[ANN] Spondoolies-Tech - carrier grade, data center ready mining rigs

[geko]

Hi all,
  I have a problem with my SP20...
One board seems faulty, in the syslog I can read:

Jan 17 20:22:14 miner local1.warn minergate[637]: DC2DC Init 0 done OK
Jan 17 20:22:14 miner local1.warn minergate[637]: DC2DC Init 1 done OK
Jan 17 20:22:14 miner local1.warn minergate[637]: DC2DC Init 2 done OK
Jan 17 20:22:14 miner local1.warn minergate[637]: DC2DC Init 3 done OK
Jan 17 20:22:14 miner local1.warn minergate[637]: DC2DC Init 4 done OK
Jan 17 20:22:14 miner local1.warn minergate[637]: DC2DC Init 5 done OK
Jan 17 20:22:14 miner local1.warn minergate[637]: DC2DC Init 6 done OK
Jan 17 20:22:14 miner local1.warn minergate[637]: DC2DC Init 7 done OK
Jan 17 20:22:14 miner local1.warn minergate[637]: init_pwm
Jan 17 20:22:14 miner local1.warn minergate[637]: ADDR_SQUID_LOOP_BYPASS = ffffffe
Jan 17 20:22:14 miner local1.warn minergate[637]: Loop BAD DATA (0) on 0
Jan 17 20:22:14 miner local1.warn minergate[637]: loop 0 disabled (code 5)
Jan 17 20:22:14 miner local1.warn minergate[637]: Critical: Loop missing in discovery 0 (code 5)
Jan 17 20:22:14 miner local1.warn minergate[637]: Disabling DC2DC 0 because no ASIC A X
Jan 17 20:22:15 miner local1.warn minergate[637]: Disabling DC2DC 1 because no ASIC A X
Jan 17 20:22:15 miner local1.warn minergate[637]: ADDR_SQUID_LOOP_BYPASS = ffffffd
Jan 17 20:22:15 miner local1.warn minergate[637]: Loop BAD DATA (0) on 1
Jan 17 20:22:15 miner local1.warn minergate[637]: loop 1 disabled (code 5)
Jan 17 20:22:15 miner local1.warn minergate[637]: Critical: Loop missing in discovery 1 (code 5)
Jan 17 20:22:15 miner local1.warn minergate[637]: Disabling DC2DC 2 because no ASIC A X
Jan 17 20:22:15 miner local1.warn minergate[637]: Disabling DC2DC 3 because no ASIC A X
Jan 17 20:22:15 miner local1.warn minergate[637]: ADDR_SQUID_LOOP_BYPASS = ffffffb
Jan 17 20:22:15 miner local1.warn minergate[637]: All passed 5
Jan 17 20:22:15 miner local1.warn minergate[637]: loop 2 enabled
Jan 17 20:22:15 miner local1.warn minergate[637]: ADDR_SQUID_LOOP_BYPASS = ffffff7
Jan 17 20:22:15 miner local1.warn minergate[637]: All passed 5
Jan 17 20:22:15 miner local1.warn minergate[637]: loop 3 enabled
Jan 17 20:22:15 miner local1.warn minergate[637]: ADDR_SQUID_LOOP_BYPASS = ffffff3
Jan 17 20:22:15 miner local1.warn minergate[637]: Found 2 good loops
Jan 17 20:22:15 miner local1.warn minergate[637]: enable_good_loops_ok done 1965
Jan 17 20:22:15 miner local1.warn minergate[637]: GOT VERSION: 0x46
Jan 17 20:22:15 miner local1.warn minergate[637]: ASICS in loop 0: 0
Jan 17 20:22:15 miner local1.warn minergate[637]: ASICS in loop 1: 0
Jan 17 20:22:15 miner local1.warn minergate[637]:  ASICS in loop 2: 2
Jan 17 20:22:15 miner local1.warn minergate[637]:  ASICS in loop 3: 2

I placed the good asic board in the other slot and extracted the faulty one and get:

Jan 16 16:05:50 miner local1.warn minergate[696]: LOST BOTTOM BOARD!
Jan 16 16:05:50 miner local1.warn minergate[696]: TAKE ONE BOARD 0 PRESENT:1
Jan 16 16:05:50 miner local1.warn minergate[696]: TAKE ONE BOARD 1 PRESENT:0
Jan 16 16:05:50 miner local1.warn minergate[696]: TAKE TWO BOARD 0 PRESENT:1
Jan 16 16:05:50 miner local1.warn minergate[696]: TAKE TWO BOARD 1 PRESENT:0
Jan 16 16:05:50 miner local1.warn minergate[696]: DC2DC stop all
Jan 16 16:05:50 miner daemon.info init: starting pid 787, tty '/dev/ttyO0': '/sbin/getty -L ttyO0 115200 vt100 '
Jan 16 16:05:51 miner local1.warn minergate[696]: DC2DC Init 0 done OK
Jan 16 16:05:51 miner local1.warn minergate[696]: DC2DC Init 1 done OK
Jan 16 16:05:51 miner local1.warn minergate[696]: DC2DC Init 2 done OK
Jan 16 16:05:51 miner local1.warn minergate[696]: DC2DC Init 3 done OK
Jan 16 16:05:51 miner local1.warn minergate[696]: i2c write 0x71 = 0x1 error2
Jan 16 16:05:51 miner local1.warn minergate[696]: i2c write byte 0x18 0x2 = 0x12 error6
Jan 16 16:05:51 miner local1.warn minergate[696]: i2c write 0x71 = 0x0 error2
Jan 16 16:05:51 miner local1.warn minergate[696]: i2c write 0x71 = 0x2 error2
Jan 16 16:05:51 miner local1.warn minergate[696]: i2c write byte 0x18 0x2 = 0x12 error6
Jan 16 16:05:51 miner local1.warn minergate[696]: i2c write 0x71 = 0x0 error2
Jan 16 16:05:51 miner local1.warn minergate[696]: i2c write 0x71 = 0x4 error2
Jan 16 16:05:51 miner local1.warn minergate[696]: i2c write byte 0x18 0x2 = 0x12 error6
Jan 16 16:05:51 miner local1.warn minergate[696]: i2c write 0x71 = 0x0 error2
Jan 16 16:05:51 miner local1.warn minergate[696]: i2c write 0x71 = 0x8 error2
Jan 16 16:05:51 miner local1.warn minergate[696]: i2c write byte 0x18 0x2 = 0x12 error6
Jan 16 16:05:51 miner local1.warn minergate[696]: i2c write 0x71 = 0x0 error2


So the controller is ok and the faulty board seems to send information about DC2DC converters.
Do you think that all ASIC in the faulty board are fried?

I have an oscilloscope,  what can I measure to be sure that the ASICs are really bad?

Thanks!
Bye

[dogie]

I don't believe you'll be able to rescue a dead board, you're best removing / unplugging / disabling it and moving on.

[bitcoinbarron]

Hi Geko,

Welcome to the forum! I would love to help with your SP20 but I have never owned one lol, I am sure a helpful individual will be along soon enough tho!

With regards to the general Spondoolies-tech situation, I am personally seeing them as past their prime and no longer players.
I was genuinely in the market for 5+ SP50 units but after emailing numerous times with not even a single response I have personally given up.

I have now gone to buying S7's and having to rack mount them on 4u rack shelves (3 to a shelf with the PSU mounted overhead on 3M VHB tape)

I think its sad as the SP3x series were belters! (especially at low temperatures like we have now at 3C inlet temp) but the remaining SP31's and SP35's I have are slowly being phased out as the S7's use far less power. As I am limited to 3x 110a feeds at 240v I can either have 1 SP31 @4.9th or 2x S7 @9.4th
You do the math!

I would love to know whats really going on inside S-T but I fear this genuinely is the end.

regs 

[geko]

I don't believe you'll be able to rescue a dead board, you're best removing / unplugging / disabling it and moving on.

You're right but I would like to know if the board is really dead, so I asked.

Bye

[dogie]

I don't believe you'll be able to rescue a dead board, you're best removing / unplugging / disabling it and moving on.

You're right but I would like to know if the board is really dead, so I asked.

Bye

Looks pretty dead to me

[Wallbot]

My take on the latest press release:

• They generated ~1800btc last calendar year = very roughly $700k
• They have approximately $400k of hardware @0.2$/GH
• This hardware is generating $3500 a day at a cost of $1300 a day
• They're paying an investment banking firm to help them uplist their broke ass company to a major exchange (xD)
• They expect to mine just 600 bitcoins in 16Q1
• They can no longer claim 1700% growth from nearly nothing to > nearly nothing

ARLINGTON, VA--(Marketwired - Jan 12, 2016) - BTCS Inc. (OTCQB: BTCS) ("BTCS" or the "Company"), a blockchain technology focused company which secures the blockchain through its transaction verification services business, generated 1,797 bitcoins for the year ended December 31, 2015 from its transaction verification services, an increase of 3,389% over total bitcoins earned in 2014.

"While we are pleased to report significant percentage growth in bitcoins earned during 2015, the real story of our success over the past year is the strong foundation we built for our business moving forward," stated Charles Allen, CEO of BTCS. "Our refined operational focus on blockchain technologies has led to a rapid build-out of capacity at our North Carolina facility, and with our definitive merger with Spondoolies-Tech Ltd. now in place, we are well-positioned for continued growth in 2016."

The Company's recently completed round of financing has enabled it to grow its transaction verification business to approximately 1800 TH/s, an increase of more than 100% compared to the 891 TH/s in place through most of 2015. Operating at the increased hash rate the Company will use approximately 0.95 megawatts ("mw") of its 3mw capacity.

Allen continued, "With the transaction verification servers we are running today, we believe we are on track to generate over 600 bitcoins in the first quarter of 2016. The remaining unused capacity we have in place provides ample room for planned growth with minimal added expense as we pursue a substantial financing with the goal of uplisting to a major exchange."

The Company engaged Chardan Capital Markets, LLC, a privately held investment banking firm with a focus on small-cap and mid-cap markets, to advise the Company on potential transactions that could lead to an up listing on a major exchange.

The additional capital expected to be raised from a future offering will enable BTCS to further capitalize on the significant opportunity within the growing blockchain technology space. Recently heralded in a cover story in The Economist for its potential to "transform how the economy works," blockchain technologies are forecasted to impact nearly every industry that relies on safe and secure transactions.

*disclaimers removed*

 You missed something Doggie  " transaction verification business to approximately 1800 TH/s, an increase of more than 100% compared to the 891 TH/s in place through most of 2015 "

 

[Guy Corem]

Can it be Core and Classic instead of Core vs Classic ?

My discussion with Jonathan Toomim in "Miner In World" WeChat group.

http://pastebin.com/B8YQr5TQ

I'm working on a proposal for a rotating PoW changes to allow Core to survive Classic activation and bring an era of endless GPU mining to Core.

Please take the time to read it and comment.

Guy

[miningmeter]

Can it be Core and Classic instead of Core vs Classic ?

My discussion with Jonathan Toomim in "Miner In World" WeChat group.

http://pastebin.com/B8YQr5TQ

I'm working on a proposal for a rotating PoW changes to allow Core to survive Classic activation and bring an era of endless GPU mining to Core.

Please take the time to read it and comment.

Guy

So lose chip war to Bitfury and decide you need to change the way bitcoin works?

Go manage a company losing value every day.  Stop trying to change bitcoin to fit your companies needs.  You will fall other companies will take over such as Bitfury who beat you in chip dev.

[Guy Corem]

In order to survive, Core needs to change its PoW, or else Core miners won’t be able to mine at all. I purpose the following, in order to prevent mining centralization, and prevent the possibility of such a governance coup in the future:

Rotating PoW change. Every 3 months (six difficult adjustments), Core will change (via hard fork) it’s PoW algorithm. There will be one month (4032 blocks) of overlap after each change, in which blocks created by both PoWs will be accepted. This will give enough time for upgrade after each PoW change. Every PoW change will reset the clock on any ASIC-ization effort. It will be madness to try to create a matching ASIC, when the PoW is changing every 4 months (1 month for the grace period).

This will completely eliminate the current situation in which two companies (BitmainTech and BitFury) can control over 90% of the hash-rate.

The mining playing field will be leveled again and the barrier of entry for mining will lowered. Everyone with money and access to low cost electricity will be able to mine. There will be no need to buy 16nm ASICs from BitFury at $13 per unit, when BitFury cost is $3 per ASIC (my estimation).

In order to avoid corruption in the selection of PoW algorithms, I also suggest that a committee of 5 individuals will be formed, with each individual serving a term of four algorithm changes (one year), with staggered cycles so the committee is not changed all at once. The preference will be to use complex algorithms, with multiple sub algorithms (e.g. X11 style), and the constants in each should be selected randomly from the block-chain data leading up to each rotation. As this is merely a suggestion for community consideration, I do not presume to define selection criteria for the committee members.

What about BotNets ?

Back in 2012 it was a real issues. These days there are entities with huge amount of GPUs. BotNets will be just another player. In my estimation they will be one of the smaller ones.

[Guy Corem]

I'm also working on a non manual way to do it, but it's much harder.

[smooth]

Most interesting posts on this thread IMO. The miners were nice, but even powerful miners are just miners. Ideas are more powerful still.

These days there are entities with huge amount of GPUs.

This isn't really good thing, but not necessarily a disaster either. It has better properties than ASICs.

I believe that the wrong turn in Bitcoin was something earlier than ASICs (or FPGAs). But Guy has his ideas and I have mine. Nice to see various people trying to improve things even if I don't agree with every detail.

[Guy Corem]

Most interesting posts on this thread IMO. The miners were nice, but even powerful miners are just miners. Ideas are more powerful still.

You might want to read Meni Rosenfeld: http://fieryspinningsword.com/2015/08/25/how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-the-fork/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3i9eiv/how_i_learned_to_stop_worrying_and_love_the_fork/

[smooth]

Most interesting posts on this thread IMO. The miners were nice, but even powerful miners are just miners. Ideas are more powerful still.

You might want to read Meni Rosenfeld: http://fieryspinningsword.com/2015/08/25/how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-the-fork/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3i9eiv/how_i_learned_to_stop_worrying_and_love_the_fork/

Have read, and agree. In fact several of us discussed the very same ideas on the now-banned Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. thread long ago. We probably weren't the first.

[miningmeter]

In order to survive,
The mining playing field will be leveled again and the barrier of entry for mining will lowered. Everyone with money and access to low cost electricity will be able to mine. There will be no need to buy 16nm ASICs from BitFury at $13 per unit, when BitFury cost is $3 per ASIC (my estimation).

Your company had no problem with current Bitcoin when they were one of big companies making profit.  Spondoolies is a company of the past, with no more then hopes of a miner that already has been beat by bitfury.  You were happy to sell asics when you made money, and have problems with others being able to do same thing?

You want to change all of Bitcoin to keep your company rolling, as it's losing value.  You will not be able develop chips as good as Bitfury so you want new ideas.  You will never get the votes.  Just enjoy last few years of bonus you get till Spondoolies is a dead company.

[Guy Corem]

As Olivier Janssens told me: “Competition is good”. So let the market decide.

We’ll have an interesting dichotomy:

Classic will have democratic governance but centralized, ASIC based mining.

Core will have meritocratic governance but democratic, GPU based mining.

[smooth]

In order to survive,
The mining playing field will be leveled again and the barrier of entry for mining will lowered. Everyone with money and access to low cost electricity will be able to mine. There will be no need to buy 16nm ASICs from BitFury at $13 per unit, when BitFury cost is $3 per ASIC (my estimation).

Your company had no problem with current Bitcoin when they were one of big companies making profit.  Spondoolies is a company of the past, with no more then hopes of a miner that already has been beat by bitfury.  You were happy to sell asics when you made money, and have problems with others being able to do same thing?

You want to change all of Bitcoin to keep your company rolling, as it's losing value.  You will not be able develop chips as good as Bitfury so you want new ideas.  You will never get the votes.  Just enjoy last few years of bonus you get till Spondoolies is a dead company.

What does this even have to do with his company?

You sound more agenda driven to me than he does.

[OgNasty]

In order to survive, Core needs to change its PoW, or else Core miners won’t be able to mine at all.

Classic will have democratic governance but centralized, ASIC based mining.

Core will have meritocratic governance but democratic, GPU based mining.

Please install a breathalyzer on your keyboard.

[Guy Corem]

Classic decided against PoW change: https://bitcoinclassic.consider.it/merge-6-fix-mining-centralisation?results=true
Core must do it to survive, after Classic Activation. It also needs to change Transaction ID to split the coins completely into ClassicCoin and CoreCoin

Let the market decide

Guy

[smooth]

In order to survive, Core needs to change its PoW, or else Core miners won’t be able to mine at all.

Classic will have democratic governance but centralized, ASIC based mining.

Core will have meritocratic governance but democratic, GPU based mining.

Please install a breathalyzer on your keyboard.

I have to agree, I was wondering about the mental state that led to a belief the above would occur, but I that's different from whether the ideas are interesting or not.

Not terribly impressed by the central committee of hash.

[Guy Corem]

In order to survive, Core needs to change its PoW, or else Core miners won’t be able to mine at all.

Classic will have democratic governance but centralized, ASIC based mining.

Core will have meritocratic governance but democratic, GPU based mining.

Please install a breathalyzer on your keyboard.

I'm not drunk. Think about it for a while.