Swedish ASIC miner company kncminer.com

[vesperwillow]

Are there people out there that DON't mine 24/7?    What a waste if so... lol
but...I disagree....I DO agree it SHOULD come out the same....but it doesn't.
early on, I took two identical miners, one pointed at slush, one at eligius, for two days.....
Eliguis payed out about 15% more overall during that time....   try it...you will see.
Maybe it's the extra loot he offers?...some, but not all......
OR... just look up recent blocks,and do the math.....  
Yeah, slushie had larger payouts, but less frequent(obviously)...  
I didn't feel like loosing 15% a day anymore, so settled on Eligius...
I'm actually a bit hesitant to try another....
anyone on ghash.io in here have about 1.25 Th/s I can compare to?

I would say the luck was the difference, and whatever the pool had on hand at the time. I've done that before with slush and several other pools, and slush paid out more.

[1713606123]

1713606123

[1713606123]

1713606123

[1713606123]

1713606123

[1713606123]

1713606123

[Phoenix1969]

Again, please try to choose any other pool at isn't currently 24% of the network

ya, choose a pool that takes hours for each round....    not me!
I'm not in this for charity....
I see you atop Eligius page........ good stuff....you sayin' you'd move when wizkid reaches 25%?
Only a month ago, everyone was worried about a "51% attack", now it's 25%?
What will it be next month?

Judging from your previous posts you are mining 24/7 and not quitting anytime soon. Quite the opposite. You have your moneys ready to be spent on more miners.

If this is the case it makes absolutely no difference whether you are using a large or a small pool, assuming their fees and uptime are the same. Really. No difference at all on the BTC earned.

This pretty much.

I get paid once a day by eligius ~6BTC why would you want to get paid any sooner?

No one said they are worried about a 25% attack, this is conjecture. But why choose ghash.io/cex.io when they are obviously becoming a large part of the network, why help them when there are other pools that offer the same service?

If wizkid reached 25% I would move sure, takes two seconds. If I had maybe 7-10TH more hashrate I would be solo mining and not even worry about a pool.

Tin Foil Hat -

How do you know CEX.io isn't mining on their own solo pool + since they are tied in with ghash.io, maybe together they have an even larger majority of the network than we think.

Impatience and lack of understanding isn't a reason to not mine at a pool with less % of the network.

Now I'm even more confused with your standpoint....    above, you say...."Again, please try to choose any other pool at isn't currently 24% of the network",  yet call it "conjecture", and still yet would move away from Eligius if he DID go over 25%...
Ewok confused now.   No matter... I see it's not conjecture, but preference....  
I wish I was pumpin' as much Th/s as you!....  Someday soon...... haaaaa

[chrono030]

To be fair I think it needs more than 48 hours to average out, different pools have different "luck" at different times, its only if you are mining in a really tiny pool that it takes too long to find anything.

I had stable output on slush's for a long time, now I'm on bitminter trying to win a Jupiter, but just for this month, I'll try Elgius in December.

I'll likely be doing this exact same thing.  Good luck trying to win that jupiter.

[Phoenix1969]

Are there people out there that DON't mine 24/7?    What a waste if so... lol
but...I disagree....I DO agree it SHOULD come out the same....but it doesn't.
early on, I took two identical miners, one pointed at slush, one at eligius, for two days.....
Eliguis payed out about 15% more overall during that time....   try it...you will see.
Maybe it's the extra loot he offers?...some, but not all......
OR... just look up recent blocks,and do the math.....  
Yeah, slushie had larger payouts, but less frequent(obviously)...  
I didn't feel like loosing 15% a day anymore, so settled on Eligius...
I'm actually a bit hesitant to try another....
anyone on ghash.io in here have about 1.25 Th/s I can compare to?

I would say the luck was the difference, and whatever the pool had on hand at the time. I've done that before with slush and several other pools, and slush paid out more.

you are probably right....but maybe more to "luck", than luck!

[vesperwillow]

I'm curious to know how much power Bargraphics is using for that payout

[Phoenix1969]

Please, someone tell me KNC is going to beat 2TH/s in March, NOT to "do it".....  (kidding, really)
I could really use a KNC upcoming equipment teaser....

Hi,

Does anybody know what order number is next for production (approximate)

Regards

Wow. Not touching that one...   lol.

[OmegaNemesis28]

[2013-11-21 18:02:14] KnC: core 4-166 was disabled due to 10 HW errors in a row


On my upgrade board. Not sure how to handle.

[xyzzy099]

No one said they are worried about a 25% attack, this is conjecture. But why choose ghash.io/cex.io when they are obviously becoming a large part of the network, why help them when there are other pools that offer the same service?

If wizkid reached 25% I would move sure, takes two seconds. If I had maybe 7-10TH more hashrate I would be solo mining and not even worry about a pool.

I see this kind of thinking on here a lot, even from people who I know to be very intelligent (Bargraphics, for example ), but I just don't understand how you get there.

It seems to me a logical conclusion that the pools that attract the most users are likely to be pools that are doing whatever it is that miners need/want them to do.

Do you really believe that integrity of the bitcoin network REQUIRES that miners intentionally choose pools that are less successful at attracting miners?  Isn't that kind of a contradiction?

If it's true that the bitcoin network literally requires this kind of behavior on the part of miners, the bitcoin network is doomed, and rightly so.

I suspect that if mining continues to be a centralized affair such as it is now, it may really be the death of the bitcoin network - but don't fool yourself into thinking that encouraging miners to mine on small pools will help the problem - at best, you are discouraging pool operators from competing aggressively, and becoming the best that they can be.

As I have said before, I believe that the only possible real solution is distributed pooled mining like P2pool.  I believe that some distributed pool will eventually emerge that will be good enough and attract enough users that it becomes the 'best' pool (however that is defined), and then the integrity of the bitcoin network will be safe for good.

In the short term, trying to pretend that some miners making a conscious choice to 'save' the network by choosing smaller pools arbitrarily is just self-delusional, contradictory, and will result in pools that are less responsive to the needs of miners.

If you really, really want to 'save' the network right now then design the perfect distributed pool.  Otherwise, make what money you can until someone else does.

[opentoe]

[2013-11-21 18:02:14] KnC: core 4-166 was disabled due to 10 HW errors in a row


On my upgrade board. Not sure how to handle.

Did you let it run for a while and heat up a little?

[Biffa]

[2013-11-21 18:02:14] KnC: core 4-166 was disabled due to 10 HW errors in a row


On my upgrade board. Not sure how to handle.

That's normal

[Phoenix1969]

[2013-11-21 18:02:14] KnC: core 4-166 was disabled due to 10 HW errors in a row


On my upgrade board. Not sure how to handle.

Did you let it run for a while and heat up a little?

Dude....cores enabling & disabling is totally normal.....relax
Happens to about 5 of the 9 boards I have.....  
and some of those are faster than the others with all cores running....
I actually noticed that some of the miners with cores disabling have a lower error rate than those that keep all cores running too..
again... totally normal....

[Bargraphics]

I'm curious to know how much power Bargraphics is using for that payout

Going to have to ask KnC All hosted happily with them

No one said they are worried about a 25% attack, this is conjecture. But why choose ghash.io/cex.io when they are obviously becoming a large part of the network, why help them when there are other pools that offer the same service?

If wizkid reached 25% I would move sure, takes two seconds. If I had maybe 7-10TH more hashrate I would be solo mining and not even worry about a pool.

I see this kind of thinking on here a lot, even from people who I know to be very intelligent (Bargraphics, for example ), but I just don't understand how you get there.

It seems to me a logical conclusion that the pools that attract the most users are likely to be pools that are doing whatever it is that miners need/want them to do.

Do you really believe that integrity of the bitcoin network REQUIRES that miners intentionally choose pools that are less successful at attracting miners?  Isn't that kind of a contradiction?

If it's true that the bitcoin network literally requires this kind of behavior on the part of miners, the bitcoin network is doomed, and rightly so.

I suspect that if mining continues to be a centralized affair such as it is now, it may really be the death of the bitcoin network - but don't fool yourself into thinking that encouraging miners to mine on small pools will help the problem - at best, you are discouraging pool operators from competing aggressively, and becoming the best that they can be.

As I have said before, I believe that the only possible real solution is distributed pooled mining like P2pool.  I believe that some distributed pool will eventually emerge that will be good enough and attract enough users that it becomes the 'best' pool (however that is defined), and then the integrity of the bitcoin network will be safe for good.

In the short term, trying to pretend that some miners making a conscious choice to 'save' the network by choosing smaller pools arbitrarily is just self-delusional, contradictory, and will result in pools that are less responsive to the needs of miners.

If you really, really want to 'save' the network right now then design the perfect distributed pool.  Otherwise, make what money you can until someone else does.

I agree with you, but I try to do my part in educating people about various pools. If people get scared, irrationally or rationally, it effects BTC Price. If BTC price goes down because of this fear then it effects me so I try to help people realise that you don't need pretty pictures to mine. You just need a pool with great uptime, decent stats, and frequent payouts.

I also try to educate people that BTCGuild is taking 3% of your hardearned money.
That Ghash.io has a sister site CEX.io and you can draw your own conclusions on how much of the network they have between themselves.

People will choose what they choose for the reasons they choose but hopefully with a little more education they can make an informed choice.

[Phoenix1969]

Excellently stated Bar....

[xyzzy099]

I'm curious to know how much power Bargraphics is using for that payout

Going to have to ask KnC All hosted happily with them

No one said they are worried about a 25% attack, this is conjecture. But why choose ghash.io/cex.io when they are obviously becoming a large part of the network, why help them when there are other pools that offer the same service?

If wizkid reached 25% I would move sure, takes two seconds. If I had maybe 7-10TH more hashrate I would be solo mining and not even worry about a pool.

I see this kind of thinking on here a lot, even from people who I know to be very intelligent (Bargraphics, for example ), but I just don't understand how you get there.

It seems to me a logical conclusion that the pools that attract the most users are likely to be pools that are doing whatever it is that miners need/want them to do.

Do you really believe that integrity of the bitcoin network REQUIRES that miners intentionally choose pools that are less successful at attracting miners?  Isn't that kind of a contradiction?

If it's true that the bitcoin network literally requires this kind of behavior on the part of miners, the bitcoin network is doomed, and rightly so.

I suspect that if mining continues to be a centralized affair such as it is now, it may really be the death of the bitcoin network - but don't fool yourself into thinking that encouraging miners to mine on small pools will help the problem - at best, you are discouraging pool operators from competing aggressively, and becoming the best that they can be.

As I have said before, I believe that the only possible real solution is distributed pooled mining like P2pool.  I believe that some distributed pool will eventually emerge that will be good enough and attract enough users that it becomes the 'best' pool (however that is defined), and then the integrity of the bitcoin network will be safe for good.

In the short term, trying to pretend that some miners making a conscious choice to 'save' the network by choosing smaller pools arbitrarily is just self-delusional, contradictory, and will result in pools that are less responsive to the needs of miners.

If you really, really want to 'save' the network right now then design the perfect distributed pool.  Otherwise, make what money you can until someone else does.

I agree with you, but I try to do my part in educating people about various pools. If people get scared, irrationally or rationally, it effects BTC Price. If BTC price goes down because of this fear then it effects me so I try to help people realise that you don't need pretty pictures to mine. You just need a pool with great uptime, decent stats, and frequent payouts.

I also try to educate people that BTCGuild is taking 3% of your hardearned money.
That Ghash.io has a sister site CEX.io and you can draw your own conclusions on how much of the network they have between themselves.

People will choose what they choose for the reasons they choose but hopefully with a little more education they can make an informed choice.

I don't disagree with anything in this post.  But it seems to me that educating people about pool choices is one thing, and advising miners to arbitrarily leave any pool that exceeds some arbitrary percentage of network hashrate is something completely differeent.

[r1senfa17h]

I purchased 2 of the recent fire-sale modules for my 4-port Jupiter, but needed to add a couple of pin headers to support all six modules.

I've never really soldered anything before and had no idea what I was doing, but I managed to get everything working! It took a few tries though. I made the assumption that the two blank spaces were simply solder filled holes, but no matter how hot I heated them, I couldn't melt them. I ended up just soldering to the surface.

I'm currently running my existing 4 modules on ports 2-5 so that I can simply attach the new ones onto the side of my open-case Jupiter using ports 1 and 6.

The point of me sharing this is simply to show my excitement and proof that even a noob like me can make this work!

[Biffa]

As I have said before, I believe that the only possible real solution is distributed pooled mining like P2pool.  I believe that some distributed pool will eventually emerge that will be good enough and attract enough users that it becomes the 'best' pool (however that is defined), and then the integrity of the bitcoin network will be safe for good.

In the short term, trying to pretend that some miners making a conscious choice to 'save' the network by choosing smaller pools arbitrarily is just self-delusional, contradictory, and will result in pools that are less responsive to the needs of miners.

If you really, really want to 'save' the network right now then design the perfect distributed pool.  Otherwise, make what money you can until someone else does.

The problem with p2pool is that for most its barrier to entry technical level is too steep for the majority of people.

I mean this is the instructions for setting it up in Windows: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=18313.msg712967#msg712967

And this in Linux: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=62842.msg734371#msg734371

Vs,

Change one line in your miner to point to elgius or two to point to most other pools.

I could get it to work if I can be bothered to find the time, but if someone came up with a simple install process for p2pool then it would probably gain traction much faster.

I love the concept. It actually fits in with the Bitcoin ethos really well, but man they need to make it easier to use.

[Bitcoinorama]

The point of me sharing this is simply to show my excitement and proof that even a noob like me can make this work!

Officially, I cannot condone what you have done! you have voided your warranty.

(Unoffically; Result! )

[lemonte]

I purchased 2 of the recent fire-sale modules for my 4-port Jupiter, but needed to add a couple of pin headers to support all six modules.

I've never really soldered anything before and had no idea what I was doing, but I managed to get everything working! It took a few tries though. I made the assumption that the two blank spaces were simply solder filled holes, but no matter how hot I heated them, I couldn't melt them. I ended up just soldering to the surface.

I'm currently running my existing 4 modules on ports 2-5 so that I can simply attach the new ones onto the side of my open-case Jupiter using ports 1 and 6.

The point of me sharing this is simply to show my excitement and proof that even a noob like me can make this work!

Nice work!!! I'm a noob myself and could imagine myself completely messing it up.

[xyzzy099]

As I have said before, I believe that the only possible real solution is distributed pooled mining like P2pool.  I believe that some distributed pool will eventually emerge that will be good enough and attract enough users that it becomes the 'best' pool (however that is defined), and then the integrity of the bitcoin network will be safe for good.

In the short term, trying to pretend that some miners making a conscious choice to 'save' the network by choosing smaller pools arbitrarily is just self-delusional, contradictory, and will result in pools that are less responsive to the needs of miners.

If you really, really want to 'save' the network right now then design the perfect distributed pool.  Otherwise, make what money you can until someone else does.

The problem with p2pool is that for most its barrier to entry technical level is too steep.

I mean this is the instructions for setting it up in Windows: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=18313.msg712967#msg712967

And this in Linux: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=62842.msg734371#msg734371

Vs,

Change one line in your miner to point to elgius or two to point to most other pools.

I agree.  That is just one of many challenges for P2pool as it now exists.

[Biffa]

As I have said before, I believe that the only possible real solution is distributed pooled mining like P2pool.  I believe that some distributed pool will eventually emerge that will be good enough and attract enough users that it becomes the 'best' pool (however that is defined), and then the integrity of the bitcoin network will be safe for good.

In the short term, trying to pretend that some miners making a conscious choice to 'save' the network by choosing smaller pools arbitrarily is just self-delusional, contradictory, and will result in pools that are less responsive to the needs of miners.

If you really, really want to 'save' the network right now then design the perfect distributed pool.  Otherwise, make what money you can until someone else does.

The problem with p2pool is that for most its barrier to entry technical level is too steep.

I mean this is the instructions for setting it up in Windows: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=18313.msg712967#msg712967

And this in Linux: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=62842.msg734371#msg734371

Vs,

Change one line in your miner to point to elgius or two to point to most other pools.

I agree.  That is just one of many challenges for P2pool as it now exists.

If I have a crack at it will it work ok with my KNC miner?