|
theMiracle
|
 |
March 22, 2014, 03:21:51 PM |
|
^The cow gives milk over its lifetime, not all at once. You'd be stuck buying the miners piecemeal, requiring long-term contracts with ASIC manufacturers to buy @ ~wholesale price. It gets messy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Even in the event that an attacker gains more than 50% of the network's
computational power, only transactions sent by the attacker could be
reversed or double-spent. The network would not be destroyed.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dice
Member
 Offline
Activity: 69
Merit: 10
|
|
March 22, 2014, 05:05:54 PM |
|
Hi Will,
How are the stabilization of chips going? I've been closely monitoring the ozcoin top 20 and i see we are slowly reducing the hashing power there? Is this a result of moving hashing power to a different pool/service (which one?) or are we experiencing some dreaded bad chips again?
Also more importantly we'd all like to know whats the status with HashFast, things are rather grim because of their delays, have any advancements made on this front?
Also you mentioned a week or more back that the faulty units were sent back to HashFast. Have new units been delivered to replace the faulty ones?
We'd all appreciate some more news.
|
|
|
|
|
will
|
 |
March 24, 2014, 05:33:05 AM
Last edit: March 24, 2014, 09:48:34 AM by will |
|
Hi Will,
How are the stabilization of chips going? I've been closely monitoring the ozcoin top 20 and i see we are slowly reducing the hashing power there? Is this a result of moving hashing power to a different pool/service (which one?) or are we experiencing some dreaded bad chips again?
Also more importantly we'd all like to know whats the status with HashFast, things are rather grim because of their delays, have any advancements made on this front?
Also you mentioned a week or more back that the faulty units were sent back to HashFast. Have new units been delivered to replace the faulty ones?
We'd all appreciate some more news.
Hi Stabilization and RMA is ongoing. Hashfast has been very accommodating with our requirements on both fronts. We've currently in the middle of a solo mining test, using the new gbt cgminer upgrade work which we initiated (see: https://github.com/ckolivas/cgminer/commit/f113a25ff79a171240512b3791da1fb64f50b14c). We started early live testing on Thursday, and the test started in full on Saturday night (CET) and has been running for about 30.5 hours now. Block rewards are sent here: https://blockchain.info/address/12ej4RUwoszmQoKYyFg6Ej27L82xhFS5Ao(2 blocks solved at the time of this writing, both of which were found within 12h of the switch). We'll keep a close eye on everything over at least the next 72h and decide where to go from there. As always, the minestate monitor ( https://www.icedrill.io/minestate) is unaffected by pool/target switching. We've left ~10Th @ ozcoin for the moment. Just to be clear: Graet and Blaksmith have been a huge help throughout all of this stabilization work @ #cgminer-dev. The decision has nothing to do with "moving away from" and everything to do with "moving towards" the new target. We started mining from a 2nd location as the current one is starting to approach its power/cooling limits, though we do have the option for limited (minimal setup cost) expansion there. New/alternate DC selection is ongoing and we're making good progress on that front. We'll be deploying a small hosting agreement (contract executed) into the new location over the coming days. Will |
|
|
|
|
|
will
|
|
March 24, 2014, 05:43:22 AM
Last edit: March 24, 2014, 09:11:13 AM by will |
|
I actually think someone with a vested interest should do it.
There are good arguments for and against this sentiment. I (for one) think an open discussion/Q&A would be a refreshing additional communication-channel. It being conducted by an objective, informed, eloquent person like yourself could work. If it doesn't work, we can simply stop. |
|
|
|
|
paul3
Member
Offline
Activity: 99
Merit: 11
|
|
March 24, 2014, 02:38:42 PM |
|
Did I miss any mining address?  |
|
|
|
|
|
will
|
|
March 24, 2014, 03:01:17 PM
Last edit: March 24, 2014, 03:14:12 PM by will |
|
Did I miss any mining address?
Nope, you got them all. Just ensure you follow the [change received/unspent output] addresses when doing a tally of the funds held (each address represents a separate wallet). You're about 32 BTC short for the total, according to my records (533.81535819 BTC). |
|
|
|
|
|
raskul
|
|
March 26, 2014, 07:03:09 AM |
|
On ozcoin pool was better. Three days passed and there is no block. went back to ozcoin pool.
you can't beat a good DGM pool - and Oz is a good DGM pool. that's the luck of the draw  |
tips 1APp826DqjJBdsAeqpEstx6Q8hD4urac8a
|
|
|
-ck
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4102
Merit: 1632
Ruu \o/
|
|
March 28, 2014, 12:38:23 AM |
|
|
Developer/maintainer for cgminer, ckpool/ckproxy, and the -ck kernel
2% Fee Solo mining at solo.ckpool.org
-ck
|
|
|
pedrog
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2786
Merit: 1031
|
|
March 28, 2014, 12:41:57 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
-ck
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4102
Merit: 1632
Ruu \o/
|
|
March 28, 2014, 12:56:09 AM |
|
I don't know about "finally"; if there's only something like 150-180TH going solo, that's actually pretty decent luck. Variance can kill you if you have a block that takes 10x the current difficulty, and the first 2 blocks were definitely lucky. This latest one included some not insignificant transaction fees too. Transaction Fees 0.11114335 BTC |
Developer/maintainer for cgminer, ckpool/ckproxy, and the -ck kernel
2% Fee Solo mining at solo.ckpool.org
-ck
|
|
|
|
raskul
|
|
March 28, 2014, 06:25:40 AM |
|
I don't know about "finally"; if there's only something like 150-180TH going solo, that's actually pretty decent luck. Variance can kill you if you have a block that takes 10x the current difficulty, and the first 2 blocks were definitely lucky. This latest one included some not insignificant transaction fees too. Transaction Fees 0.11114335 BTC party all round then! we got a block on Oz too lets stay friends - even if we have had a 'conscious uncoupling' |
tips 1APp826DqjJBdsAeqpEstx6Q8hD4urac8a
|
|
|
|
raskul
|
|
March 28, 2014, 08:07:48 AM |
|
|
tips 1APp826DqjJBdsAeqpEstx6Q8hD4urac8a
|
|
|
Dexter770221
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1029
Merit: 1000
|
|
March 28, 2014, 09:02:59 AM |
|
Bigger mines switching to pool mining becuse of variance and no blocks in long period of time. I'm amazed that Icedrill is doing opposite.
|
Under development Modular UPGRADEABLE Miner (MUM). Looking for investors.
Changing one PCB with screwdriver and you have brand new miner in hand... Plug&Play, scalable from one module to thousands.
|
|
|
|
zebroid
|
|
March 28, 2014, 02:26:46 PM |
|
Bigger mines switching to pool mining becuse of variance and no blocks in long period of time. I'm amazed that Icedrill is doing opposite.
If you read further up they solo mining to test the new version of cgminer (the mining software) they got done. |
|
|
|
|
|
kleeck
|
|
March 28, 2014, 04:07:51 PM |
|
What is the current hash rate?
|
|
|
|
|
22naru
|
|
March 29, 2014, 06:06:55 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pedrog
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2786
Merit: 1031
|
|
March 29, 2014, 07:02:57 PM |
|
250kW IceDrill Mine
Another prominent example of a commercial operator is the IceDrill Bitcoin mine. The investment
involved building "a secure and climate controlled mine-facility" including "build-out of computecenter/mine location" in Canada.20
The company has mining-devices from HashFast on back-order and additionally invested into further
hardware from Cointerra, ultimately leading to the same data center requirements outlined in above
data center example. IceDrill is effectively trying to host a large number of retail boxes that require
two separate power inputs in a data center environment that is not prepared for Bitcoin densities.
USD $285,000 was spent on the data center facility21 so far, with 120 mining devices22 deployed
bringing the total capacity to 144kW at the time of writing, and the cost to $1,979 per kW. At: http://www.immersion-cooling.com/publications/Analysis_of_Large-Scale_Bitcoin_Mining_Operations.pdf |
|
|
|
|
will
|
|
March 30, 2014, 04:20:49 AM
Last edit: March 30, 2014, 05:14:26 AM by will |
|
Bigger mines switching to pool mining becuse of variance and no blocks in long period of time. I'm amazed that Icedrill is doing opposite.
If you read further up they solo mining to test the new version of cgminer (the mining software) they got done. I can confirm that we commissioned this work-stream as it is a big step into an exciting/new/important technical pathway for bitcoin mining, in our opinion. As a bonus, please feel free to decide: adjust PPS (and some variants thereof) by changing a few lines of (now open-source, tested: working) code, if you're a miner. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
