300 watts at 110 power is 2.7 Amps, 300 watts at 220 power is 1.35 amps. 25 Amps is what most US washer and dryer units run on, I think you have a typo  The highest voltage the motherboard receives is 12 volts which is what the cards also need. That is why I said 25 amps. 25 Amp is for the 110V power supply. It is 13A in UK and other European countries. The mother board use 12V from the power supplies. No. Again, the cards won't use 110V or 230V, they use 12V and if you want to pull 300W through the motherboard then you'd be pulling 25 watts - at 12V. That is a lot for any motherboard to handle. This is why we have powered risers. |
|
|
|
Does not sound. " We dont want to be traded on exchange" enough big alarm for you?
That's hilarious. No, seriously I can't stop laughing why anyone would be interested in a porject with devs not wanting exchanges. Assuming that you, unlike OP who has not said 1 correct word thus far, is not a troll here is a genuine answer: Virtually all the large exchanges has voiced their interest in listing IOTA from the beginning and are waiting for us to provide exchange-API, but unlike these other projects we are not concerned with it at all, IOTA is for real use-cases, the value of IOTA will be reflected from that, but it's not a priority at all. We chose to postpone exchange listing in order to tie up loose ends in the 'soft launch' period to avoid tons of confusion that would inevitably arise with thousands of new people coming in to learn a brand new technology. That is the simple truth, if you do even 5 minutes rudimentary research about this project you would know that already, so now it's up to you to either accept reality or be a troll. My point is if it can be traded already then I don't think it should be up to you to decide when people should be able to trade it more safely and conveniently. |
|
|
|
Please trash those ribbon risers and buy some powered USB risers. They are better in every respect (longer, more reliable, sturdier, easier to use, safer to use, you name it).
i never had a single problem with standard risers, dunno why many hate them, i think the problem lie on the quality and on the shitty dual psu side, which i will never use I despise ribbon cables ever since I laid eyes on them back in the early IDE HDD days (i386). It's a very clumsly way of transmitting data which looks like a doorman who have no idea would coming up with. Before I started mining I did an extensive research which concluded on all possible fronts that ribbon risers are complete shit and powered USB risers are better in every single respect. That was true even back when they were expensive in comparison - unless you bought it in bulks. I also had the displeasure to try a couple of them but I wish I didn't. Of course, it's just an opinion but today there's no reason whatsoever to pick what is basically a medieval solution that is ribbon over the modern powered USB which is better in every single respect. |
|
|
|
Does not sound. " We dont want to be traded on exchange" enough big alarm for you?
That's hilarious. No, seriously I can't stop laughing why anyone would be interested in a porject with devs not wanting exchanges. |
|
|
|
300 watts at 110 power is 2.7 Amps, 300 watts at 220 power is 1.35 amps. 25 Amps is what most US washer and dryer units run on, I think you have a typo The highest voltage the motherboard receives is 12 volts which is what the cards also need. That is why I said 25 amps. |
|
|
|
|
Please trash those ribbon risers and buy some powered USB risers. They are better in every respect (longer, more reliable, sturdier, easier to use, safer to use, you name it).
|
|
|
|
|
I only have Asrock H81 Pro BTC boards so this issue is new to me but I'd strongly recommend replacing the ribbon risers with powered USB risers.
My boards have two 4-pin molex connectors but I don't use any of them on any of my rigs and everything is running perfectly fine.
I'm not familiar with AMD cards so correct me if I'm wrong but after a quick search it seem that each 380X is supposed to have 2 x 6-pin aux power on the top which delivers 2 x 75 watts maximum but the card can pull a bit over 200 watts on their own.
So basically you expect the motherboard to feed an extra 300 watts (25 amps) through the motherboard which is a LOT.
If the numbers are correct not even one 4-pin molex will help you.
With powered risers all the power is going straight to the cards from the PSU and not through the motherboard so it's much safer and easier and usb risers also tend to be much more reliable.
|
|
|
|
Even ETH alone is almost 2 times more profitable than LBRY on a 970 given the current difficulty and public miners.
Not to piss in anyone's cereal I'm only saying this to show that an upfront price plus a fee won't attract many miners who do basic math (but it's mostly the upfront price).
Just checked.. Not twice - almost same +\- depends from pools lags and exchange play Yes, discard my previous post (partly). I only ever look at current figures of profitability and not averages. LBRY jump a lot up and down. Anyway, I barely spent any time with mining lately but still, Eth's profitability is pretty poor compared to other alternatives and LBRY - even if it might be slightly better sometimes it probably won't be for long. Sp_ please ditch the 0.1 fee, we subscribed a few times for that amount for different miners but you always come up with something else we should subscribe to. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that you don't deserve it but it's just not a transparent and reliable system. What if you never make a newer version or decide to opensource it tomorrow? Or what if it doesn't work for us as advertised for whatever reason? And for most miner 0.1 is either too much or too little. With a fee based version none of that's an issue. (Yeah, I know it introduces a bunch of other issues but a fee based miner is more reliable and user friendly.) |
|
|
|
|
Even ETH alone is almost 2 times more profitable than LBRY on a 970 given the current difficulty and public miners.
Not to piss in anyone's cereal I'm only saying this to show that an upfront price plus a fee won't attract many miners who do basic math (but it's mostly the upfront price).
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure what's happening or how could it be fixed but this coin is getting slowly killed by these massive reorgs.
|
|
|
|
add fudpool as node.
Yeah, got it I just had a typo in the name of the conf file at first. |
|
|
|
With the top banks in the world and governments making plans to develop their own coin, anonymity is one of the last things on their mind. And the government being what they are, might find a way to enforce their coin on the masses.
A single Bitcoin is worth about $570 at the moment. Therefore I'd say Bitcoin is already pretty enforced on their worlds. Not much would change if banks and governments would have their own silly controlled cryptos. It's not like they could ever cooperate and try to push one coin to rule them all along with cash. They would all want to have their own, controlled coins to rule over the rest and will fail miserably. Cryptos can't work in a centralized manner and governments/banks can't work in a decentralized manner. |
|
|
|
I think some time pretty soon these guys are gonna discover that law is actually law. and the real law don't give a shit about how nice the code is if the law's being broken.
No single coin that is tied to any country (especially the US) should, and probably won't ever succeed long term - and rightfully so. You can't have decentralization if a coin is a registered trademark or otherwise tied to a company and therefore depend on that countries laws. In fact, I'd personally go as far as saying that developers of any half decent coin should thrive to be completely anonymous from the beginning and stay that way. Just imagine what would happen if Satoshi would "appear" and we'd know it's him without a doubt... Knowing the devs introduces politics and preferences to coins which are both unnecessary and opens up attack vectors. Anyway, to be on topic, I think The DAO being a mistake was one thing (it was clearly an experimental project) but allowing a single smart contract to tie so much of Eth's supply was a terrible idea to begin with. But not as bad as bailing out an experimental project because it opened the floodgates - by which I mean the Eth team could fork again (and will do so eventually) if they don't agree with an ideology or a group of people or even you personally. Code should be law. If code is not law then what are we doing here? |
|
|
|
ICOs are a way to get rich.. ...maybe if you're the one hosting the ICO but otherwise it's just gambling. Well said. most of the ICOs will only makes the investors lose money. maybe except some large scale projects like Ethereum. Well, there are opportunities sometimes, look at NXT, NEM, Synereo... all those ICOs delivered 100 to 1000% gains. Yeah and what about the other 1000 failed scams? It can't be avoided with current free market when anyone can create any number of coins basically with zero effort. That is why you should consider your ICO projects with caution, and even then don't trust 100% that it is honest. It could be avoided if people admit what ICOs really are; gambling. Giving money to an anon entity over the internet in exchange for promises has nothing to do with investing or even speculation, it's just a very basic and low form of gambling. |
|
|
|
ICOs are a way to get rich.. ...maybe if you're the one hosting the ICO but otherwise it's just gambling. Well said. most of the ICOs will only makes the investors lose money. maybe except some large scale projects like Ethereum. Well, there are opportunities sometimes, look at NXT, NEM, Synereo... all those ICOs delivered 100 to 1000% gains. Yeah and what about the other 1000 failed scams? |
|
|
|
1070 G1 with only +50 Mhz OC at 100% Power limit: 270Mhs/178W so 1.48 Mh/W
90% PL: 263/162W so 1.62
80% PL: 252Mhs/142W so 1.77
70% PL: 243Mhs/125W so 1.94
60% PL: 226Mhs/107W so 2.11
50% PL: 202Mhs/91W so 2.21
Take the numbers with a grain of salt as I didn't wait much between readings and the power consumption figures are from nvidia-smi.
Anyway, if you do the math higher hashrate trumps efficiency as it almost asways do (if you have average electricity prices). In fact, I've yet to run into a situation where lowering the power limit would have lead to more profit...
With $0.14 kWh LBRY would have to be priced as low as roughly 7k sats for higher efficiency to matter more than hashrate - at which point people would not mine it.
Nice. Thank you for the details there @bathrobehero. I'm a bit more focused on efficiency than raw hashrate, as my electricity cost is at €0.20 kWh, as well as many times I am mining at loss (or rather, not strictly mining for a BTC output, or mining for low key hoarding). But the other thing I would highlight, especially with the larger cards (1070/80, 970/80), is that sometimes, and only to moderate extent, you might lower your power usage without any loss of hashrate. This is a function of operating temperature, clock & voltage controls. The default clocks for my cards (factory OC'ed), achieve roughly ~340 MH/s @ 180W, with the cards running in the range of 70°C. I can't overclock them much at this range, without hitting temperature and/or TDP throttling. A little increase is possible, but marginal, and with a good deal of power usage increase. My tweaked settings run at the factory OC, then +140 clock, -1000 memclock, and 85% TDP, which comes out a temperature of 65°C (fan settings unchanged). The hashrate stands exactly the same as the factory settings, yet my power usage is down by at least 15%.Obviously results will vary across different cards, vendors, power circuits, ASIC quality, etc. But the gist of it is, that most times, for any given absolute max hashrate at default settings, you can usually get away with better settings to produce the same hashrate at lesser power usage. I haven't ventured in similar testing for memory intensive algorithms though, I only ever tweaked to any meaningful extent on compute heavy algorithms. In your case, the 1070 G1 with +50 Mhz OC at 100% Power limit. Would probably be perfectly stable with a tighter power limit, lowered memory clock, and higher core clock - again - producing the same hashrate, but with lesser power usage. It's not something that would interest everyone though... Things will quickly get messy as one changes from algo to algo, with the cards behaving quite differently from one to the other, and sometimes requiring significant reconfiguration. Enough mining chatter, weekend here I go! Cheers  I agree. There's also seems there's a big difference in efficiency between the 1080's and some high factory OC 1070's. My 1070's at +50Mhz are runing at ~1949 Mhz and I tried lowering PL and increasing the OC but then my rig crashes eventually and I have yet to find time finding the cause. Anyway, have a great weekend! |
|
|
|
ICOs are a way to get rich.. ...maybe if you're the one hosting the ICO but otherwise it's just gambling. |
|
|
|
|
1070 G1 with only +50 Mhz OC at 100% Power limit: 270Mhs/178W so 1.48 Mh/W
90% PL: 263/162W so 1.62
80% PL: 252Mhs/142W so 1.77
70% PL: 243Mhs/125W so 1.94
60% PL: 226Mhs/107W so 2.11
50% PL: 202Mhs/91W so 2.21
Take the numbers with a grain of salt as I didn't wait much between readings and the power consumption figures are from nvidia-smi.
Anyway, if you do the math higher hashrate trumps efficiency as it almost asways do (if you have average electricity prices). In fact, I've yet to run into a situation where lowering the power limit would have lead to more profit...
With $0.14 kWh LBRY would have to be priced as low as roughly 7k sats for higher efficiency to matter more than hashrate - at which point people would not mine it.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
