what is the price for one cable from this image?
first page of the thread, $3.60 + shipping for one cable |
|
|
|
I gave up on this a long time ago. Sold my S2s.
Ditto I saved one for sentimental value to put in my museum some day it cost more to ship it then its worth these days  I sold all 5 of mine when everyone still thought kits would be available, at a price that basically got the same hashrate in S3 units |
|
|
|
How do I run one of these bad boys in Canada with only 120 Volts?
I run mine off 120V, just use regular ATX PSUs that are single rail. However you do need a dedicated 20A circuit to be safe! I use a 1000W PSU (2 boards) + 650W PSU (1 board). Or get an EVGA 1600. I used a 1300W for a while but it was just too close to the margin for comfort IMNSHO! ^This. however, a dedicated 15A circuit (1800W, or 1440W at 80% load) should be sufficient, paired with a surge protector/tripping power bar just in case. 2 outlets or 20A is ideal though. a lot of power supplies can output 90-110% of their rated capacity without issue over a long period of time, but it wears the components and is less efficient. PSUs work best with <70% load and are more power-efficient. |
|
|
|
|
has anyone managed to turn these into a simplified WIfi->ethernet adapter?
id love to program it with ssid/password for a few networks i use at home/office/travel so that i just plug it in, and hook up my miner to run without a problem.
I'm okay at dealing with routers, but couldnt quite figure this out without having to hard reset the device twice and being stuck in ethernet->wifi mode
|
|
|
|
This guy runs a mining and hosting for a fee operation, so he knows about costs (I suppose the Chinese don't really pay electricity).  Interesting that the risks to Bitcoin that we thought would be really big risks are being brought up by those closest to mining: The Bitcoin halving this year will be painful, unless there is a price increase, but the halving in 4 years time is a 'survival' event. http://pastebin.com/B8YQr5TQ37kwh @ $0.10usd/kwh (cost most miners pay less than) = <$3.70, realistically closer to $3 conidering the large miners with <$0.05/kwh power |
|
|
|
you should not blame Bitmain for your decision to buy overpriced miners and not being able to predict reaslistic ROI times
Well, when the s7 came out, it was not overpriced. Hence, I did not buy an overpriced miner, given the timeframe. It only became an overpriced miner when bitmain decided to sell the same unit for half the price less than 3 months later. And yes, I can blame bitmain for poisoning the resale well, because no one who bought a miner when the s7 first came out would have ever thought that bitmain would lower the same price on the same miner to half in less than 3 months. Who would want to buy an s7 at my breakeven price? I can't sell it for a breakeven price on ebay if I wanted to, because bitmain is selling a brand new unit for less on their own website, with a brand new warranty. Do you see my frustration now? And when it comes to predicting realistic ROI time, who could have predicted the bitcoin network would jump from 471 petahashes on november 11th, to 1,066 petahashes as of today (less than 3 months later)? To give you an idea on the massive increase in hashing power in 3 months alone, on April 29th, 2014, the bitcoin network had 57 petahashes. On that same date in 2015, the network was at 340 petahashes - it took an entire year to gain slightly less than 300 petahashes in power. Fast forward to August 8th, 2015 - the network was at 377 petahashes. less than 5 months later, we are almost triple that. Between the bitcoin whitepaper coming out in 2008, until August 8th, 2015... it took 7 years to get to 377 petahashes. And we tripled all of the hashing power that took 7 years to build, less than 5 months after that point. So you tell me how someone could accurately predict something like that? [/quote] you could look at the larger scale and see its exponential growth, doubling every 3-6 months. If you bought the S7 thinking difficulty wasnt going to go up, you were crazy. It happened with the S1, the S3, the spondoolies Sp3X, and with the s5. every new generation of hardware and better efficiency is constantly replacing the old gear. you didnt buy an S1 right? you knew the s7 was the one that could make money. and the price went down a lot in bitcoin (>50%) but in dollars only about 20% due to USD/BTC |
|
|
|
I was in the Gavin-train for a good period of time, but recently I have come to the conclusion that I was a bit wrong and that the Core is currently on the right track. This doesn't mean that I will support them no matter what, but trying to find out if my choice is good or not I am constantly trying to find a weak spot by asking myself questions and then searching for the answer. I will apply that to your post too in order to have some constructive discussion. Core working on the code doesn't mean only power to do whatever they want. They are also responsible and accountable if something goes wrong. If we get to a point where the blocks are always full it is their responsibility to manage that situation. If they will not be able or if they won't do anything then everyone else will simply fork the code, change the blocksize limit to whatever they agree upon as long as it is bigger than 1MB and they will do anything in their power to continue using bitcoin the same way as they did before. Remember that it only takes one single line to change the blocksize and that is something that everyone can do so we don't depend on Core to do that. The rage will start from the normal users who will simply reduce their number of transactions and that will impact everyone. If everyone will be impacted by the reduced number of transactions then they will take measures and the easiest way is to simply fork the Core software, bump the blocksize limit with one single line of code. I think its good to have alternative clients though that enable a way to 'vote' on changes in a real way (rather than in reddit and forums with no real polling methods). AFAIC, I want classic to succeed in creating a fork (or at least signalling >50% hashrate support as a signal to core devs that perhaps segwit alone isnt sufficient) to a simple 2MB blocksize and otherwise identical to BTC-Core (0.12 or anything that comes after) How would voting work? Based on what? Are we able to have a fraud proof voting system? besides a modest 30-50% space gain through segwit that takes a few months to really be noticed, i think we will start seeing a lot of full blocks and rising fees soon. at this point, fees are already moving above what spam transactions would pay, and if this continues it will start to push out microtransactions and make important transactions more costly. without a maxblocksize increase at that point, it basically forces bitcoin users into blockstream-designed sidechains under imposed economic conditions, rather than through appealing natural improvements/benefits that the blockchain cant provide (like 1min validation)
I have learned that the wheels of change from an ecosystem move slower and slower directly proportional with its size. Since bitcoin is today much bigger than it was 5 years ago it will take a bit of time for the wheels to turn when blocks will be full and the fees will start to rise. Fortunately we already have a solution to that here and now (SegWit) which also opens the door for new improvements and buys us time in order to deploy a bigger and more complex solution (like the hardfork).
http://gavinandresen.ninja/a-guided-tour-of-the-2mb-fork 2mb is not a simple one-line change, and the implementation used for btc/classic is about 900 lines, based largely on coding crafted for XT. A lot of that is simply testing code, but even the core change of 2mb is almost 20 lines: The first commit is “Minimal consensus/miner changes for 2mb block size bump”, and is small – under twenty lines of new code. You can see the one-line change of MAX_BLOCK_SIZE from 1,000,000 bytes to 2,000,000 bytes; the rest of the changes are needed by miners so they know whether it is safe to produce bigger blocks. a node can easily do the 1-line change and it will accept and relay blocks <2mb, but most other nodes will see it as invalid and not relay them, hence making mining >2mb infeasible. Thats why it makes sense to include a "trigger" so that the client only accepts <1MB until the 2MB rule change is implemented. Otherwise XT would have made a few dozen 1-2 block chainforks already (before switching back to the main longest chain). The consensus mechanism only ensures that the 2mb fork will be successful when activated 28days after 75% majority. As for core; I like thier roadmap. segwit has benefits to offer but they may be smaller and further away then currently anticipated, in the face of a growing network. Other improvements of the code that are planned are also generally quite good, but without an actual blocksize scaling event its easy to envision a path where blockstream is dedicated to making bitcoin a high-fee settlement layer with massive segwit sideblocks that power sidechains and lightning. Its a good direction, but I disagree with limiting bitcoin in its infancy to a 1mb limit that has gone without incident for years around improved computing and networking, particularly as it makes blockstream's business model more attractive I firmly beleive in segwit+2mb and i think theres a developing similar consensus. in fact, segwit could make 2mb blocks much simpler by removing the complex validation needs of a small-but-many-signatures transaction. I think its good to have alternative clients though that enable a way to 'vote' on changes in a real way (rather than in reddit and forums with no real polling methods). AFAIC, I want classic to succeed in creating a fork (or at least signalling >50% hashrate support as a signal to core devs that perhaps segwit alone isnt sufficient) to a simple 2MB blocksize and otherwise identical to BTC-Core (0.12 or anything that comes after) How would voting work? Based on what? Are we able to have a fraud proof voting system? its quite simple, you can identify your client (such as classic-0.11.2.b1) and you can view node count at https://coin.dance/nodes (IIRC they filter out nodes if they detect multiple on a single address (ie: someone pretending to run 10 nodes on one computer)). If you are a miner, you can follow BIP009 to include a modified versionbits, or you could simply include a message or code in the coinbase transaction (almost every miner out there does this already, and many even include BIP100 voting tags) hashrate is pretty much the most secure method of voting as it requires control over bitcoin mining. Of course, only miners can vote this way. |
|
|
|
Congratulations to Adam Back and Blockstream for completing $55M round A. Amazing.
Guy
Blockstream/Core to Classic: I raise you 55 mil... Classic..... Well Classic is just another dead fork and it was dead before its inception because they will never have the army of bright heads that are in Core. And that applies to most of the forks past and future. We are kinda stuck with Core. I started to learn the subtle difference between Core and the rest of the forks and I'm happy with the Core even if I don't totally agree with their roadmap or decisions, but I am sure that they are currently on the right track. +2 I think its good to have alternative clients though that enable a way to 'vote' on changes in a real way (rather than in reddit and forums with no real polling methods). AFAIC, I want classic to succeed in creating a fork (or at least signalling >50% hashrate support as a signal to core devs that perhaps segwit alone isnt sufficient) to a simple 2MB blocksize and otherwise identical to BTC-Core (0.12 or anything that comes after) besides a modest 30-50% space gain through segwit that takes a few months to really be noticed, i think we will start seeing a lot of full blocks and rising fees soon. at this point, fees are already moving above what spam transactions would pay, and if this continues it will start to push out microtransactions and make important transactions more costly. without a maxblocksize increase at that point, it basically forces bitcoin users into blockstream-designed sidechains under imposed economic conditions, rather than through appealing natural improvements/benefits that the blockchain cant provide (like 1min validation) ps: whats up with the SP50? back when it announced (sept?) it sounded like it was weeks away from preliminary results and maybe a few months from Q1 sales. At this point theres been no real news and it could be vaporware for all we know. whens tapeout, if not the first prototype? |
|
|
|
Just FYI: Antminer S7 working at superhigh temperatures 80C+
(automatic shutdown works at 85C not 80C!)
good to see, mine commonly pushes into the 70-74C range during the daytime on a warm day (10C outdoor intake) and drops to about 55-60C during extremely cold nights (-5C outdoor intake and has had no problems. fan speeds set 15-18% depending on weekly temperature forecast to keep it ideally around 65C average |
|
|
|
In my opinion, I think it's safe to finally say that the industry is killing itself. Since Bitmain is the undisputed champ in the manufacture of the mining wars, they have serious weight and influence over the difficulty and hashing contribution to the network. Before this recent s7 mayhem, you'd be able to ROI and maintain some reasonable level of difficulty so you can rely on a certain level of revenue over time. But now, it's impossible to calculate and scale effectively.
For example, I ordered my s7's in the middle of November. On November 11th, the difficulty was 65million. Less than 3 months later, the next estimated difficulty hitting in 3.2 days, is 144 million (more than double). But the price of bitcoin hasn't doubled during that same time frame either.
Furthermore, each new batch of miners is significantly cheaper than the last. The batch 7 miners I bought cost me roughly $1450 each. 3 batches (and 4 months later), the price is half that.
So how can a bitcoin miner be able to predict an ROI anymore? It's impossible.
I see the antminer s7 price drops as a sign that bitmain doesn't care about bitcoin, or the miners anymore. They care about making money and adding as much hashing power as possible. Because lowering your s7 price by 50% within 3 months when you know the miner who bought 3 months ago didn't make $750 in bitcoin during that same duration of time, is just plain wrong.
This is the sad state of affairs for miners now. You used to be competitive for 6-12 months with equipment. Now, you're not even competitive a month later. And with resale values kept low in the interim, since bitmain is still selling versions for 50% less than what you paid, we're stuck between a rock and a hard place.
you should not blame Bitmain for your decision to buy overpriced miners and not being able to predict reaslistic ROI times cant agree enough. the advent of <0.3w/gh combined with bitcoin price going from 250->$450 was obvious kindling for a massive difficulty spike. if anything, its best to buy miners just slightly after the peak of a price bubble whent he exponential difficulty growth begins to slow down once more (ie: around now, perhaps holding out for $400/BTC first) |
|
|
|
Date Registered: Today at 15:17:58
Last Active: Today at 15:33:22
Just as bad reading comprehension as your main accounts. The amounts on the receipt (from the court) are for court fees AND security of costs. Neither of which are an "expense" or attract VAT. mad dog, name calling will not mask your humongous stupidity. The receipt is from your lawyer, not from court. Post here the receipt from court as well. a new account. man, this guy has time on his hands! |
|
|
|
Can you imagine giving ASIC manufacturers the power to influence a PoW system?
Have you read the article ? I find it hard to beleive that it would open up a brand new area for ASIC/specialized hardware. systems with a plethora of the possible ASIC deviations and/or PCI-e 1x sockets, combined with cheap&fast memory soldered directly to the board, or optionally 8-32 ddr ram slots. Such a design could surely be made and scaled where power is cheap, once again leading to a centralised system (though maybe to much lesser extreme than with pure-sha256) even at the start, hardcore miners will go straight to server setups that can handle 4x Intel CPUs and often offer 8-16 ddr slots and a multitude of pcie connections. Even before FPGA, some people were operating $25,000+ of GPUs in garages to mine a $80 bitcoin. That will happen again, but at 10x or 100x the scale, in new multi-megawatt facilities. Presumably spondoolies has a business model for BOTH scenarios. Right?? |
|
|
|
Thank you for that!
if we put in a dryer outlet, what cord would we need to convert from a dryer outlet to connect to the unit?
Tell him to put in an L6-30R ^This results in needing a $25-40 specialty outlet, in addition to a $50-200 PDU, plus the PSU cables. good if you want a big clean setup, not for a budget or if you only need 1-2 power cables. if you want to go on a budget there are cheaper options for delivering 220V, such as a common 220V european outlet ($5-10) and a matching PSU cable ($5-10). might require shipping from overseas though, but youll save at least $100 |
|
|
|
Just wondering what the lowest voltage was possible to achieve with this chip? I got an S2 that I am undervolting and can't get it stable under 0.70V
same here. <0.72 some chips start to get a bit iffy, and <0.68 i found that some chips dont initiate or produce high errors |
|
|
|
Batch 4 was plugged into a 1300 watt ATX which was plugged into the wall. The electrical circut could be turned on/off with a switch. Without thinking i turned off the switch but then immediately turned it back on. Now my powersupply wont turn on at all. Any idea what happened?
if the PSU reacted by 'tripping' to the power loss, often they need a 5minute cooldown period before they will actually turn back on |
|
|
|
you think those temps are okay? I don't but maybe I am wrong. Batch 8 with a slight OC. Anything higher raises the errors above .01  Here are all of the measurements put together: Calculation would be TH/s per MHz: 4.933TH / 731MHz = 6.748290013679891 4.867TH / 725MHz = 6.713103448275862 4.730TH / 700MHz = 6.757142857142857 RESULTS: You get more TH/s at 700MHz. The only other consideration would be the Wattage per TH/s. Very good HW, but be cautious on the temps. hashrate and frequency are linearly related, with a fair share of variance too. technically your above image shows a better average hashrate (the 5s hashrate can vary greatly) 4.9 11TH / 731MHz = 6.7 18 (based on 30hrs) 4.867TH / 725MHz = 6.713 (based on 40hrs) |
|
|
|
|
^honestly, the chips can handle >70C without much issue, I imagine the 80C shutdown is more for incidents (such as the fan failing or getting obstructed), but that if you used it properly they could likely run stable at up to 90C for days or weeks without failing.
The dangers come from rapid thermal changes though, such as a chip turning on/off, or the fan ramping up and down. thats when the solder and glue fails most easily.
|
|
|
|
^mine can push past 725Mhz without much issue. 750-800Mhz is the likely max for overclocking
What do you hash at 725? This is GREAT information! What is the hashrate and HW, temp, fan speed? intake air is 0C (outdoors air), fans are at 18%, board temps are 64-71C (if it is -5C outside, board temps also drop about 5-8C) 725Mhz = 4.867TH, 0.0104% HWerrors (30hr sample) I had it up as high as 737MHz breifly when it was -10C outside for around 4.95TH @ 0.025% errors |
|
|
|
|
^mine can push past 725Mhz without much issue. 750-800Mhz is the likely max for overclocking
|
|
|
|
|
Ive had mine almost two weeks, been feeding it outside air (below freezing) and its been at these settings for over 48hrs now:
18% fans (had to modify a file to use settings <20%)
725Mhz = 4.85TH, 0.012% errors, temps 62-68C
it was originally powered by a gold 1350w PSU, but for better effiviency its now split between the 1350W gold(2 blades + controller) and a 650W gold(1 blade) since i was otherwise running at 90-95% capacity on the single PSU
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
