Bitcoin Forum
April 19, 2014, 09:00:52 PM *
News: Due to the OpenSSL heartbleed bug, changing your forum password is recommended.
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 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 52 53 54 55 56 57 [58] 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 ... 727
1141  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: Swedish ASIC miner company on: December 13, 2013, 05:59:48 AM
I have it and it works, but the only problem is the DHCP server gives random IP addresses that I can reserve.
I want to specify the IP addresses myself - 101, 102, 103, 104, 105 and 106 as in

DHCP isn't the same thing as DHCP reservation.  It sounds like you are just describing DHCP.  With reservation you could indeed set in the router to reserve:
192.168.101 to rig #1
192.168.102 to rig #2
192.168.106 to rig #6

the router will never assign any other IP address to those devices and will never assign those reserved IP addresses to any other device.

Most routers today support DHCP reservation although they may use a different name.  Look for a webpage where you can assign specific ip addresses to specific devices based on their host name and mac address.
1142  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: HashFast announces specs for new ASIC: 400GH/s on: December 13, 2013, 05:49:02 AM
How's the difficulty been these last two months we missed mining due to late delivery and how much will that impact us do you guys think?

From 1 Nov to 1 JAN a 400 GH/s rig would generate ~17.6 BTC based on historical difficulty and the next projected difficulty change on Dec 22nd.    

Now that assumes delivery on 1 January delivery. At the end of December, a 400 GH/s rig will generate ~0.2 BTC per day so feel free to adjust that +/- 0.2 BTC per day based on when delivery actually occurs.
1143  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Apparently Bitcoin was one of the answers on Jeopardy tonight? on: December 13, 2013, 04:35:18 AM
I'm not in the States and hence not familiar with Jeopardy.

If you answered litecoin would you have lost ..... whatever you lose?  Wink

The clue provided is the answer.  The response is in the form of a question.  So it would be "What is Bitcoin?".   

On if "What is Litecoin?" being accepted it probably would be considered incorrect but they do review alternate questions in the commercial break so I could see it being reversed upon review.   Answers are in categories so if the category was something like "Begins with B" then obviously Litecoin couldn't be valid.   

It would have been interesting if someone answered Litecoin.
1144  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Apparently Bitcoin was one of the answers on Jeopardy tonight? on: December 13, 2013, 04:33:49 AM
So did any of the players get it correctly.
1145  Economy / Speculation / Re: The Bounce is Official on: December 13, 2013, 04:29:39 AM
There is just a slight difference compared to Bitcoin. In Bitcoin you got less than 1000 people holding more than 50% of all bitcoins.... None of the assets above have such an unequal distribution of wealth.

Start digging.

It's much worse than in the real world.

Richest 1 Percent Control 39 Percent of World's Wealth

In bitcoin, the richest 0.05% Percent Control 50 Percent of the Bitcoin's Wealth.

Good chart.
The new system is even worse then the old.
Greed is good  Roll Eyes

That is nonsense.  1 address =/= one person.  MtGox cold storage addresses (and just about every other exchange, many eWallets, coinbase, etc) hold the value of thousands of individuals.

Drawing an equivelent chart for dollars would be saying.

The top 10 banks have 90% of the money supply on deposit so 10 individuals own 90% of the dollars.  Obviously an asinine conclusion as the value of the deposits at a bank aren't owned by the bank and even if they were don't represent the wealth of an individual.
1146  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: Swedish ASIC miner company on: December 13, 2013, 04:20:51 AM
Anyone have any idea why all my Jupiters change their IP addresses even though they are setup for static.
I set them all like this and a few hours later a random miner get a different IP, I change it back, then another miner gets a different IP and so on.

No idea but you may want to look into DHCP reservation as a work around.  Most routers support it and honestly once you get it down you will never go to static IP addresses again.  Many enterprise grade networks use it because it simplifies management.

Set all the Jupiters to use DHCP and then in your router there should be a section on DHCP reservation.  In the router you assign a particular network device (PC, mining rigs, printers, etc) a particular IP address.   

So the jupiter boots up contacts the router (DHCP server) and always get the same IP address assigned by DHCP.  The nice thing is all the config is done in the router so the device only needs to support DHCP.
1147  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: HashFast announces specs for new ASIC: 400GH/s on: December 13, 2013, 04:16:46 AM
So.. we are starting to get some power numbers:

Weve got two dies up on this. Right now we are clocking it at 700mhz and .84v core voltage. Its doing 248Gh/s on only 2 dies! Half a Golden Nonce.

Consumption is around 300 watts total and 78C die temp.

So... we are looking at ~600W total for around ~500GH? Obviously the 25% extra hashrate is nice, but I thought we were expecting the total power to be under 1J/GH. 
I guess that isn't going to happen unless we underclock.

So essentially roughly the same power efficiency as KNC, shipped late and at higher cost.
1148  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: HashFast announces specs for new ASIC: 400GH/s on: December 12, 2013, 10:57:56 PM
Each die has 96 cores, and each clock performs two hashes. Therefore with 2 dies running at 700Mhz should be achieving hashrates of 96*2*2*700=268.8GH/s. This means that either some of the cores are not working properly at all, or they are making errors. At the same error rate, and nominal clock of 550Mhz a hash rate of 194.9GH/s will be achieved, which is lower than the advertised 422.4GH/s. They will need to increase the frequency thus reducing the efficiency of the ASIC.

Well no ASIC has 100% core yield.  It just doesn't happen.  The 550 Mhz is only "nominal" in the sense of it is the starting point.  They are still running under 0.85v which is the nominal voltage for 28nm TSMC HP process so if they can get 700 Mhz out if then there is no real reason to go slower.   Ultimately they will have to find a sweet spot between power, error rate, and raw clock and have the chips target that.  The problem w/ HF was never the hardware, they seem to have some talented engineers.  The problem was the sleazy and dishonest way they went about selling off stock they knew they couldn't deliver upon.
1149  Other / CPU/GPU Bitcoin mining hardware / Re: Two Phase Open Bath Immersion Cooling Thread on: December 12, 2013, 09:37:16 PM
I am busy and going to be even more busy in the coming weeks so while I have the Flourinert I need to put this on hold until after the new year.   I have the tank, the rigs (well KNC and Bitfury, HF hopefully eventually), and the immersion fluid I just don't have the time to make the conversion right now.
1150  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Fidelity Now Allowing Bitcoins In IRAs on: December 12, 2013, 07:45:32 PM

But in any event, while you or I would rather just store our own bitcoins and avoid the fees, it's reasonable for the less technically-savvy. Additionally, this allows investors to gain exposure to bitcoin through an already-understood vehicle (ie, your CPA will be able to figure out the tax consequences easily). And the fees will likely remain pretty negligible compared to the overall gain or loss, for quite some time, due to the fact that bitcoin will remain volatile for a while; we're still obviously in wild price-discovery mode for a fascinating and far-reaching new technology, asset-class, and monetary system.

If you don't understand bitcoin enough to figure out how to properly store them safely then you probably shouldn't be pumping $25,000+ into them.

That's a pretty myopic point of view. There are certainly people who can easily grasp the economic ramifications without wanting to deal with the minutia of M of N paper wallets and encrypted backups. You need to understand the value of people's time. Someone who has plenty of money should value their time quite highly (we're all mortal, after all (barring some singularity-induced shift in the meaning of life)). Spending days learning how to securely deal with bitcoins (and it would indeed be days for someone not already tech-savvy) just isn't a good use of time for a lot of people.

Also, pay attention to my note about the BIT being an investment vehicle that's already understood with regard to tax consequences. That's huge for the target demographic.

This.  There are plenty of financially successful people who have other people manage their money.  They always have, they always will.  Saying they shouldn't be putting a small portion of their wealth into Bitcoin just because they don't understand it at a nuts and bolts level is just short sighted.  Most people don't understand internet security enough to know how online banking keeps their account safe should they be prohibited from using online banking or engaging in eCommerce?

When people don't know something often the solution is to use the services of someone who does know.

1151  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Fidelity Now Allowing Bitcoins In IRAs on: December 12, 2013, 07:43:15 PM

Lame so now they are even telling accredited investors (who generally can do whatever they want with their money, different rules for the rich) they can't invest in this legitimate investment.  I mean it isn't that big of a deal because any high net worth individual could open a self directed IRA with another trustee faster than you can make a phone call but it is still lame on Fidelity part.
1152  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Transaction fees too much? on: December 12, 2013, 07:39:53 PM
Version 0.9 will have some improvements to fee computation.  The current client "rounds up" the tx size to next full KB so fees are in increments of the min fee amount or other larger amount set by user (i.e. 0.1 mBTC, 0.2mBTC, 0.3 mBTC etc).  However miners prioritize tx by actual fee / actual size.  So a person with 400 byte tx would pay 0.1 mBTC but this works out to 0.25 mBTC per KB which is likely much larger than necessary for timely inclusion in a block.  

This mismatch will be corrected in v0.9.  Most tx are less than 1KB.  The average tx is around 2 inputs and 2 output and ~400 bytes.  So 0.1 mBTC per KB on 400 bytes would be 0.04 mBTC.  Even without a reduction in fee rules the actual fee paid on this tx would be reduced by 60%.
1153  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: Swedish ASIC miner company on: December 12, 2013, 06:43:36 PM
Thanks for all your efforts on this D&T.  This worked perfectly on my dead machine as well.

Glad it helped.  Nothing like being the first one.  Weirdly the GUI firmware flash option did not work (even w/ ASICs disconnected), I tried it a couple of times.  If it had it would have saved me four days of stress and almost 2 BTC.  Still after getting it to flash by microSD it has been very solid.  Far exceeding my expectations, pretty solidly in the 670 GH/s range.
1154  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: Swedish ASIC miner company on: December 12, 2013, 06:39:45 PM
Please try some of the smaller pools too then.
The last thing we need is ghash (or btcguild) to become even bigger.
+1 to this.

As a heads up BitMinter is smaller but still large enough to solve a block every couple hours.  It has no required fee only a donation, and it offers perks for those who donate.  The pool also includes all tx fees, and merge mines NMC.  I have been mining it for two days and it has been solid.  One thing I never really thought about is BitMinter announced that to date they have paid out 1,000 BTC in transaction fees alone.  That almost a cool million USD in current exchange rate.  Many pools just keep the tx fees so it would be easy for BitMinter to make a million bucks more by keeping the fees but they don't (and never have).
1155  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: HashFast announces specs for new ASIC: 400GH/s on: December 12, 2013, 05:02:28 PM
So , If I'm getting it right , the most profitable way to mine is to sell your pickaxe!
Of , great !

For a limited time only I will share the secrets of my pickaxe revenue boosting system.  We all know that mining gold is getting harder and a pickaxe in January is probably only worth $3 per gigarock.  Honestly it is probably worth less than that but gold miners have gold fever and you can find enough people willing to pay $3 per gigarock in January.  Still is it your fault that you can't delivery until January and thus are limited to only $3 per GH/s (probably 1000% gross markup)?  Now some honest suckers might say "sorry you are going to have to live with "only" $10M in gross revenue for a couple months work".  You know what I say .... that is stupid honest sucker talk.  Don't listen to it for a second.  I am going to show you how you can double the $10M into $20M without delivering more or earlier.  Just free bonus money.

See the first thing you do is promise to deliver the pickaxes in October and mark them up from $3 per gigarock to a much more profitable $14 per gigarock.  Now you might be confused because you already know your pickaxes won't be ready until January so how can you promise October delivery?  It is what we in the creative pickaxing business call "telling your customers what they want to hear to get the moneyz", I have heard that honest suckers might call it lying, or fraud but I wouldn't know. Now this plan isn't for everyone, if you are looking for an honest profit where both you and your customers benefit then you should probably stop reading because this plan isn't for you.  Also if you are in that category want to buy some cheap pickaxes?  

Ok are all the honest suckers gone now?  Good now lets get down to business.  So instead of selling pickaxes in January for $3 per gigarock the revenue boosting secret is to pretend you will have them in Oct and offer them for $14 per gigarock.  We will "limit" this to half a million pickaxes.  We want to make it seem limited.  Nobody want to pay a premium and be at the end of the line.  Now if you get lucky some large group like IcePicking ("always bet on Ice") will do a lot of the work for you and buy about half of those early pickaxes.  Now just sell the other half retail.  Now some of those customers might be cautious so if sales are slow then give away some of the pickaxes for free as "protection".  Hang on trust me it will be worth it, these "free" pickaxes aren't going to make us a fortune at the expense of the customers who trust us.   See if the customers don't trust us they won't buy regardless but if they trust us but are worried about difficulty then the free pickaxes will seal the deal. So reserve 800K pickaxes for the PPP (Pickaxe Protection Plan).

Now you should know that after all this plays out as you know it will, your rep is ruined, so lets double down.   Your customers might not know you can't deliver on time but you do so don't hold anything back. You might as well offer "Dec" pickaxes you can't deliver either!  I mean if you are going to defraud one batch of customers why not defraud two for twice the profit and twice the fun?  So sell off the rest of your January pickaxes as "December" pickaxes and offer a deal of only $8 per gigarock (for a $3 per gigarock pickaxe).  See it is a "deal" it isn't as horribly bad as the first batch?  

Now stop a second and just think about the beauty of it.  We only have one box of January pickaxes.  That is it, yet with some creative pickaxing we have now sold two batches at different price points.   Some customers probably agonized over which was the better deal and they are all coming out of the same box!  ROFL! I mean all we have are January pickaxes, some just have an Oct sticker and some have a Dec sticker.  Smiley   See who says you can have fun making millions?

So lets punch this into the ole pickaxe calculator. The honest promise and delivery in January at a reasonable price nets us $10 million in revenue, but with some creative pickaxing we can still ship the same number of pickaxes at the same time but DOUBLE OUR REVENUE! Don't believe me?  Here is the creative math.  Honest (sucker) January delivery: 3.3 million pickaxes @ $3 per gigarock = ~$10M.  Creative Pickaxe Super Sales System:  0.5 million (promised for Oct) * $14 + 0.8 million * $0 (protection plan promised when we feel like it) + 2 million * $8 ("cheaper" batch 2 promised for Dec) = ~$20 million.

Both methods sell out our 3.3 million pickaxes.
Both methods don't ship until January (or maybe a few days prior).
The creative one makes twice as much money.

Now do you see the magic of creative pickaxing?   Well the bad news is if you want to get technical there is no such thing as something for nothing; this is just a wealth transfer from your customers to you under false pretenses (lawyers might call that fraud).  They never had a chance at getting units before January so $10M extra for "early" delivery is just a $10M reduction in net profit.  With mining margins as tight as they are that will be enough to push them into the red.  See they are paying $20M for pickaxes which really are only worth $10M because ... and this is the funny part ... they actually believed you when you said Oct and Dec delivery.   What a bunch of suckers.  

Of course the only downside is you have to deal with "whiners" who get mad when their Oct & Dec pickaxes doesn't arrive until January. You can't really blame them I mean the high priced pickaxes only make economical sense for the easier Oct rocks.  $14 axe in Oct = profit.  $3 axe in Janaury = profit.  $14 axe in January = profit (well profit for us and massive losses for them).  That is why the Pickaxes were only worth $3 per gigarock in January, but if we had sold them as January pickaxes we would have only made $3 per gigarock and that just isn't fair.  It isn't fair other companies were faster and thus were able to charge more.  I mean $10M with 1000% gross markup how many yachts can you buy with that.  The funniest part is many of your victims did the math and made all the right calculations.  They never would have paid $14 per gigarock for a January pickaxes because they KNEW it would be a loss.   Still with the ole switcheroo you can trick them to.  They have now absolutely no hope of even breaking even.  If you start to feel bad about all the loses your customers are taking and the fact that it was completely avoidable by being honest (and accepting a fair price for a fair product), just buy another sports car, or snort some more premium blow off an expensive hooker. Nobody said creative pickaxing was going to be easy, but a "bonus" $10M should help your guilty conscience.
1156  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: HashFast announces specs for new ASIC: 400GH/s on: December 12, 2013, 04:38:12 PM
Any thoughts of how the MPP might lick our wounds?

I agree with Cevadid analysis upthread.  Essentially the MPP will be +400% hashing power but hashing power alone is irrelevant.  What matters is hashing power / current difficulty.  If difficulty growth averages ~27% per adjustment then difficulty will roughly quadruple between 1 Jan and 1 March.  So 4x the hashrate for "free" but at 4x the difficulty means the additional hashrate will produce ~ the same amount of BTC (before electrical cost which is now 400% as much) as the original unit did.

TL/DR the MPP will probably roughly double your lifetime revenue (whatever that might be).

In Cevadid numbers it comes out to ~9 BTC for a BabyJet and ~8 BTC more for the MPP in lifetime revenue.

Now like any projection the output is based on the input so a couple caveats:
a) It assumes you have your Batch 1 rig delivered on 01/01/2014. A delay means less revenue and an "early" delivery means more revenue (~0.2 BTC lost/gained per day before/after 01/01).

b) It assumes you have your MPP delivered on 03/01/2014.  A delay means less revenue and an "early" delivery means more revenue (~0.2 BTC lost/gained per day before/after 03/01).

c) It assumes that difficulty growth will average 27% per adjustment at least in the short term.  In reality difficulty can't keep doubling every month forever but so much of the revenue is front loaded that difficulty slowing 6 months out doesn't have much of an effect.  By Oct you are down to 0.1 BTC anyways so lets say difficult slowed to only 10% per adjustment and thus doubling every three months.  That would only add another 0.6 BTC lifetime revenue.  Still if you want to be a little more hopefully you can probably pad Cevadid's numbers by 1 maybe 2 BTC so say 20 BTC total for original unit & MPP.

d) The MPP is completed boards only.  So you will still need to supply a case/rack/frame/cardboard box, power supply, some controller (rPi, BBB, dedicated atom based system, or your home PC/laptopt would work fine), and cooling system (Corsair HydroCool is retail version of loops that HF is using).  So there is some additional expense, but the parts are "off the shelf" and shouldn't be too expensive.  I estimate maybe $600 (for 4 boards, 1,600 TH/s using 1400W or so) if you are a DIYer.  Not sure if HF will supply kits but I would just buy parts yourself and have them ship "naked boards".  I wish I could do that for the ordered product as well.  Hey HF how about you ship me just the boards on my Batch 1 order and refund $500?  I mean in BTC terms you still come out ahead (I paid ~50 BTC so 0.5 BTC refnd would be 1% Sad ).

e) If you wanted to wash your hands of the whole thing the value of the MPP really just depends on what you think you can sell the boards for in March.  What will (ready to ship not pre-order) mining hardware be worth in March?  2 mBTC per GH/s?  Well that would be 1,600 * 2 /1000 = 3.2 BTC.  3 mBTC per GH/s? That would be 4.8 BTC.

f) Of course all this assumes HF can actually deliver, doesn't go bankrupt, or the chips have some as of yet unannounced flaw.  At this point nothing really would surprise me.

g) (only if you want to hope against hope and have your heart crushed by the HF sledgehammer again) technically the MPP should be delivered by in Feb not March.  HF has such a bad track record to date I think March ("only" a 30 day delay) is more realistic but difficulty is going up so fast if they actually got their act together and did something to ease the pain of their customers (which built the company BTW) a delivery on time would roughly double the lifetime revenue from the MPP (16 BTC vs 8 BTC)  A delivery "early" when the ship Batch 1 order on or around 1 January would double that again to ~32 BTC.  If you consider 8 BTC for the original unit that puts lifetime revenue around 40 BTC and the closest anyone could hope for break even.  Of course HF won't be doing that but dreams are nice.

* since revenue is front loaded the first 3 months are the most important.  If difficulty grows ~27% for 3 months then slows down it won't matter much.  Difficulty can't keep growing exponentially forever but lifetime revenue is so front loaded the difficulty falling off or even flatlining for some time doesn't really matter if it is on the tail end of the curve.
1157  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: HashFast announces specs for new ASIC: 400GH/s on: December 12, 2013, 03:57:38 PM
I think its highly optimistic to think that batch 2 HF will get theirs same time as batch 1. Batch 1 was rocket run "engineering run" in their own words that just got here in nov. given the planning and project management seen so far by this company, i wouldn't be surprised if the order just went in for 2nd batch wafers.

Well I hate to seem like an ass towards Batch 2 customers but that would be great news for Batch 1 customers after massively overpaying and being delayed months, having more than 2 PH/s from the same company crash onto the network right after they get delivery would just compound the loss.  If Cointerra (another 2 PH/s) managed to deliver at roughly the same time then difficulty for Batch 1 customers would skyrocket 50% to 60% the very next adjustment after they starting mining.  Think 0.2 BTC per day is bad?  Watch it crash to <0.1 BTC per day within days of when you start.

Still at this point I doubt batch 1 was ordered separately.  Here is why.  TSMC is a pretty good company, and they charge top dollar because of their reputation so when they give you a date they move heaven and earth to make sure that date sticked.  I have worked (indirectly) with them at previous employer (no I don't design chips I wrote custom software for high end networking equipment which use custom chips).  In Hashfast's case the time from tapeout to wafer delivery was 78+ days.   Rocket runs are usually 30-45 days especially for as mainstream as 28nm is.  75+ days is a slow for even a regular run (60 days is more common).  Foundry schedules aren't guaranteed but their rep (and billions of dollars in business) depend on timely estimates.  TSMC missing by a day or week is one thing.  TSMC missing by over a month on an rocket (engineering) run?  It just doesn't fit but then again 90% of what this company has said since launch no longer "fits".  

Still lets assume you are right.  Marginally better news for Batch 1 customers but utterly brutal for Batch 2.  If your right and the Batch 2 and MPP are part of a second run and that run wasn't ordered until now (after the chip bring up) well we are looking at two months until delivery of Batch 2, upgrade modules, and MPP.  Even if HashFast paid extra for a rocket run (note the claimed time from tapeout to delivery on the first run was 78+ days) you can figure 37 days (median between 30 and 45) for fabrication, another week for packaging, and lets be optimistic and say a week for assemble and ship more than 4 PH/s of hardware.  Throw in two days for delivery and you are looking at 46 to 53 days from order to delivery.  Add in a week of padding for problems, delays, component issues and two months looks like a pretty good estimate for a rocket run dropped today.  The bad news is rocket runs are 50% to 100% (depends on foundry capacity) more expensive.  Add another month to that for a normal run.

Semi OT but this is likely why KNC "Q1/Q2" for 20nm means "end of Q2 but we will throw in Q1 because we won't technically be lying because we say Q1/Q2 and it will boost sales but those counting on getting it before late Q2 are going to get burned".  For the record I have no hate for KNC they are the only hardware which after some DOA problems has performed above expectation, I just call em as a I see em.
1158  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: If confirmation takes 10 minutes, how will I buy coffee at Starbucks? on: December 12, 2013, 03:37:23 PM
Double spend is a real problem. 10 minutes is intolerable.

It's fairly easy even for non tech-savy people to install 2 clients on different devices and send money during call at the same time.

The one with larger fees will win.

Try it, it doesn't.  The network is far more robust than that. 
1159  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: HashFast announces specs for new ASIC: 400GH/s on: December 12, 2013, 03:35:33 PM
We're batting 0/3 (maybe 0/4 , was bAsic american?)  with american asic companies. Cointerra most likely missing Dec shipments as well. Merry Xmas...

if all manufacturers miss by the same time-frame it wont matter cause the diff-increase is also delayed

Chinese companies still making chips. Bitmain, avalon. Plus KNC is most likely making their first gen chps for themselves to mine. Don't forget bitfury as well.  Diff will keep rising.

Well the network is ~7 PH/s and KNC two batches in less than two months was >4 TH/s of that.  So the others are shipping but nothing like the volumes of KNC (and volumes planned by Cointerra & HF).  As the network gets bigger it takes bigger and bigger daily volume to keep growing at the ~30% per difficulty.  A slow rollout of 50 GH/s and 100 GH/s rigs isn't going to move the needle as much anymore.

Still HF customers had better pray that Cointerra is delayed at least 30 days after HF ships as that is another 2 PH/s that originally was going to be months and months after HF delivered and now could be roughly the same time.   Still even if Cointerra is delayed, batch 1 HF customers are still screwed as originally Batch 1 was Oct and Batch 2 was Dec.  That provided a nice gap between the 0.5 PH in batch 1 and 2.0 PH/s in batch 2.  Now essentially there is just one massive >2.5 PH/s batch.  Sure batch 1 customers might get their units a few days early (at 2x to 3x the cost) but when HF ships difficulty is going to explode upwards.  So either HF doesn't ship in which case batch 1 has no hashpower or they do ship in which case their difficulty is going up another 35%+.

To put it into perspective to produce the same amount of Bitcoins per day requires:
400 GH/s on Nov 1  (Original Batch 1 delivery date even padded 10 days)
908 GH/s today (if HF's BabyJets output 908 GH/s customers would be no better than getting 400 GH/s on time)
1,040 GH/s on Dec 31 (this assumes HF batch 2 is delayed 30+ days after batch 1 so it doesn't blast the difficulty)
1,352 GH/s on Dec 31 (w/ back to back delivery of batch 1)

This also assumes no more shipments from KNC this year and that Cointerra will be delayed 30+ days and the rest of the players continue their slow rollouts with no massive surprises (as in stepping on a landmine kind of surprise not a you just won the lottery surprise).

So pretty much at this point if HashFast converted all BabyJet's into Sierras and they were overclocked 15% it wouldn't be so massive bonus it would only be enough hashpower to give what was promised for Oct delivery.  Now is HF going to do this?  No but it illustrates just how screwed Batch 1 customers are.   Even IF HashFast upgraded all Batch 1 orders to Sierras, delivered all of them before 31 DEC, AND the chip operated 15% over spec, that would only be as good for Batch 1 customers as getting what they actually ordered on time (Nov 1).

1160  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: Swedish ASIC miner company on: December 12, 2013, 03:26:01 PM
I switched to, and immediately my HW errors dropped below 1.5% on all machines and have stayed there. Bye bye eligius I suppose!
Anyone have a good starting point for the difficulty setting with ghash? I'm at 256 right now.
I confirm that. Switching to other pools changes hardware error rates shown by cgminer from 14% to 1.6%.

I've performed a long test with Eligius, writing down all cores numbers turned off and on. The turning off starts not immediately but after a dozen of minutes.
The cores turned off are purely random. Then cgminer turns them on (one by one). They are still randomly turned off.
(Experimental "tuning" version of cgminer 3.8.2 is no better.)

It looks like something (a config string or data sent from Eligius) causes something wrong (like buffer overrun) with November miners,
making cgminer working erroneously, especially spoiling random nonces (what in effect degrades effective hashing rate and causes cgminer to turn off good cores gradually).

(It doesn't always happen - maybe it depends on which server at Eligius it connects, I guess.)

Agreed I observed the same thing with HW error % reaching 28% on Eligius and without even a reboot dropping to <1% on bitminter.  I have no idea how a pool can cause hardware errors (or even make cgminer think a hw error has occurred) but it is easily observable if KNC wants to point a Nov unit at Eligius to verify.

Also KNC please subtract HW errors from the hashrate.  You have good hardware you don't need to pad the numbers.   If someone made a rig which was 83290 GH/s with 100% hardware error rate which do you think should be the reported hashrate 83290 GH/s or 0 GH/s?
Pages: 1 ... 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 52 53 54 55 56 57 [58] 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 ... 727
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!