Actually, Pirate defaulting should cause BTC to gain value.
My reasoning is that Pirate is likely long on Bitcoin. I expect him to keep most of the stolen BTC, while a fraction of the defrauded people will likely re-buy part of the BTC they lost.

Yes, most of the resetters are USB devices, but connect them to a $25 Raspberry Pi computer (USB host), and your $100+ device still seems overpriced...

Because their prices are the lowest by far: $640 for a quad LX150 board. Compare this to Ztex's $920 (qty 50+), or btcfpga's $1070...

Yes it is an error in the document. All my rev3 (ie. with heatpipe) singles came with a sheet incorrectly stating "rev 1".

Also related:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=37451.0

merphi: I designed a similar product, for my own needs, that controls more computers (45), is cheaper ($80), and is simpler. Like yours, the device activates the power/reset swich and is controllable by an API using my own scripts. I think you need to revise your specs or price if you want to find a market in this community. Like Blazr said, the people here are very resourceful and favor very much simple & cheap products over overengineered/expensive ones.

Jothan's numbers are incorrect (perhaps he is trying to subtract a baseline idle power consumption that is incorrectly measured, or his watt meter is defective, or his singles are throttling)... I measured power consumption with a clamp meter around the 12V input, and I get 66W per Single (rev 3 without the big 80mm fan an the bottom, the ones with the fan consume 68W), with an average 81W at the wall measured with a kill-a-watt, meaning the power adapters are 66/81 = 81% efficient.

And BFL seems to be using core voltage of 1.1V per the test points in the top right corner of their PCB: https://i.imgur.com/vrzol.jpg
I measured 1.13V with a multimeter on this 1.1V test point.

This happens because the poor mechanical design of the Single leaves too little space between the case and the fan, so the blades sometimes touch the case.

I fixed 2 of my Singles exhibiting this pb by adding 4 washers between the 4 bottom standoffs and the PCB, pushing the bottom side of the case further down by another extra 1mm.

The right term is majority attack.

Bump.

cuz0882, can you answer this question?

I use this term liberally. I have no idea what type of threading Xeon Phi will implement (the GPU way: switching unconditionally to the next thread on each instruction; or the CPU way: switching to the next thread when the current one would wait on memory).

But either way, it does not matter to us. Mining is an embarrassingly parallel workload, so an implementation can be adjusted to fully exploit the ALU resources of Xeon Phi, and whatever type of threading Xeon Phi implement will not add supplemental performance.

Xeon Phi is hyperthreaded (the vendor-neutral term for this is SMT = symmetric multithreading), but as I am sure you know SMT does not increase the performance at all of ALU-bound workloads. Therefore we can ignore SMT when making theoretical estimations of the performance of bitcoin mining.

I see why you are confused. 2112 meant superscalar, not hyperthreaded, as pointed out by others.

2112 is not talking about hyperthreading. He is talking about the U and V pipelines of the original Pentium CPU, where a single core, a single thread, can execute up to 2 instructions per clock.

It is unclear whether Xeon Phi can dual-issue LRBni (512-bit) instructions (and has enough execution units to execute 2 per cycle), or can only do it for x86-64 (32/64-bit) instructions. I assumed the former, hence my 280 Mhash/s estimate. If not, performance would be 560 Mhash/s as 2112 pointed out.

rjk: nope. This 45586 part (there are many of them) and the other do not have the plastic bridge between pins 7-8, and (as you pointed out) do not appear to have the right keying which should be:

  LL
RRSS
SRRR

L = Latch
R = Round
S = Square

This is the Molex 45586 series, which should be available here: http://www.molex.com/molex/products/crawllistview.jsp?query=45586&npp=20&sType=s&fs=&channel=Products
But for some reason it returns 0 results on molex.com...

Edit: Apparently the 8-pin PCIe power connector is a trade secret; that would be why it appears impossible to source outside of the group of PCI-SIG members: http://www.electro-tech-online.com/datasheets-manuals-parts/103572-pcie-8-pin-header-part-number-2.html#post896634
Quite unbelievable for such a simple stupid part...

I don't think you are telling the truth.


Xeon Phi should get about 280 Mhash/s (1200 billion 32-bit operations per sec / 4300 operations):
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=88407.msg974306#msg974306

Thank you theymos for implementing the watchlist!
Had you not done it yourself, I would have looked into writing it myself 

What I am saying is true even if the hash rate suddenly increases by 2x. If it does, then you would need 24 Thash/s to perform a majority attack, while the difficulty would still be 1.7M.

There. I gave you 3 scenarios where you would need either 6 Thash/s, or 12 Thash/s, or 24 Thash/s, to perform an attack, and in all 3 cases the difficulty would still be 1.7M for up to 2016 blocks.

The bottom line is that the difficulty factor is an average of the last full chunk of 2016 blocks, whereas a majority attack only needs to be executed for a handful of blocks (depending on how many confirmations are required by the recipient you are planning to double spend), and the global hash rate can vary either up or down quickly between these 2 intervals.

Technically, no. Because the difficulty adjusts itself with a certain latency. Right now the difficulty is 1.7M and the hash rate is 12 Thash/s. So you need 12 Thash/s right now to perform a majority attack. But if tomorrow the hash rate drops to 6 Thash/s for whatever reason, then you would only need 6 Thash/s, while the difficulty would still be 1.7M. The difficulty would only drop to 850k after up to 2016 blocks.