and whatnot if all they really need is a payout address.
Pool hopping does NOT steal anything from/abuse other miners, 24/7 miners in proportional pools should know since february that pool hopping is possible, and some pools (like triplemining for example - they recently changed their payout model to a fair one btw!) even stated "no pool hopping protection" on their main page.
Sorry, but if you mine (which already is getting quite expensive/near unprofitable) and don't keep up with recent developments or read anything about mining (the forum here is full of pool hopping questions, countermeasures, complaints, hopping software...) that's your own personal problem then. If you decide to always mine somewhere because of some fancy stats that in the end cost you 20% of your income then that's YOUR choice.
All in all:
24/7 prop miner's stupidity is not my problem and I did already a lot (from advising pool owners on payout schemes to requesting more secure payout models at nearly every major pool and contributing code to an open source pool hopper to not let only a small elite hop - everyone here in this thread can start pool hopping in less than 5 minutes!) to make sure proportional payouts die out. Self proclaimed do-gooders can feel great about themselves and push their pool owners to put in even weirder restrictions (the next generation of pool hoppers won't need any webpage anymore but get stats most likely on protocol level) and shady measures/intransparency. I really hope that in a few months pool hopping will be dead, not because it's unethical or whatever, but just because no pool operator is stupid enough to open a proportional pool and no miner is stupid enough to mine in a prop. pool.
exactly. |
|
|
|
I find that my bank's ATM is broken. When I press 4-7-2-1-0 it gives me 200$ in cash, no card needed. Now the error is in the ATM hardware, so to fix it my bank has to fix each and every ATM. It decides that letting me steal money off of the bank (and therefore the other customers) is cheaper than fixing all those ATMs. Now these are my options: I can ask the bank nicely to reconsider.I can just use it for my own benefit.I can stop withdrawing money using the ATM bug. Others will still do it, but I don't. I am just being robbed, while the bank doesn't care.- I can tell the media / as many people as I can to do it until the bank has to fix the bug or loose customers.
This wwould make sense if hoppers got paid while not doing ANY work. I don't agree with your analogy. it's not relevant. |
|
|
|
I disagree. This has nothing to do with an idea that there's an implied agreement. What you are talking about is pool operators taking action against hopping. It's the same as turning away a miner from some mine for whatever the reason. but it has nothing to do with the idea of an implied agreement. this is all semantics of course. I clearly see your point, I simply differ on the logic. If it is well-known that pools take action against hopping, then there's an implied agreement not to hop. I don't see how you can have one without the other. The elements on an implied agreement are that both sides know that the behavior is considered unacceptable when they enter into the agreement. For example, you know that Burger King doesn't want people to knock over their garbage cans, doesn't tolerate that behavior, and would kick you out if you did it. Therefore, when you enter Burger King knowing that, you have made an implied agreement not to knock over their garbage cans. You know they consider it a breach, and you still choose to enter. I think you are describing a law that deals with disturbing peace and possibly criminal damage to property... it's beyond an implied agreement. I like the BK analogy though, and here's a modification you might enjoy: A person buys a hamburger in McDonalds, strolls in to BK with that McDonalds bag in hand, and asks for fries. then goes across the street to Starbucks to eat both and maybe orders a cup of coffee there... BK, McD and Sturbuks HATE to see this and some manager of Starbucks might actually ask you to leave... Is this ethical on either part? You spent money at all places! There are establishments that clearly state: no outside food or drink permitted. Is it ethical to bring your own pop corn or say a bottle of water? Pool operators should clearly state if they don't want pool hoppers and then discourage them (payout methods, banning etc...) if they want. I don't think people who hop see it the way you present (BTW, personally, I don't disagree with you). Hoppers do not believe they are entering an agreement. |
|
|
|
You have got to be kidding me with your stupid shooting/war crap... idiot
Name calling is usually a sign that the argument struck home  You are correct if you actually stayed on the arguments and were sensible. You must live under a rock (not a mining joke). Why would you go into twilight zone with your nonsense when the news outta Oslo is disturbing enough? Are you trying to get this forum or yourself on some gov agency to monitor or to dig into your life? Common now... Totally inappropriate and irrelevant. BTW, I do apologize for calling you an idiot. I just couldn't think of anything else appropriate at that moment. |
|
|
|
Well... now we're getting into agreements and contracts. If we had them, i agree with you 100%, however, miners are under no obligations, implied or explicit. If people swallow this hard fact, this conversation wouldn't come up I think... Somehow there's this myth of an implied contract, most likely created by these discussions and eloquent arguments, but this is all personal feelings and thoughts, not real facts. If this discussion is about feeling, then I suppose everyone could be right. However, I have yet to see a single agreement when joining any pool out there. No agreement/contract = total freedom to choose whatever you want with no consideration towards ethics.
A person who is only interested in his own benefits, with disregard for established implied social obligations is also commonly known as a unethical scumbag  If every single obligations or expectations in a community/group must be explicitly laid down before people should follow them, then we're all in for a very unpleasant life. Remind me to shoot you first if we're ever on the same side in a war, it's bad enough to have other people shooting at me, worse when the guy next to me will start shooting me because the probability of the other side winning is higher. You have got to be kidding me with your stupid shooting/war crap... idiot |
|
|
|
I will try this on my 40 5830's in the morning. been having alot of trouble with them. just ordered the xfire cables for them. I can currently hit 300m on one and 270 on the other but seems when I plug monitor into second card the first one always reverts to something goofy. going to try xfire and trixx in the morning. hopefully the extra power won't be a problem. I had to install more circuits recently for expansion. wondering if the extra voltage is worth the power costs?
40 5830s? IN how many rigs? 20 rigs. I averaged about $0.71c/per million hash on the builds. Wow... why only 2 cards per rig isn't that a bit inefficient? having to have 20 mobos and cpus and psus instead of 3 or 4 cards per rig? limits downtime/outages? Would you want 3-4 GPUs offline or 2 at a time? but, perhaps the owner can share their reason with us? |
|
|
|
miners are under no obligations, implied or explicit.
Then why do pool operators put up anti-pool hopping provisions? for shits and giggles? I think the moderators on bit-pool basically flat out said, "The only reason we dont just take all the shares when someone hops is because there are honest people who may have been accidently disconnected". That sounds pretty implied to me. I disagree. This has nothing to do with an idea that there's an implied agreement. What you are talking about is pool operators taking action against hopping. It's the same as turning away a miner from some mine for whatever the reason. but it has nothing to do with the idea of an implied agreement. this is all semantics of course. I clearly see your point, I simply differ on the logic. To put it another way: if a pool states: "I agree not to use this pool for hopping" and a user agrees to this, then you have yourself an ethics problem if you use this pool for hoping. As long as a pool has no such agreement, all these conversations are a bunch of "hot air". Maybe pools should consider agreements and flat out ban hoppers. It's their choice. |
|
|
|
I fail to see how pool hopping has anything to do with ethics... See the various places where that has been explained. Pool hopping breaches the implied agreement of cooperation that the pool is based on. if it does, then you can extend the same argument to mining in general. Sure, under similar circumstances, yes. if you wanted a more "appropriate" analogy, you'd have to consider a miner (for whatever resource: oil, gold, iron, salt etc...) going from one mine to another and working for some amount of time (doesn't even have to be equal). mine hopping essentially. is this ethical? Well, it has nothing to do with ethics. That would be ethical under some circumstances and unethical under others, depending on the circumstances. For example, if he had an arrangement where he got a share of the profits and joined a particular mine just as they had finished all the hard work uncover a vein and left as soon as they had mined out that vein to join another mine that had also just found a vein, I would say that would be an ethical issue. Under those circumstances, there would likely be an implied agreement among the miners to share the good times and the bad and it would be unethical to take a share of the profits of the hard work of others only to leave as soon as more hard work was needed. Well... now we're getting into agreements and contracts. If we had them, i agree with you 100%, however, miners are under no obligations, implied or explicit. If people swallow this hard fact, this conversation wouldn't come up I think... Somehow there's this myth of an implied contract, most likely created by these discussions and eloquent arguments, but this is all personal feelings and thoughts, not real facts. If this discussion is about feeling, then I suppose everyone could be right. However, I have yet to see a single agreement when joining any pool out there. No agreement/contract = total freedom to choose whatever you want with no consideration towards ethics. |
|
|
|
|
I've been battling the same problem actually...
It may be a PSU issue for you, however mine seems to be something else entirely:
Swapped out to 750 (80%) PSU. Random reboots persist.
Replaced both XFX 5830 with 2 Sapphire 5830. still craps out.
OC modification whatever way you want makes no difference.
Replaced the memory stick. still random reboots.
I have 2 things left to consider:
CPU and mobo.
disconnected the power on one 5830, still reboots.
disconnected power on the other 5830, everything seems fine.
mobo is 870A-G54
Should I bother replacing the CPU (i personally think it's a waste of time) or should I consider replacing the mobo at this point?
The PCIe slot that seems to be isolated as the cause of issues is the closest one to the CPU.
Could someone give me a second opinion on this issue please? replace mobo?
|
|
|
|
|
I fail to see how pool hopping has anything to do with ethics... if it does, then you can extend the same argument to mining in general.
if you wanted a more "appropriate" analogy, you'd have to consider a miner (for whatever resource: oil, gold, iron, salt etc...) going from one mine to another and working for some amount of time (doesn't even have to be equal). mine hopping essentially. is this ethical? well, it has nothing to do with ethics.
|
|
|
|
But that would also mean more CPUs, PSUs, RAM, HDDs, etc. which eventually would likely total more than the one system build.
I haven't run the numbers but I'm almost positive it isn't justifiable because you can get 6 slots for less then half. That means your paying 280 for 2 extra slots which is definitely more then all the other parts required to build a server. Also if you argue the psu should be included keep in mind that with 8 gpu's you would most likely need 1500+ watt psu and those things are fucking expensive. Ummm... You'll need at least 2 very good PSUs if not even 3 if you want to run 8 GPUs within efficiency range. |
|
|
|
We're not trying to remove all 1500 watts (is it even 1500 watts?) of heat.
You are. If you don't, heat will go up. All that needs to be done is to achieve enough airflow to remove enough hot air to reach a temp range that is "OK" |
|
|
|
|
i use tightvnc with 11.7 drivers. no need for dummy plugs.
|
|
|
|
Certainly I'm biased, but...
Trying to run more than a couple of ANY type of cards in an enclosed case is trouble at best. 6990's being the double powered beasts that they are going to be even worse.
Taking the sides off and running large fans pointed inside is the only option really, but at that point are you really running an exclosed case anymore?
You'd be better off with an open frame rig.
The warmest card in my open frame rig is running at 78C, and the only reasons that card is that hot is because it's a 6970 and I don't feel like cranking the fans up to %80 or higher. to damn loud. They just run hot no matter what you do.
The 12 5870's in my rig are all in the mid 60's C. It's all air flow.
I have 15 cards running in a 32" x 20" by 20" space, and the only reason the card density can be that high is because the hot air is dumped outside and all the cards have enough spacing to get fresh/cool intake air.
That just wont happen in an enclosed case.
Sounds to me like the place you bought your rig from are just slapping the bitcoin name on a HAF X case without really doing any kind of research or testing to make a buck.
There's no question that an open case solution is best. We're simply discussing options for a closed case. |
|
|
|
Thats bs, you cant cool 3x 6990s in a conventional case.
This. Everything else is rubbish. Consider that the 6990's *alone* will generate about 1500 watts of heat output. That's on top of the heat coming off your power supply, processor, HDD, RAM, , motherboard, northbridge/southbridge etc. Maybe a massive Silverstone Raven I/II case with tons of extra fans & upwards rotated motherboard tray can cool 3 of them (enough not to bluescreen all the time), but even then you'll run into heat issues. Not even the biggest Lian Li fulltower cases can adequately cool 3 6990's Your options are pretty much running an open case or wind tunnel, or watercooling. Think of it this way: Could any case out there sufficiently cool 6 separate 6970's overclocked? That's what 3 6990's are. It's mission impossible without improvisation, living in Antarctica, Finland or the North Pole, or removing side panels. Christ you sound very sure of yourself but others seem to say otherwise. One guy has mentioned four box fans on the side case. I was thinking of mounting these after cutting holes with a hole saw in the side of the case. Then sufficient pull from the fans on the top should pull it out. The only thing I'm concerned about is blowing air onto the cards at too high a pressure as others seem to say this isn't a great idea. We're not trying to remove all 1500 watts (is it even 1500 watts?) of heat. this isn't a race to 0. All that needs to be done is to achieve enough airflow to remove enough hot air to reach a temp range that is "OK" it's also critical to improvise an outflow solution from the back of the cards. I do this by removing hot air on the bottom of the case and out. if your case has no fan on bottom front, you will have to improvise. this is more critical than removing air from top. lots of hot air in the back of the cards will raise the ambient temp inside the case. it must be "re/moved" |
|
|
|
Back in stock again. Limit 30 per customer now.
I guess they have a few this time.
And... They're gone... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
