|
In my case, people from Litecoinpool have found that my miners firmware requests unusually high share difficulty. I use Titan miners with Gen Tarkin mod. Earlier this request caused no problems, because the share difficulty maximum at the pool was much lower. A few days ago the maximum was increased to allow better compatibility with large mining operations. In effect my miners are getting what they ask: very high share difficulty, so they submit the shares so infrequently that the pool is unable to estimate the short-term speed of my miners. The solution/workaround is in the works.
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
Current speed of my workers is reported as 0.0 kH/s instead of about 500 MH/s.
They are connected to litecoinpool and work as usual, just the speed displayed at the site is zero.
What can be a cause of it?
If the pool reports a speed of zero it means that your miner is not submitting shares. This can happen for a variety of reasons, ranging from hardware failure to software misconfiguration. Since there are many possible causes, it is hard to debug this issue without further insight. You should try to look for error messages, but unfortunately many ASIC interfaces are not very helpful in this regard. (...) Wrong. Both my miners are submitting shares. For several days "24-hour" speed is displayed correctly and rewards are growing, yet "Speed" is displayed as zero. "Stale shares" value is around 0.4% and "Invalid shares" is 0.00%. The "24-hour" speed value alone is not a good indicator of work, because in case of failure I will know about it late. Occasionally I perform thermal tuning - the "Speed" display at the site is crucial for that. The values reported by miners' soft are usually misleading. |
|
|
|
I have enormous numbers of "stratum requested work restart" messages one after another, without a single accepted share, on all my miners CPU, VGA and even Gridseed 5 Orb, and here are they even reported as offline (because they did not find a single share) My case is similar today. Current speed of my workers is reported as 0.0 kH/s instead of about 500 MH/s. They are connected to litecoinpool and work as usual, just the speed displayed at the site is zero. What can be a cause of it? |
|
|
|
Dear Wisdom.
Your minig calculator is not updated, still counting 25BTC block reward.
PLS update it ASAP.
Looks like he has updated. I thought OP does not maintain the site anymore and it is on autopilot. But, it seems, he does... The LTC mining calculator doesn't account for halving which happened over a year ago. The amounts calculated are doubles of the actual numbers. Dear Bitcoinwisdom, be "Litecoinwisdom" too and correct the LTC calc as well. |
|
|
|
The current Litecoin chart did not factor in Litecoin's own halving?
nope. its been like a year.. I hope the site developers will do something about it.  No chance. They missed Bitcoin halving too. And they are not reading this thread for a year, despite their own "Send feedback" link directs here. |
|
|
|
Also I made the mistake of making sure the transaction hash matches for a transaction. I had assumed that if the transaction hash doesnt match, it is invalid rawbytes. Are you saying that we dont need to verify that the transaction hashes match? As you know verifying signatures is very time consuming compared to verifying txid. So if verifying txid is not available anymore, that would dramatically increase the CPU load for any validating node.
Anymore? It was never done in the first place. Verifying the transaction has always been checking the signatures because the creating and verifying signatures involve the hash of the transaction. Also, I am making an optimized bitcoin core and one of these optimizations is rejecting a tx whose contents doesnt match the txid. The thinking being that if the hashes dont match, there is no point in wasting time calculating the signature Also, I am making an optimized bitcoin core and one of these optimizations is rejecting a tx whose contents doesnt match the txid. The thinking being that if the hashes dont match, there is no point in wasting time calculating the signature Every piece of Bitcoin software does this. It is a little obnoxious that you spend so much time talking about these optimizations you're "adding" which are basic behaviors that _every_ piece of Bitcoin software ever written has always done, as if you're the only person to have thought of them or how they distinguish this hypothetical node software you claim to be writing. Can't you, gmaxwell and knightdk, settle on verifying txid at last? It's really hard to get info on SegWits here if even such an obvious thing (one would think) gets contradictory answers.  |
|
|
|
Now at the old Westhash address people get a message from Cloudflare about temporary problems with the connection and advising them to try after several minutes. There is nothing about being not active. There would be better a redirection to www.nicehash.com. |
|
|
|
|
Why suddenly Eligius statistics started to be reported with yesterday date and data??
I had the hashrate graph and the balance displayed up to beginning of today (27th Jan), but after refreshing they are shown up to about 10:00 of 26th Jan.
And the quotes are significantly lesser. What's the heck?
|
|
|
|
|
A year or two of two-digit price would keep the difficulty low or at least not growing. A one digit price would constraint it even more.
But would we profit from it?
|
|
|
|
Funnily enough, plugging it in also results in destruction of your equipment.
I agree that it is funny. However, it is not true. As explained in the news posted several months ago, only few miners had an issue that caused the mosfet to short-circuit itself. This was due to a poor design made in cooperation an Onsemi FAE. After working with Vishay's engineers we have fixed the issue. We have been replacing under warranty all miners and/or boards affected. I reported to you one X-3 affected by this issue: Ticket ID: QNA-765-48102 Subject: X-3 affected by burning hashboards problem I got no answer then (despite my inquires) and the ticket is removed. So no, you haven't been replacing under warranty ALL miner/boards affected. My miners (two cases of one X-3) still wait to be repaired and I've got no RMA to send you the boards. |
|
|
|
|
The total of dividend paid for one share until today is a bit over 0.064 BTC.
It means all "old" shares (bought at IPO two years ago) have got a ROI of 160%. Not bad.
And it is still counting towards say 165-170% (depending on difficulty grow rate and how long it will be possible to sell shares for 0.0028).
|
|
|
|
Looking at shares owners accounts is not so hard on Picostocks pages - just click a person's name. There is a person who started on 15th July 2013 and bought 150 shares for 0.395 BTC each. (Next transactions were a bit strange: https://picostocks.com/users/transactions/921/page:44) Now the person owns 3116 shares, which equals to about 10-12 BTC ($2100-2500) in current prices. (One should earn more from keeping then than from selling, it may be even 20 BTC or more, as difficulty won't grow much when bitcoin price is low.). The total invested money (58 BTC x $80/BTC = $4640) minus the current value (above) gives a loss around $2300. (If BTC value goes up, the loss will be smaller.) The loss is not big enough to justify going to courts. The lawyers would cost much more. Crying here is cheaper and similarly effective. |
|
|
|
|
I see no similarity of this chips apart of process. Cointerra specified its chip power efficiency as 0.5 W/GH/s, while MBP described its mining gear as having similar efficiency but at the wall.
The difference is obvious.
I observed the 100TH/500TH thing from the IPO. The 100TH development depended heavily (or more: all or nothing) on creation of Bitfury chips.
I followed all the information concerning first Bitfury chips (mainly on Russian language threads) in 2013. In short: they were a bit late and produced half the expected speed, but comparing to the rest of the industry it was sheer luck to achieve so much. (In 2014 Bitfury had no such luck with his next generations of chips, despite spending plenty of money.)
I followed the threads discussing the development of devices based on the chips. In short: there were problems with the stability (first devices needed much baby-sitting) and reliability, which were resolved only after several months. In effect there was shortage of devices and, indirectly, problems for 100TH.
Basing on all that, I can say that in my opinion, Giray, your accusations are empty. If you invested when the share price was high, don't blame others for your bad investment decision.
|
|
|
|
|
The LED blink numbers (to have them handy with no ssh) in SP3x, FW 2.5.64,
mean such boot phases (init.d scripts):
20 logging
4 mount/misc
5 logging_nvm/hotplug
6 hostname
7 netplug
8 nfs
9 cron
11 spi
12 cryptodev
13 squid (loading FPGA)
2 spondoolies (is IP assigned)
3 spondoolies (no IP assigned)
|
|
|
|
In conclusion, the Antminer S5 is a top tier miner. It's cheaper & cooler than it's closest counterpart (SP20) and is available to ship from stock for as low as $480 on amazon.com. I am definitely grateful to Bitmain for the opportunity to review this product (...).
This time Ognasty's opinion is simply ridiculous. He describes the measurements of 661 W for 1.13 TH/s as "cheaper and cooler" than 640 W for 1.2 TH/s. The most important factor is now the temperature of output air, eh? Next time just compare the prices instead of running the hardware. Obviously even legendary account in no guarantee of righteous opinion as it can be fooled into so "grateful" rubbish. And Bitmain lost their blamelessness too for such quoting. |
|
|
|
2.5.52 link fixed.
Thanks, Zvisha. But wait... Why the key value is not 646? "Number 646 is a compilation of the energies and vibrations of number 6 and number 4, with number 6 appearing repeated, amplifying its influences. Number 6 lends its attributes of stability and grace, acquisition, healing, love of home and family, protection, care and nurturing, solution-finding and problem-solving, reliability and responsibility, integrity and honesty...
|
|
|
|
I have 2 SP20s, for one of them I can not acces the settings page anymore, My router assiged the following ip adresees : 192.168.1.99 and 192.168.1.100 I can access just fine the one ending with 99 But I can not acces the one with 100 anymore saying that the web page is not available when I try accessing it from my browser Both of them are up and mining, they have the pool settings stored, I just can't access one of them's menu this are the ip's asigned by the router: http://gyazo.com/1dcfb737298ce594e928aa99131f1dacAny ideeas? thank you ! Do it answers to ping? ("ping 192.168.1.100" command at another computer.) Did you tried to power it off and on? |
|
|
|
Nice new picostocks page design Leszek I think is worse than previous... They surely wanted Picostocks pages to look more professional and uniform. Now the pages have such a look but are less readable and less ergonomic than the earlier ones. |
|
|
|
I'm very happy with my SP20's performance with p2pool, it's steady and to spec. I do have a couple of questions though, if someone can help me out: I want to experiment with the -queue setting, as from my experience p2pool likes this set to zero & reduces the DOA/stale rate. I presume that as there is no flag in the cgminer command already - it is using the default setting of 1? When I add the command "queue":"0" to cgminer via ssh & restart the miner, the queue flag is displayed on the cgminer pools page, but with no value stated underneath, instead of showing 0. Is this a bug, or am I unable to use the queue command on the SP20? You can change params in /etc/cgminer.conf. You can also replace cgminer in /etc/bin/ with custom cgminer, or with script that will call any excecutible with any parameters. I am not experienced with cgminer in p2pool to help beyond that.Also, on the asics stats page, am I correct in thinking that board 0 corresponds to loop 0, board 1 to loop 1, etc? I've noticed that loop 0 & 2 are running at a lower temp than loops 1 & 3 - so was wondering if I can increase the watts to those loops/boards via the settings page? Or do the watts have to be the same for all 4 boards (power units on the settings page)? There are 4 virtual boards in SP20, and the back boards (1/3) are throttled more in temp over 17C because they are not getting cool air. Increase fans or decrease ambient temp, if possible. Thanks in advance Inline. Hi zvisha, Inline? Does that mean the watts must be the same for all 4 power inputs? Thanks again PatMan, you problably have figured it out by yourself already, but "Inline" means here "The answers were placed inline as bold text". |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
