Bitcoin Forum
July 29, 2015, 11:31:12 AM *
News: New! Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.11.0 [Torrent]
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 ... 85 »
1  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: GekkoScience BM1384 Project Development Discussion on: July 25, 2015, 10:10:25 PM
I am not in favor of one-wire communication. No real reason to make both endpoints more complex in order to save a couple traces/leads.
I'm not in favor either. But I understand the constraints of the lead time. If you had a choice of your ICs delivered in 5-lead packages in 1 month or in 7-lead packages in 6 months, which one would you choose?

What are your thoughts on the previous discussions regarding chained UART versus address-decoded SPI?
I see this question as incorrectly posed. There are actually two independent choices in it:

1) UART vs SPI. On this I have no real preference, but way more experience with USARTs (that includes not only asynchronous but also synchronous devices/protocols.). Even the very lame UARTs have parity error detection, whereas very lame SPIs have nothing but "Hail Mary" protection.
2) Star topology vs daisy-chain topology. On this I prefer star because the ICs need to be running at the edge of failure (thermal or noise), otherwise the project is not competitive.
2  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: GekkoScience BM1384 Project Development Discussion on: July 25, 2015, 09:26:26 PM
2112, I was kinda hoping you'd toss in an opinion. This is getting fun, and the innards specifics of a chip are well outside my knowledge.
Thank you very much. I was hoping that you can take my comments not as a challenge, but as a simple exchange of ideas. Your experience seems to be complementary to mine, as I know more, and did more, of the inside-the-IC design as opposed to the general circuit/product level.

I like TO220, but right-angle mounting heatsinks to boards changes mechanical concerns a lot. You do probably get better heat transfer from chip to sink than through the board, so instead of 50 10W chips you could run more like 10 50W chips which changes things again. High-power chips make string topology less feasible so efficiency is more of a concern, and making the best use of your machine's internal volume gets trickier when boards and heatsinks are at right angles. By no means impossible - but trickier. I'd still like to see something with a practical max of about 10-20W per chip as that gives you a lot more flexibility in varying designs.
You need to stop thinking of "boards" and "large flat surfaces" as a necessary or desired property. We aren't designing a computer or anything like it. This is an problem in the class "embarrassingly parallelizable". Think of a series of very small boards electrically connected with two ribbons: one thick for power, one much thinner for signaling. The mechanical strength of the design will be provided by screwing the packaged chips to the large rail of aluminum heathsink. Or wrapping the chips around steel cylinder of one-stage water cooling loop.

A high-power part would limit flexibility in design by reducing modularity/granularity (you'd never see a TO220 effectively used on a USB stick) and, like existing high-current BGA designs, could increase the complexity and decrease the efficiency of regulator designs. I do agree wholeheartedly that "using any package with multiple tens or even over hundred pads is completely pointless" and makes every part of the process more difficult. What's an effective minimum number of pins for a mining ASIC using SPI with an internal PLL? Vcore and PGND, VDD_IO and SGND, and four for IO?
My idea of minimum pinout:

0) common ground on the heathsink
1) Vcore/analog
2) Vglue/digital
3) ClkCore
4) ClkGlue
5) RxD
6) TxD
7) Reset

When push comes to shove the last three could be rolled into one using some 1-wire communication protocol. Obviously Vcore/analog would carry the most current and the most power so it will become a limit when using non-custom packaging. So it will be more like 50*10W with non-custom fast-turnaround packages or 10*50W or even 2*250W with customized high-current slow-turnaround packaging (similar to e.g. ).

I found better pictures under

3  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: GekkoScience BM1384 Project Development Discussion on: July 25, 2015, 07:03:02 PM
So the perfect hash chip would be:

1) 10x10mm QFP-EP or QFN-EP
2) Contact pitch = 1.00mm
3) Max Power consumption ~10W
4) Single belly pad for Grnd
5) Vcore supplied on pins on one side exclusively
6) 3 wire SPI interface ground plane referenced
7) Implemented in 14nm
Cool Internal RTD
9) Internal Vcore current shunt
10) Mean targeted Hash Rate 100 GH/s
11) Targeted efficiency less than .1 W/GH/s
12) Cost per chip ~$3

What's the preference for setting clock analog or digital?
I'm assuming digital, but . . . .

What am I missing?

Perfect for whom?

I'm going to kinda restate what I wrote 2012 to friedcat, unfortunately he deleted his replies same day he made them.

1) the case needs to be one of the many power analog IC packages, like the one for the popular L298N motor buffer chip. I'm not up to speed on this market anymore, so I don't know the current market trends. In the past the popular power package was an 8-pin variant of the TO-3. There are 7-lead variants of popular TO-220 available cheaply:

using any package with multiple tens or even over hundred pads is completely pointless and greatly reduces the chip's reliability. The fact that the connections are repetitive (e.g. 10 * Vcc) doesn't matter as the silicon has negative temperature coefficient and those repetitive parallel connections are inherently unstable and susceptible to the thermal runaway.

2) the chip has to be from the start designed using the mixed-signal workflow. The hashing cores have such a high tolerance for errors that they have to be from the start designed as analog circuitry with individual choice of noise margins for each gate/transistor.

3) the only digital portions of the chip will be the overall glue logic and clock generation & distribution. UART is probably the best one could do because of the paucity&expense of the synchronous chips handling SDLC/HDLC/other reliable protocols.

4) It needs two-stage clock generation system, probably a simple internal multi-phase PLL and more advanced external PLL supporting fine tuning the operating frequency. The hashing chip is by necessity very repetitive and one can be assured of the existence of rather high-Q internal parasitic resonances. Some clock generators support spread spectrum clocking where the clock is continuously varied to avoid exciting resonances (both internal and external to the chip). Those spread-spectrum clock generators are cheap because people frequently use them to sidestep the FCC restrictions on spurious radio emissions.

5) If we are really into dream leagues then we can think of the Intel's planar integrated magnetics to move the voltage regulators to the surface of the chip.

4  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Litecoin is officially dead on: July 25, 2015, 06:05:25 AM
If only litecoin had developers. Here you go 2112.
Well, guess what?

It is just 2 days later and the Litecoin's testnet is split again in the exactly same fashion: the new v3 ceased to propagate and network got stuck at block 645801 that was miner 14 hours ago.

Which basically confirms that no active developers are working on the Litecoin's code and whatever work was done to incorporate Bitcoin changes from 0.10.2 caused the network split by lack of propagation of the new blocks.

The old (v2) network one again overtook the supposedly updated network and seems to be at least at block 645939 and the new ones are coming in with the regular, expected cadence.
5  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN] Litecoin - a lite version of Bitcoin. Launched! on: July 25, 2015, 05:58:36 AM
It turns as I was expecting, in other words the problem is back after less than a week:

1) the chain got stuck at block 645801 (which was approximately 14 hours ago) and all further mined blocks don't propagate anymore

2) meanwhile the old chain running an earlier is now at around 645939 and slowly getting further ahead.

3) which confirms my suspicion that there were no real developers looking at the problem and that probably Litecoin developers don't understand the new code their imported from Bitcoin.
6  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: GekkoScience BM1384 Project Development Discussion on: July 24, 2015, 06:13:21 PM
An ARM9 controller with integrated USB3 is not a USB3->UART chip.  It's an ARM9.  It's also a $16 chip in quantity 2000, which is about 10x a USB-UART converter.  I know, I know, you're not advocating for using it yet.
At least here we are on the same page, it is too early, IC prices are too high.

But I've been observing the Bitcoin mining market for many years. A lot of purchasing decisions are being made for the reason of acquiring a status symbol, novelty, desire to gamble, etc. Just look at Spondoolies and their neato designer rack mountable cases.

Or just look upthread:

All this talk about USB2/3, and no one talking about USB Type-C standard? these are the high speed, enough power to charge a laptop, plug it in up-side-down, can hold 5KG on the solder points, super duper end of all connections.. and its also "usb3 standard" with its comms.
One one hand we could just quote the Wikipedia page:
USB 1.x and 2.0       500 mA 5 V 2.5 W
USB 2.0 with Type-C   500 mA 5 V 2.5 W
and ask "what's the point of Type-C without USB3?"

But on the other hand you have a market segment with money burning in their pockets and literally demanding "go ahead and take my money and rip me off!"

I think sidehack mentioned earlier that he isn't interested in "making another toy for hipsters," which I understand and agree.

But on the other hand, who's left in this market, beside hipsters with money burning their pockets?
7  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: GekkoScience BM1384 Project Development Discussion on: July 24, 2015, 01:03:23 AM
USB 1.1 is 1.5 Mb/s, or substantially lower than you might want to run a serial port (SPI or USART, especially- something clocked is probably happy running an order of magnitude faster, depending on the physical layer).  USB 2.0 is 480 Mb/s, or so far above what you'd want to do with a serial chip in any situation that there's really no reason to use it- especially since USB 3.0 can fall back to operate in USB 2.0.

I guess drivers could be considered an advantage, but I doubt that anyone is in a hurry to develop USB 3.0 chips just for drivers.  The incentive for chip manufacturers is low, since few of their customers want to redo their (existing, supported in OSs) design based around slightly better drivers, and so much existing infrastructure is USB 2.0.  It might be better for new projects- although you'd have to get your engineers up to speed.

I suppose they will probably exist eventually, but I doubt it will come out any time soon.  Remember, USB 3.0 is going on seven years old and there are currently no USB 3.0 - > SPI/UART/etc. chips.  Things like flash drives and SATA, which directly benefit from the higher speeds, have been out for years- because you DO want to run them faster than 480 Mb/s.

While I mostly agreed with your previous post, with this post I mostly disagree. You are essentially doing a historical revisionism.

The historical serial bandwidths peaked at 115200 bps for RS-232 or 230400 bps for RS-422 (Apple Localtalk). The devices supporting or requiring higher USART speeds are extremely, extremely rare.

The main driving force for USB 1.1 to USB 2.0 upgrade was that 1.1 devices slowed down the USB hubs forcing people to the inconvenient setups involving separate hubs for USB 1.1 and USB 2.0. At the same time USB 1.1 and USB 2.0 still used nearly exactly same PHY interface, in particular using the same copper pair for the signaling.

The situation with USB 3.0 is different. The USB 3.0 signals go over a separate pair of copper pairs (4 additional wires altogether) with the completely duplicated PHY interface to maintain the galvanic contact and compatibility with old USB 1.1/2.0 signaling copper pair. This not only duplicates the copper wires but duplicates the silicon area. Only the 3.0 portions of the circuitry receive the benefits of the new technology. Here's the short quote from the Texas Instruments' TUSB1310A: "Fully Adaptive Equalizer to Optimize Receiver Sensitivity". But it is only engaged when device works in the USB 3.0 regimen, not when in backward compatibility USB 2.0 mode.

In my opinion this is nearly the same technological shift that happened when the parallel interfaces got replaced by the serial interfaces. It slowly became obvious that de-skew-ing the parallel buses is more complex than ser-des-ing the serial buses. Once the adaptive noise equalizers become ubiquitous intellectual property macros everyone will switch to the newer standards just to take advantage of the increased reliability and noise immunity.

The necessary devices already exist. I mentioned Cypress FX3:

but I want to reiterate that I'm not advocating implementing them now. It may be worth considering for the future.

In a nearby thread sidehack mentioned that his ideal USB stick miner will have "8-bit AVR microcontroller with firmware coded in assembly, probably less than 200 lines". Well, here it is an USB 3.0 peripheral controller with 32-bit ARM and 0.5MB RAM for free, but probably needs C programming, not just assembler.

Again, I'm not advocating developing it now and I'm not shilling for Cypress or Texas Instruments. But it is the way of the future. The USB 1.1/2.0 after many years completely subsumed old DB-9/DB-25/Centronics cables. The modern, advanced high speed serial buses USB 3.x/Thunderbolt/Lightning will subsume the classic, rather primitive USB generations.
8  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: GekkoScience BM1384 Project Development Discussion on: July 23, 2015, 08:23:26 PM
The reason that there are no USB 3.0 serial chips is that USB 2.0 is 480 Mb/s.  You can't run a serial protocol (probably, at least reliably) over a few tens of megabaud, and it's doubtful that you want to run it that fast.  You certainly don't need that sort of speed for a bitcoin miner.  USB 3.0 is still reverse compatible with USB 2.0, so just use a 2.0 chip.  There's no advantage to having a USB 3.0 chip at all, although a port with extra power is handy.
I only partially agree with what you wrote. Your point of view is very short term.

Currently there are no USB 3.0 to serial/SPI/I2C chip. But there will be. Sort of like the initial serial chips were USB 1.1, but everybody mostly converted to USB 2.0, despite backward compatibility.

Same thing will happen with USB 3.0 transition. It is "backward compatible", but the signals are carried over different pins, and only the native USB 3.0 get the benefit of the better noise immunity and the hardware equalization that is applied only to the USB 3.0 signals.

I expect that in the future there will be native USB 3.0 serial/SPI/I2C/JTAG & other rather low bandwidth protocol integrated circuits. Currently I've only seen USB 3.0 to SATA bridges, but that exactly parallels the USB 2.0 evolution when one of the first chips were USB 2.0 to ATA bridges.

The other significant improvement over USB 2.0 will be when the XHCI drivers will mature. XHCI interface is generally significantly better designed than the older UHCI/OHCI/EHCI interfaces. The XHCI is in my opinion destined to win purely on its being from the start designed to properly support virtual machines.

I don't know if the current problems with USB 2.0 mining devices plugged to USB 3.0 ports are caused by hardware (e.g. lower noise margins on the USB 2.0 pins) or by the driver problems caused by the cgminer attempting to threat USB 3.0 controller port & hub as an USB 2.0 controller port & hub and seeing only the fraction of the true picture.

The IC devices to natively support USB 3.0 will be on the market in several years. Maybe even -ck and kano will deign to read the XHCI documentation and update the cgminer to properly use their capabilities and not run them in their backward compatibility mode? Stranger things had happened in the Bitcoin milieu.
9  Other / Meta / Re: SSL changes 2015-07-23T00:00 UTC on: July 23, 2015, 12:38:28 AM
This error reoccurred, this time not involving older Macintoshes, but up-to-date patched, clean, unmodified Windows with Internet Explorer 11:

Turn on TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1, and TLS 1.2 in Advanced settings and try connecting to  again. If this error persists, contact your site administrator.

All those protocols were already enabled, and this time I'm positive that my ISPs (plural ISPs) were all working correctly and there wasn't man-in-the-middle or any other shenanigans going on.

The time stamp are in the range:

2015-07-23T00:00 UTC


2015-07-23T00:31 UTC

and this time I ran several tests on various ISPs and various OS installations.

10  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: GekkoScience BM1384 Project Development Discussion on: July 22, 2015, 07:28:17 PM
Is 3.0 still backward-compatible?
I question that all the time. How many times have you read comments in this forum where, a user says 'I just got this new yada yada miner and can't get it to work'. And how many times does the initial responses come back with.... Make sure you are plugging it into a USB 2.0 port.
It is all because lack of the real USB3.x bridge chips that interface serial/SPI/I2C.

All SiLabs bridge chips are USB 2.0 at most.

All useable FTDI bridge chips are also USB 2.0.

FTDI publicly has only two USB 3.0 chips (FT60{0,1}) that serves only parallel FIFOs (16&32-bit wide).

Do you know of any useable native USB 3.0 chips serving serial/SPI/I2C ? Not an entire ARM-based controller like Cypress FX3/FX3S that will require extensive programming?

11  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: GekkoScience BM1384 Project Development Discussion on: July 22, 2015, 05:34:47 PM
Yeah, i am calling myself an optimist as well.
It would be interesting either way
Are we an early christians so to speak or "cult" members? History will show.
The closest historical approximation to the present Bitcoin mining community that I can think of are the prayer mills that are used all over Tibet and Nepal:

Sometimes individual, sometimes whole farms of them:

Some even use renewable energy to keep them spinning:

Lama Zopa Rinpoche has said, "The merit of turning an electric prayer wheel goes to the electric company. This is why I prefer practitioners to use their own 'right energy' to turn a prayer wheel".

12  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: Why haven't we seen PDIP chips the traditional hobby DIY guy could use? on: July 22, 2015, 12:09:41 AM
I mean no offense to your opinions, but I've had a heck of a lot more fun designing the Compac than I would have had working on an FPGA board. I like to work with hardware instead of pretending to work with hardware, and programming a thing to think it's the hardware I want is not nearly as fun as getting iron burns.
Fun, and a perception of play, is a very individual thing. The only 'fun' that I can recall that involved soldering irons was when the professors left the room, we over-applied the rosin-based flux and played really loud "Smoke on the water" by Deep Purple on the tape recorder and tried to come up with alternative lyrics to that song. I'll be perfectly happy to never need to touch the soldering iron again in my life and do all my work by supplying design plans to the workshops.

Integrating a microcontroller with digital voltage control and temp sensing will go on the next model up.
I'm glad to hear that you are considering next version.

But you are going to commit a grave mistake if its going to have a programmable microcontroller with firmware. USB 2.0 has enough bandwidth to support all the required circuitry in the completely dumb-terminal mode.

Unfortunately I don't know the specifics of the ASIC you are using, but the general design points are as follows:

1) absolutely no firmware or microcontrollers can be run on the same power supply as the mining chip !!!one!eleven!
2) simple, high bandwidth USB to serial converter chip with high noise immunity using SPI, I2C, plain serial with hardware flow control, etc.
3) pre-calibrated SPI/I2C thermometer IC touching the same heathsink
4) external clock generator with programmable frequency and duty cycle.
5) SPI/I2C interfaced programmable voltage converter
6) if the chip doesn't have a an on-die temp-sensing diode maybe there is a way to rig up a temperature sensor by doing e.g. IO-pad leakage to time converter with external RC components and measure chip temperature indirectly by measuring time in the host software.
7) obviously, if there is an on-die diode then just hook it up the external thermometer IC.

Don't dis the manual voltage adjustment
I'm trying to. But I sense that you are probably not aware what can a single person do with e.g. a copy of National Instruments LabView Student Edition when that person doesn't need to practice screwdriver artistry and work around firmware limitations/bugs/faults but can simply do a proper laboratory workflow by setting up operational points (voltage,clock parameters) and measure the outputs (temperature,hashing speed & error rates).

One additional comment about the lame design choice that Spondoolies made: they used on-chip temperature-to-digital converter macro instead of a cheaper and simpler diode with external thermometer IC. The internal SSN (simultaneous switching noise) on their chip made their temperature readouts rather unreliable. And they knew very well that the SHA256 mining chip is very close to the theoretical maximum toggle rate of any practical digital circuit.
13  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: Why haven't we seen PDIP chips the traditional hobby DIY guy could use? on: July 21, 2015, 09:12:48 PM
Are those guys still selling? is opening for me just fine. Ask them or search around on the forum for the used ones. They won't be cheap, because they are actually very well designed.

The cheap ones are e.g. Enterpoint's Cairnsmore with their horrible ringing on the clock signals that almost killed the whole business.
14  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: Why haven't we seen PDIP chips the traditional hobby DIY guy could use? on: July 21, 2015, 08:58:12 PM
In my opinion lack of voltage control and temperature measurement (not just overtemp warning) is what nearly completely removes the learning and experimenting potential of those devices.
Or perhaps it enables it by allowing people to add their own solutions Smiley  But people have to be willing to put in the effort, and I just rarely see that sort of desire.

The 2nd market is there, but isn't getting served. Such a shame...
You could volunteer to cater to that market Smiley
Substitute "crutches" for "solutions".

The mining hardware market is a showcase of how not to design hardware. You can find pretty much every possible dumb fault in various hardware miners. By "dumb" I mean "something that would be nearly trivial financially to fix and productize correctly".

ngzhang was the closest to an ideal with his dual FPGA board. But he routed only TxD and RxD from the FTDI serial chip to the Xilinx Spartan, despite FTDI supporting 8 or 12 signals. How much time they then spend trying to fix and work around this problem at the protocol level!

In the ASIC group the Spondoolies would be the closest to the nice platform for experimentation. But they completely fubared the airflow design, heating some chips in the loop with the exhaust air of the others. How dumb is that?

The way I'm serving the market of experimenters is by warning them away, unless they want to learn about the pathologies of electronic design. Buy and disassemble an old radio or TV, or even an old computer.

There's almost nothing in the Bitcoin hardware milieu that I could with the clear conscience suggest as a learning and educational toy for the interested student. is the only exception, but they never really catered to the demands of the Bitcoin market.
15  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: Why haven't we seen PDIP chips the traditional hobby DIY guy could use? on: July 21, 2015, 08:07:06 PM
Bit of an annoyance to write the matching driver code, though Smiley  And while adding a temp sensor on the heat sink (I don't think the BM1384 has an on-die one) could allow for warnings, it would have to be further interfaced again with driver code in order to actually clock things up/down based on temperature.  The Avalon Nano is a nice example of a StickMiner that has all that already on-board though Smiley
The painfulness of driver code is mostly Con Kolivas, Kano's & Luke-Jr fault. They intentionally made their miners frighteningly convoluted "bags of drivers". The early BitFury miner was a thing of beauty and elegance despite having to straighten out the jumbled data due to the metal misrouting in his original chips.

In my opinion lack of voltage control and temperature measurement (not just overtemp warning) is what nearly completely removes the learning and experimenting potential of those devices.

It is one thing to "make them work" and the other thing "to make them work and make them worth studying and learning".

The 2nd market is there, but isn't getting served. Such a shame...

16  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: Why haven't we seen PDIP chips the traditional hobby DIY guy could use? on: July 21, 2015, 07:54:31 PM
Aaaah the good ole iron burns... whatnot using your blistery fingers to try to fix a prototype....

But yeah, i've been intending to get an FPGA since i used them on the university and was wooed by VHDL and Verilog.... it has been like 12 years since i last touched an FPGA  Undecided
Then what are you waiting for? Get an FPGA kit, it will completely cure your jones for DIY. All the toolchains I've seen support schematic capture as one of the design input method, so you aren't saddled with coding in Verilog or VHDL, and go back to the familiar concept wiring the gates.

For the sake of old times buy yourself a can of rosin in the store that serves musicians (it is used to maintain bows for violin, cellos, etc.) and slowly melt it to get the whole sensual experience of the old style electronic DIY.

17  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: Why haven't we seen PDIP chips the traditional hobby DIY guy could use? on: July 21, 2015, 07:27:52 PM
Probably more Adafruit's domain - they accept Bitcoin and have done some Bitcoin-related articles.  SparkFun not so much.  But again, they'd have to be able to source the chips - unless you'd be okay with just a bare board, but then that's something that can be whipped up in no time and sent off to one of the board fabs (OSHPark is nice and hobbyist-friendly with quality boards).  I do wonder how stable that would be, though.. routed out to various pin headers? mmm.
I read your review of some upcoming USB stick miner and it shows that the Bitcoin community completely missed the ball on creative experimenting.

It wouldn't increase the cost much to include the proper software-controllable voltage regulator instead of a lousy trimpot. Same with adding a pre-calibrated heath-sink temperature sensor IC. Does the included ASIC chip even have an on-chip diode that can be used to measure the die temperature?

The marked evolved to serve "compulsive miner" people, not the "learning and experimenting" people.

18  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: Why haven't we seen PDIP chips the traditional hobby DIY guy could use? on: July 21, 2015, 07:19:08 PM
That's too bad, DIP packages are what most of us can handle on a hobby project... you know, protoboards and such... would be fun to have a way to experiment with mining chips on everything, or even a diy miner kit... but i digress....

It's just that i see sidehack having all the fun, and i want some cake too hehehehe

On a side note, i guess a BM1384 breakout board would be a product Sparkfun would sell nicely Wink Wink
Dude, if you are longing for the breadboard days you just need to get yourself an FPGA development board. The cheapest ones are under $100 and for sure they can mine coins. What do you think is my avatar?

But you will have to move with the times. Search this forum archives for the mentions of FPGA and you will find plenty of interesting resources.

Unless you are one of those who are really longing for the soldering iron burns, the FPGA kit is all you need to make you happy. With FPGAs you won't even need the expensive logic analyzers, the development toolchains have a Chipscope, which is basically a software logic analyzer connected over JTAG/serial/USB interface.


19  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: Why haven't we seen PDIP chips the traditional hobby DIY guy could use? on: July 21, 2015, 05:00:21 PM
The days of DIP chips with 5V or 3.3V power supply and current draw in miliamperes are gone. It is still possible to have them made, but they are surprisingly expensive to make.
20  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Litecoin is officially dead on: July 21, 2015, 06:08:54 AM
You'll need to clearly mark edits to have a meaningful discussion on the forum. Otherwise I'm going to assume that you are simply drunk or otherwise under the influence.
Ok - I get it... sorry if I failed to recognize your signature earlier.

BTW: litecoin is updating their code based on bitcoin changes (check Github).  Therefore if there are to be software problems with Litecoin, the same should occur on Bitcoin...

Is Litecoin a copy-cat of Bitcoin?  Totally... with the exception of the POW algorithm, some anti-spam function not in Bitcoin, with 4x more transactions per minutes, faster confirmations, and only 3X less nodes than Bitcoin.

The fact that you say that you are not interested by Litecoin, but that you bother to provide comments on a Litecoin post, and that you checked the Litecoin Testnet extensively, up to finding multiple forks existed on the Testnet, ...  tells me that you are concerned about Litecoin.  

Arabs and Jews - Bitcoin and Litecoin - why can't we live in peace? Let's not repeat errors of the past - a new beginning.  Both are born from the same root, both can help and grow together, complementing each other... Bitcoin for value, Litecoin for fast transactions and ledger data transmission....  Let crypto be on the right side of history!
Who cares if there are forks on the testnet - that's what the testnet is for - testing!  There is no meaningful mining hash rate on the testnet - therefore... forks... Again, who cares... it is not a sign of lack of developers - but merely a sign of lack of miners....   

As long as the mainnet  holds - and it did over the last 4 years - that what's important.  The coin being so cheap, most developers must be testing their changes on the main net...

You have to remember that the Bitcoin Testnet was introduced only in 2011 when the price of Bitcoin was around $3.   What is the price of Litecoin at the moment? ...  Maybe when Litecoin reaches higher prices then developers will find it useful to use a Testnet instead of the MainNet.
Looking through the post in the Litecoin launch thread I see that I've run both litecoin's mainnet & testnet less than 3 days after the official launch. The 1st testnet probably run even earlier than the official launched mainnet, although I can't access that machine now.

You seem to be confusing the dates of the resets of the testnet with the dates of the launches.

What I'm afraid of is that Litecoin's core development team had abandoned it's creation. This would be a shame and disappointment. In the past there were lulls in the interest and development around the Litecoin core client. I recall testnet partitionings, but I do not recall such a long fork.

Anyway, is there anybody awake and sober reding this thread who could either restart the Litecoin's testnet client on his machine ot sjust start it from scratch and report back?
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 ... 85 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!