Swedish ASIC miner company kncminer.com

[CMMPro]

Identical at the pool....very strange that it was seemingly worse for me.

I ran for 48 hours on 0.98, my error rate was 4% at 252gh.

I just switched back to 0.97 and I have 2.5% at 284gh.

Both rates were very steady....the temperature was 2-3 degrees hotter on 0.98 but I don't see that as a big difference.

I fully power cycled the unit each time I changed the firmware.

It's not just you, I had to go back to .97 with cgminer 3.6.6 to regain performance on my Saturn.

.98 disabled 7 of my cores constantly, gave 1% higher HW errors and dropped my WU considerably, the pool also showed 8-10gh/s less avg.

Thanks for the info! I was wondering why it was just me....seems like 99% of people are happy with 0.98.

[1715392382]

1715392382

[1715392382]

1715392382

[arousedrhino]

Why don't you just admit you were wrong, and stop this nonsense?  It is clear that who gets the reward for a block, and who "solves" it are two different questions.  In pool mining, a group of people agree to share block rewards regardless of which individual miner solved the block.  That agreement obviously has no bearing on who actually solved a given block.

If you think "that who gets the reward for a block, and who "solves" it are two different questions", then I am certain you do not comprehend that even in pool "mining" there must be an entity to receive the reward, what is not the pool participant. The reward needs to be transmitted (first transaction) to the entity which "solves" the block. You are failing to understand that the receiver (thus the "solver") it is not the pool participant.

How does Eligius pay out directly from the block then if it must receive the block first???

[arousedrhino]

Centralization is the enemy of this experiment.  "Business men" that mine for profit without regard for the network are not a friend to the experiment if their efforts result in too much centralization (usually a goal of a for-profit company).

Centralization of what?

 

The reason this is not off-topic, is because this forum is about mining.

If you are mining, especially with powerful units, you should understand:

1.  The decentralized nature, design and intent of the BTC network.

2.  The cause and effect of a 51% attack.

3.  The responsibility of miners and pools in maintaining balance.

Don't take my word for it, do your own research.

The argument was made that the large pools have checks put in place to mitigate such a disaster.  Simply making that statement is an acknowledgement that they have the _ability_ to tip the scale (hence the countermeasure).  Why would you or I ever want to give one person or entity that much power and control over _our_ Bitcoin network?  Has anyone here ever heard of a countermeasure failing (BP Oil in the Gulf)?

There are so many viable pools to choose from, and if you are a business it is more profitable to build your own pool (fees go to you).  If you pack heavy hash power, which most in this forum do, it makes so much more sense to  be a part of the solution rather then a part of the problem.

The irony is that in the end the pay is the same.

This FORUM is about mining this THREAD is about KNC Mining Hardware, go start your own thread to discuss your OWN topic.

[texaslabrat]

This is also a great post, and I agree with most of it.  I do not agree that we are in a pure capitalism scenario regarding mining, due to a lot of external influence on the physical goods required from the non-BTC world.  The ASIC problem is a great example of this.  CPU (and less so GPU) mining was much more "pure capitalism" in the sense the resources had the same availability to everyone with the same dollar bill.  These resource availability problems are artifacts of a corrupted/centralized resource system that mining is now dependent on.  The minute we diverged from commodity hardware, that was when the dollar bills became unequal in a big way, this is an external influence that probably cannot be avoided or corrected for at this point without changing the PoW - I have seen no indications that any Bitcoin dev has even considered this a major problem.

I think if we mapped cryptocurrencies from most to least likely to centralize money creation/creating an eventual monetary hierarchy it would go Bitcoin (PoW is ASIC friendly) ---> Litecoin (somewhat ASIC resistant PoW) (some unknown CPU x86/ARM-only PoW, no GPU/ASIC) --> Peercoin (PoW declines into a proof of stake system)

This is a really interesting topic, sorry to poop in the KnC thread though.

But this is just a transition from utilizing non-scarce resources to utilizing scarce resources.  The apropos of "capitalism" does not change...capitalism does not imply fairness.  It only implies the ability of capital to be brought to bear in a market unfettered by forces outside that market.  The market itself then shapes the effectiveness of that capital depending on the conditions at play at that time. Throughout the process of moving to an ASIC world, money talked.  If you had enough money, you could get equipment pretty much at any point.  Taking it to extreme..if you had a LOT of cash sitting around, you could have commissioned your very own ASIC device from scratch.  Whether or not taking such actions would be wise or profitable is irrelevant..the fact is that there was no law or other artificial constraint to keep you from doing so.  Only market forces (price of bitcoin, price of semiconductor fabrication, time to market, etc) dictate on whether that is the best use of your capital.  

In the case of gpus'..there was no scarcity except that which was artificially created by AMD (and to a lesser degree nvidia) via set price per item thus in that vein the GPU era was actually less "pure capitalism" since there was no supply/demand curve at play within the narrow scope of the mining community. The term that is more applicable to this era (and CPU) is "democratized" since everyone had the same ability to enter the market for the same price per machine, not "pure" capitalism.  Scaling that to multiple machines and farms..then yes, it becomes a bit more capitalistic as it rewarded the availability of additional capital resources with additional hash power and ostensibly greater revenue and profit (assuming profit margin being equal or greater due to economy of scale). Later, in the transition to ASICs (and FPGA to a large degree) true scarcity was a factor thus at a fixed price for equipment you had more money chasing a fixed number of devices.  The dollar bills never became "unequal"..rather the availability of mining hardware at price points that were deemed "acceptable" became scarce thus queue position and/or "cronyism" became the tie-breakers..  If one was willing to up the bid price (following simple supply/demand curve theory), you could have as much mining equipment as you wanted even if it was second hand or created custom just for you.

That's about as clear cut capitalism as it gets, IMHO.

Anyway, yeah I agree we've probably hijacked the thread for long enough.  I'll just close by saying that folks need to assume that everyone is going to act in a way that maximizes their own personal gain....and plan accordingly.  If they don't and wind up getting burned for trying to be "nice"...they only have themselves to blame at this point.

[timmmers]

Centralization is the enemy of this experiment.  "Business men" that mine for profit without regard for the network are not a friend to the experiment if their efforts result in too much centralization (usually a goal of a for-profit company).

Centralization of what?

 

The reason this is not off-topic, is because this forum is about mining.

If you are mining, especially with powerful units, you should understand:

1.  The decentralized nature, design and intent of the BTC network.

2.  The cause and effect of a 51% attack.

3.  The responsibility of miners and pools in maintaining balance.

Don't take my word for it, do your own research.

The argument was made that the large pools have checks put in place to mitigate such a disaster.  Simply making that statement is an acknowledgement that they have the _ability_ to tip the scale (hence the countermeasure).  Why would you or I ever want to give one person or entity that much power and control over _our_ Bitcoin network?  Has anyone here ever heard of a countermeasure failing (BP Oil in the Gulf)?

There are so many viable pools to choose from, and if you are a business it is more profitable to build your own pool (fees go to you).  If you pack heavy hash power, which most in this forum do, it makes so much more sense to  be a part of the solution rather then a part of the problem.

The irony is that in the end the pay is the same.

This FORUM is about mining this THREAD is about KNC Mining Hardware, go start your own thread to discuss your OWN topic.

+1

Reason ? Because some people come here thinking they may find help on the KNC miners this thread is about and all they see in the last few pages is idealistic banter waaaay off topic which makes the information they came to find bloody hard to find.

As for the question of compensation for late delivery, you won't hear a word from them until they want to dell you something else. Then they will be back bragging about how awesome they were this time round and lessons learned. Two parts to this company, the back room boys who know their stuff and delivered, and the KNC guys who are snake oil salesmen and have fucked up every aspect they were involved in...and their main speciality according to their website would make me laugh if it hadn't been so wrong. Communication and troubleshooting are far from their strengths.

If it's  true that they started shipping November units...that's a knife in the back for all of us who paid so much more on the basis we'd at least get a month grace period. Some people here won't even have had a full week.

[shmadz]

Ouch, hard to follow some random wall of text that I didn't bother to read. Apologies in advance.

I cannot seem to get consistent results of more than 490 with my Jupiter. Temps in the long term do not seem to matter much.

I have heard of a enable cores thing, could someone quickly link me to some info on that so I don't have to read through 200 pages of this crap?




---- better yet, if anyone can link me to a consolidated, frequently updated thread specifically about increasing the performance of your Jupiter please PM me. This thread is ridiculous.

==== better still, a sticky with links to firmware downloads, FAQs, and all that!

[jmevz]

Ouch, hard to follow some random wall of text that I didn't bother to read. Apologies in advance.

I cannot seem to get consistent results of more than 490 with my Jupiter. Temps in the long term do not seem to matter much.

I have heard of a enable cores thing, could someone quickly link me to some info on that so I don't have to read through 200 pages of this crap?




---- better yet, if anyone can link me to a consolidated, frequently updated thread specifically about increasing the performance of your Jupiter please PM me. This thread is ridiculous.

==== better still, a sticky with links to firmware downloads, FAQs, and all that!

I just raised a specific thread for Mercury for this purpose. I think it's a good idea to have separate threads per device for performance, setup, etc discussion and yes, this thread is getting ridiculous to follow. I'm too lazy to link my thread though lol, it's in mining/hardware forum

[texaslabrat]

Ouch, hard to follow some random wall of text that I didn't bother to read. Apologies in advance.

I cannot seem to get consistent results of more than 490 with my Jupiter. Temps in the long term do not seem to matter much.

I have heard of a enable cores thing, could someone quickly link me to some info on that so I don't have to read through 200 pages of this crap?




---- better yet, if anyone can link me to a consolidated, frequently updated thread specifically about increasing the performance of your Jupiter please PM me. This thread is ridiculous.

==== better still, a sticky with links to firmware downloads, FAQs, and all that!

First thing I would try would be to upgrade to .98 firmware.  I have 2 "marginal" boards that require more than the .7V supplied by firmware levels .95,.96, and .97 to run at close to full speed.  .94 supplies more voltage but over-cooks the VRMs which causes its own problems.  .98 seems to be somewhere in the middle and has allowed my jupiter to run consistently at ~560G over the last 48 hours.

Latest "official" news here:
https://www.kncminer.com/news

Official support page with links to released software here:
https://www.kncminer.com/pages/support

[Guajiro]

Ouch, hard to follow some random wall of text that I didn't bother to read. Apologies in advance.

I cannot seem to get consistent results of more than 490 with my Jupiter. Temps in the long term do not seem to matter much.

I have heard of a enable cores thing, could someone quickly link me to some info on that so I don't have to read through 200 pages of this crap?




---- better yet, if anyone can link me to a consolidated, frequently updated thread specifically about increasing the performance of your Jupiter please PM me. This thread is ridiculous.

==== better still, a sticky with links to firmware downloads, FAQs, and all that!

https://www.kncminer.com/pages/support

and

http://forum.kncminer.com/forum/main-category/hardware/13049-read-me-first-known-issues-slow-performance-dc-dc-problem-bad-core-map-etc

[Biomech]

Make a Windows GUI front end for p2pool, then maybe computer-illiterate Windows users will use it, which will be good for everyone.

Maybe you could even sell it, since Windows users are often actually used to paying for software and maybe even prefer stuff they paid for to free stuff.

-MarkM-

Not all of us are computer illiterate. I like windows. I also like linux, but find it cumbersome for a great many things that windows is easy on. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. \

NOT having a Windows GUI based p2pool interface is a weakness of that protocol. Because no matter how much the linux and/or Mac fanboys would like this to be untrue, the vast majority of home computers are running windows. Excluding the biggest market out of prejudice or idealism is very akin to shooting yourself in the foot.

I personally like the donationware model for such things. "register for .xx and this nag goes away and I continue development" kind of thing.

Setting up a p2pool on windows is really easy. If it's a struggle then simply ask for help in the P2pool thread, or find a solid pool node and stick with it until you feel happy running a node. I'd even be up for getting as many people running P2Pool nodes as possible on Windows or Linux if they have dedicated hardware laying around.

But really, as with any pool, it's not just as simple as set it up and forget. It's all fine running a node only for yourself and losing money because your cat tripped over a cable or bitcoind crashes and you're away from the server, but just ask any pool operator what happens when anything looks or behaves out of the ordinary in their users minds.

P2pool does and has had windows binaries for a long time now. The front end you speak of is simple a webpage for the stats which multiple people now have tweaked and suited to their own needs with simple html tricks.

Thanks!

In the not too distant future, I'll take you up on that. I have looked into setting up a pool for a little while now, because it interests me, and found it a bit more arcane than I'm ready for. I am not a programmer, but I am good at making programs talk to each other if I have sufficient information to do it. \

Pools in general seem to be kind of a jealously guarded "old boys club" on bitcointalk. If you ask or search for a setup guide, you usually find "if you don't know how to do it, you probably shouldn't do it". Which while it might be valid advice in many cases, is completely unhelpful. I can learn. I ran a multi line multitasking BBS under DOS 6.22 when told that it couldn't be done, and the only programming I did was extended batch language. Given resources, this Biomech can do some shit

However, I was mostly replying to the snarky comment. Thanks again for your non snarky reply!

[DeathAndTaxes]

If you think "that who gets the reward for a block, and who "solves" it are two different questions", then I am certain you do not comprehend that even in pool "mining" there must be an entity to receive the reward, what is not the pool participant. The reward needs to be transmitted (first transaction) to the entity which "solves" the block. You are failing to understand that the receiver (thus the "solver") it is not the pool participant.

That is not a correct statement.   p2pool and eligius are evidence of that.

[Puppet]

Thought Id post this here; DrHaribo is giving away a Jupiter:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=321629.0

All you have to do is mine at bitminter and get lucky (the more hashrate you have, the less luck you need).
Since bitminter is lower fee than btcguild (1% vs 3% for PPLNS) and btcguild is getting as big Deepbit once was, this might be a good time to point your miners there.

[Nemo1024]

I am mining on BitMinter in that race, but I am also giving some of my mining time to a small pool (the way BitMinter used to be).
This small pool is https://give-me-coins.com/
Its merged-mined BTC sub-pool is at 6THs right now, 0% fees, and they still have one bounty left for the next BTC block finder of 0% fees for life + 1BTC reward. The other sub-pools they operate are LTC and FTC, so if you still GPU-mine those, you can have everything in one dashboard.

[sickpig]

I am mining on BitMinter in that race, but I am also giving some of my mining time to a small pool (the way BitMinter used to be).
This small pool is https://give-me-coins.com/
Its merged-mined BTC sub-pool is at 6THs right now, 0% fees, and they still have one bounty left for the next BTC block finder of 0% fees for life + 1BTC reward. The other sub-pools they operate are LTC and FTC, so if you still GPU-mine those, you can have everything in one dashboard.

I will give them a try, it's the second time someone use them as an example of well crafted small minig pool.

[waterboi92]

any jupiter owners running .98 notice that the hashrate is highest when you do a poweroff cycle and reboot, it will hit 565-575gh/s at the pool and then after running for a while the pool listed hash rate will get progressively lower, i dip at 490gh/s

any idea why this is?

[-Redacted-]

If you think "that who gets the reward for a block, and who "solves" it are two different questions", then I am certain you do not comprehend that even in pool "mining" there must be an entity to receive the reward, what is not the pool participant. The reward needs to be transmitted (first transaction) to the entity which "solves" the block. You are failing to understand that the receiver (thus the "solver") it is not the pool participant.

That is not a correct statement.   p2pool and eligius are evidence of that.

The pool creates a coinbase entry assigning the block reward to itself.  When the block is solved, by whichever pool member submits a share of sufficiently high difficulty, that solution is transmitted along with the filled-in coinbase.  Once accepted onto the blockchain, the mined BTC and fees are sent to the address that the pool assigned as the receiver in their coinbase entry.

if you are solo mining, you are creating a coinbase with your own wallet ID in it specifying where the reward goes (into your wallet) when you submit a block solution.

[shmadz]

any jupiter owners running .98 notice that the hashrate is highest when you do a poweroff cycle and reboot, it will hit 565-575gh/s at the pool and then after running for a while the pool listed hash rate will get progressively lower, i dip at 490gh/s

any idea why this is?

This is exactly what happens to mine, maybe even lower, 470, 460... no idea why 

[chrono030]

any jupiter owners running .98 notice that the hashrate is highest when you do a poweroff cycle and reboot, it will hit 565-575gh/s at the pool and then after running for a while the pool listed hash rate will get progressively lower, i dip at 490gh/s

any idea why this is?

This is exactly what happens to mine, maybe even lower, 470, 460... no idea why  

I don't seem to have this issue w/ my jup running .98.

http://imgur.com/TrW6zoo

[Paladin69]

any jupiter owners running .98 notice that the hashrate is highest when you do a poweroff cycle and reboot, it will hit 565-575gh/s at the pool and then after running for a while the pool listed hash rate will get progressively lower, i dip at 490gh/s

any idea why this is?

I am noticing the same problem.

[waterboi92]

any jupiter owners running .98 notice that the hashrate is highest when you do a poweroff cycle and reboot, it will hit 565-575gh/s at the pool and then after running for a while the pool listed hash rate will get progressively lower, i dip at 490gh/s

any idea why this is?

I am noticing the same problem.

glad to know im not the only one, im just doing a manual reboot every time the hash rate dips too low.

im running my jupiter at btc guild, 2.5% error rate and core temps: 53, 63, 55.5 and 52.5.

anyone have a fix?