Bitcoin Forum
October 18, 2017, 08:51:23 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 [43] 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [Announcement] Block Erupter USB  (Read 248239 times)
alibert
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196


View Profile
June 04, 2013, 02:48:22 PM
 #841

Because it happens soooo often, right Wink

Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1508359883
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508359883

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508359883
Reply with quote  #2

1508359883
Report to moderator
1508359883
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508359883

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508359883
Reply with quote  #2

1508359883
Report to moderator
1508359883
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508359883

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508359883
Reply with quote  #2

1508359883
Report to moderator
turtle83
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 322


Supersonic


View Profile WWW
June 04, 2013, 02:54:23 PM
 #842

all of my family members have small file servers

Sounds like a fun family to be a member of..

daemondazz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406



View Profile
June 04, 2013, 02:57:52 PM
 #843

Because it happens soooo often, right Wink

Well, the power here is reasonably reliable, only about 3 outages lasting more than 20 minutes or so in the 5 years we've been here - the ADSL on the other hand is completely crap, so, yes, it does!

Computers, Amateur Radio, Electronics, Aviation - 1dazzrAbMqNu6cUwh2dtYckNygG7jKs8S
FiatKiller
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


View Profile
June 04, 2013, 03:04:28 PM
 #844

Heck, you can run one on your work PC unaware to anyone else. 

While visibly true, it's not recommended.  The different network traffic should raise suspicions and any good IT dept should know what USB devices are being used or be blocking "unsanctioned" USB devices from being used on PCs.  333mh/s isn't worth your job.

M

I AM the IT dept!  lol  I do agree for most users though.

LTC: LdxgJQLUdr8hZ79BV5AYbxkBUdaXctXAPi
MoonCoin Gambling: https://coin-horse.com/MON/
mdude77
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1456



View Profile
June 04, 2013, 03:05:26 PM
 #845

Heck, you can run one on your work PC unaware to anyone else. 

While visibly true, it's not recommended.  The different network traffic should raise suspicions and any good IT dept should know what USB devices are being used or be blocking "unsanctioned" USB devices from being used on PCs.  333mh/s isn't worth your job.

M

I AM the IT dept!  lol  I do agree for most users though.

Still.. I stand by my statement, 333mh/s isn't worth your job.

M

I'm X-Fueled.  Are you?  I mine BTC at Kano's Pool, the best BTC pool on the planet!
Tip for NiceHash: use their wallet to decrease fees!  Check out Helium!  Referral for Cryptopia.
radiumsoup
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 303


View Profile
June 04, 2013, 03:12:05 PM
 #846

Maybe depending on the country you live in. Haven't seen a workplace where port 8332 would be allowed in 10 years as a consultant. But I am pretty sure a pool on 443 or 80 will work. Oh and what about admin rights to install the drivers??

I'll certainly give you admin rights (didn't realize these required non-standard drivers), but in my experience, even with some very large corporations I've dealt with, most companies do not block outbound traffic but instead rely on traffic analysis at the gateway to determine inbound threats. The key here is to remember that most companies are not "very large corporations". Most companies are under 500 seats, and use off-the-shelf components with default settings, configured only minimally for their own use case, such as a VPN. And rarely do I come upon any medium-sized company (and never once a smaller one of <100) with an IT group "good" enough to block all outbound traffic by default. It all comes down to management's willingness to allow employees to do things on company systems - and most of the time, they don't care as long as it's not porn or filesharing. See: the rising popularity of BYOD.
alibert
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196


View Profile
June 04, 2013, 03:14:16 PM
 #847

Ok, maybe for small companies. The smallest I worked for was 1500 employees, the biggest 250000.

radiumsoup
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 303


View Profile
June 04, 2013, 03:24:32 PM
 #848

Ok, maybe for small companies. The smallest I worked for was 1500 employees, the biggest 250000.
I once worked at a Fortune 100 biotech company where intellectual property was a primary asset and they didn't block outbound traffic, nor did they monitor use of USB devices like thumb drives to prevent theft of data. At the other end of the spectrum, I also currently work with a company of just 40 people that goes so far as to literally unsolder WiFi and Bluetooth components in company laptops to prevent use of wireless snooping by neighbors in the office complex (this is my favorite client to visit, btw, they're an engineering and robotics lab)... so there is definitely a large variance in paranoia levels out there Wink
Shevek
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 252



View Profile
June 04, 2013, 03:57:37 PM
 #849


All of this is true, but these people are helping secure the bitcoin network by adding to the network hashrate. We should be encouraging this kind of behavior Wink

This is a common fallacy in bitcoin propaganda. There is no secure bonus with higher hashrates. The network keeps secure by an adequate balance of difficulty and hashrate. And this balance is guaranteed by the algorithm, not the miners.

Disagree.  51% becomes more and more difficult the more hashrate + higher distribution. 

I agree with higher distribution.

But not with higher hashrates. In fact, now we are in much more higher risks of 51% attack due to the almost centralised production of ASICs. If some ASIC maker would take over bitcoin the cards are on her hand.


True.  Which is why it's a combination of high hashrate plus high distribution.  If you have low hashrate and high distribution, it's easy to take 51%.  If you have high hashrate but low distribution, then it's also easy to take 51%.  You need HIGH hashrate AND HIGH distribution.  Only both makes it secure.

In fact, there is no such things "low/high hashrates". Low, high... compared to what!? In every moment you have the hashrate the actual technology allows, so it is evenly difficult to take 51% whatever the hashrate is.

Proposals for improving bitcoin are like asses: everybody has one
1SheveKuPHpzpLqSvPSavik9wnC51voBa
bigbeninlondon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728



View Profile
June 04, 2013, 04:58:37 PM
 #850

Low compared to the potential at the time.  When Bitcoin was in its infancy, one supercomputer could have wiped it out.  The network had a low hashrate at that time.  The hashrate is now such that a large number of supercomputers together still couldn't compete with the network, so the hashrate is much higher.  With ASICs, it will even be higher, such that the only way to 51% is to either be centralized or to obtain specialized chips in extreme quantity (as opposed to utilizing existing powerful hardware).  At the moment, the hashrate is very high.  When ASICs flood the market, today's hashrate will be very low comparatively.  Low and High are definitely relative; but that doesn't make them meaningless.
bitcoindaddy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 481


View Profile
June 04, 2013, 06:08:25 PM
 #851

I wonder why the "spikey" heat sink was replaced with a flat piece of aluminum?  Wouldn't the spikey one conduct heat away from the device better?  Or perhaps it didn't make any different during testing?  It wouldn't even be an issue except for the 1-2 percent hardware errors that they get. Maybe someone can sell us an after-market heatsink.
alibert
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196


View Profile
June 04, 2013, 06:40:03 PM
 #852

I get around 1 HW error per 1-2 hours.

af_newbie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190



View Profile
June 04, 2013, 07:26:37 PM
 #853

I get around 1 HW error per 1-2 hours.

What h/w error percentage are you guys getting?  I'm running bfgminer 3.0.2 and I'm getting 0-6%, most of them are around 2-3%, with one stick hovering just under 6%.
bigbeninlondon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728



View Profile
June 04, 2013, 07:40:27 PM
 #854

I get around 1 HW error per 1-2 hours.

What h/w error percentage are you guys getting?  I'm running bfgminer 3.0.2 and I'm getting 0-6%, most of them are around 2-3%, with one stick hovering just under 6%.

I'm hovering at 1% almost precisely.
SpaceCadet
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 165


Just mining my own business...


View Profile
June 04, 2013, 07:52:51 PM
 #855

Has anyone tried using a BE for sha altcoins like terracoin or ppcoin?  Just curious how well it performs on other (non-scrypt) blockchains...
alibert
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196


View Profile
June 04, 2013, 08:03:46 PM
 #856

I get around 1 HW error per 1-2 hours.

What h/w error percentage are you guys getting?  I'm running bfgminer 3.0.2 and I'm getting 0-6%, most of them are around 2-3%, with one stick hovering just under 6%.

A:357  R:3  HW:4

Less than 1% with cgminer

bitcoindaddy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 481


View Profile
June 04, 2013, 08:31:42 PM
 #857

I get around 1 HW error per 1-2 hours.

What h/w error percentage are you guys getting?  I'm running bfgminer 3.0.2 and I'm getting 0-6%, most of them are around 2-3%, with one stick hovering just under 6%.

A:357  R:3  HW:4

Less than 1% with cgminer


My wizard-like math skills says otherwise...  you have slightly more than 1 percent.


Edit:  I have 1.7% hardware errors after letting them run for a day.
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2240



View Profile
June 04, 2013, 09:34:05 PM
 #858

FWIW, seems my Emerald is dead already.
It's regressed to over 95% hardware errors despite having plenty of constant external cooling for a while now.
Hoping my Sapphire lasts longer...

tidus_13
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 233


View Profile
June 04, 2013, 10:03:36 PM
 #859

FWIW, seems my Emerald is dead already.
It's regressed to over 95% hardware errors despite having plenty of constant external cooling for a while now.
Hoping my Sapphire lasts longer...


...the Emerald had a heatsink?

you also got a Sapphire? they must be very similar instead mA
Rant2112
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70



View Profile
June 04, 2013, 10:05:35 PM
 #860

I'm getting about 3% errors.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 [43] 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!