Bitcoin Forum
September 26, 2016, 12:16:49 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.0 (New!) [Torrent]. Make sure you verify it.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: What type of pool payouts do you prefer?
Bitcoins - 3151 (80.4%)
Bank transfer / USD - 407 (10.4%)
Gold/silver coins and bars - 359 (9.2%)
Total Voters: 3915

Pages: « 1 ... 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 [1037] 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 ... 1104 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [40+ PH] SlushPool (slushpool.com); World's First Mining Pool  (Read 3853754 times)
dmwardjr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 672


The Few, The Proud, The BTC


View Profile
March 02, 2015, 05:54:45 PM
 #20721

The last 2 firmware updates do not work with my S3's.  Even after doing the updates in order.  F/W 5 & 6 create a 500 error on the miner status page and although the lights flash and they belch hot air there is no mining.  Reverted to F/W 4 and mining happily again.

Wow!  Very odd!  You mentioned you installed the last two updates.  Did you have the August 26, 2014 Firmware update installed prior to installing the last two?  If you had August 7 and August 26, that may be the reason for the 500 error code.

Not sure.  Going down the "If it's not broke don't fix it" route.

I understand.  That was the same way I was thinking.  However, I decided to take a chance with a batch 8 S3+ for the sake of saving on power costs and it worked out for me.  Then, I decided to risk an older S3 [not S3+] purchased off of eBay and it managed to work out for me as well.  So I was able to save quite a bit on power costs.  Power costs are a big factory these days with bitcoin at it's present price.

When I replace them it will be S5, SP20 or whatever new units they've released.

I'm not sure when Bitmain will release the S5 again.  Or even if they will release it.  They seem to be pushing cloud mining with the S5 pretty hard at the moment and the option to buy the S5 at approximately $430 + shipping if you choose to have it shipped to you.  That is rather high in my opinion.  I jumped on a 15 unit package of the Spondooliestech.com SP20's while Bitmain was on their new year holiday.  I'm happy I did.  The SP20's are great rigs.

There are rumors that Spondooliestech will only sell their next generation rigs in bulk and they will be large form factor rigs [About 12U in size, which is very large].  They will also have an efficiency of .05 to .03 watts per GH/s.  That low of efficiency would be a miracle and would change mining BIG TIME!  I believe that low of efficiency is another reason why they would only sell in bulk.  Otherwise, the difficulty would go up astronomically.  That low of efficiency is phenomenal!  The Bitmain S5's efficiency is .51 watts per GH.  Spondooliestech is shooting for .05 to .03.  WOW!

BTC ADDRESS: 1HBSBwbFDg2XQii8cNJGAhLyd2mFS4jbG9
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1474892209
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1474892209

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1474892209
Reply with quote  #2

1474892209
Report to moderator
1474892209
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1474892209

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1474892209
Reply with quote  #2

1474892209
Report to moderator
1474892209
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1474892209

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1474892209
Reply with quote  #2

1474892209
Report to moderator
thedreamer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 588

Go Big or Go Home.....


View Profile
March 03, 2015, 03:25:00 AM
 #20722

I just started mining but been adding S3+'s, S5's and Sp20's to my rig. Still a baby setup compare dot you guys though. LOL

I do have to chime in though, I don't see the possibility of a 0.03-0.05 watt / GH possibility. Even if it's in a 100Th setup. No way, no how, with today's technology.
Only way is to do a hybrid of alternate Energy + grid power.
kkurtmann
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 475



View Profile WWW
March 03, 2015, 04:07:33 AM
 #20723

I just started mining but been adding S3+'s, S5's and Sp20's to my rig. Still a baby setup compare dot you guys though. LOL

I do have to chime in though, I don't see the possibility of a 0.03-0.05 watt / GH possibility. Even if it's in a 100Th setup. No way, no how, with today's technology.
Only way is to do a hybrid of alternate Energy + grid power.


I'm pretty sure he was talking about the supposed next gen 16 nm or smaller technology as per the efficiency quote.

https://www.buytrezor.com?a=55c37b866c11   well sir, I like it!
thedreamer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 588

Go Big or Go Home.....


View Profile
March 03, 2015, 04:49:49 AM
 #20724

I just started mining but been adding S3+'s, S5's and Sp20's to my rig. Still a baby setup compare dot you guys though. LOL

I do have to chime in though, I don't see the possibility of a 0.03-0.05 watt / GH possibility. Even if it's in a 100Th setup. No way, no how, with today's technology.
Only way is to do a hybrid of alternate Energy + grid power.


I'm pretty sure he was talking about the supposed next gen 16 nm or smaller technology as per the efficiency quote.

Still. I somehow doubt they have more efficient engineers than Intel or ATI/AMD, IBM, and even they have not reached such low power figures.

I just don't see it.. This next gen releases will probably be in the 0.30W/GH power figure, maybe high 20's if they really get some good dies made.

Besides if that becomes true. It will highly impact the BC Mining world and I don't think in a good way for smaller miners.  Grin
kkurtmann
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 475



View Profile WWW
March 03, 2015, 05:14:29 AM
 #20725

I just started mining but been adding S3+'s, S5's and Sp20's to my rig. Still a baby setup compare dot you guys though. LOL

I do have to chime in though, I don't see the possibility of a 0.03-0.05 watt / GH possibility. Even if it's in a 100Th setup. No way, no how, with today's technology.
Only way is to do a hybrid of alternate Energy + grid power.


I'm pretty sure he was talking about the supposed next gen 16 nm or smaller technology as per the efficiency quote.

Still. I somehow doubt they have more efficient engineers than Intel or ATI/AMD, IBM, and even they have not reached such low power figures.

I just don't see it.. This next gen releases will probably be in the 0.30W/GH power figure, maybe high 20's if they really get some good dies made.

Besides if that becomes true. It will highly impact the BC Mining world and I don't think in a good way for smaller miners.  Grin

Well, KnC miner claims achieving 0.07 w/GHs for their new 16nm on their website here https://www.kncminer.com/news/news-118 . I'm sure other manufacturers will make the same or better claims. This is old news that companies have been working on this, but I'm pretty sure there won't be any physical devices until the end of this year at the earliest. 

https://www.buytrezor.com?a=55c37b866c11   well sir, I like it!
bspurloc
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 569


View Profile
March 03, 2015, 03:20:24 PM
 #20726

The last 2 firmware updates do not work with my S3's.  Even after doing the updates in order.  F/W 5 & 6 create a 500 error on the miner status page and although the lights flash and they belch hot air there is no mining.  Reverted to F/W 4 and mining happily again.

what is the actual mindset that updates have to be installed in order when all an update is is a replacement of the OS, so a previous patch should have absolutely no mind of what was on the machine before, as the previous gets completely wiped out.

I haven't been following but the only way a previous could hinder a new one is if there is an actual mod being done to the chips which I am pretty sure there are no programmable chips on these. It all sounds to me like the newer versions are flakey and people are trying to find something to blame.
  I have all mine left alone and mining till they die. haven't touched them in 3 months. just letting everything wind down, got tired of chasing new hardware! never mind bitmain adding huge shipping and handling fees soured the taste of their equipment.
have spondoolies become more quiet yet?
 
pekatete
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518



View Profile WWW
March 03, 2015, 03:33:15 PM
 #20727

what is the actual mindset that updates have to be installed in order when all an update is is a replacement of the OS, so a previous patch should have absolutely no mind of what was on the machine before, as the previous gets completely wiped out.

My thoughts exactly ... to an extent.

.... but the only way a previous could hinder a new one is if there is an actual mod being done to the chips which I am pretty sure there are no programmable chips on these. ....

You'd be wrong because the controller board has a programable chip, and the PIC firmware is uploaded on each cold boot (not sure about a restart). I am actually convinced that this is where bitmain fudge things up, as the PIC firmware is obfuscated and no source code available. I have tried dis-assembling the firmware with no positive results as there are only so many hours in a day!

However, I believe the subsequent changes to the PIC firmware are to blame for the sporadic results with the latter firmware, so the logic would be the reverse of sequentially installing updates as the last firmware update wipes the lot off (as you correctly state)!

bigbitmine
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


Big Bit Mine


View Profile
March 03, 2015, 08:45:34 PM
 #20728

what is the actual mindset that updates have to be installed in order when all an update is is a replacement of the OS, so a previous patch should have absolutely no mind of what was on the machine before, as the previous gets completely wiped out.

My thoughts exactly ... to an extent.

.... but the only way a previous could hinder a new one is if there is an actual mod being done to the chips which I am pretty sure there are no programmable chips on these. ....

You'd be wrong because the controller board has a programable chip, and the PIC firmware is uploaded on each cold boot (not sure about a restart). I am actually convinced that this is where bitmain fudge things up, as the PIC firmware is obfuscated and no source code available. I have tried dis-assembling the firmware with no positive results as there are only so many hours in a day!

However, I believe the subsequent changes to the PIC firmware are to blame for the sporadic results with the latter firmware, so the logic would be the reverse of sequentially installing updates as the last firmware update wipes the lot off (as you correctly state)!

Although the S3's are reverted to original F/W and operating perfectly well again one does like to beep every now and then indicating it has briefly lost connection.  Not really bothered by it so I won't be messing with it again.

SargeR33
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112

★Bitin.io★ - Instant Exchange


View Profile
March 04, 2015, 06:31:32 AM
 #20729

I used to get random beeping and very slow cpanel access with particular firmwares on the S3. I can't recall which I'm using now but I found it is the best of the lot.

alh
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036


View Profile
March 04, 2015, 06:11:55 PM
 #20730

Looks like the "0% luck for a day" has finally come to a close at 27+ hours. That was BRUTAL!!!!
MrTeal
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232


View Profile
March 04, 2015, 07:09:05 PM
 #20731

Looks like the "0% luck for a day" has finally come to a close at 27+ hours. That was BRUTAL!!!!
I don't think it's luck. There's a pretty consistent pattern there where we have bad luck for that block if the pool hashrate is (10 + n*0.23-n)PH/s, where n is any positive integer. The block at 10.23PH/s was 20.5 hours, and the one at 10.45PH/s was over a full day. Lord knows what would happen if we actually hit 10.67PH/s, it could be a couple day long block.

I hope slush looks into this and can find the error in his code. These long blocks need to stop.
musicmaker613
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 92


View Profile
March 05, 2015, 03:36:31 AM
 #20732

Looks like the "0% luck for a day" has finally come to a close at 27+ hours. That was BRUTAL!!!!
I don't think it's luck. There's a pretty consistent pattern there where we have bad luck for that block if the pool hashrate is (10 + n*0.23-n)PH/s, where n is any positive integer. The block at 10.23PH/s was 20.5 hours, and the one at 10.45PH/s was over a full day. Lord knows what would happen if we actually hit 10.67PH/s, it could be a couple day long block.

I hope slush looks into this and can find the error in his code. These long blocks need to stop.

I know others had postulated that the pool was has having trouble "handling" over 10 PH, but you're suggesting there could be an error related to or caused by the formula you provided?  Seems unlikely to me, as there is nothing obviously significant about the formula or the resulting numbers AND the fact that the pool hashrate is just an estimate of the total scoring hashrate (representing a rather wide range of numbers in terms of even GH (10^9 hashes per second) and rounded to the nearest 10^10).  I guess my point would be the pool's scoring hashrate is too arbitrary of a number to likely be responsible for a glitch in the pool, if that makes sense.

My guess is just coincidence and occasional long blocks due to bad luck.  Recent days have done a lot to disprove the original hypothesis of the pool being unable to handle hashrates above 10 PH, as the last couple of days have seen several blocks found over 10 PH AND 100% luck.  Here's hoping the same will continue to happen.

My question is, where did 1 entire petahash suddenly appear from...?  ~10.45 to 11.45!

SYS: SjFeMefQpgCRWuwRdiN3Hf8V6CkocV3Xdq
DOGE: DG4EwxvNCM5YFBQ8xo7pkEua2Nf1jRMmQg
bigbitmine
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


Big Bit Mine


View Profile
March 05, 2015, 03:51:34 AM
 #20733

Looks like the "0% luck for a day" has finally come to a close at 27+ hours. That was BRUTAL!!!!
I don't think it's luck. There's a pretty consistent pattern there where we have bad luck for that block if the pool hashrate is (10 + n*0.23-n)PH/s, where n is any positive integer. The block at 10.23PH/s was 20.5 hours, and the one at 10.45PH/s was over a full day. Lord knows what would happen if we actually hit 10.67PH/s, it could be a couple day long block.

I hope slush looks into this and can find the error in his code. These long blocks need to stop.

I know others had postulated that the pool was has having trouble "handling" over 10 PH, but you're suggesting there could be an error related to or caused by the formula you provided?  Seems unlikely to me, as there is nothing obviously significant about the formula or the resulting numbers AND the fact that the pool hashrate is just an estimate of the total scoring hashrate (representing a rather wide range of numbers in terms of even GH (10^9 hashes per second) and rounded to the nearest 10^10).  I guess my point would be the pool's scoring hashrate is too arbitrary of a number to likely be responsible for a glitch in the pool, if that makes sense.

My guess is just coincidence and occasional long blocks due to bad luck.  Recent days have done a lot to disprove the original hypothesis of the pool being unable to handle hashrates above 10 PH, as the last couple of days have seen several blocks found over 10 PH AND 100% luck.  Here's hoping the same will continue to happen.

My question is, where did 1 entire petahash suddenly appear from...?  ~10.45 to 11.45!

Please!!!  Not the 10PH argument again.

kano
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
March 05, 2015, 05:11:47 AM
 #20734

Looks like the "0% luck for a day" has finally come to a close at 27+ hours. That was BRUTAL!!!!
I don't think it's luck. There's a pretty consistent pattern there where we have bad luck for that block if the pool hashrate is (10 + n*0.23-n)PH/s, where n is any positive integer. The block at 10.23PH/s was 20.5 hours, and the one at 10.45PH/s was over a full day. Lord knows what would happen if we actually hit 10.67PH/s, it could be a couple day long block.

I hope slush looks into this and can find the error in his code. These long blocks need to stop.
I get the feeling people took your comment seriously Cheesy

Pool: https://kano.is BTC: 1KanoiBupPiZfkwqB7rfLXAzPnoTshAVmb
CKPool and CGMiner developer, IRC FreeNode #ckpool and #cgminer kanoi
Help keep Bitcoin secure by mining on pools with Stratum, the best protocol to mine Bitcoins with ASIC hardware
organofcorti
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1876


Poor impulse control.


View Profile WWW
March 05, 2015, 05:32:44 AM
 #20735

Looks like the "0% luck for a day" has finally come to a close at 27+ hours. That was BRUTAL!!!!
I don't think it's luck. There's a pretty consistent pattern there where we have bad luck for that block if the pool hashrate is (10 + n*0.23-n)PH/s, where n is any positive integer. The block at 10.23PH/s was 20.5 hours, and the one at 10.45PH/s was over a full day. Lord knows what would happen if we actually hit 10.67PH/s, it could be a couple day long block.

I hope slush looks into this and can find the error in his code. These long blocks need to stop.
I get the feeling people took your comment seriously Cheesy

The devil made him do it.

Bitcoin network and pool analysis 12QxPHEuxDrs7mCyGSx1iVSozTwtquDB3r
follow @oocBlog for new post notifications
musicmaker613
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 92


View Profile
March 05, 2015, 05:37:24 AM
 #20736

Looks like the "0% luck for a day" has finally come to a close at 27+ hours. That was BRUTAL!!!!
I don't think it's luck. There's a pretty consistent pattern there where we have bad luck for that block if the pool hashrate is (10 + n*0.23-n)PH/s, where n is any positive integer. The block at 10.23PH/s was 20.5 hours, and the one at 10.45PH/s was over a full day. Lord knows what would happen if we actually hit 10.67PH/s, it could be a couple day long block.

I hope slush looks into this and can find the error in his code. These long blocks need to stop.
I get the feeling people took your comment seriously Cheesy

I know MrTeal's been around on the block for a while.  I trusted it was "tongue-in-cheek".  Doesn't change the fact that I'm a sucker for talking about formulas and numbers  Smiley

But I honestly am quite curious about the recent jump in pool hashrate.  10% in roughly a day?  That's a pretty good jump for Slush, which has been bouncing between 9.5 and 10.5 PH for weeks now.  Yet according to blockchain's distribution chart, Slush has dropped to only 2% of the network hashrate.  Just looking at those two numbers, you would think total net hashrate (and difficulty) were shooting up again, but we appear to be due for another semi-marginal difficulty increase.  Just my observations.

SYS: SjFeMefQpgCRWuwRdiN3Hf8V6CkocV3Xdq
DOGE: DG4EwxvNCM5YFBQ8xo7pkEua2Nf1jRMmQg
rupy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 724



View Profile
March 05, 2015, 09:19:45 AM
 #20737

CEX is down, and antpool dropped 15 PH at the same time... My miners are not going to their backup pool (slush), something is fishy. I will go out to the remote location and switch back slush to primary, I'd rather have 24 hour blocks than 8 hours full blast lost mining.

BANKBOOK GWT Wallet & no-FIAT Billing API
BTC 14xr5Q1j61A1eA6Mrs5MRhUmYZKboY8iq2 | Vanillacoin FPGA Miner
SargeR33
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112

★Bitin.io★ - Instant Exchange


View Profile
March 05, 2015, 10:31:52 AM
 #20738

CEX is down, and antpool dropped 15 PH at the same time... My miners are not going to their backup pool (slush), something is fishy. I will go out to the remote location and switch back slush to primary, I'd rather have 24 hour blocks than 8 hours full blast lost mining.

If your miner is not mining, does it still consume power? Surely there is some code there to stop power consumption on idle...

bigbitmine
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


Big Bit Mine


View Profile
March 05, 2015, 11:48:24 AM
 #20739

CEX is down, and antpool dropped 15 PH at the same time... My miners are not going to their backup pool (slush), something is fishy. I will go out to the remote location and switch back slush to primary, I'd rather have 24 hour blocks than 8 hours full blast lost mining.

If your miner is not mining, does it still consume power? Surely there is some code there to stop power consumption on idle...

Yes, they should go idle.  All mine do.  Some of them beep as well to tell me they're not mining.

kano
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
March 05, 2015, 11:50:52 AM
 #20740

CEX is down, and antpool dropped 15 PH at the same time... My miners are not going to their backup pool (slush), something is fishy. I will go out to the remote location and switch back slush to primary, I'd rather have 24 hour blocks than 8 hours full blast lost mining.

If your miner is not mining, does it still consume power? Surely there is some code there to stop power consumption on idle...

Yes, they should go idle.  All mine do.  Some of them beep as well to tell me they're not mining.
No they still use too much power when idle Tongue

Pool: https://kano.is BTC: 1KanoiBupPiZfkwqB7rfLXAzPnoTshAVmb
CKPool and CGMiner developer, IRC FreeNode #ckpool and #cgminer kanoi
Help keep Bitcoin secure by mining on pools with Stratum, the best protocol to mine Bitcoins with ASIC hardware
Pages: « 1 ... 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 [1037] 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 ... 1104 »
  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!