Bitcoin Forum
December 09, 2016, 06:15:51 AM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   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 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Algorithmically placed FPGA miner: 255MH/s/chip, supports all known boards  (Read 109591 times)
Entropy-uc
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 560


View Profile
June 03, 2012, 01:33:37 AM
 #361

Part 4: Dealbreaker #3 and #4: Maximum hashing capacity and incomplete implementations

These issues will apply to limited numbers of people, but they do apply for me.

ET's bitstream increases power consumption significantly in order to gain the higher hashrate.  This hurts your return because you are paying for the power, but it has a more subtle effect.  If the size of your mining setup is limited by power available, either related to rackspace, or just circuits in your home that can be used, your maximum hashing capacity is decreased running ET's bitstream.  For example if the MH/J rate is increased by 20%, then your maximum hash rate is reduced by 25%. Twenty percent for the reduced number of cards you can run in your power envelope, and a further 5% for ET's cut.  Your ROI is slightly better, but your cash flow from mining is cut 25%.  You can always rent more racks, but this comes out of your pocket, not ET's and will significantly reduce or eliminate your share of the reward for using his bitstream.


If you are at you maximum power draw currently, then this is a constraint self imposed, rather than by ET.

If you overall hash rate is going to go down (because you are so close to your limits), then you wouldn't bother.  These posts are good "black hat" thinking, but tending to reflect extreme operating positions.

If I have 100 FGPA units running 800Mh @ 40W each and can take them to 1000Mhash for 60W each, then sure I'm going from 4kW to 6kW, but if I have 6kW of supply, the extra 2kW (in my case $10/day) in exchange for 20Ghash looks like a nice tradeoff. 

It is not the cost of additional power. It is the cost of renting the space to have that power.  Once you max out the power at your panel or in the rack you are done.
1481264151
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481264151

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481264151
Reply with quote  #2

1481264151
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481264151
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481264151

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481264151
Reply with quote  #2

1481264151
Report to moderator
1481264151
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481264151

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481264151
Reply with quote  #2

1481264151
Report to moderator
1481264151
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481264151

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481264151
Reply with quote  #2

1481264151
Report to moderator
Entropy-uc
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 560


View Profile
June 03, 2012, 03:42:40 AM
 #362

Has anyone had the opportunity to try this on one of Enerpoint's fpga units yet?

Enterpoint is still working on getting a basic bitstream working first. Only a few developers have boards at the moment. This will come later


http://www.btcfpga.com/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=50

This miner is available now and will do over 1g/hash with this new TLM bitstream

Have you run the bitstream on any of your boards?  I would be interested in the before / after MH/s and power draw at the wall for my calculations.
PatrickHarnett
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518



View Profile
June 03, 2012, 03:55:52 AM
 #363


It is not the cost of additional power. It is the cost of renting the space to have that power.  Once you max out the power at your panel or in the rack you are done.

So in your specialised scenario, how many people do think are running fpga's in rented racks?
Entropy-uc
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 560


View Profile
June 03, 2012, 04:11:47 AM
 #364

Part 5:  Calculation of the reward split between ET and a user

Now let's calculate how the split works out between ET and the user.

From his FAQ, you can get the commision rate he charges: 12 MH/s / chip. http://www.tricone-mining.com/faq.html.  To calculate the split we only need to find the net gain in hashing from the use of his bitstream.  The gross change is the difference between the bitstream previously running on the board and ET's.  Since we don't have any actual reports in the wild, I'll use his typical number of 270 MH/s.  My Ztex boards on average run 228 MH/s, so subtraction gives us the reward value of 42 MH/s.  This gives us a split of 28.5% to ET.

But that is the gross value.  To get the real reward split it it necessary to account for the user's costs that will increase as a result of the bitstream.  This would be higher power consumption, reduced hardware lifespan, extra labor managing the signature system, additional downtime and possibly additional space.  All of these items are difficult to quantify, and likely to be highly variable across different users, so I'm going to focus only on two items: additional power costs and downtime.  The increased power consumption has been noted by ET already.  Lacking concrete numbers in the field I am estimating the increase to be 20%, and baseline power costs to be 10% of the earnings generated by the board.  So the additional power is the equivalent of 2% of the hash rate.

As I discussed before, the additional downtime from ET's server can be brutal on returns.  If you need to restart your boards locally due to a server interruption and you are out drinking sleeping, that 8 hours of lost time is 5% for the week.  Let that happen twice and ET's share of the net reward will be 125%.  For practicality, I will take an optimistic view and assume 98% uptime.

This results in a net reward of 31.2 MH/s and ET's share is 38.5%.  Not exactly the 5% some folks have been assuming from the headlines!
Entropy-uc
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 560


View Profile
June 03, 2012, 04:22:20 AM
 #365

Part 6:  Evaluating ET's potential return

By now you probably have noticed that I think this deal is not very good for miners.  But you should always look at both sides of a deal.  ET must be raking it in on these terms right?

Uh No.  It's a lousy deal for him as well I think.

My calculations suggest he would be doing well to make $30k / year off this plan after the reward halving in December.  And for that he is going to have to maintain his server, fend off the DOS attacks, deal with user complaints, and provide technical support to everyone using the system. Whatever he earns is going to be eaten away by whatever downtime compensation he offers. Not to mention his out of pocket costs for hosting.

All of that work is going to detract from what he does best, and what I'd like to see him focus on.  Building faster bitstreams.

So the pertinent question here is: How can the community fairly compensate him?

I would like to see something that both encourages him and others to continue working on improvements, and also encourages collaboration so that others with an interest can build off of the baseline.
Entropy-uc
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 560


View Profile
June 03, 2012, 04:27:43 AM
 #366


It is not the cost of additional power. It is the cost of renting the space to have that power.  Once you max out the power at your panel or in the rack you are done.

So in your specialised scenario, how many people do think are running fpga's in rented racks?

Please read what I wrote:

Quote from: Entropy-uc
These issues will apply to limited numbers of people, but they do apply for me.
[\quote]
bitfury
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 266


View Profile
June 03, 2012, 04:44:47 AM
 #367

Part 6:  Evaluating ET's potential return

By now you probably have noticed that I think this deal is not very good for miners.  But you should always look at both sides of a deal.  ET must be raking it in on these terms right?

Uh No.  It's a lousy deal for him as well I think.

My calculations suggest he would be doing well to make $30k / year off this plan after the reward halving in December.  And for that he is going to have to maintain his server, fend off the DOS attacks, deal with user complaints, and provide technical support to everyone using the system. Whatever he earns is going to be eaten away by whatever downtime compensation he offers. Not to mention his out of pocket costs for hosting.

All of that work is going to detract from what he does best, and what I'd like to see him focus on.  Building faster bitstreams.

So the pertinent question here is: How can the community fairly compensate him?

I would like to see something that both encourages him and others to continue working on improvements, and also encourages collaboration so that others with an interest can build off of the baseline.

Part 7:

Would miners prefer to invest upfront paying money for disclosure and make benefits to parties who are not miners yet OR would they invest money into hardware ? What is more profitable ?

Even without calculation - I would say that it is more profitable to invest in hardware.

Then - who will compensate ? Community in general is not interested in that, community of FPGA miners is likely to invest in FPGAs and not in bitstream (they would better take bitstream "for free" not counting how difficult it is to get one working). Me or someone else with decent bitstream to slow down development of open-source baseline... hmm... actually too late, as 28-nm will be too soon... Hmm... Developers of these boards ? Many do the job as their hobby - no significant volumes - they will return money for ages...
PatrickHarnett
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518



View Profile
June 03, 2012, 08:25:23 AM
 #368



It is not the cost of additional power. It is the cost of renting the space to have that power.  Once you max out the power at your panel or in the rack you are done.

So in your specialised scenario, how many people do think are running fpga's in rented racks?
Please read what I wrote:
Quote from: Entropy-uc
These issues will apply to limited numbers of people, but they do apply for me.


Yes, I got one person so far, yourself.

So, who are you really?  Looks like you created a special account to come and espouse your particular point of view.
Bitinvestor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 465


View Profile
June 03, 2012, 11:44:20 AM
 #369

Hey Entropy-uc, there hasn't been one report of somebody other than ET using this. You are jumping to conclusions. His solution will be scrutinized and time will tell if it is any good. If you don't like it, don't use it. I am happy to give ET the benefit of the doubt and a big KUDOS too. Everything you wrote is a huge pile of Bulanula.

Those who cause problems for others also cause problems for themselves.
bulanula
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518



View Profile
June 03, 2012, 02:12:25 PM
 #370

Hey Entropy-uc, there hasn't been one report of somebody other than ET using this. You are jumping to conclusions. His solution will be scrutinized and time will tell if it is any good. If you don't like it, don't use it. I am happy to give ET the benefit of the doubt and a big KUDOS too. Everything you wrote is a huge pile of Bulanula.

Why Huh

I really don't understand ... I still think he should sell bitstream outright like say if you have 10 FPGAs one price and for 100 FPGAs another price and for just 1 or 2 another price like antivirus licenses etc.

This whole taking a cut and his own servers is junk for miners. DDos his servers before diff change and everybody wins though as most FPGAs are then neutered Cheesy
Keninishna
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 551



View Profile WWW
June 03, 2012, 05:15:28 PM
 #371

I think a group buy would be the best then release the source so the community can tweak it as well. Except how much would one charge for a bitstream? 500 btc? 1000?
MrTeal
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
June 03, 2012, 05:36:58 PM
 #372

I think a group buy would be the best then release the source so the community can tweak it as well. Except how much would one charge for a bitstream? 500 btc? 1000?

Depends if he actually wants to get paid fair market value for his time. I'm an associate Engineer and my company charges out my time at over $100/hr. How long do you think Tyrell spent on this bitstream?
TheSeven
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504


FPGA Mining LLC


View Profile WWW
June 03, 2012, 05:44:21 PM
 #373

It would probably be sufficient to match what he's about to get from the profit share model. Which I'd estimate at about 1000-1500 FPGAs * 5% * a year of mining. Probably like $20k or BTC4k.

My tip jar: 13kwqR7B4WcSAJCYJH1eXQcxG5vVUwKAqY
rjk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


1ngldh


View Profile
June 03, 2012, 06:35:41 PM
 #374

It would probably be sufficient to match what he's about to get from the profit share model. Which I'd estimate at about 1000-1500 FPGAs * 5% * a year of mining. Probably like $20k or BTC4k.
I still wonder about the accuracy of the 1000-1500 FPGA numbers. I'm not saying anyone is wrong, but do those figures include the various privately licensed production runs that have been done around here? I'm sure Antirack isn't the only one to have done this, and I'm not even sure how many devices his run includes.

Mining Rig Extraordinaire - the Trenton BPX6806 18-slot PCIe backplane [PICS] Dead project is dead, all hail the coming of the mighty ASIC!
MrTeal
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
June 03, 2012, 06:51:47 PM
 #375

It would probably be sufficient to match what he's about to get from the profit share model. Which I'd estimate at about 1000-1500 FPGAs * 5% * a year of mining. Probably like $20k or BTC4k.
I still wonder about the accuracy of the 1000-1500 FPGA numbers. I'm not saying anyone is wrong, but do those figures include the various privately licensed production runs that have been done around here? I'm sure Antirack isn't the only one to have done this, and I'm not even sure how many devices his run includes.

I would actually be surprised if there were only 1500 LX150s around, not including Bitfury. I'd also expect that number to jump pretty quickly in the coming months, unless what BFL is waiting to announce really is as revolutionary as they imply and people believe their specs/timeline.
TheSeven
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504


FPGA Mining LLC


View Profile WWW
June 03, 2012, 07:35:38 PM
 #376

I was estimating 1000-1500 in small farms which would actually use the ET bitstream. Larger farms are more likely to get a bitfury bitstream Smiley

My tip jar: 13kwqR7B4WcSAJCYJH1eXQcxG5vVUwKAqY
kano
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1932


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
June 03, 2012, 09:49:33 PM
 #377

I think a group buy would be the best then release the source so the community can tweak it as well. Except how much would one charge for a bitstream? 500 btc? 1000?

Depends if he actually wants to get paid fair market value for his time. I'm an associate Engineer and my company charges out my time at over $100/hr. How long do you think Tyrell spent on this bitstream?
Well if he does then he is quite literally the first person around here to want to be paid that much for software made for the BTC community in the last year

ckolivas has spend way more time and effort on cgminer and got nothing like that for his efforts
Even I did one of the highest paying software bounties round anywhere here in a long time when I added the API to cgminer at the end of the year but even over the short time I took to implement it, the 'pay' was certainly less than the time I spent on it
It initially only took me 2 days to do the basic implementation ... but a lot more time until everyone was using it ... but I've spent a lot more time and effort on it since for what totals less than 1/2 of that initial bounty

hmm - what was that history about Bill Gates and Basic ... Smiley

But the arguments given above about it - well 1 of them is certainly relevant IMO and that is the cost of mining certainly does make the % higher
(that's something thing that many people seem totally oblivious of when they do calculations: the cost of mining)

But that other argument is certainly original:
People using the bitstream MUST trust eldentyrell but he doesn't trust anyone using it Smiley
I would imagine it would be difficult in the short term for someone to copy his design and it not be obvious when they released their 'copy'

However in the long term, I'd be very surprised if any bitstream released by anyone was 'the best' for more than a few months.

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
nedbert9
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 252

Inactive


View Profile
June 03, 2012, 10:05:58 PM
 #378

I think a group buy would be the best then release the source so the community can tweak it as well. Except how much would one charge for a bitstream? 500 btc? 1000?

Depends if he actually wants to get paid fair market value for his time. I'm an associate Engineer and my company charges out my time at over $100/hr. How long do you think Tyrell spent on this bitstream?
Well if he does then he is quite literally the first person around here to want to be paid that much for software made for the BTC community in the last year

ckolivas has spend way more time and effort on cgminer and got nothing like that for his efforts

Even I did one of the highest paying software bounties round anywhere here in a long time when I added the API to cgminer at the end of the year but even over the short time I took to implement it, the 'pay' was certainly less than the time I spent on it
It initially only took me 2 days to do the basic implementation ... but a lot more time until everyone was using it ... but I've spent a lot more time and effort on it since for what totals less than 1/2 of that initial bounty

hmm - what was that history about Bill Gates and Basic ... Smiley

But the arguments given above about it - well 1 of them is certainly relevant IMO and that is the cost of mining certainly does make the % higher
(that's something thing that many people seem totally oblivious of when they do calculations: the cost of mining)

But that other argument is certainly original:
People using the bitstream MUST trust eldentyrell but he doesn't trust anyone using it Smiley
I would imagine it would be difficult in the short term for someone to copy his design and it not be obvious when they released their 'copy'

However in the long term, I'd be very surprised if any bitstream released by anyone was 'the best' for more than a few months.


This is exactly why, when I first read of the share commission model, that I felt that greed was the sole motivator of this work.  Maybe this was a snap reaction that warranted further deliberation.  Whether ET gets what he wants, much greater or much less I really have no clue.

I do know that I always dislike perpetual relationships where I have no negotiating power and, most importantly, no idea how much I will eventually pay for a product or service.
DILLIGAF
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168



View Profile
June 04, 2012, 12:23:32 AM
 #379


I do know that I always dislike perpetual relationships where I have no negotiating power and, most importantly, no idea how much I will eventually pay for a product or service.


And introduces a centralized point of failure into the equation as well...
arklan
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204


Just along for the ride...


View Profile
June 04, 2012, 01:23:56 AM
 #380

seems there's gotta be some sort of reasonably fair compensation method we could all agree on... though i've no idea what it is. upfront pricing is disagreeable to some, this commission idea disagreeable to some... hmm. this just struck me as i type this.

what if the commision system was intentionall shut off say, a year from now (or whatever) after appropriate compensation had been given? ET gets the compensation he feels apropriate, we get another small increase in hash, and no one pays upfront either.
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 »
  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!