Was there ever a fw that allowed to hook up 9 blades to a single controller? I know that philipma1957 has 6 and that the new fw dont allow more than 3.
Technically, the S5+ controller allowed 9 boards but depending on which firmware you had on it, you would have 3 of the 9 boards "ghost boards". Not showing up on the WebUI. |
|
|
|
If the antminer s5+ uses less power than the S5 (as some say the J/GHs is less)!
Isn't this because, the controlling system needs less power.
It only requires one computer for three boards compared with the S5 which requires one computer per one board.
I believe this is the reason why some are confused and suggest that it i smore power efficient, it just needs less power to power the computer.
No its because the chips run at a lower frequency and lower voltage, but there are more of them. The controller use negligible amount of electricity, it really does not amount to 20% of the power if it "control the boards better or not". Its the same reason why the latest batches of S7 have less chips, higher freq and 4.7TH/s. It is because they come overvolted and overclocked. Which means the latest batches are less efficients. |
|
|
|
I also fear the S7 batch 8,
if avalon lowers prices leave bitmain, the rpodotti are sketchy, blades than you burn, defective controller etc ...
in my opinion, the only miner rock was S3 +
this is that it was a rock
S5 disappointed me a lot, the blades were burned continuously,
We hope in the competition with 16 nm chips.
and a guarantee at least 6 months, 90 days is too short
I would take a one hundred twenty day warranty in a heartbeat. I don't think we will see extension of mining warranty at this point. From a buisness standpoint when they can sell it at 3 months and people buy..... chances are they won't move to 6 months. S3's were like tanks but you could still brick them on firmware. I only had 1 do it on me, but it is possible even for a tank of a machine to go down. And the S7's are no tanks. I bought a S7 B8, because i got a coupon, but we'll see, there has been a lot of report and negative comments about the B8. We'll see how that goes. So far from what I have seen they work great as far as hashing. Pretty much everyone is getting 4.7, so quality is there as far as hashing speed. The downside... less chips. They cranked the freq really high. So efficiency on some other batches was better. But we got a price quite a bit less then other batches aswell... so pro's and con's on both. I was a bit disappointed with getting less chips, but I'm really only worried about whether its a good working unit that will last or not. I would of preferred a high chip miner because this means if i ever get server PSU or a way to overvolt the miners, i could get more hashrate out of them. However as i have been favoring ATX PSU for noise, shock hazard and 120volt. I am thinking i'll probably run the thing at stock or maybe OC+1-2 step later on (if even possible) at stock voltage. We will see. I look forward being able to add input about it. I will probably think on getting a B9 later on too. |
|
|
|
|
I am still looking for more offers. Let me know if you have any sort of interest in any of these. The heavy stuff might be shippable if you are in Canada or really want to pay crazy shipping prices.
|
|
|
|
At this moment the real diff for this period is negative.
Bitcoin wisdom has a wrong high number. It uses the last 500 blocks at the beginning of each prediction.
We made 141 blocks today.
We will need to watch carefully as the last two huge numbers have a lot to do with bitfury and the 40 megawatt plant they built.
I want people to understand that 141 blocks on the new diff is about 157 blocks on the last diff.
Now we have still watched big up swings and down swings. I have been watch the temps near the Russian bitfury plant as I suspect the warm winter is causing that plant some problems.
Should be fun to watch.
Also here is a good question if bitfury has a 200 to 275 ph plant in one spot is that good or bad for the network?
Seems to me it is not a good idea to have that much hash in one spot.
Very bad idea, if one spot blow up and that make a big wave for the network, then its bad. I hope their setup fail. xD |
|
|
|
I'm pulling out for about 24h, going to try my luck over on the solo pool for the hell of it. Happy New Year to everyone! See you all on the flip side, stay safe.
I'm bringing in 50TH/s to see how it goes in this pool. I have had 5TH/s over the last few days and have been doing pretty good. Thank you, i hope you stay! We have swings, but the more hashrates we get, the more mitigated those swings get. *Wish more people would join this pool, because it is the best return-wise* Also the more blocks we can pick up when the big pools have issues. I have had 1 miner at CKPool for a few days now. Question right upfront: Would it be advantageous for me to name all of my miners the same name as the one that has been on CKPool for a few days now, therefore not having to wait 5 days to get to the 5Nd? The 5Nd has nothing to do with miner names. Its solely based on the hashrate you're pointing. So it will do no difference for your payouts if you use the same worker name or not. |
|
|
|
Hello.
Just got my antminer s7 batch 8 in the mail today. Got it running right now with a Lepa 1600w 80+ gold PSU.
So basically I'm just wondering if it would be a good idea to overclock the S7. Came set at 700M and was wondering if anyone had any suggestions on what I could maybe OC to with my PSU.
Thanks.
You're free to try but you should keep this in mind; 1. A 90-day warranty is provided starting from the shipping date. Overclocking the miner will void the warranty immediately. Also it may be hard to do significant overclocking since batch 8 is already overclocked by quite a bit, you would possibly need higher voltage to be able to get much more hashrate. |
|
|
|
I'm pulling out for about 24h, going to try my luck over on the solo pool for the hell of it. Happy New Year to everyone! See you all on the flip side, stay safe.
I'm bringing in 50TH/s to see how it goes in this pool. I have had 5TH/s over the last few days and have been doing pretty good. Thank you, i hope you stay! We have swings, but the more hashrates we get, the more mitigated those swings get. *Wish more people would join this pool, because it is the best return-wise* |
|
|
|
I also fear the S7 batch 8,
if avalon lowers prices leave bitmain, the rpodotti are sketchy, blades than you burn, defective controller etc ...
in my opinion, the only miner rock was S3 +
this is that it was a rock
S5 disappointed me a lot, the blades were burned continuously,
We hope in the competition with 16 nm chips.
and a guarantee at least 6 months, 90 days is too short
I would take a one hundred twenty day warranty in a heartbeat. I don't think we will see extension of mining warranty at this point. From a buisness standpoint when they can sell it at 3 months and people buy..... chances are they won't move to 6 months. S3's were like tanks but you could still brick them on firmware. I only had 1 do it on me, but it is possible even for a tank of a machine to go down. And the S7's are no tanks. I bought a S7 B8, because i got a coupon, but we'll see, there has been a lot of report and negative comments about the B8. We'll see how that goes. If it works, people don't usually post. I have 2 B8s hashing away at sidehack 'a without issue. They survived brief power and Internet outages and came back online automatically. I regret buying a A6 which is for sale by the way, at this moment you want efficiency and higher hash rate, unless you want something quiet for home, then A6 it is. For sound, i'm going to put the S7 in a sound insulated "box". For thermal, i'll be able to let it run mostly loud, but probably won't have to, as the box has very good air flow and the ambiant is 13C~ So then i compared that to getting A6 instead and the fact that them being on this continent is not much of an advantage for me because it turns out, its just as cheap or even cheaper to import from China than my neighbor country. Something is wrong here, but whatever, it is what it is. So S7 it is. So if the S7 breaking down i'm going to wish i had gotten A6. If they don't i'm going to be happy i got S7's. |
|
|
|
Back when I started mining (3-4 years ago) people were saying these same things. Home mining is dead don't even bother. I quit for a year just as the first ASICs were coming out because of all of this speculation. And of course home mining is still not dead. I hate centralization and wish we could go back to the days of CPU/GPU home miners, but even now there is still hope for home miners even if it for just fun and not profit.
Personally I'll mine my current hardware until it dies whether I make money or not. I have enough BTC now that as long as the value keeps growing I'll be happy.
"You" should never listen to other people when they tell you "Yes you can do this." or "No you can't do this anymore." BTC mining is ruled by your electricity price and then your hardware acquisitions costs. This is very simple math and listening to people that tell you yes, because it is for them or no, because it is not for them is not going to help "you". I should say that the speculation was just one of many reasons of why I stopped, there were other non-bitcoin related reasons as well. But when I stopped no one really knew the math to figure out what impact the ASICs would have. Or at least not in any of the communities I was hanging around in. Everyone seemed to think it would make home mining worthless and there was "math" to show it. The math isn't really easy though. You could try and see what would be worth doing right now. But who knows what the price of BTC will be in a month or even a week. Well i said "You" to not mean you specifically, so that it can apply to anyone, but its true that it is much easier to do now than before because things are much more predictable now. Its not really hard to run the math at -30% BTC value or +30% BTC value. I generally run my scenario by "Worse case scenario, can i break even?" If yes, odds are i'm going to break even + any extra is profits. Like i setup my mining to profit at BTC price at 210$ BTC value, when we were at 240$. Now we've doubled, but the difficulty pretty much doubled as well by now, though up until now, it was gravy, now i'm back to about same profitability risk as foreseeing 210$ worse case scenario then, if BTC drops. Of course the true worse case scenario is the world exploding, BTC dropping to 0$, but i don't think it can happen unless something globally dramatic happen, so i feel "safe enough". |
|
|
|
I also fear the S7 batch 8,
if avalon lowers prices leave bitmain, the rpodotti are sketchy, blades than you burn, defective controller etc ...
in my opinion, the only miner rock was S3 +
this is that it was a rock
S5 disappointed me a lot, the blades were burned continuously,
We hope in the competition with 16 nm chips.
and a guarantee at least 6 months, 90 days is too short
I would take a one hundred twenty day warranty in a heartbeat. I don't think we will see extension of mining warranty at this point. From a buisness standpoint when they can sell it at 3 months and people buy..... chances are they won't move to 6 months. S3's were like tanks but you could still brick them on firmware. I only had 1 do it on me, but it is possible even for a tank of a machine to go down. And the S7's are no tanks. I bought a S7 B8, because i got a coupon, but we'll see, there has been a lot of report and negative comments about the B8. We'll see how that goes. |
|
|
|
I'll go with "uncles are cool" :-) I know it's not possible now (2 blocks simulteanously being accepted), forking and such, but I'm trying to wiggle my way around that. Will get back later once I do a proper write up. Thanks!
It would never fly, but for academic purposes you could look into merging the uncle code concept from Ethereum to Bitcoin. But it is not going to happen. |
|
|
|
Thanks for your response.
Apologies for the bad explanation, the word 'grouping' may be confusing here. I'm not refering to a pool, but a set of miners that is mining a particularly set of transactions (t1), each inidividual miner in that set aims to find a hash for its own block (no shared rewards, like in pools). The tricky part is when two sets of miners (different sets, that is) find a block; the protocol I'm trying to work on should be able to handle two blocks from two different sets of miners (but not two blocks from the same miners in a specific set). The assumption for now is that two blocks can be valid at the same time within the same cryptocurrency network, as long as they come from different sets (not pools) of miners.
There can only be one block #X, so if two miner find block #X, only one miner will get the block rewarded, you can't work around that, nor do you want to. (The concept of uncles is cool, however) And the action of "grouping" miners is the action of "pooling the hashrate of several miners to work on a solution". So if you don't want to call it a pool, you can but thats what it is called. Thus i will continue calling it a pool; You will have your pool target a set of transaction (t1) and any other pool individually decide what set of transaction they want to include (t whatever). You will set parameters and decide which transaction you want to include depending on whats available in the mempool. That is how it already work. Maybe you're trying to build a concept on the misconception that if the pools were trying to include completely different transactions, they would be able to submit concurrent blocks? |
|
|
|
Back when I started mining (3-4 years ago) people were saying these same things. Home mining is dead don't even bother. I quit for a year just as the first ASICs were coming out because of all of this speculation. And of course home mining is still not dead. I hate centralization and wish we could go back to the days of CPU/GPU home miners, but even now there is still hope for home miners even if it for just fun and not profit.
Personally I'll mine my current hardware until it dies whether I make money or not. I have enough BTC now that as long as the value keeps growing I'll be happy.
"You" should never listen to other people when they tell you "Yes you can do this." or "No you can't do this anymore." BTC mining is ruled by your electricity price and then your hardware acquisitions costs. This is very simple math and listening to people that tell you yes, because it is for them or no, because it is not for them is not going to help "you". |
|
|
|
Hi all,
I was wondering if I could get some feedback on an idea that popped up, mining related.
I'm going to ask to make some assumptions here. The idea is that, by grouping miners, the mining process is distributed, effectively raising the amount of transactions per second. Grouping in this case is not the same as a pool, each miner in each group still would aim for his own profit. Also note that it's not about splitting the network, the P2P network remains intact, it's about distributing mining capacity.
Suppose that it would be possible to group all current Bitcoin miners (say, a protocol groups the current population of miners into two groups, group 1(g1) and group 2 (g2)), like Kademlia but with two buckets (could be more if the number of miners increase, but let's stick to two for now). Each group mines specific transactions (transactions are labelled 1 (t1) or 2 (t2) (t1s go to g1, etc)), and the same protocol also ensures that both groups can submit their found block simultaneously without creating a fork. I'm aware that's not really possible in Bitcoin's current blockchain implementation, but my question is about the grouping of miners, would that be a no-go from a centralization perspective? Thanks.
Um, okay, hold on; If a miner is mining by itself, its solo mining, which is a no go. If a miner is grouped with others miners and then is pointed to mining, that is a pool. When you take x miners and you group them, you centralize those x miners. So let me see if i understand what you are suggesting; The BTC transaction that are not yet confirmed are put in a pool, and then groups of miners would submit their blocks, but not the same blocks as the other group. They would all simultaneously try to generate blocks, on the same chain. And all pools can submit blocks simultaneously, without creating a fork. ? If i understood correctly, then this is my answer; That is already, exactly how it works. So if you want to decentralize, you'll want to make more, smaller pools instead of less, bigger pools. This is where the community is at, at the moment. The problem is that new users flock to the bigger pools, because thats a innate human response (survival) even if its a bad choice (for them, for everyone, except the pool they give their hashrate to). |
|
|
|
Dude, I'm asking for help. I too don't know if they are legit. I just need some help. If you could, It'd be great.
Its an obvious scam, even the private companies don't have this kind of hardware, this is generation ahead of what could be possible with the best technology available and if it did exist, it would certainty not be dirt cheap, a tiny fraction of what current hardware goes for. So all you're doing is telling unaware people that you did a search on this and found it to be legitimate. TLDR:You're advertising a scam and you're a brand new account, everyone is going to think you're a Chill and maybe even give you red trust. I'd recommend you edit atop your first post in red that its 99.999999% certain to be a scam, if you want to avoid Flak from the community. |
|
|
|
I have an office space I pay $315 for 850 square feet every month and it includes free electric I think this might be a great way for me to save on paying my monthly cost with an antminer s5
If you can get it for 200$USD to your door, then that would not be too bad. You could get a 650~850 EVGA PSU that would last you several miners, too. A couples of S3 for 60$ Each to your door could also work, then a 140$ EVGA G2 1300 or something to power them with some breathing room. |
|
|
|
I'm happy with overclocking mine to 750MHz / 6Th/s.
6TH/s?? Do you mean 5TH/s, or do you know something I don't? 4.7 * 750 / 700 = ~5 Some of the earlier gens come at lower clocks, like 600hz, they have more chips so they can be overclocked to a much higher Hashrate. Not that this relevant to Kano CKPool. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
