I mistyped the overlapping chips on the layout is actually on the left, also some on the bottom. Anyway, right of course this isn't proof of fraudulent activity. A simple explanation could be that it was just a quick job without particular attention to detail. I'm not one of these people who are convinced of a scam, although given the recent background check and the whole confidence game taking place I consider it a strong possibility. It is simply that given the track record of bitcoin there is a certain feeling to legitimate enterprises here. Something about openness and community involvement which simply aren't present with BFL. Look at the X6500 or ZTEX as an example, then look at Mybitcoin and Bruce Wagner. It's a certain feeling of professionalism which comes with legitimacy. Again this is not generally true but only a strong indicator. Make up your own mind.  Now if look you closely at this post, just can see it's pretty obvious that the poster has absolutely no idea what they are talking about. Of course this isn't proof of total ignorance. A simple explanation is that it was a quick trolling without particular attention to detail. I'm not one of these people who are convinced of blanket trolling, although given the recent trolling posts and the whole trolling game taking place I consider it a strong possibility. |
|
|
|
kuzetsa, meet Luke |
|
|
|
|
I haven't coded up Anubis to display that yet (get to it soon), but the stats say that maxbtc has roll time of 60, and oz/emc of 120. So I was expecting similar GW to oz.
|
|
|
|
|
Peaks at 9... There's no way EMC some how had over 20000 shares (equivilent) submitted in the same time the others has 10000.
Forget about submitted shares.
I'm just talking about Get works. EMC has more get works over the same time than the other pools. That shouldn't be the case.
|
|
|
|
If you're mining at higher difficulty, you need to take that into account because at diff 3 for example you'll be getting 1/3 the accepted amount and that's normal. Yeah use the API 'pools' and look at: "Difficulty Accepted", "Difficulty Rejected", "Getworks" To compare "A:" but including difficulty - compare "Difficulty Accepted" instead To compare "R:" but including difficulty - compare "Difficulty Rejected" instead To compare "E:" but including difficulty - compare "Difficulty Accepted" / "Getworks" which I'd call DA: DR: and DE: Edit: "Accepted difficulty shares:" and "Rejected difficulty shares:" are also reported in the summary when you exit cgminer Edit2: oh yeah ... 2.7.6 I'm looking at absolutes... Higher difficulty shares is drastically reducing up traffic as expected, but at the expense of down traffic. I'm thinking there's an optimal trade-off between difficulty and traffic. Inaba basically arbitrarily chose where to put the difficulty. With a little experimentation the optimal Hashrate/difficulty ratio could be found. ...Or function, perhaps it's not linear. As a comparison with the original diff 1 shares I was getting efficiencies of 700-800% at EMC. CGminer is telling me difficulty peaks at ~9 ( I have 5000MH/s) It's not a problem, after all most Internet connections have a high download rate. Just thought I'd raise the issue. |
|
|
|
Are we going to see watercooled ASICs?
Do you mind NOT posting ON TOPIC replies, please? Sheesh, some people. |
|
|
|
|
I work in Pasadena. I know how those little old ladys drive.
|
|
|
|
Much better |
|
|
|
|
Pretty sure 'passed' is correct.
|
|
|
|
|
*Folds arms*
*Raises eyebrow*
*Taps foot*
...
|
|
|
|
|
Crazyates,
Fix the god-damned title. It's pissing me off now.
|
|
|
|
|
I google myself regularly.
|
|
|
|
2 things: 1. EMC now has variable difficulty shares on all their servers. It scales according to your Hashrate 2. There's a proxy for N-roll-time which could help distribute work to all your machines: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=103248.0Untill GetBlockTemplate and Slush's Protocols become de-facto, these could well reduce your bandwith by some margin. |
|
|
|
USB power spec is 1 Watt. To get 3.5GH/s the chip would have to master 3500MH/Joule ... this is possible but unlikely.
2.5W for USB 2.0 |
|
|
|
If you do end up coming Yochdog, I swear to god if you don't have a beard like your avatar has, you might as well get back on the plane as soon as you step off.
Inaba, I was thinking the same thing, i wonder if this guy is really the guy in the pic!! sure sounds like Yochdog and sunbreak are well respected levelheaded geeks for the job!! It's Will Ferrel from Anchorman. "Milk was a BAD choice." |
|
|
|
|
of course if the yeild is so high they use full speed capable chips in the Jally, then those lucky people could up-clock it back to 5Gh/s.
I'm thinking though, rather then down-clock, they might disable hash-cores. (my thinking is the chip will work by having 1000's of individual hashing cores working simultaneosly)
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe chips with flaws (they'll always be some in a batch) will be used for the Jally, Just like CPUs are tested then binned to run at certain speeds.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
