[SCAM] Foxminers?

[SA Bitcoin Brothers]

We need to keep this post alive! SCAM SCAM SCAM

[1713958189]

1713958189

[1713958189]

1713958189

[1713958189]

1713958189

[SA Bitcoin Brothers]

No one is even close to shipping production sub-14nm chips. See edit. a big Hmm here...
Engineering samples of test circuits to begin characterizing what to expect from them -- maybe. After the almost-there for a couple years hopes the 16/14nm showed (and even though in now production are still producing horrible yields) most industry pundits still put any 10nm production from even Intel/IBM to be early next year. Even then they still follow that with - maybe.

Edit: Just did a search on Samsung and turned up https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/02/samsungs-got-a-new-10nm-octa-core-chip-with-gigabit-lte-for-flagship-phones/
And from March, http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1331504
https://www.xda-developers.com/intel-claims-next-chip-generation-ahead-samsung/

wtf? There has been NO mention about that kind of progress in the IEEE Spectrum feeds I get. Those cover beyond-bleeding-edge tech and last I read 10nm was still in test-mode so this bears looking into...

What do you think now? When will the new miners be out with 10nm chips?

[delicopsch56]

No one is even close to shipping production sub-14nm chips. See edit. a big Hmm here...
Engineering samples of test circuits to begin characterizing what to expect from them -- maybe. After the almost-there for a couple years hopes the 16/14nm showed (and even though in now production are still producing horrible yields) most industry pundits still put any 10nm production from even Intel/IBM to be early next year. Even then they still follow that with - maybe.

Edit: Just did a search on Samsung and turned up https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/02/samsungs-got-a-new-10nm-octa-core-chip-with-gigabit-lte-for-flagship-phones/
And from March, http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1331504
https://www.xda-developers.com/intel-claims-next-chip-generation-ahead-samsung/

wtf? There has been NO mention about that kind of progress in the IEEE Spectrum feeds I get. Those cover beyond-bleeding-edge tech and last I read 10nm was still in test-mode so this bears looking into...

What do you think now? When will the new miners be out with 10nm chips?

Kinda noobie question, I'm still on board with SCAM SCAM SCAM but I don't follow processor dev for years, and I claim no EE,  I think I get the basics of tough miniaturization issue advances on these chips at a high level.  But gen purpose Intel CPU changes sockets about every fucking 15 minutes <sarcasm> when they release a new chip\series\generation whatever.  Excluding I'm guessing slower signal travel, higher cost, higher power consumption, mo heat, etc, due to more transistors\etc are there other reasons why can't just release a slightly bigger chip with new socket?.  They are dinky ass chips already to this guy that hasn't been in a serious computer airlocked thumbprint lock room in 15 years. Paradigm shift near miracle in microcode advance is the only other thing I can guess, but I've looked at a bunch of crypto code that seems to my eye to have the slow computation in manual optimized assembler already and uses the on chip crypto code. If anybody can help me understand why those are general reasons or not for skepticism other than all the published documentation red flags on this miner it would help me understand the 'physics' comments much better.  Back in the day it was just cpu bound or i\o bound, and with many of the crypto functions on later Intel chips I have a hard time buying I\O bound for sure.  I get 'memory hard' on L3 cache with cryptonote and such very well, but with Bitcoin and Litecoin I just can't quite get why you folks more knowledgeable of ASIC and\or CPU chip architecture can see this as a big scam so easily.  Can somebody please explain the'why' basics of the believed impossibility to me a bit better?  I've tried reading hardcore EE stuff but don't know enough to parse it.

Giassyass in advance.

[Unacceptable]

No one is even close to shipping production sub-14nm chips. See edit. a big Hmm here...
Engineering samples of test circuits to begin characterizing what to expect from them -- maybe. After the almost-there for a couple years hopes the 16/14nm showed (and even though in now production are still producing horrible yields) most industry pundits still put any 10nm production from even Intel/IBM to be early next year. Even then they still follow that with - maybe.

Edit: Just did a search on Samsung and turned up https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/02/samsungs-got-a-new-10nm-octa-core-chip-with-gigabit-lte-for-flagship-phones/
And from March, http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1331504
https://www.xda-developers.com/intel-claims-next-chip-generation-ahead-samsung/

wtf? There has been NO mention about that kind of progress in the IEEE Spectrum feeds I get. Those cover beyond-bleeding-edge tech and last I read 10nm was still in test-mode so this bears looking into...

What do you think now? When will the new miners be out with 10nm chips?

Kinda noobie question, I'm still on board with SCAM SCAM SCAM but I don't follow processor dev for years, and I claim no EE,  I think I get the basics of tough miniaturization issue advances on these chips at a high level.  But gen purpose Intel CPU changes sockets about every fucking 15 minutes <sarcasm> when they release a new chip\series\generation whatever.  Excluding I'm guessing slower signal travel, higher cost, higher power consumption, mo heat, etc, due to more transistors\etc are there other reasons why can't just release a slightly bigger chip with new socket?.  They are dinky ass chips already to this guy that hasn't been in a serious computer airlocked thumbprint lock room in 15 years. Paradigm shift near miracle in microcode advance is the only other thing I can guess, but I've looked at a bunch of crypto code that seems to my eye to have the slow computation in manual optimized assembler already and uses the on chip crypto code. If anybody can help me understand why those are general reasons or not for skepticism other than all the published documentation red flags on this miner it would help me understand the 'physics' comments much better.  Back in the day it was just cpu bound or i\o bound, and with many of the crypto functions on later Intel chips I have a hard time buying I\O bound for sure.  I get 'memory hard' on L3 cache with cryptonote and such very well, but with Bitcoin and Litecoin I just can't quite get why you folks more knowledgeable of ASIC and\or CPU chip architecture can see this as a big scam so easily.  Can somebody please explain the'why' basics of the believed impossibility to me a bit better?  I've tried reading hardcore EE stuff but don't know enough to parse it.

Giassyass in advance.

Simple...if it sounds too good to be true,it most always is... 

Power consumption & hashrates were way beyond anything available ATM sooooooo.....................

[lsc]

FB site https://www.facebook.com/Scam-waring-Foxminer-121513041746669/
sprat this scam

[NotFuzzyWarm]

<snip>  Excluding I'm guessing slower signal travel, higher cost, higher power consumption, mo heat, etc, due to more transistors\etc are there other reasons why can't just release a slightly bigger chip with new socket?.  They are dinky ass chips already to this guy that hasn't been in a serious computer airlocked thumbprint lock room in 15 years. Paradigm shift near miracle in microcode advance is the only other thing I can guess, but I've looked at a bunch of crypto code that seems to my eye to have the slow computation in manual optimized assembler already and uses the on chip crypto code. If anybody can help me understand why those are general reasons or not for skepticism other than all the published documentation red flags on this miner it would help me understand the 'physics' comments much better.  Back in the day it was just cpu bound or i\o bound, and with many of the crypto functions on later Intel chips I have a hard time buying I\O bound for sure.  I get 'memory hard' on L3 cache with cryptonote and such very well, but with Bitcoin and Litecoin I just can't quite get why you folks more knowledgeable of ASIC and\or CPU chip architecture can see this as a big scam so easily.  Can somebody please explain the'why' basics of the believed impossibility to me a bit better?  I've tried reading hardcore EE stuff but don't know enough to parse it.
Giassyass in advance.

That is a lot harder question than you may think as there are several layers to it... For one, no one else has anything approaching what they claim. The world of crypto ASIC design is very very small and frankly no one does anything without the others working along the same lines and being rather vocal about it. Since when it comes to the Next Wonder Miner all we hear from real makers is crickets, well....

On the physical construction and layout of an ASIC I have to defer to a member here with the handle 2112 who is/was an instructor in chip design. You might want to PM them about it. A couple papers on 16/14nm tech http://www.techdesignforums.com/practice/guides/14nm-16nm-processes/ and from 2013 http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1280773 Somewhere I have several papers from Mentor Graphics on their toolchains for those nodes...

As far as 7nm goes, this is that last I have come across https://arstechnica.co.uk/gadgets/2015/07/ibm-unveils-industrys-first-7nm-chip-moving-beyond-silicon/ Do note that 'chip' is referring to an assemblage of functional test structures - not a usable logic chip.

To me the core <yes, pun> issue is, how many cores will fit in a chip? Unlike CPU's, crypto ASICS are extremely simple beasts. Each has serial coms, a smattering of working memory, and a buttload of hard-wired SHA logic cores. Whereas a CPU contains many different circuits for several kinds of IO, along with cache and math, together with the actual few to handful of CPU cores. The latest Intel Xeon has what, 12 physical cores in it? As I recall, Bitmains BM1387 chip used in the R4, s9 and T9 have 250 cores in them, the s9 uses 189 of those chips. In a way GPU chips are similar (high core count) but rather like FPGA their operations can be changed via programming but that ability again leads to speed and power penalties.

Since Bitmain has not released a data sheet for that chip, here is the specs for their last 28nm chip used in the S7 miner https://shop.bitmain.com/files/download/BM1385_Datasheet_v2.0.pdf to poke through. Much of it should still apply to their current 16nm chip

That simplicity does have a down side: Power density. Miner design moved away from large monolithic chips because it is very difficult to power and cool a chip which size-wise *could* these days hold several thousand cores and dissipate >1,000 watts. The BFL Monarch, Hashfast Minion, and a few other failures come to mind...

On the software end, it becomes fuzzier. There 2 things come into play, Stratum which works with the pools to create work and the miner software itself. Stratum docs https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=557866.0

For the miner software, talk to -ck since he wrote cgminer which is what almost all miners use. Considering even the latest miners can run on a single RasPi-3 front-end that rather says then and there that optimizing code (even more as it *is* rather mature) will have little impact.

As for the Samsung 10nm processor: Read into the link and the one from Intel. To claim the 1st-to-market moniker the Samsung is kind of a cheater: Yes the gates are around 10nm but the metalization (connections) are the same 22nm they use with their 14nm chips. Intel tends to shoot for doing the entire process smaller - not just the gates.

*Could* Bitmain be working with TSMC to make a 12nm mining ASIC? (With the same 22nm metal layers they use in their 16nm FinFET's). Sure. When it comes to boutique chips like mining ASICS Bitmain is the one company that certainly has resources to pay for it. But makes no economic sense to me for them to do it: Their BM1387 is king of the hill with no competitors and after the beating the entire industry took finally getting 16/14nm to the consumer market coupled with the still-erratic chip-to-chip performance headaches they (and Avalon, and BitFury) have to deal with there is just-no-point to do it at this time. Even if they did, there is still the problem of boutique chips being last in line for the Foundry production priorities. Just as is still the case with 16nm chips first come the folks who financed ALL of the research involved eg, Apple, AMD, Cisco, Broadcom, et al.

[delicopsch56]

Thanks for the detailed reply NotFuzzyWarm.  I don't want to dig much deeper, this old dog just flat didn't think about the multiple cpu\core overhead at all from a hardware design perspective.  But I can certainly observe it in practice for myself when I run too many threads mining on my x-way machines, and I observed it in practice too on the high dollar midranges in my software career.  Never intentionally run a conventional general purpose machine at 100%, even if it's all your resource to use, cause you will lose performance overall, even if you have tons of memory, you're gonna swap.  The different algorithms do have some different limiting factors, but you gotta leave some cpu free to account for that.  Performance generally decreases if you don't use n-1 threads against cores.  Bunch of cpus with buncha cores, that performance penalty would seem to increase the more cpus\cores you jammed in.  

In general software performance, my favorite zen answer for folks wanting to increase performance and asking me how was 'access less data'.  That would almost never work in this crypticverse if your code is very tight already, pretty much foiled by required algorithm work.  I studied Cryptonight and Wolf0's Monero code for cpu mining for quite a while before understanding I was never gonna get more than a ~2% performance increase with software changes, the only way I even got ~2% was native compiles with an optimization flag.

I get it good enough now, I don't want or need to understand it top to bottom.  Perfect is the enemy of good.  

Maybe now that I'm a Jr member or whatever I can embed my joke picture from a couple weeks ago.

Mining on a phone.

https://i.imgur.com/FhRz1pq.jpg

[NotFuzzyWarm]

Cute: Looks like an old s1 without the RiPi on it
Don't know if you caught the edit I did: As far as 7nm goes, this is that last I have come across https://arstechnica.co.uk/gadgets/2015/07/ibm-unveils-industrys-first-7nm-chip-moving-beyond-silicon/ Do note that 'chip' is referring to an assemblage of functional test structures - not a usable logic chip. Again, is a couple years old but things have been very quiet in terms of news released by the Foundries.

Has several good links in it to other articles about wassusp

[2112]

I don't want to dig much deeper, this old dog just flat didn't think about the multiple cpu\core overhead at all from a hardware design perspective.

Kinda noobie question, I'm still on board with SCAM SCAM SCAM but I don't follow processor dev for years, and I claim no EE,  I think I get the basics of tough miniaturization issue advances on these chips at a high level.

You may not like my answer, but I will be short and frank.

The primary reason has of your inability to understand has nothing to do with old age, not following the recent trends, etc.

You've simply received a horrible education and know nothing about the digital technology advances from made in the middle of 1950 decade.

You seem to only be aware of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_architecture first published in 1945 and you seem to try to translate everything into it, even if clearly the implementation uses different conceptual model. Bitcoin mining is a perfect example of problem better handled by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mealy_machine (from 1955) or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore_machine (from 1956). Any discussion involving concepts like: caches, branches, CPU, I/O, threads, cores, etc. only shows that the person writing it doesn't know the technological advances from the middle of the previous century. In my school these are discussed in the 2nd or 3rd semester of education, literally during couple of of first lectures in the digital logic design (both theory and lab practice)

The primary advances in the power efficiency of the Bitcoin miner were:

1) to implement it as fixed program Moore machine on an FPGA. The FPGA device is itself reprogrammable, so it is still wasteful
2) to have the same fixed program Moore machine implemented without the waste of supporting reprogramming and take advantage of the fact that Bitcoin's 2*SHA256 is essentially self-testing, so even the standard chip-testing circuitry is not required.

Personally, I see no point of discussing advanced electrical engineering stuff without understanding of the basics.

When I was in school it was a common understanding that students with absolutely no contact with any computer are doing noticeably better than students who gained experience of computers via some horrible "home computers" programmed in BASIC with plentitude of GOTOs. There was this seminal paper "GOTO Considered Harmful" written in 1968 by Edseger Dijkstra and published same year by the Communications of the ACM.

I presume that you (and other otherwise educated people) suffer from some version of the above problem: lack of proper basic education in computer architecture. Sometimes I wonder how those people graduated with any real degree (not from a degree mill). But then I have to remind myself that nowadays there are plenty of accredited, real "humanistic/psychological/human-oriented" educational institutions that do grant real degrees.

[QuintLeo]

Even if they did, there is still the problem of boutique chips being last in line for the Foundry production priorities. Just as is still the case with 16nm chips first come the folks who financed ALL of the research involved eg, Apple, AMD, Cisco, Broadcom, et al.

 For Global Foundrys, there is also the "by terms of contract" amount of their foundry capacity that IBM and AMD have first call on, dating back to when IBM and AMD spun off their foundry operations into what became Global Foundrys.
IBM and AMD have absolute first call on a certain amount of foundry capacity (they also have a REQUIREMENT to use a certain amount of capacity as a minimum) that GF can NOT avoid without incurring some rather large contractual penalties (I believe there is an "acts of god" provision in those contracts however).

[NotFuzzyWarm]

And that ^^ being right to the main point of why no 'new' way to hash faster is going to be seen soon is why I deferred to 2112. Only so many ways to skin a cat in hardware when it serves one and only one purpose.

I am not involved in the architecture design and strictly follow the node-size tech eg physical construction of the gates vs implementing actual circuits to explains 'why's' as part of the voodoo I do. My part comes in making it possible to efficiently pull the heat from the dies, Specifically making the systems that micro-machine vias into ceramic interposer/heat spreaders the dies get attached to as part of their packaging to become 'chips'.

Sure you can shrink gate sizes to pack more gates in. CPU, phone baseband chips, network fabric switches and such have the luxury of a bigger physical die size footprint to accommodate the plethora of connections also resulting in lower power-density from more area to spread out the heat/attach heat sink or other thermal route to. Mining ASICS -- sure can fit in more cores but methinks they are already at the point of diminishing return for packing density vs power needed to feed the die. That is why these are so bloody hot. With the BM1387 chips reporting die temps of 95C to 110C as 'normal, God knows what the real junction temps are.

[2112]

I am not involved in the architecture design and strictly follow the node-size tech eg physical construction of the gates vs implementing actual circuits to explains 'why's' as part of the voodoo I do.

I avoid this type of argumentation (back-end, physical) not because it is inherently bad. I avoid it because historically in the Bitcoin milieu most bullshit was using this type of argumentation. Some of it was intentional, profit-motivated bullshit meant to deceive. Some of it was plain dumbassery and fanboism with no actual ill intentions, just mostly lack of introspection and inquisitiveness. The profit-motivated bullshit has now shifted to other crypto-coins with various discussions of "ASIC-proof", "memory-hard", "branch-heavy" and other post-Bitcoin bullshit.

The reality of year 2017 is that it takes about $99 (for Digilent Arty FPGA experimenter board) and about month's worth of free evenings to learn and understand all the requited basics of crypto-coin mining. For Bitcoin the heydays of profitable FPGA mining are over, but all the technical concepts are still valid. All the required software (and knowledge) are either open-source or available for free from the FPGA vendor under chip-lock license. It clearly isn't a replacement for a full graduate degree in a related engineering discipline. But it is more than sufficient to quickly and clearly recognize bullshitters posting here and in other venues.

[SA Bitcoin Brothers]

Well SCAM SCAM SCAM Foxminers SCAM SCAM SCAM have 3 days left then the presale is over

[delicopsch56]

I don't want to dig much deeper, this old dog just flat didn't think about the multiple cpu\core overhead at all from a hardware design perspective.

Kinda noobie question, I'm still on board with SCAM SCAM SCAM but I don't follow processor dev for years, and I claim no EE,  I think I get the basics of tough miniaturization issue advances on these chips at a high level.

You may not like my answer, but I will be short and frank.

The primary reason has of your inability to understand has nothing to do with old age, not following the recent trends, etc.

You've simply received a horrible education and know nothing about the digital technology advances from made in the middle of 1950 decade.

You seem to only be aware of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_architecture first published in 1945 and you seem to try to translate everything into it, even if clearly the implementation uses different conceptual model. Bitcoin mining is a perfect example of problem better handled by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mealy_machine (from 1955) or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore_machine (from 1956). Any discussion involving concepts like: caches, branches, CPU, I/O, threads, cores, etc. only shows that the person writing it doesn't know the technological advances from the middle of the previous century. In my school these are discussed in the 2nd or 3rd semester of education, literally during couple of of first lectures in the digital logic design (both theory and lab practice)

The primary advances in the power efficiency of the Bitcoin miner were:

1) to implement it as fixed program Moore machine on an FPGA. The FPGA device is itself reprogrammable, so it is still wasteful
2) to have the same fixed program Moore machine implemented without the waste of supporting reprogramming and take advantage of the fact that Bitcoin's 2*SHA256 is essentially self-testing, so even the standard chip-testing circuitry is not required.

Personally, I see no point of discussing advanced electrical engineering stuff without understanding of the basics.

When I was in school it was a common understanding that students with absolutely no contact with any computer are doing noticeably better than students who gained experience of computers via some horrible "home computers" programmed in BASIC with plentitude of GOTOs. There was this seminal paper "GOTO Considered Harmful" written in 1968 by Edseger Dijkstra and published same year by the Communications of the ACM.

I presume that you (and other otherwise educated people) suffer from some version of the above problem: lack of proper basic education in computer architecture. Sometimes I wonder how those people graduated with any real degree (not from a degree mill). But then I have to remind myself that nowadays there are plenty of accredited, real "humanistic/psychological/human-oriented" educational institutions that do grant real degrees.

Don't mind MOST OF your reply much, actually.  No, I didn't have a horrible education, I opted out of CS in engineering school because I was cognizant that I was hitting a wall in hard engineering and wasn't trying hard enough in digital design, physics, calculus, etc, too busy having fun, and I had no $.  Reality check, almost everyone does hit a wall at some point where they realize they are just faking it if they continue to try to advance, learning how to do it pretty well but have stopped total comprehension.  

Did a different career for 5 years, went back and did CS business degree and had a very successful career in business software dev.  I pretty much quit giving a crap about hardware while mainframe programming for 13 years, because I was riding the fastest horse in the hardware world then, hardware not by me, but smokin hot MVS with serious capacity hardware for a many billions company and I focused on delivering high quality for my end users, and that went really well as I could actually communicate with them and deliver quickly and on target and with a low margin of error without 5 intermediaries like today's email writer management layers of bullshit overhead.

If ya saw no point, why did you reply? Did you read all my posts, or was it just time to be a dick to the new guy?

[2112]

Don't mind MOST OF your reply much, actually.  No, I didn't have a horrible education, I opted out of CS in engineering school because I was cognizant that I was hitting a wall in hard engineering and wasn't trying hard enough in digital design, physics, calculus, etc, too busy having fun, and I had no $.  Reality check, almost everyone does hit a wall at some point where they realize they are just faking it if they continue to try to advance, learning how to do it pretty well but have stopped total comprehension.  

Did a different career for 5 years, went back and did CS business degree and had a very successful career in business software dev.  I pretty much quit giving a crap about hardware while mainframe programming for 13 years, because I was riding the fastest horse in the hardware world then, hardware not by me, but smokin hot MVS with serious capacity hardware for a many billions company and I focused on delivering high quality for my end users, and that went really well as I could actually communicate with them and deliver quickly and on target and with a low margin of error without 5 intermediaries like today's email writer management layers of bullshit overhead.

If ya saw no point, why did you reply? Did you read all my posts, or was it just time to be a dick to the new guy?

Ah! Greetings retired IBM-fanboi! In the IBM-universe I'm not a big MVS fan, I'm was more into running multiple copies of MFT or CMS under VM/370.

Let me start from the last paragraph. The reason I'm writing and responding to you is standard one for me: I know that for 1 poster here there are at least 10 readers who will read yours and mine posts with understanding. So when I'm personally addressing you (delicopsch56) it is more of a rhetorical device to address the plurality of you (named and unnamed readers of this thread).

In particular I'm writing for the benefit of young readers, who are still ahead in their life. They can still use their school time to "learn", not to "have fun". They can still avoid having "successful career" where maintaining employment was only possible with the help of regularly obliterating their own brain with alcohol (or other addictive substances or behaviors). I used to work in the entertainment industry and I can immediately recognize a bitter burnout. I've been on the meetings where people would small-talk about addiction rehab facilities like most of the employed people discuss vacation destinations.

There isn't much technical and mining-related to address in your reply. You've however very clearly and beautifully underlined the perils of technical fanboism. Most of the technical forums have fanboi discussion threads like Intel vs. AMD, ATI vs. NVidia, etc. delicopsch56 is an example of a dinosaur fanboi, from the days when various IBM-designed machines were bought under the assumption of "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM". IBM may even had "fastest horse" trophy for awhile, they still sell them under "z/Arch" moniker, but lots of people got fired for continuing to "buy IBM" where different, better, cheaper, faster solutions were available.

The simplest, easiest way to avoid burnout and being perpetually perplexed is to keep your mind open. Even if you don't have time or money to pursue a formal degree you can still greatly benefit from clicking around the "See Also" links in Wikipedia. And when you choose to "have fun", choose the activities that do as little as possible damage to your brain.

I want to personally "thank you" to all those people who gave the similar advice when I was young student in school. You most likely won't read it. All I can do repay it is to repeat it in an updated way, with modifications to match the changed technological landscape.

[delicopsch56]

Don't mind MOST OF your reply much, actually.  No, I didn't have a horrible education, I opted out of CS in engineering school because I was cognizant that I was hitting a wall in hard engineering and wasn't trying hard enough in digital design, physics, calculus, etc, too busy having fun, and I had no $.  Reality check, almost everyone does hit a wall at some point where they realize they are just faking it if they continue to try to advance, learning how to do it pretty well but have stopped total comprehension.  

Did a different career for 5 years, went back and did CS business degree and had a very successful career in business software dev.  I pretty much quit giving a crap about hardware while mainframe programming for 13 years, because I was riding the fastest horse in the hardware world then, hardware not by me, but smokin hot MVS with serious capacity hardware for a many billions company and I focused on delivering high quality for my end users, and that went really well as I could actually communicate with them and deliver quickly and on target and with a low margin of error without 5 intermediaries like today's email writer management layers of bullshit overhead.

If ya saw no point, why did you reply? Did you read all my posts, or was it just time to be a dick to the new guy?

Ah! Greetings retired IBM-fanboi! In the IBM-universe I'm not a big MVS fan, I'm was more into running multiple copies of MFT or CMS under VM/370.

Let me start from the last paragraph. The reason I'm writing and responding to you is standard one for me: I know that for 1 poster here there are at least 10 readers who will read yours and mine posts with understanding. So when I'm personally addressing you (delicopsch56) it is more of a rhetorical device to address the plurality of you (named and unnamed readers of this thread).

In particular I'm writing for the benefit of young readers, who are still ahead in their life. They can still use their school time to "learn", not to "have fun". They can still avoid having "successful career" where maintaining employment was only possible with the help of regularly obliterating their own brain with alcohol (or other addictive substances or behaviors). I used to work in the entertainment industry and I can immediately recognize a bitter burnout. I've been on the meetings where people would small-talk about addiction rehab facilities like most of the employed people discuss vacation destinations.

There isn't much technical and mining-related to address in your reply. You've however very clearly and beautifully underlined the perils of technical fanboism. Most of the technical forums have fanboi discussion threads like Intel vs. AMD, ATI vs. NVidia, etc. delicopsch56 is an example of a dinosaur fanboi, from the days when various IBM-designed machines were bought under the assumption of "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM". IBM may even had "fastest horse" trophy for awhile, they still sell them under "z/Arch" moniker, but lots of people got fired for continuing to "buy IBM" where different, better, cheaper, faster solutions were available.

The simplest, easiest way to avoid burnout and being perpetually perplexed is to keep your mind open. Even if you don't have time or money to pursue a formal degree you can still greatly benefit from clicking around the "See Also" links in Wikipedia. And when you choose to "have fun", choose the activities that do as little as possible damage to your brain.

I want to personally "thank you" to all those people who gave the similar advice when I was young student in school. You most likely won't read it. All I can do repay it is to repeat it in an updated way, with modifications to match the changed technological landscape.

Great point, not just about me.  To clarify I burnt out on CORPORATE IT.  I still love IT, but the corporate part was trying to kill that love, and my soul (or whatever)  Not really bitter, in 20/20 hindsight quitting jobs have been my best decisions ever.  I contracted for a while, and that was mostly great, but 2008 financial mess came along and I no longer had my pick of companies\jobs.  But life is change.

I'm not really a fanboi on anything, generally not an early adopter.  I like stuff that works, makes sense, has very few release bugs, and doesn't break easily.  Best tool for the job is my general strategy when I get to make the choice.

I did enjoy MVS, very much, but in hindsight the coolest thing to me about it was when they went OS/390, Z/OS, whatever with it, I don't remember how they did it exactly, but it impressed me.  I was busy working, but didn't have to change a thing, and like flipping on a light switch you could be in unix land if ya wanted.

Certainly some of the engineering school issues were my fault, but at that time they were just busy trying to push engineering cs people out the door due to high demand, and by the time I was done with my Bachelors business CS degree I realized the way that said education structure was structured prerequisite-wise didn't fit my learning style for sure (either track).  

IMO with the hindsight again they should teach Boolean logic in high school.  It ain't just for tech.  

Some days my mind is so open I don't get a thing done, prioritization is a must.

Thanks for the reply.

[NotFuzzyWarm]

***  Foxminers LLC is a SCAM! If someone buys their miners without a well-known and trusted Forum User 1st getting one for doing a review and posting it here then well, you have been warned ***Since sorta walking down memory lane but at least keeping this SCAM thread at the top for the perps to fret over, what the heck. If it costs them losing even 1 sale it is worth it. There. It's on-topic again

2112 you hit on soooo many good points. If you catch my other posts in other threads ya may have noticed I take the 'Teach a person to fish' approach to answering questions. LEARN folks! Don't just raise yer hand to get one specific answer, learn the why and ta-dum! things start to connect..

Again my profession isn't CS, since 1977 it has been design/application of industrial lasers. To me computers are just tools. Und damn we have come a long way from paper tape NC controls with literally relay based ladder logic...

The how/why knowledge of semiconductors themselves well, as a kid in late 50's was building vacuum tube toys and literally grew up tinkering with discrete transistors ect,, led to enlisting in the Air Force (dinna want to be drafted so choosing a service best option) > long haul microwave, ended up in the 1839 E&I Group out of Keesler AFB installing the gear for com sites- I tell ya, a tropo site is something to behold. Also most often on a tiny island in the middle of nowhere... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropospheric_scatter No large use of satellites back then. While in the military, got BS EE for the heck of it.

Out of the military -- moved up the spectrum into lasers and been there ever since. Only burnout was 2 years of 80hr weeks doing field service at my 1st company Photon Sources (now Lumonics). My instant 'In" with them was the multi-kw microwave power background and um, I had build a dye laser in Jr. high school. Another engineer there was tired of it as well so we started SLI http://www.synchronlaser.com/ and will be there until I die. When you love what you do it isn't work!

The laser biz is my link to wassup in the chip manufacturing world and a helluva lot of other industries. Pure how to make things. Comes with the turf: With bleeding-edge products intended to leapfrog how-things-are-done-today, the customer does not exactly know what they need for producing them, only what they want to produce. Guess who gets to figure out how to do it since no no one else has yet done it outside of a lab... 1st step - understanding to the nth detail what they make that requires - unique solutions -- vs off-the shelf so I can have a handle on how my systems may affect the desired result. For power chips it may only be an interposer/heat spreader but the dies care a great deal about their interface to it so understanding their construction is mandatory.

Damn this thread goes a'wandering...

[delicopsch56]

Yeppers, but walking down memory lane is a nice way to quickly figure out if you are talking to children or not on the intertube, especially when anonymity is in play.  Important if you aren't just goofing around, but really want to get a read on something you don't consider yourself knowledgeable about to make an educated guess.

Forums are a good way to get better consensus on what to look at if you need to dig deeper, once you look at posters rep various ways and actually read stuff.
Part of the teaching yourself to fish process for me.  

When you believe you don't know enough to make your own guess in a vacuum, googling always produces the same answers to your question, YES and NO.

Just went through the same process on a herbicide question the other day, a dishwasher soap question a while back, I could probably list for years.  Those were easier because they weren't as complex or controversial or related to large sums of wealth\poverty for me, and the tube is not quite as filled with herbicide and soap trolls.

I don't need to flowchart that easier stuff to make a decision, which I can usually hit in 5-10 minutes, I just google and do it in my head.  I have to flowchart and document more complex and higher importance things just for myself sometimes.  My crypto trading\withdrawal\hedge\long hodl\short hodl\strategy activities are still on a giant pile of scribblies atm but has to happen soon.  That's about prioritization really, my list of high importance stuff is quite long right now, so I round robin through everything so nothing busts completely while I focus on one thing to the end.  But my crypto trading documentation has to get all pretty enough for my wife to follow soon or she will probably kill me.  She sees a bunch of money moving around in many accounts once a week when she does our books, and answering 50 why questions from her every Saturday is getting tiresome for both of us.

Everything leads back to trust.  My big mistake here was just opening my trap too soon without rep.  I do that sometimes just like I speak before thinking sometimes.  Not often, but it happens.

I just got a funny surprise, the guy that encouraged me to buy my first bitcoin hasn't logged in here since 2014, and I can't raise him on other channels though I've been trying for months.  At least I got a thirdhand confirm he isn't dead.  I suspect he's just gone deep and quiet, he was pretty early in and is probably just enjoying his private island.

Foxminers is a SCAM SCAM SCAM.

[ZooMMooZ]

I live in Egypt and saw the add back then on coingecko.com with the added disclaimer
went to their site bought one just to see the payment methods page and guess what only bitcoin or litecoin, closed my laptop and went to sleep just to wake up again on an INTERNATIONAL CALL from them asking me to complete the payment << Who does that ?!! >>
He was definitely an African American guy with a gangsters ghetto way of talking (I'm Not a racist, I'm just profiling)
Hope i helped.

[delicopsch56]

I was looking at several new types of aggregators today for easier research.  Check it out.  https://foxminers.com.cutestat.com/  Note there is a comment box.  I'm tired or I would have left the first one, going to bed.