Nice work Ente... been waiting on someone with the right math skills to do this.
What specs for the heat sink do you think will work?
Ah, that stuff is easy once you figure it out! :-) "0.5K/W" means, for example, that for each W[att] you throw at it, you have a K[temperature] difference of 0.5 degree. Like a 30 watt CPU cooled with a 0.5K/W heatsink would be 30*0.5 = 15 degree above the air temperature. You add up all thermal resistances between the heat producer (CPU or ASIC core) and the surrounding (air). This is the thermal resistance of the cooling system. Here we are at around 7K/W combined. Interestingly, the difference between air- and watercooling is neglicible, at an additional 0.25 K only. This 7K/W is for each chip, it doesn't matter that we have 16 chips combined (as long as the heatsink covers the whole 10x10cm, doh!). This means, at 2 watts, that the silicon will be 14 degree warmer than ambient. Best case. Calculate 20 degree for some margin. So, air or water? Depends on your setup. If it's just a few chips, you won't have problems with air. As soon as your room would warm up, like, in summer with a thousand chips, you might prefer watercooling. Not because it cools better (it does not), but because you can cool the warm water somewhere else than where the chips are. Like having the miners inside and the radiator outside. Or warming your pool with it (use two watersystemns for that!). Air? Any regular heatsink with a regular, slow spinning fan should be more than enough. A 1K/W heatsink isn't anything special, and that's with no fan! So, basically, as long as you have any aluminum piece with fins on it and have a little air blowing at it too, everything is sweet! :-) In hindsight the whole calculation isn't really necessary. I didn't expect it to work out that nicely. Homework: Calculate similar systems with a 90w CPU (20x20mm), regular thermal compound and a bad/calm 0.5K/W heatsink. Max allowed CPU temperature is 70°C. How hot may the air in summer be at maximum, before the CPU starts cycling down its speed? edit: Homework #2: What performance must a better heatsink have at least to work up to 30°C with the same CPU? edit#2: Thank you Sophokles, indeed I had a typo at 0.5KEnte |
|
|
|
-collecting numbers in this post here- 1) Junction to chippackage 0.001K/W
2) Solder layer between chippackage and board 0.01K/w
3) Board with 25 vias 3.8K/W
4) Thermal paste between board and aluminum 2.5K/W
Watercooling:
5a) X mm aluminum
6a) Aluminum to water
--> I'll simplify this to "T_alu = T_water"
7a) Radiator with/without fan to air 0.25K/W
Aircooling:
5b) Heatsink with/without fan to air 0.5K/W2w per chip 5x5mm for 2) and 3) somewhat larger area for 5a) 6a) and 5b)
This tutorial was posted earlier, it has almost all answers already:
http://www.electronics-cooling.com/2004/08/thermal-vias-a-packaging-engineers-best-friend/
1) Silicon to chippackage: 0.001K/W
2) As shown on the thermal imaging here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=190731.msg2043405;topicseen#msg2043405
I calculate with a delta of 7K between chip and board (62°C and 55°C respectively).
This assumes the soldering and boardsetup is comparable between Avalon and Klondike.
--> Nah, 3.5K/W is waay too high. The tutorial says 0.008K/W, 0.01K/W seems more realistic here. We don't use the length of the board for heat transportation, but the thickness!
3) 5x5mm area with 5x5 grid of vias, each 0.3mm diameter.
Bottom layer is 1 oz. copper
electronics-cooling says 3.8K/W with a 5x5 grid of vias (at 2mm spacing though, ignored)
4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_grease says 0.5K/W @ 12.6cm², which calculates to 2.5K/W for our 5x5mm area.
5b) I randomly found a value of 0.3K/W for a CPU-cooler with a fan. Let's calculate with 0.5K/W for our non-sophisticated DIY solution.
7a) Found 0.21..0.35K/W for a 12cm radiator. The larger the radiator, the wore heat gettin' rid of. I'll use 0.25K/W here, although this value is pretty random - can be reduced at will with more/larger radiator.
..I'll calculate a bit with those values later.
Ente |
|
|
|
|
Not sure how much was mentioned here already.
What numbers concerning the thermal resistance do we already have?
I want to calculate through the temperature, to approximate how I will keep all of this cool.
I may go the watercooling-route here, but most of the calculation will be the same for airooling.
1) Junction to chippackage
2) Solder layer between chippackage and board
3) Board with 25 vias
4) Thermal paste between board and aluminum
Watercooling:
5a) X mm aluminum
6a) Aluminum to water
7a) Radiator with/without fan to air
Aircooling:
5b) Heatsink with/without fan to air
I will calculate with a conservative 2w per chip and an area of 5x5mm (correct?) only for 2) and 3), and a somewhat larger area for 5a) 6a) and 5b).
Anyone has some numbers handy already?
Ente
|
|
|
|
If you don't want posts censored, you need to disable ABP (or just these filters) on bitcointalk.org. I recommend using http://www.ghostery.com/ instead of adblock anyway. It blocks most of shitty 3rd party spying codes - that includes most ads but also Facebook, Twitter, Google and lot of other tracking codes from even more evil companies. It blocks most ads that adblock blocks, but is much, much better for your privacy. It also doesn't block any in-house ads like these on bitcointalk.org. As for the ABP issue, I second the opinion that it is a side effect of anti-ABP code. I would remove this code and let ABP do their job the easy way. I also like the idea to logout everyone who was detected using adblock. That should keep number of lost ad displays reasonably low (limited to visitors using ABP and not logged in; and huge forums are hard to use without logging in). ..am now trying ghostery, thank you for the recommendation! Ente |
|
|
|
I have just started encountering an issue which prevents the blockchain from loading. I have 0.87.2-beta, it worked perfectly the first few times, and I didn't open it for awhile. Now every time I try to open it I get a runtime error. I have already un-installed and re-installed armory. What should I try now? I have both wallets backed up and paper wallets made for each as well.
What's the error you get, exactly? Ente "Runtime Error! Program: C:\program files\Armory\Armory Bitcoin Client\Armory.exe This client has requested the runtime to terminate it in an unusual way. Please contact the application's support team for more information." This is the error message that pops up each time. Does that help?  Ah, windows. Sorry, I'm outta here! (As the error message is pretty generic) Ente |
|
|
|
No one can accurately predict the future. The assumption that it ends with ASICs is based on several assumptions. #1 Silicon will always be dominant. I think that one day quantum computers will blow silicon away. There may be other tech we have yet to consider that lays between here and there or after there. Any or all of which would blow an asic away. There could also be algorithmic short cuts that could be implemented in current silicon. #2 The keysign algo is mathematically intractable. We've seen lately a lot of ingenious attacks against previously hardened crypto. My guess is that the algo we use for key signing will eventually fall. While we could always switch, the fact that the algo fell would undermine confidence in the currency and render it worthless. In fact if someone just took a large enough set of public keys and ran a brute force random attack against them on a large enough botnet, they could fairly easily show "control" of enough bitcoins to undermine the entire economy. There are ALOT of bitcoins tied to keys that have long since been lost, these haven't been moved at all in years. I know I had a hardrive with some 1,500 bitcoins years ago that died but back then they might have been worth a total of $1.50 I would guess that the next mining innovation beyond what we see now, will be bots built to do ummm let's calling it private key mining.  It's trivial to do. People have developed programs that just generate absolutely huge numbers of bitcoin addresses using your GPU. Why don't you build a powerful network and just run these for a few months, checking each created address to see if it has any bitcoins in it, and let me know how many bitcoins you steal. ..because with this, you would make many million times less bitcoins than with simple mining. I can't reproduce the exact numbers nor have the thread available, but with comparing the mining difficulty with the 256 bit private key, you, well, get some pretty large numbers ;-) In fact with such large numbers all that stuff is simply not imaginable. Like "more cpus needed than grains of sand on a beach" and the like. I'm sure someone will produce real numbers here! Ente |
|
|
|
I have just started encountering an issue which prevents the blockchain from loading. I have 0.87.2-beta, it worked perfectly the first few times, and I didn't open it for awhile. Now every time I try to open it I get a runtime error. I have already un-installed and re-installed armory. What should I try now? I have both wallets backed up and paper wallets made for each as well.
What's the error you get, exactly? Ente |
|
|
|
On another note, I played with message signing a bit, before I updated.
It seems like I can't sign with keys in encrypted wallets (not asked for password, nothing happens). When trying with an offline wallet, Armory closes completely.
Same behavior in 0.88.2. Effectively, I can only sign messages with keys from unencrypted wallets, or copy a privkey manually into the window. Encrypted or offline wallets don't work or crash Armory completely. I, personally, simply removed encryption for a minute and re-encrypted it after my message was signed. I almost feel bad reporting a bug, I love Armory so much! :-) Ente |
|
|
|
New day, freshly booted debian, now it works as expected! Connected, online, transactions, blockcount.
No idea what was going on, will dig deeper if it happens again.
Will check back on message signing after work!
Glad it's working! I wouldn't hold your breath about message signing, unless it's Armory-to-Armory. I will eventually merge jackjack's message signing (from a bounty) into Armory... but it's not there yet Yes, I am talking about regular Armory-signing. I am following the work and progress of jackjack closely though, I like where this is going! :-) Ente |
|
|
|
I just updated Armory: cd /opt/BitcoinArmory/
git checkout testing
git pull origin testing
make clean
make ..and am now on 0.88.2. After scanning it says "Armory is online!", shows the balances of the wallets, shows no tx, and says "connected (0 blocks)". On another note, I played with message signing a bit, before I updated. It seems like I can't sign with keys in encrypted wallets (not asked for password, nothing happens). When trying with an offline wallet, Armory closes completely. Again, this was not the most recent version. Now, with 0.88.2 and "0 blocks", signing doesn't work. Which is no surprise, I'll check again when I have it online and connected ;-) Thank you for hints. Tomorrow I'll try to dig a bit deeper, sorry for no log yet. Ente New day, freshly booted debian, now it works as expected! Connected, online, transactions, blockcount. No idea what was going on, will dig deeper if it happens again. Will check back on message signing after work! Cheers! Ente |
|
|
|
Have you made any commits to you local repository?
Nope, nothing. Except changing the linked python module in the makefile, several versions ago. Ente |
|
|
|
I just updated Armory: cd /opt/BitcoinArmory/
git checkout testing
git pull origin testing
make clean
make ..and am now on 0.88.2. After scanning it says "Armory is online!", shows the balances of the wallets, shows no tx, and says "connected (0 blocks)". On another note, I played with message signing a bit, before I updated. It seems like I can't sign with keys in encrypted wallets (not asked for password, nothing happens). When trying with an offline wallet, Armory closes completely. Again, this was not the most recent version. Now, with 0.88.2 and "0 blocks", signing doesn't work. Which is no surprise, I'll check again when I have it online and connected ;-) Thank you for hints. Tomorrow I'll try to dig a bit deeper, sorry for no log yet. Ente |
|
|
|
I really like the way bounties are handled at i2p project: http://www.i2p2.de/bounties.htmlMaybe a page like that would be cool. You could make a list of things that need to get done. Users like myself can donate to the bounties they are most interested in. Devs currently working on the project get listed, including collaborative projects. And once it makes it to the client the devs get paid. Seems very efficient to me. Some quite old bounties waiting there, it seems. 18 BTC, 50 BTC, 118 BTC. Interesting. Interesting indeed. Ente |
|
|
|
Kann mir aber nicht vorstellen dass die firma das macht. Das chip design 1:1 nachzumachen wären dann illegale Plagiate
Und siehst du irgendwo Patente auf die Technik? Oder Patente allgemein auf SHA-256?  Keines der Designs ist geschützt. ..wenn er die Technik oder Design vom Whitepaper in einen ASIC gießt, kein Problem. Glaube aber kaum, dass er mit "kopiert mir mal die Gatter aus diesem Chip 1:1 in einen neuen Chip" durchkommt. Der Empfang von TV ist auch offen und standartisiert, trotzdem kann ich nicht einfach einen XY Fernseher aus dem Mediamarkt nach China schleppen und dort hunderttausend mal kopieren lassen, um damit auch noch im gewerblichen Umfang Gewinn zu machen. Und egal was die objektive Rechtslage (wo eigentlich? USA? D? China?) liegt, auch Avalon hat irgendwo eine (wirtschaftliche) Schmerzgrenze, wo sie eingreifen werden. Und dann noch das Ganze öffentlich sichtbar im größten Bitcoin-Forum erzählen? Ich würde mir das nochmal gut überlegen! Ganz davon abgesehen, dass es genug technische Probleme geben wird.. Ente |
|
|
|
Da einige Armory nutzen und dessen Verifizierungsfunktion momentan noch nicht mit der offiziellen Signierfunktion kompatibel ist habe ich mir jetzt ein Armory Offlinewallet installiert um solche Signaturen prüfen zu können. Wer also mit Armory BTC geschickt hat und noch nicht verifziert ist kann das jetzt tun...
Yeah!  Ente |
|
|
|
Some people have asked about the FPGA bitstream. It makes sense that the FPGA bitstream would be one of the last things they provide in order to work out any bugs. It could be changed very last minute.
On the other hand, it should be noted that they want to keep the bit stream to themselves. Do we know that they don’t mind completing with others using their reference board design? They might have just released the design as a form of documentation with no plan of allowing other to use it as a competitive product. Technically this is very easy. The Spartan 6 allows its bitstream to be encrypted - this makes it impossible to steal the bitstream.
Oh, and BTW, I know others are designing board which require no FPGA, but until we have communication protocol specifications we don’t know if that approach will work, or is even possible.
I don’t mean cry the sky is falling, but do we actually have a commitment on their intention with the ref board release? Personally, I’m planning on using the klondike design, but wanted to be clear that there are still risks.
Drew
You are right. However, they are selling bare chips. So they have some incentive to support the DIY scene too. Yes, it's two conflicting positions, from an economic view. It is not conflicting if they have "the greater good of bitcoin" in mind. And from all I have seen from Avalon, I am very sure exactly that is the point. Oh, and kudos for not wasting your time playing in the bitcointalk sandbox, Yifu. I really mean it, I much prefer you to do real work instead! Ente |
|
|
|
|
Thank you, both of you! :-)
Ente
|
|
|
|
Does anyone know if there are SMT "three pin headers" available? These (and the PCIe-power connector) are the only through-hole parts, which I will try to avoid (to put the board on one big heatsink). If not, I'll use wires to daisy-chain, or "SMT-bent" pins or something. Ente |
|
|
|
What exactly is there to see? Ente |
|
|
|
Hallo Teilnehmer... Dabs, der einen anderen Gruppenkauf für Avalon Asic-Chips in Asien veranstaltet fragt an ob alle Gruppenkäufe ihre Bestellungen zusammennehmen sollten um damit schneller einen Batch vollzukriegen. Vorteil ist, dass ein Batch schneller voll wird und eher bestellt werden könnte. Nachteil ist, dass es ein paar Tage länger dauert bis die Chips in Deutschland sind, wenn Avalon sie versendet hat. Weil Dabs die Chips zuerst bekommen würde und er schickt diese dann anteilig an die anderen 2 Gruppenkäufe. Eben uns und den anderen Gruppenkauf. Natürlich muss dann noch Dabs, neben dem Escrow John, vertraut werden. John selbst ist ein Escrow dem ich vertraue. Ich habe schon mit ihm gearbeitet und er hat schon einige Bitcoins verwaltet.
Momentan ist es so dass dieser Gruppenkauf hier wohl die meisten Chips bezahlt hat. 2998 also praktisch 3000. Dabs Gruppenkauf hat 200 Chips. Ich bin nicht sicher wie viele Chips ragingazn628`s Gruppenkauf hat. Seine Gruppenkauf-Bitcoinadresse hat ähnlich viele Bitcoins wie unsere aber ich sehe keine richtige Statistik. Es gibt ein google docs aber die Summen dort passen auch nicht richtig dazu. Ich werde ihn mal per PN fragen.
Ich lasse diesen Gruppenkauf hier solange weiterlaufen wie Avalon Chips verkauft. Deswegen habe ich ihn ja aufgemacht. Es ist also nicht so dass wir das jetzt so machen müssen. Das Angebot will ich aber trotzdem allen unterbreiten. Lasst mich mal wissen was ihr davon denkt und ob ihr das machen wollt.
Also ich wäre dagegen, dass wir uns an einen anderen groupbuy dranhängen. Meine oberste Prio ist, dass die Chips direkt von Avalon nach Deutschland gehen. Deshalb bestelle ich hier mit, und nicht bei den früheren Groupbuys. Meine Kalkulation ist, dass alle Bestellungen an Avalon auf einmal produziert, und dann auch verschickt werden. Von mir aus können sich gerne andere Groupbuys bei uns mit ranhängen. Immerhin sind wir schon bei 3000 bezahlten Chips, und nicht erst bei 200 *kicher* Ente |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
