I don't care. I'm a believer anyway  |
|
|
|
isn't that their old bitforce single which is also called a bitforce single? I've never seen the PCB on the FPGA one but that exterior is identical.
That'll be the single SC alright, very nice. The single, most identifiably, would have just two large FPGA pads taking up most of the PCB. so if the single uses 8 chips, and Jally (presubably) one, then I guess the chip must work at half speed in the Jally. (40/8=5GH/s per chip) |
|
|
|
I learned that Steve here (Right):  is the Steve here (Right):  |
|
|
|
|
Be mindful to check pickforks and torches at the door.
|
|
|
|
I lost some bitcoins on GLBSE. bought some shares at 1.2, promptly dropped to 0.6  |
|
|
|
Wow. That's very, very dissapointing. But yes, to be expected from the 2nd coming. Also Luke, you shouldn't be so embarressed about your picture going up. The acne will clear up and facial hair will kick-in once you're through puberty. |
|
|
|
As an aside, My BFL units have now paid themselfs off. From now on, everything they make (less electric bill) is profit  |
|
|
|
Quick question: Luke-Jr just undone changes I made in the P2Pool wiki page, saying: cgminer is pretty much deprecated at this point Why would he say that? That's very sad.  |
|
|
|
|
I fiannly got a GPUMAX invite the other week... don't think I'll be taking it up.
|
|
|
|
Wow sensitive group,
Collective heavy flow day. Poor things. |
|
|
|
Over 2 days: CGminer: [2012-09-08 20:47:05] Started at [2012-09-06 13:11:23]
[2012-09-08 20:47:05] Runtime: 55 hrs : 35 mins : 41 secs
[2012-09-08 20:47:05] Average hashrate: 4961.5 Megahash/s
[2012-09-08 20:47:05] Solved blocks: 0
[2012-09-08 20:47:05] Queued work requests: 25805
[2012-09-08 20:47:05] Share submissions: 231002
[2012-09-08 20:47:05] Accepted shares: 230735
[2012-09-08 20:47:05] Rejected shares: 267
[2012-09-08 20:47:05] Reject ratio: 0.1%
[2012-09-08 20:47:05] Hardware errors: 0
[2012-09-08 20:47:05] Efficiency (accepted / queued): 894%
[2012-09-08 20:47:05] Utility (accepted shares / min): 69.17/min
[2012-09-08 20:47:05] Work Utility (diff1 shares solved / min): 69.25/min
[2012-09-08 20:47:05] Discarded work due to new blocks: 1187
[2012-09-08 20:47:05] Stale submissions discarded due to new blocks: 7
[2012-09-08 20:47:05] Unable to get work from server occasions: 379
[2012-09-08 20:47:05] Work items generated locally: 231185
[2012-09-08 20:47:05] Submitting work remotely delay occasions: 13
[2012-09-08 20:47:05] New blocks detected on network: 521
BFGminer: [2012-09-13 08:31:11] Started at [2012-09-10 20:36:08]
[2012-09-13 08:31:11] Runtime: 59 hrs : 55 mins : 3 secs
[2012-09-13 08:31:11] Average hashrate: 4917.5 Megahash/s
[2012-09-13 08:31:11] Solved blocks: 0
[2012-09-13 08:31:11] Queued work requests: 54000
[2012-09-13 08:31:11] Share submissions: 247619
[2012-09-13 08:31:11] Accepted shares: 247177
[2012-09-13 08:31:11] Rejected shares: 442
[2012-09-13 08:31:11] Reject ratio: 0.2%
[2012-09-13 08:31:11] Hardware errors: 0
[2012-09-13 08:31:11] Efficiency (accepted / queued): 458%
[2012-09-13 08:31:11] Utility (accepted shares / min): 68.76/min
[2012-09-13 08:31:11] Discarded work due to new blocks: 29545
[2012-09-13 08:31:11] Stale submissions discarded due to new blocks: 16
[2012-09-13 08:31:11] Unable to get work from server occasions: 359
[2012-09-13 08:31:11] Work items generated locally: 252177
[2012-09-13 08:31:11] Submitting work remotely delay occasions: 25
[2012-09-13 08:31:11] New blocks detected on network: 523
CGminer has it by a whisker. |
|
|
|
Many people do trust me.
 Good one! There should be a poll |
|
|
|
It's been going on for pages about something that is a pure technicality and nothing more. Worse than mine ...debateable  So what? Why do you care? Why does anyone care? Why is BluRay purple? Why do I only have one HDDVD that I can play in my HDDVD player? Why can't I wrote software to hash sha256 10x faster than the standard code ... oh wait ...
I agree. Shut it Lazyotto. No-one cares. |
|
|
|
I welcome choices And may the strongest survive |
|
|
|
I've already discussed this with ckolivas in the past. cgminer C code being executed on a CPU is ... quite ... fast. The delay is simply the verification of the share and the determination of the next getwork data (which is not a network getwork, cgminer already has the next piece of work necessary in most cases, and in the other cases it is not avoidable - getwork send and receive is already asynchronous) The performance gain would be small and possibly not even noticeable at the scale of data reported by cgminer ... though on a slow old crappy CPU, that may or may not be the case. To put that into context, if you have spent 10's of thousands of dollars on hashing hardware, get a normal CPU to run cgminer  My timing code already shows you information about that delay in the API stats command ... Not an issue of speed, but of aproach. Delays are messy. Seen the number of loops and sleeps in cgminer? Blurgh. |
|
|
|
And while you're at it, change the mining API to event-driven What do you mean exactly? At the moment, hashing works in a loop... start work -> wait for results -> get results - > go back to start. The mining thread issues work, then collects it. Where as each mining device could be asychronous. The device gets work from the queue when its idle, submits it when it's done. The device calls the shots... calls the routine to get work, calls the routine to submit work. |
|
|
|
Warning:
=====
Do not keep more than 42 BTC in a wallet.
I managed to hit the 32 bit bug, since I keep a positive integer for the amount of satoshis.
So, anything more than 42.94967295 BTC may be problematic (and even cause tx fees to be much larger than you expect).
Very good that it was found before any coins got lost ...
A fix will be coming next week (after London bitcoin2012 conference), probably with a short downtime.
No problem to play with lower amounts though.
Grazcoin
OK, that's a very amateur error :/ |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
