Yes.

---

No, you weren't. The first thread about the DragonMint T1 was started by castiel0504 at 2:10:42 PM on November 22, 2017 (UTC±00:00). That thread was never removed.

Your forum account, on the other hand, didn't exist until 8:15:09 PM on January 8, 2018 (UTC±00:00).

This topic has been moved to Meta.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3379372.0

In addition to what -ck said, your topic posts were deleted because every single one of them contained advertisements for your website and social media channels at the bottom of each post. This is not allowed under the forum's rules:


Now, you may argue that your topic posts qualified for the rule's exception — i.e., they were substantial and useful. I disagree. A transcript of a YouTube video — which is what your DragonMint review topic was — does not qualify as substantial and useful and does not make the advertisements at the bottom of the transcript any less significant. If anything, it's lazy, annoying, and only served to betray the intention of the post as an attempt to attract traffic to your website and social media channels.

For examples of truly substantial, useful, and valuable review topics, see HagssFIN's various reviews. That's how on-forum and for-forum reviews are properly done.

This "journalist" also happens to be a Bitcoin Core contributor, the founder of Programming Blockchain, and a venture partner at Blockchain Capital.

The issue here isn't so much whether the incumbents would get to "coast" on the back of the newcomers' R&D, should the newcomers even decide to invest in their own R&D. In fact, the way the BDPL is currently set up actually incentivizes the opposite — the newcomers would be a lot better off simply leaching off the incumbents' patents and resources. And if the incumbents decide to simply stop developing because of the burden of spoon-feeding the other BDPL users, everyone loses, because the entire BDPL pool of developers and manufacturers would grind to a halt. They would all then very soon be overtaken by non-BDPL developers and manufacturers. In other words, it would be far better for the incumbents to have never joined the BDPL in the first place.

The issue here instead is that should any company choose to leave the BDPL, they remain obliged to license their patents to BDPL users for free, while the BDPL users would then be allowed to impose additional terms on the leaving companies for their continued use of BDPL patents. This isn't just unfair, it's extortion.

I disagree. Halong's method of choice for patenting their implementation of AsicBoost — the Blockchain Defensive Patent License (BDPL) — actually sets the stage for further centralization of mining technology, and not the converse as advertised by Halong and the BDPL's website.

Under the first question of the BDPL website's FAQ page — "How do you benefit by using the BDPL?" — it is stated that in return for immunity from patent-related lawsuits from other BDPL users, each BDPL user receives "royalty-free licenses from every other user's patent portfolio." This looks great at first glance on its surface, because it seems to encourage technology-sharing and prevents any one BDPL user from being a patent troll.

However, upon closer inspection, the BDPL begins to look more and more like a very cleverly disguised weapon designed to obtain competitors' valuable intellectual property for free, and then snuff them out.

We know that Halong now has their implementation of AsicBoost patented under the BDPL. If then, for example, Canaan wants to use Halong's implementation of AsicBoost, Canaan would have to join the BDPL and license all of their patented intellectual property to Halong (and other BDPL users) for free. In effect, Canaan gets AsicBoost, and Halong gets access to all of Canaan's patented technology, on which Canaan had previously spent millions, if not billions, in prior research and development. The playing field between Halong and Canaan has now been leveled, but at Canaan's expense. (It may be argued here that Canaan also has access to Halong's portfolio of patented technology under the BDPL, but at this point it is reasonable to assume that Halong doesn't have anything else to offer that is of competitive value. The BDPL only works if the playing field was already level to begin with.)

Things get worse from here. If, in the above example, Canaan now decides to pull all of their patents from the BDPL, Halong still gets to keep licensing all of Canaan's patents for free. Halong, on the other hand, is now allowed under the BDPL to impose additional terms ("fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms (FRAND)" according to the BDPL's website, whatever that means) on Canaan for Canaan's continued licensing of Halong's patents. In other words, Halong now gets to use Canaan's patented technology for free, while Canaan has to pay Halong to use Halong's patented technology, in addition to whatever terms that Halong may now impose on Canaan at Halong's discretion. Again, Halong wins at Canaan's expense. If Canaan hasn't already been forced to shutter their doors at this point, they may soon have to, due to them being placed at such a competitive disadvantage as a result of the BDPL's terms.

This is but one slice of how the BDPL is designed to unfairly benefit startups like Halong — startups who dangle one carrot in exchange for a thousand pieces of gold. A better and more equitable way of democratizing access to mining technology would be to release them under one of the many free and open-source software and hardware licenses.

So no, we are not better off today than if Halong and the BDPL never came along. We may actually have regressed far more than we realize.

What if someone lost control of their mining address' private key?

Edit: It just occurred to me that if someone lost control of their mining address' private key, they wouldn't be able to sign a message with it to prove that it belonged to them. Still, I'm curious to know how such an issue could be resolved here; it wouldn't be ideal to have someone's subsequent payouts sent to a black hole or a thief.

Please keep all subsequent posts in this thread strictly related to Cryptouniverse only.

All general discussion and support queries for the AvalonMiner 7xx series goes here.
All general discussion and support queries for the AvalonMiner 8xx series goes here.

Any subsequent posts in this thread that are unrelated to Cryptouniverse will be deleted without notice.

This topic has been moved to Computer hardware.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1627191.0

Sounds like a dead PSU to me. Your A741 could have been trying to pull more than what your Corsair PSU could handle. That may also explain why your A741 has been so temperamental thus far — I'm guessing that your A741's left board has much higher power requirements than its right board.

It'd be best to grab a server-grade PSU kit going forward. They're able to perform much closer to their rated specifications than conventional PSUs, generally have much better efficiency, and are more likely to be able to handle the A741's spikes in power draw. They're also better able to run continuously under heavy load; conventional PSUs are generally not designed for sustained, continuous use.

Port 4334.

Hmm, then I think your best bet would be to contact Canaan's support team directly, as I have no further troubleshooting steps to add.

(You may have to wait until Canaan gets their website back online. It appears to be down as I write this.)

Try filling up all three pool options. Suggestion:

Pool 1: stratum+tcp://pool.ckpool.org:3333
Pool 2: stratum+tcp://depool.ckpool.org:3333
Pool 3: stratum+tcp://solo.ckpool.org:3333

Make sure the password fields are not left blank.

If that doesn't work, then with all three pool options still occupied, try running your A741 with --avalon7-smart-speed 0 in More options under CGMiner Configuration.

Try upgrading your MM firmware to version 7411706-3e3ab60.

This topic has been moved to Pools (Altcoins).

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=651819.0

This topic has been moved to Mining (Altcoins).

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=197110.0

This topic has been moved to Mining (Altcoins).

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=170332.0

This topic has been moved to Scam Accusations.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=417623.0

This topic has been moved to Mining (Altcoins).

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1283859.0

Understood. My bad on that part, then.


Nevertheless, this thread, and everyone in this thread, exists on a privately owned and operated forum with its own set of rules. This thread, and everyone in this thread, is therefore subject to those rules, of which it is my job to enforce.


Point taken. Nevertheless, it is not within my power nor authority to decide whether this forum should be named the Bitcoin Forum or the Cryptocurrency Forum, or whether the forum as a whole should encompass all coins under one umbrella. That's theymos' role. My job is merely to enforce the rules as they are.

If you would like to have these rules changed to acknowledge and accommodate your requests, then I suggest you contact theymos about it. If you'd also like to discuss this further in public, then feel free to post about it on the Meta board. This discussion is already off-topic in this thread as it is.

Therefore, until theymos says otherwise, my stance remains: all further altcoin-related discussions in this thread will be deleted without notice. Also, all further discussion regarding this should be taken to the Meta board.