|
702
|
Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: [ANN] Sfards: SF100－the first 28nm Dual-Mode Miner gets into mass production
|
on: July 15, 2015, 06:34:00 AM
|
yeah I agree...it will be either stable price of say $4.50 after halving ...ie LTC gained some converts who bought above $4.50 and due to halving now feel safe to hold such and/or continue to mine LTC as such or it will dump to 2 bucks and at that point LTC will prove it still is ONLY a speculative coin and bag holders like myself wait till next august 2016 or so for the BTC halving and hope that LTC speculatively rides the BTC coat tails and then we dump our hoard then  see always room for 'denial' as a bag holder of any crypto in question ..its an art Of course its purely a speculative coin. Noone really uses it for anything outside of speculative trading, hell even BTC is struggling w/ that, in the grand scheme of things. |
|
|
|
|
703
|
Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: Most efficient SP20 settings?
|
on: July 12, 2015, 05:45:41 PM
|
|
To OP, each SP20 is different but, the slower you run them the more "effecient" they are, like many asics.
I find that between 1200-1300GH works best for me =)
|
|
|
|
|
707
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Its time to jump ship w/ this BULLSHIT GOING ON!!! FUCK YOU CHINESE POOLS!
|
on: July 10, 2015, 03:59:35 AM
|
So why exactly are they not including other transactions in those blocks? Do they solve them faster if they include less TXs or are they only doing this because they want people to add bigger fees?
This isn't right, isn't there a protocol that stops them from doing this?
Its the price of freedom man. Imagine if btc network was hardly used, blocks that had 0 tx's in them would have to be allowed. For all we know they may even be in cahoots w/ the spammers. I dont know why they would be , it would be destroying their own revenue stream by making btc unuseable for everyone that isnt knowledgeable on how tx fees work. Also, the only benefit I know if is bandwidth saving maybe, memory saving? not to sure. |
|
|
|
|
711
|
Bitcoin / Mining speculation / Re: Just how large is bitfury because as of the last 24hrs....
|
on: July 07, 2015, 12:41:18 AM
|
yeah I saw that 19% is a lot. Big move on their part. I wonder how this shakes out. we are closing in on the ½ ing from 25 to 12.5 btc a block. down to 35 weeks or so. If the bitfury chip does not well under .3 watts at the wall in big machines they need to be careful that they have not over-expanded. Now if the gear is under .2 watts at the wall and no one can match it they should be good to go. Or the price just crash really low and they are fucking broke and outta business, that would be optimal. Take out all the other large mines too. Those greedy fucks, I assume noone can even buy their equipment publicly? They are just self mining bastards right?! |
|
|
|
|
715
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Are we stress testing again?
|
on: July 06, 2015, 10:06:03 PM
|
I guess a bigger block mb size will help in cases like this, is stress testing really a good way to point out to others that bitcoin needs bigger size blocks, then it comes the dilemma of miner saying one size and core developers an other.
uhhmm NO. bigger blocks has nothing to do with this. if you want to send out dust (not sure why you would) you shouldn't expect it to be confirmed right away or at all. bigger blocks can be filled just as fast with spam transactions as it doesn't cost much of anything. filling 20mb blocks will cause problems with nodes not getting blocks synced. regular transactions are NOT affected. I think u missed the point of the stress tests, well the only way I can figure ... is to prove that if this were to become bitcoin's normal tx rate anytime, then the blocksize would need to be made larger. Because a constant tx rate of over just 7 tx/s I think?? will cause all sorts of tx confirmation delays at the current blocksize limitation. |
|
|
|
|
716
|
Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: Been reading about a lot of dying sp20's
|
on: July 04, 2015, 05:27:59 AM
|
I found it helpful to reduce the power to the rear chips using the loop wattage limit. Helped keep them at a more consistent temperature, the cooling design wasn't exactly optimal in the SP20.
The design isnt bad, its just thats how these long tunnel designs work, the chips closer to the exit of air are gonna run hotter. Whats funny is on all 4 of mine its the rear chips that peform the best / most efficient and they run hot as fuck =P |
|
|
|
|
717
|
Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: Been reading about a lot of dying sp20's
|
on: July 04, 2015, 02:18:20 AM
|
I have 35 SP20 and all running around 1350-1400 mhash. Not a single one has died and has been running flawless since January.
The key thing with SP20 is to run them downclocked and COLD. Mine is running in ambient temp of 16 degrees celcius all are running with 2800-3000 watt ibm server psu and breakout board. Rebooting them every 16-18 days.
If I could I would buy more..
Not sure if they REALLY care about temp that much, my 4 in the summer have tanked 35-45C intake temps just fine =) What really odd I noticed is they clock themselves up a tad when they get hotter rofl! ... doesnt make sense. I really wish the firmware were smarter, its way too aggressive on clocking shit down and leaving voltages high, rather than trying to drop voltages then clocks. In other words they dont run nearly as effecient as they could. Any idea what changed on 2.7.1 firmware? |
|
|
|
|
719
|
Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: Been reading about a lot of dying sp20's
|
on: July 02, 2015, 04:52:46 PM
|
|
4x SP20e been mining on them since jan / feb without issue.
In recent months all 4 of them run towards 120C at chip temps on loop 2 & 4, VRM's around 100C ... they are tanking the heat like warriors.
I did up the fan to keep them as cool as possible. Throughout the winter, fan was at 10% and clocked much higher than they are now. I think they were running close to 120C in winter as well w/o issue. They declock / devolt as needed to stay under 120C
Run them anywhere between 1250-1400GH
|
|
|
|
|
720
|
Bitcoin / Hardware wallets / Re: [ESHOP launched] Trezor: Bitcoin hardware wallet
|
on: June 24, 2015, 12:58:30 AM
|
|
I have to say, Im thoroughly impressed w/ the trezor. Its become the only device / service that I fully trust w/ my bitcoin other than myself.
Ive not yet found anything worthy of that roll, till the trezor.
The idea of making as many hidden wallets I want w/ passwords thrills the hell outta me. Knowing my BTC are secure even in the event of theft / loss and not known to even exist is quite a feat. It could even function in that regard as both hot & cold storage wallets!
Also, knowing the entire thing is recoverable w/ a simple seed. Which, I would gather I could put anywhere, cuz once again, even if someone found it ... if they tried to use it, they would not see any funds unless they knew the exact passwords I used for my wallets.
It works flawlessly w/ my phone & mycelium as well... which is also awesome. Ive started using electrum as my bitcoin-core wallet replacement(took some getting used to but its working out well). Its nice to see a decent amount of addresses for each account in electrum so I know which ones are 'in queue'.
I still run bitcoin-core for full node support & my addresses are in there as watch only mode.
Overall very fucking impressive product! I think anyone serious about BTC should have one.
Its much better than the HW.1 & ledger products which Ive tried HW.1(same as ledger pretty much cept for software) ... they suck in comparison.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
