Okay...even worse now. The fan on my miner never turns off and there is a red light near the ethernet connector. Can anyway give me a stock C1.img or a network.conf with DHCP? ASAP
It seems deliberate as if to dissuade.
And no, simply flashing the card wouldn't give me the fix I need. It would be in the .1.0 network after flashing the card unless you have an idea how to reset the 192.168.1.99 to another subnet on the card before it goes in the machine.
So, no. Holding the reset for 90 seconds brings it to that, 192.168.1.99, state.
The S5's wake up to DHCP so subnets are not a problem. But water cooled has lower temps than hard fan like the S5.
My C1 image with DHCP setting www.perearstike.ee/C1/C1first.zipYou can use it. Another one here if anyone needs it, quite an old firmware so will need updating. |
|
|
|
Why can't we shadowban accounts that have more than X ignores
Because the most unsavoury people here control the most accounts. No system will work based off votes or majorities. So you're suggesting that there' should be board specific bans? Well if we're going to do that we might as well also bring back the newbie jail.
That just shovels the rubbish somewhere else, its been tested in many other venues and doesn't really work. |
|
|
|
Is it possible to change my username IV4NN ?
Thank you!
tldr, no. |
|
|
|
Bitmain have already lost one of their own mining farms to fire
Did you just make that up? |
|
|
|
Hello
I hate to ask because i feel like i'm simply passing over this info somewhere...
I ended up getting reimbursed an asicminer tube for another miner that ended up being screwy. I had too purchase the block erupter ethernet controller separate. So I ended up with only 3 UART cables and not the extra 4th cable that would go to the controller.
Which leads too my question: Can someone direct me to a website/store that sells the UART cables? (or something that works the same) I can't seem to find anything or maybe i'm just overlooking something lol.
What you're looking for can be found on Ebay or similar under "XH2.54 3pin". Its a relatively common cable but you might have to buy a pack of 20. |
|
|
|
Wow, TBZ. If that doesn't highlight the good-old-boy network nature of the DefaultTrust, I don't know what does. If DefaultTrust wasn't such an elitist, ivory tower of the chosen few, this wouldn't even be a topic. But the fact that that it is a topic and the fact that it comes up so frequently just highlights how bad it really is. The only people arguing for DefaultTrust are those in it. Take a step back and think about that for a moment. :/ This topic exists because I had some time and needed some data, no huge conspiracy. |
|
|
|
Trust ratings should be an INDICATOR of some one's trust, not the be all end all. Right now it is designed to be all and end all.
Trust ratings are simply an indicator of someone's trust, not the be all end all. I see many people successfully trading with users that have negative trust. Is it ? Example ? Friedcat wasn't enabled to 'scam' by his rating, the early batches of Blades were enabled by his even earlier Blades and subsequent ratings. What do u mean ? Care to elaborate ? If Friedcat had a 0/0 rating on trust, the outcome would have been the same. Those parties who had funds / investments / $millions with friedcat were not making a decision solely based on his bitcointalk trust rating. |
|
|
|
Friedcat wasn't enabled to 'scam' by his rating, the early batches of Blades were enabled by his even earlier Blades and subsequent ratings. What he did after that was irrelevant to his relationship on bitcointalk. |
|
|
|
Is there any chance you could exclude when other people trust DefaultTrust? I don't think it is really necessary to show when others trust DefaultTrust because almost everyone has it in their trust network, and it really just adds clutter to the graphs.
I guess I could, but then where do we stop? Don't show any upward trust? Don't show any cross depth trust? |
|
|
|
Can someone with the original shipping box please get the dimensions of the box for me. I know the weight is 36 lbs but can't find the box size to create a shipping label.
Thanks
A shipped S4 weighs 16kg and the dimensions of the shipping box are 580 x 580 x 270mm. The unpacked unit measures 432mm x 442mm x 133mm. Question for anyone and everyone, I had an s4 psu go out on me. has anyone tried replacing the psu with 2 1000w psu's? and does anyone know if I use say corsairs instead of a server psu and breakout board, what issues might arise from several of the small wires run together at the bolt would do to the psu... fine? fire, screaming and running? Something else? I'm contemplating (but wating for responses before attempting) taking the end connectors from the dead psu running a 6 pin stripped, 3 positives clamped/soldered to the end from the old wire, and 3 neg per board (1 psu for the bottom 2 boards and 1 for the top) good idea? bad idea? or meh idea? Thanks in advance for any time spent on this.
If you've got a spade terminal variant S4 + PSU, I wouldn't try and convert a consumer PSU as its just not worth it. The s4+ uses 10AWG cables, so you'd need manyx18AWG cables to match that, per terminal, per half board. One of those DPS2000's would be pretty good as you could realistically get quite a few 16AWG cables and add your own spade connectors on. Or cut them off the old PSU and put them on the DPS2000. |
|
|
|
I don't like this feature. There shouldn't be a "default ignore list". The tastes of users are different and hence, their ignore list.
You can't compare default trust list with default ignore list. Those are basically two different things except both are "default".
@dogie re. "No one would see their expanded posts (by default), and they won't necessarily know it." Sure, just like Default Trust. Where do you see a difference? The major function of a forum is to post, this would inhibit that. Trading/trusting another user is not the major function of the forum. You are free to post your ignore list, as many other users have done. I'd appreciate if we had a way to massively ignore people by just copy-pasting their usernames in a field actually. Right now I'm ignoring certain trolls when I stumble upon them and sharing the created list is a bit hard.
But I don't think that ignore lists should be public (unless one would like to share his own publicly) for the simple reason that they can be personal.
You can bulk edit here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;sa=ignprefs |
|
|
|
|
So if someone was on the DefaultIgnore list, they'd essentially be shadowbanned right? No one would see their expanded posts (by default), and they won't necessarily know it.
|
|
|
|
Are you trying to break my computer? Because this is how you break my computer. I can transform that file into the edges [lines], but I'll need a list of nodes to generate the Depth level. Ie theymos is depth 1 yada yada. Without that I can generate the nodes but it won't be tiered. Also still going to have to delete the distrusts because its just breaks the diagram, there is no good way to represent that someone is being distrusted, while probably also trusted, while also in a Depth level. Added depth 3 graphs for now. I like the idea of colors depending on how trusted someone is. So default trust = 1 color -> Someone trusted by multiple defaults = a 2nd color -> Trusted by 1 default = a 3rd color -> excluded = 4th color etc..
I can control color / size based on any metric we want, so at the moment its done on depth level. I'm not sure how it works when we add multiple variables, and I'd also need a source to read people's default trust ratings which I don't currently have. |
|
|
|
are there no shipping charges on this?
looks that way. it is small and lite compared to a miner. Sorry to disappoint but the bug has now been fixed  Shipping charges for all! |
|
|
|
It will be good if you use different colors for different users in depth 1 to know who they trust. Now it is hard to differentiate.
Colors are best kept for depth level otherwise it really does become a mess. You can see who in depth 1 is trusting who by the names nearest to them. Those on the periphery of forced atlas are trusted by one person, those towards the centre often multiple people. The same goes with Yifan Hu which is meant to represent that. Thanks but using a light colors won't be a mess. I was talking about  It is hard to differentiate trust list on a user basis in this image. It will be good if you test with different colors with your software and if it is messy, avoid it. On the levels version it sort of works but I can't get it to implement. There is too much cross promotion within Depth 1 which keeps overriding the colours, and then any Depth 2'ers who are shared get weird colors. The Yifan Hu is a better representation of Depth 1 -> 2 groupings, levels are meant to represent the relative sizes of levels and distribution within levels. |
|
|
|
It will be good if you use different colors for different users in depth 1 to know who they trust. Now it is hard to differentiate.
Colors are best kept for depth level otherwise it really does become a mess. You can see who in depth 1 is trusting who by the names nearest to them. Those on the periphery of forced atlas are trusted by one person, those towards the centre often multiple people. The same goes with Yifan Hu which is meant to represent that. |
|
|
|
Besides, cathoderay is not only right, but it's relevent to the threads
Says the shill account, referring to another shill account  if you're both actually two different people, which is debatable  Says the shill account, referring to another shill account . And neither of us have to hide behind other accounts. What is your main account called? |
|
|
|
PFT: What conclusions do you think can be made with either the above results or with results with your software?
Nothing at all. Apart from dogie & yourself following each other around, swapping spit & posting exactly the same thing as each other in an effort to cover up the fact that you both (correctly) have multiple trust abuse claims against you in this very thread. Not to mention his obvious scam thread where you keep posting for him It's ironic that probably the two worst trust abusers on the forum keep harping on about how trustworthy they think they are, when it took me less than a minute to count a combined total of at least 6 dedicated threads here complaining of trust abuse by both of you towards forum members - & that's not including the many more posts complaining about you both in many, many other threads. This has all the hallmarks of becoming another quickseller/dogie love-in thread. Let it die before that happens. Someone save us I'll not bump the other Quickseller/dogie complaint threads - just making a point  By copy and pasting the same oped post by a shill account in 3 places? |
|
|
|
Okay, I'm confused now. Why am I under BadBear, if I have never been given trust by him??
This is trust list, not trust feedback. They are different. Yup, in his trust list. I think I removed all the errors in the formulas but let me know if you see any glaring ones. What conclusions do you think can be made with either the above results or with results with your software?
That I can make? Not a lot, but it allows you to see who is adding people as a sole source, who is trusted by multiple (towards the centre) etc. Default trust looks very different when you set it to Depth 3 [I'll do it tomorrow], and forgot to say this does NOT include those excluded. Oh wait, does this mean that BadBear has added me to his personal trust list? Wow, that's awesome. Where do you get information of people's personal trust lists? Yes, see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;full for the hierarchical view. If you have a custom trust list, you'll have to delete it back to DefaultTrust temporarily to see the 'standard' view. |
|
|
|
Okay, I'm confused now. Why am I under BadBear, if I have never been given trust by him??
This is trust list, not trust feedback. They are different. Yup, in his trust list. I think I removed all the errors in the formulas but let me know if you see any glaring ones. What conclusions do you think can be made with either the above results or with results with your software?
That I can make? Not a lot, but it allows you to see who is adding people as a sole source, who is trusted by multiple (towards the centre) etc. Default trust looks very different when you set it to Depth 3 [I'll do it tomorrow], and forgot to say this does NOT include those excluded. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
