Bitmain's Released Antminer S9, World's First 16nm Miner Ready to Order

[HagssFIN]

Don't you start to moan just like previously in the underclocking discussion again, this is nothing like that topic.

This is a serious security preach, which was only taken seriously after big public notice.


edit: I use Kubuntu, so I don't care or give comment about Microsoft's things.

[1714612160]

1714612160

[1714612160]

1714612160

[1714612160]

1714612160

[HagssFIN]

And how is Bitmain innocent, when they are trying to block Segregated witness in every possible way and only care about company's personal profit (Asicboost)?

[ComputerGenie]

And how is Bitmain innocent, when they are trying to block Segregated witness in every possible way and only care about company's personal profit (Asicboost)?

So, that's the tinfoil hat topic of the day? [insert yawn emoticon here]

[HagssFIN]

My main point is, that this kind of sloppyness and shady action must come to an end.
These are big money business products (like you said mr.) and they need to be worth every single BTC/USD.
There is plenty of money for that with the current pricing scheme (lots of profit).

[HagssFIN]

You are only backing your point with some UN  declaration (like at least three times in several threads already..) but with nothing other really relevant to back it up.
See previous recent discussions and you can understand my concern.

[ComputerGenie]

• Segwit is a pile of shit that breaks as much as it "fixes".
• To further disprove your earlier "always" comment, I think BU is just as horrible as Segwit.
• Asicboost and Segwit are separate creatures and separate topics.
• Anyone trying to link Asicboost and Segwit is just trying to sell you on Segwit hoping that anti-Bitmain sentiment will sway your thoughts on the pile of shit that Segwit is.
• Segwit is a pile of shit.

[HagssFIN]

Why is there a lot of people afraid of Segwit? It has proven to be working in the test net.
We will soon see it in real use with Litecoin, and then we can all come with our final conclusions on it.

You are just saying that Segwit is a pile of shit but you are not making your point clear at all.

[ComputerGenie]

Why is there a lot of people afraid of Segwit? It has proven to be working in the test net.
We will soon see it in real use with Litecoin, and then we can all come with our final conclusions on it.

You are just saying that Segwit is a pile of shit but you are not making your point clear at all.

Which would you like me to start with first:

• The multitude of coding issues,
• the fact that you wouldn't understand those issues even if I told you what they were,
• the fact that if you did understand those issues, then you'd understand that because the Core devs used a wallet in test net doesn't mean that it works with the proprietary code that the plethora of pools have/use
• the fact that it's ludicrous to even entertain the topic that we should centralize around the Core devs so that we don't centralize around Bitmain,
• the fact that most people in favor of Segwit are in favor of it because someone else convinced them it was good, not because they actually understand it, or
• the fact that if Segwit was the "Savior" of Bitcoin, then Core devs wouldn't have to convince people that it was, Segwit would do that all on it's own, or
• the fact that the topic of a single piece of equipment isn't the proper venue to discuss your personal view on a disassociated protocol change?

[HagssFIN]

How can you say what I won't understand and what I will, you don't know me and my education background.

We will see soon enough with Litecoin, who is right and who is wrong.

[ComputerGenie]

How can you say what I won't understand and what I will, you don't know me and my education background...

I refer you back to your own comments in this thread, many of which demonstrate your whole and complete lack of understanding.

We will see soon enough with Litecoin, who is right and who is wrong.

Because Americans know how good of a President Trump will be because of how Carter was as President, or one knows that Ford makes a good car because Dodge makes a good car?

[ComputerGenie]

...

Troll on, troll, troll on....

[VTdude12]

Back to the real issue at hand and an S9 topic...

What is everyone's plan around the firmware upgrade that Bitmain released in response to the whole antbleed thing?  Posted here: https://blog.bitmain.com/en/

Going to update?

Has anyone successfully done this yet?

I'm hesitant because I've never had to update one of my S9's before...

[ComputerGenie]

Back to the real issue at hand and an S9 topic...

What is everyone's plan around the firmware upgrade that Bitmain released in response to the whole antbleed thing?  Posted here: https://blog.bitmain.com/en/

Going to update?

Has anyone successfully done this yet?

I'm hesitant because I've never had to update one of my S9's before...

We updated to the 201704261557 (still available here) and saw some improvement in stability and overall hashrate, as well as a slight decline in HW error rates. Some time next week, we plan to look at the 201704270135, but if it's just the 201704261557 with Miner Link removed, then it will not be worth our time to run a new set of updates.

[VentMine]

ComputerGenie refer us to your discussions with actual Dev's discussing all the technical issues you have with Segwit, and do that in a different thread.

Anyways, I got a S9 related question. I notice sometimes when I reboot the S9 through it's firmware, it will restart and 1 board may not be hashing. Other times it reboots fine. I would say 50% of the time it reboots and one board is down. Why does this happen? Is there anything I can do to prevent this? Typically when I want to reset the miner I just unplug it and replug it back in, and it normally hashes fine.

Thanks

[ComputerGenie]

ComputerGenie refer us to your discussions with actual Dev's discussing all the technical issues you have with Segwit, and do that in a different thread....

Since I'm not beholden to the Core devs, nor do I wish to centralize Bitcoin around them or their beliefs, I have no need to have "discussions with actual Dev's[sic]". I'm fairly certain that if you don't like something in a specific new car, you don't "discuss it" with the designers of that car, you buy a different car.

I'm guessing that it might surprise you to learn that there are functional versions of Bitcoin software that were not designed, written, or even "approved" by the Core devs (or that these versions of software don't require Core or software written by the Core team of devs). I'm further guessing that it might surprise you to learn that the handful of devs that exist in the Core project have no more actual say in Bitcoin than the same number of randomly selected people in the Bitcoin space (which is one of the most beautiful things about Bitcoin - no one group has ownership or controls it).

[NotFuzzyWarm]

<OT snip>
Anyways, I got a S9 related question. I notice sometimes when I reboot the S9 through it's firmware, it will restart and 1 board may not be hashing. Other times it reboots fine. I would say 50% of the time it reboots and one board is down. Why does this happen? Is there anything I can do to prevent this? Typically when I want to reset the miner I just unplug it and replug it back in, and it normally hashes fine.
Thanks

My theory is that it did not like the Vcore settings that Auto-tune came up with. Never seen a board read zero. Is the lil' red LED's on the hash board lit?

With the s9's I will sometimes see one board come up about 500GHs or more slower than the others, 1-2 soft boots and then it picks up speed and is happy again. Looking at the logs when happy the twitchy board is at a slightly higher Vcore than when unhappy.

[VentMine]

<OT snip>
Anyways, I got a S9 related question. I notice sometimes when I reboot the S9 through it's firmware, it will restart and 1 board may not be hashing. Other times it reboots fine. I would say 50% of the time it reboots and one board is down. Why does this happen? Is there anything I can do to prevent this? Typically when I want to reset the miner I just unplug it and replug it back in, and it normally hashes fine.
Thanks

My theory is that it did not like the Vcore settings that Auto-tune came up with. Never seen a board read zero. Is the lil' red LED's on the hash board lit?

With the s9's I will sometimes see one board come up about 500GHs or more slower than the others, 1-2 soft boots and then it picks up speed and is happy again. Looking at the logs when happy the twitchy board is at a slightly higher Vcore than when unhappy.

Yeah could just be an autotune thing. Today it happened two ways - one time, the miner status page clearly displayed that one board was not hashing and in total I was getting 9,400 GH/s out of usual 14,000 (sorry I didn't look at the boards LED, darn).  Then I did another soft reset, and the miner status page showed that everything was running perfect (14,000 GH/s ish average), but my slushpool account was only displaying the 9,400 and I waited 30 mins and refreshed slush, no change. Strange... Eventually I just did a hard reset and all has been well since. In my experience since I got my first S9 back in November, the hard reset usually works but the soft reset has been giving me issues.

Am I correct in my understanding that I am stuck with my current firmware (Autotune)? I'm not as computer-literate as most of you here, so I would be cautious to try other firmwares, but I would be interest to know if I have other options?

Also another question, sorry for the spam - is there any way to prevent the miner from generating a new IP every time it is reset? I want to build a farm with many miners, so it is important for me to know which specific miners are on which circuits so I can do remote resets. Cheers

[ComputerGenie]

...Am I correct in my understanding that I am stuck with my current firmware (Autotune)? I'm not as computer-literate as most of you here, so I would be cautious to try other firmwares, but I would be interest to know if I have other options?...

If it came with auto, then yes you're "stuck" with it. If you upgraded from manual, then maybe. On most of the older manual boards, V3 (like "Check chain[5] PIC fw version=0x03") of the board fw will not roll back and hash properly (even when reflashed with V2); V2 usually will go backwards to older firmware if it's never been up to V3.

...Also another question, sorry for the spam - is there any way to prevent the miner from generating a new IP every time it is reset? I want to build a farm with many miners, so it is important for me to know which specific miners are on which circuits so I can do remote resets. Cheers

Most routers have "address reservation" under LAN settings. Just find the section that applies to your make and model and set a static address to whatever you want using the MAC of the miner(s).

[VentMine]

Yup mine came with Autotune, so I'll just leave as is for now.

^^ great thanks!

Edit - not sure exactly what you mean re: "On most of the older manual boards, V3 (like "Check chain[5] PIC fw version=0x03") of the board fw will not roll back and hash properly (even when reflashed with V2); V2 usually will go backwards to older firmware if it's never been up to V3."

But I checked my kernel just to follow along, mine does have "Check chain[5] PIC fw version=0x02" so you're saying I can go backwards to older firmware?

[ComputerGenie]

Yup mine came with Autotune...
But I checked my kernel just to follow along, mine does have "Check chain[5] PIC fw version=0x02" so you're saying I can go backwards to older firmware?

No, if it had "Check chain[5] PIC fw version=0x02" and it came from the factory with manual, then you could go back to manual.
If it had "Check chain[5] PIC fw version=0x03" and it came from the factory with manual, then you likely could not go back to manual.
If it came from the factory with auto, then you can only usefully go between autos. Some autos will run manual fw, but you'd likely be overclocking 50+% of the chips and risking burnout. Those that came from the factory with auto have a per chip setting (manual sets every chip with the same frequency) so that weaker chips can run on the same board as higher chips; one chip might be set @ 440 and others set at 675+, so if you went to manual and set anything over 440, then you'd be pushing the chip past it's known limit.