this. I just don't see much ability or drive to break lower than 210. Charts have bounced off the 180-200 range several times and it looks like a bottom with decent support. At some point even the bears have to become bullish (they need coins from somewhere)

Most of the coins sold are from two sources: early adopters, and current miners. If someone bought $2000 worth several years back (anything from 200-2000BTC) its only logical that since the peak of 2013 they would have been slowly selling off some of those coins to lock in a profit, while likely retaining at least $5000-20,000 worth and which point they would likely hold and wait to see another price rally.

That means fewer and fewer coins in the sell wall are from early adopters, and instead come from mining (which is becoming more costly and will undergo halving in about a year)

the problem is that your idea is already what a dozen other people and companies are working on but at far more advanced stages (see sidehacks gekkoboard for example)
the only thing you're bringing to the game is a 3D-printed housing (which isnt economic compared to simply outsourcing properly injection-molded or built with metal)

so you will basically just be 3d printing a plastic enclosure? (which if you want >10 of could probably be done better quality for cheaper overseas)
then youll simply connect an RPI, PSU, and 'chips'? "chips" require control boards and software, as well as power delivery. its not gonna be some GPIO attachment for an RPI. What about heatsinks? fans?

If building a miner was this easy I would have built it already, but without a plastic housing that obstructs airflow

ps: GUI requires 'interface'. Are you saying that you'll be building a touchscreen into the front of the unit? I think what you meant was a small status LCD or a panel of LEDS.

Is it possible for an SP3x to run using a single supply (ie: at 2500-3000GH it should be safe to run on a 1250W)?

0.30 BTC (Toronto)

they would still be making money because other miners would give up, droppingf the difficulty, while KNC and anyone with <5c/kwh will be able to mine more BTC for themselves

death seems unlikely IMO - perhaps they tripped for some reason.

a few ideas:
1) plug everything in and leave it be for 5-10 min, booting or not
2) unplug the power. leave it unplugged for a full hour
3) plug back in, leave it be for at least 10-20min
4) remove psu from miner, isolate safely on a non-conductive surface, plug in. presumably the PS-ON trigger wont occur, and maybe that will allow the PSU to sort itself out
5) if you were on 120V, try 240V. or vice-versa

the psus are good quality, and of 12 SP3x/SP10 units that i do/have owned none were screwed up by either network or power outages/'blips'. hard to imagine multiple units going down to anything other than a safety trip

sounds like you dont know the difference between 'MINIMUM OF 205 VOLTS' and a typical 115V outlet.  obviously a 240V-only device wont work on 115V. Thats like trying to plug in a microwave to your 240V dryer outlet (hint: it will probably release smoke)

please confirm that you are either using a correct outlet, or simply did not read the PSU description properly before ordering

wow, looks like another poor choice to put money on - they have a $7M IPO and only sold $14k in the last 12 days

thats 0.2% of the IPO sold.

I got involved in 2012 and was around for the entire bubble. Your assumption that that bitcoin will reduce to pre-bubble levels is silly.

first, why do you take $100 as the starting point? There was clearly a bubble a year earlier that went from ~$25 to $260 to $80, before another bubble formed.
secondly - if you think $100 was a correct price, how can you look at the mainstream acceptance of bitcoin today and not recognize it to be at least 2x that of what it was then?

theres a lot of resistance sub-$220, and limited upwards resistance if a bull market emerges (small plateaus around $300,$400,$600 are the only major resistance levels on a longterm chart). If the price breaks abouve $260 it could very easily go to $300 and test resistance and a trendline. Breaking that, it would be a bull market

mining hardware has little to do with the issue, besides the fact that if large blocks are slow to download it could allow large miners to [unintentionally] start creating small forms while the slower miners create orphans. The mining process is virtually unchanged

1) i beg to differ, so long as the timespan is sufficient that only a LONG lasting spam attack or other growth could cause massive block caps. Personally, i think as long as it averages over at least 1-2 weeks, thats sufficient to prevent any sort of rampant spamming.
2) if the cap is set at double the recent volumes, it should provide enough room for fuller blocks so long as we dont see 5x network growth within less than a 1-2 month timespan. even then, the cap would grow over time and lower prioriy transactions may just be pushed back a few blocks. fees take priority until everything balances out after a few days/weeks

(I suggest 2.5x the average of 40days, or 6000 blocks) OR ((2x the last 6000 blocks) + (0.5x the last 400 blocks)).  The second allows for slightly faster growth if there's sudden demand for room.

perhaps a threshold? The problem is that spam is usually sent as a single transaction with 0.001btc fees and hundreds of recipients 0.0000001BTC that get. There should be protection in place that ensures sending thousands or millions of dust payments becomes prohibitively expensive, without limiting its use for colored coins or increasing fees to the regular user.

right now, the only sort of filter for this is the miners deciding whether to include or not include a transaction, and will include a spam transaction if theres a justifiable fee to do so.


IMO, the simplest way to specify the max size is as
That provides a max size thats 3x the size of the average block over the past 1000hrs (41days). If demand suddenly rises, the max size can double within a week.

say current block is ~0.5MB on average. The new size cap under this formula is 1.5MB (50% larger than it is now)

assume by the end of 2015 theres now 2MB/block on average, with business hours being around 5MB/block. assume by the end of 2016 theres now 12MB/block on average, with business hours being around 30MB/block. assume that in the following week bitcoin gets popular, and suddenly there are 30-40MB blocks almost 24/7. within 4 days, the blocksize will increase to

0.07w might be at severe underclocking and at the chip level. In actual implementation its likely 0.15-0.4w/gh at the wall depending if you over/underclock

I think the above simplifies your equation slightly, and uses better timeframes (~200hrs and ~50hrs) to compute the averages.

my biggest concern is what would happen in a spam attack, which could easily last several days, to as much as a week, if a quick-changing algorithm can be played to drastically increase blocksize during that time.

lets look at your original equation: assume that blocks are 0.5MB for the last 144 blocks (thus the block limit will probably be set to something like 5-10MB), but then spam attacks start. you see every block filled with 5MB of spam, 95% of transactions below the median for fees. after 144 blocks of this (1 day), you get something like this:
which seems to resist growing any larger.

however, the median transaction fee drastically drops as a result, and in a continued attack soon you could see that ~10% of transactions pay more than the median fee.

   If this attack persisted for 3-4 days you could see the blocksize increase to >20MB very fast, and >60MB within a week (would likely require very well-funded spammers though)

longer timeframes are absolutely necessary, bare minimum should be 600 blocks for calculations.

+1 to that.  I think a max thats determined as either:
T = 2.50*(average(last 8000 blocks))         #T is set the average transactions for the last ~2 months. Plenty of room for slow and steady growth, and too great a timespan to attack the blockchain with spam. keep in mind that transactions at night will probably be 1/5th the volume of those during business hours
or
T = (2.00*(average(last 8000 blocks))) + (0.50*(average(last 144 blocks)))     #This would allow short-term fluctuations that take a day or two to develop. Could be susceptible to a spam attack that last longer that 3+ days.

personally, i think a block limit thats set based on the average volume of the last 1-3 months would be fine. It would be flexible if the number of transactions increases very quickly, and could grow to 3-8x the maximum within a year if theres substancial volume. combined with your proposal above it could be extremely flexible. However...

I'm EXTREMELY cautious of altering how fees are created and distributed, as any changes made will directly impact miners and could lead to bribery and corruption of the bitcoin code to better pay the centralised mining companies. Any code changes that are implemented should not involve factors or values that will need to be adjusted down the road, or it will simply lead to a 'democracy' of core-qt 'improvement'

Id be happy to buy the dead S5 directly, and he can simply donate that to you? It would save shipping it twice to get it to Toronto, Canada

100% agree. Its basically a novelty device that doesnt make sense if you are serious about mining a reasonable amount of coins.
even loud hardware can be put in a spare room or a shed, and will be far more cost effective, and not require every lamp in your house being a heating element.

pretty dissapointed that the auction ended almost 12hrs ago any yogg hstn shown up again since.

my bid was 0.6 for a 'safe' (ie: photographic proof and/or escrow) trade, and 0.65BTC if the coin in question can be shown as good condition (little or no wear/markings)

that said, if yogg doesnt want to show up again soon to complete his own auction - ill probably leave negative trust. Im sick of fake auctions

[/quote]

how did i miss that till now? 32chips in a 1U enclosure (the SP3x had 30/2U) seems like a LOT of heat, particularly if the PSUs are inline with the chips (which one is getting the 'secondary' already-hot air?)

Nevertheless, could be great for bulk deployment