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

[Mabsark]

My math isn't wrong. I actually pay 0.24 $/kWh (to 2 s.f.) for my electricity.

.24 cents heart breaking. AM is not in my good list right now. Should all get lumps of coal for Christmas. 

No no. AM is paying much less than .24$/kWh. Mabsark just likes to compare apples with oranges all the time.

Does that actually make sense in your head? 0.24 $/kWh is my electricity cost, not AM's. What I compared was how much it would cost me to run an SP20, compared to the maintenance fees for AMHash. Despite your protestations to the contrary, that is an apple to apples comparison.

[1714010047]

1714010047

[1714010047]

1714010047

[1714010047]

1714010047

[Tupsu]

Does that actually make sense in your head? 0.24 $/kWh is my electricity cost, not AM's. What I compared was how much it would cost me to run an SP20, compared to the maintenance fees for AMHash. Despite your protestations to the contrary, that is an apple to apples comparison.

Like I said, if I was running an SP20 from home it would cost me $0.0039 per Gh/s per day. AMHash's maintenance fee is 42% lower than that and the up front cost per Gh/s is lower too. Sure, you may be able to underclock the SP20 to consume 747 W, giving a hash rate of 1353 Gh/s but then you've increased the cost per Gh/s to 125% for 81.5% of the power consumption. Even with such an underclock I'd still be paying $0.00318 per Gh/s per day, almost twice AMHash's maintenance fee.

If someone pays only 0.1 $/kWh, it will be cheaper than AMHash's maintenance fee.

[raskul]

Does that actually make sense in your head? 0.24 $/kWh is my electricity cost, not AM's. What I compared was how much it would cost me to run an SP20, compared to the maintenance fees for AMHash. Despite your protestations to the contrary, that is an apple to apples comparison.

Like I said, if I was running an SP20 from home it would cost me $0.0039 per Gh/s per day. AMHash's maintenance fee is 42% lower than that and the up front cost per Gh/s is lower too. Sure, you may be able to underclock the SP20 to consume 747 W, giving a hash rate of 1353 Gh/s but then you've increased the cost per Gh/s to 125% for 81.5% of the power consumption. Even with such an underclock I'd still be paying $0.00318 per Gh/s per day, almost twice AMHash's maintenance fee.

If someone pays only 0.1 $/kWh, it will be cheaper than AMHash's maintenance fee.

That's actually more than i pay. And the electric phase in my mining hut is being upgraded this week 😵

[klondike_bar]

many people don't understand the many pluses of home mining, but as time goes on and the network grows we will get squeezed out due to power limits.

this is true only if difficulty growth continues to outpace Bitcoin price. If the Bitcoin priced moved to $750 (+100%) in the short-term while difficulty only grows +50% then there will be two effects:
1) mining at higher power draws or with >1w/GH equipment will immediately be profitable to run for most people, even if electricity is ~$0.28/kwh or more
2) miner prices are cheaper because what now costs 1BTC ($375) to build and ship will only be 0.5BTC or less

granted - I expect that almost all but hobby mining will be centralized very soon, wherever electricity is cheap or cool air is abundant. That's just a natural outcome as Bitcoin becomes a competitive technology and companies like Bitfury intend to operate over 100MW of equipment

[Mabsark]

That's actually more than i pay. And the electric phase in my mining hut is being upgraded this week 😵

Not everyone gets free electricity though.

i get free electric.  feel free to stick your 'maintenance cost' - somewhere in China.

[notlist3d]

Does that actually make sense in your head? 0.24 $/kWh is my electricity cost, not AM's. What I compared was how much it would cost me to run an SP20, compared to the maintenance fees for AMHash. Despite your protestations to the contrary, that is an apple to apples comparison.

Like I said, if I was running an SP20 from home it would cost me $0.0039 per Gh/s per day. AMHash's maintenance fee is 42% lower than that and the up front cost per Gh/s is lower too. Sure, you may be able to underclock the SP20 to consume 747 W, giving a hash rate of 1353 Gh/s but then you've increased the cost per Gh/s to 125% for 81.5% of the power consumption. Even with such an underclock I'd still be paying $0.00318 per Gh/s per day, almost twice AMHash's maintenance fee.

If someone pays only 0.1 $/kWh, it will be cheaper than AMHash's maintenance fee.

I am lucky enough to fit in this category.  And with winter air cooling is easy.

And did I miss something why so much AM talk is SP thread?

[wh00per]

Is there anyway to cut the fan speed to less than 40?  I plan on under clocking and am interested in reducing noise.

edit /etc/mg_custom_rate via ssh

looks like this is a new file


miner-FL1444045011# ls mg* -1
mg_custom_mode
mg_custom_mode_sp20
mg_custom_mode_sp30
mg_disabled_asics
mg_disabled_asics_sp20
mg_disabled_asics_sp30
mg_generic_psu
mg_psu_limit
mg_try_12v_fix
mg_work_mode
miner-FL1444045011#

What is the format to include the 30% fan rate?

Even better you could just change the PHP file so that you don't have to keep manually editing  the mg_custom_mode_sp20 file...

Old code

Code:

 <select name="FAN" id="fan_speed_select">
                                  <?php for($i = 40; $i < 101; $i += 10){
                                      printf('<option value="%d" %s>%d</option>'
                                  } ?>
                              </select>

New code

Code:

 <select name="FAN" id="fan_speed_select">
                                  <?php for($i = 30; $i < 101; $i += 10){
                                      printf('<option value="%d" %s>%d</option>'
                                  } ?>
                              </select>

You can find this in /var/www/SP2x/settings.php around line 312 in Sp20 firmware version 2.5.27.. or you could probably just search the file for fan_speed_select.

Careful though. Everything in the www folder is not persistent between reboots. Looks like one needs to modify more than the php files to make it persistent.
The configuration files in /etc, however, are persistent.

[Biodom]

Here's some quotes from Guy:

Home mining is not going to be around much longer though. The big mining farms are making it so you cannot compete or get ROI. Whether we like it or not mining is moving to the cloud. There will still be some home miners, but not many and most will be in the cloud.

We believe that 2015 will be all about mining contracts. Mining contracts backed up by real hardware.

I agree with Guy.

With all due respect to Guy, this will never work for a simple reason that there is absolutely NO incentive to EVER use mining contracts vs buying bitcoin outright (in OECD countries). With the price of bitcoin approaching the cost of production for marginal players, all profit of such contract will be retained by the cloud mining company. I looked at every single cloud mining operation, and basically it is just a license to lose money (for buyers of such contracts, of course).

In theory, cloud mining has to prove that buying such mining contract will result in the GUARANTEED lower price per BTC acquired than could be obtained by buying bitcoin on the open market. However, such proof does not exist at the moment and is unlikely to exist in the future as well. Case closed.

[raskul]

Case reopened:

People like to prospect/gamble/mine and watch their prospective earnings accrue, regardless of whether it's a 'sure thing'.

To be able to spend fiat currency and receive btc back in any way shape or form is always going to be an attraction.

[Mabsark]

With all due respect to Guy, this will never work for a simple reason that there is absolutely NO incentive to EVER use mining contracts vs buying bitcoin outright (in OECD countries). With the price of bitcoin approaching the cost of production for marginal players, all profit of such contract will be retained by the cloud mining company. I looked at every single cloud mining operation, and basically it is just a license to lose money (for buyers of such contracts, of course).

In theory, cloud mining has to prove that buying such mining contract will result in the GUARANTEED lower price per BTC acquired than could be obtained by buying bitcoin on the open market. However, such proof does not exist at the moment and is unlikely to exist in the future as well. Case closed.

People say the exact same thing about buying miners and have been saying it since GPU mining. Cloud miners have lower up front costs involved due to not needing to ship all around the world and they generally have cheap electricity decreasing running costs. In that scenario, if cloud mining is unprofitable, then buying miners is even less profitable for the majority of people.

[Soros Shorts]

With all due respect to Guy, this will never work for a simple reason that there is absolutely NO incentive to EVER use mining contracts vs buying bitcoin outright (in OECD countries). With the price of bitcoin approaching the cost of production for marginal players, all profit of such contract will be retained by the cloud mining company. I looked at every single cloud mining operation, and basically it is just a license to lose money (for buyers of such contracts, of course).

In theory, cloud mining has to prove that buying such mining contract will result in the GUARANTEED lower price per BTC acquired than could be obtained by buying bitcoin on the open market. However, such proof does not exist at the moment and is unlikely to exist in the future as well. Case closed.

People say the exact same thing about buying miners and have been saying it since GPU mining. Cloud miners have lower up front costs involved due to not needing to ship all around the world and they generally have cheap electricity decreasing running costs. In that scenario, if cloud mining is unprofitable, then buying miners is even less profitable for the majority of people.

Cloud mining will attract a different breed of people than mining with physical hardware. Cloud miners will be less hardcore and more likely to jump ship at the first whiff of unprofitability. They would probably have no notion of the concept behind p2pool and would have no qualms about pointing their hashes at the most profitable pool even if it were the largest pool with over 51% of the overall hashrate.

[philipma1957]

With all due respect to Guy, this will never work for a simple reason that there is absolutely NO incentive to EVER use mining contracts vs buying bitcoin outright (in OECD countries). With the price of bitcoin approaching the cost of production for marginal players, all profit of such contract will be retained by the cloud mining company. I looked at every single cloud mining operation, and basically it is just a license to lose money (for buyers of such contracts, of course).

In theory, cloud mining has to prove that buying such mining contract will result in the GUARANTEED lower price per BTC acquired than could be obtained by buying bitcoin on the open market. However, such proof does not exist at the moment and is unlikely to exist in the future as well. Case closed.

People say the exact same thing about buying miners and have been saying it since GPU mining. Cloud miners have lower up front costs involved due to not needing to ship all around the world and they generally have cheap electricity decreasing running costs. In that scenario, if cloud mining is unprofitable, then buying miners is even less profitable for the majority of people.

Cloud mining will attract a different breed of people than mining with physical hardware. Cloud miners will be less hardcore and more likely to jump ship at the first whiff of unprofitability. They would probably have no notion of the concept behind p2pool and would have no qualms about pointing their hashes at the most profitable pool even if it were the largest pool with over 51% of the overall hashrate.

While I agree with you about cloud mining and I think it is bad for the industry it looks like it is the same as the weather .

We can talk about it as much as we want but we can't change it.

[raskul]

We can talk about it as much as we want but we can't change it.

IMHO, this is the best mindset and attitude to have towards the whole era we are currently in, and historically, it is how I have always viewed my headlong obsession into BTC.
I said, 'one day this desktop tower won't be big enough for the hardware i'm going to need'
and...
I still say, 'one of these days there is going to be a 40% difficulty increase in one single jump'.

But that doesn't mean to say i should stop mining when the desktop tower is too small or that i should let difficulty drown my meagre *TH/s rig.

When looking at the bigger picture, I was overjoyed when this company came forward with their SP10. Heck, even the whiny high pitched 68dB of it was kind of soothing to me... it meant that I could still keep up with difficulty without relying on some ponzi scheme to earn me BTC.

When Spondoolies begin their cloud mining (whether it be independently or in partnership with others) I just hope that they can offer the most usable service, with the most transparency and customisation options available.

I want to be able to mine on the smallest pool i can find and i want to wait sometimes over an entire month for my pool to find a block... I don't want to be tied into mining on a fixed pool, with tiny increments of BTC dribbling into my wallet once every couple of days. I'm just not able to budget very well that way.

In saying that, i don't think a proper cloud mining venture needs to be exceptionally complicated - simple pool choice and failover options is all, for one, I will really  be looking for.

I do think however, and knowing price of electricity where Spondoolies are based, it may be more frugal for SP-Tech to partner with another company in a less expensive region of the world to run a cloud mining farm... should it happen in the future.

[philipma1957]

…
I do think however, and knowing price of electricity where Spondoolies are based, it may be more frugal for SP-Tech to partner with another company in a less expensive region of the world to run a cloud mining farm... should it happen in the future.

They need to setup something in Washington state


 http://www.chelanpud.org/9545.html


under 5 cents a kwatt.

I can always do some winter mining as the network grows and diff jumps to  45, 50, 60 ,70 ,80 ,100 bill

But I  have  these limits for power.

4-5 kwatt  for winter   
2-3 kwatt for summer

So if I was all sp20e   and I downclock a lot I could do 6 at 750 watts around 1350gh  for winter.

 that is 4500 watts and  8th    for winter

or 2250 watts and 4th for summer.

[lowbander80]

When we see the day that earning more from cloud and less from home mining then I will commit
BUT THIS IS not going to happen as the company that has the cloud wants to GET the most.
This is not the cloud thread so ends here ...- .-

[raskul]

…
I do think however, and knowing price of electricity where Spondoolies are based, it may be more frugal for SP-Tech to partner with another company in a less expensive region of the world to run a cloud mining farm... should it happen in the future.

They need to setup something in Washington state


 http://www.chelanpud.org/9545.html


under 5 cents a kwatt

contrary to our friend above who wishes to end the discussion ...- .-

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/guy-corem-spondoolies-tech-talks-next-gen-chips-industry-trends/

and since we are discussing comments made by Guy in a media interview regarding cloud mining, I feel it very relevant and not off-topic at this point in time to discuss the matter and speculate what Spondoolies might offer in a cloud mining capacity in the future..

Where I agree, the cloud needs to be profitable for the miner, as well as for Spondoolies, it should also keep the main ethic that Spondoolies have had since their beginning, and that is and has always been that the customer comes first.

Forgive me if anyone feels that discussing how Spondoolies are top for customer service is off-topic.

and please, let us discuss these things without butting in with comments like 'discussion ends here' whoever you may think you are.
thanks for understanding.

under 5c /kW is exceptionally good.

[wpgdeez]

Zvi, I am still having an issue with my SP10 running with intake temperatures at or below 0c. Technical support suggested that I update my firmware to 2.5.13, however it is unavailable in the web GUI.

I found the following kb regarding the issue with low intake temps, http://www.spondoolies-tech.com/blogs/technical-blog/15824368-version-2-5-12

That support article seems to indicate that it is for SP20. SP3X. Is it even possible to apply that firmware to an SP10? If not is there a manual workaround that can be done to get the unit hashing with lower than 0 degree intake?

"Version 2.5.12 became the official, 2.5.6 removed and 2.5.13 is the latest experimental.
2.5.12 - different handling of BIST and Murata flow - improves stability.
2.5.13 - sets default (after factory reset) values to 1275/288 in SP3x/SP2x. Redirection bug fixed. Handling of ambient temperatures lower then 0c added."

[Biodom]

With all due respect to Guy, this will never work for a simple reason that there is absolutely NO incentive to EVER use mining contracts vs buying bitcoin outright (in OECD countries). With the price of bitcoin approaching the cost of production for marginal players, all profit of such contract will be retained by the cloud mining company. I looked at every single cloud mining operation, and basically it is just a license to lose money (for buyers of such contracts, of course).

In theory, cloud mining has to prove that buying such mining contract will result in the GUARANTEED lower price per BTC acquired than could be obtained by buying bitcoin on the open market. However, such proof does not exist at the moment and is unlikely to exist in the future as well. Case closed.

People say the exact same thing about buying miners and have been saying it since GPU mining. Cloud miners have lower up front costs involved due to not needing to ship all around the world and they generally have cheap electricity decreasing running costs. In that scenario, if cloud mining is unprofitable, then buying miners is even less profitable for the majority of people.

Cloud mining will attract a different breed of people than mining with physical hardware. Cloud miners will be less hardcore and more likely to jump ship at the first whiff of unprofitability. They would probably have no notion of the concept behind p2pool and would have no qualms about pointing their hashes at the most profitable pool even if it were the largest pool with over 51% of the overall hashrate.

While I agree with you about cloud mining and I think it is bad for the industry it looks like it is the same as the weather .

We can talk about it as much as we want but we can't change it.

I don't see anyone refuting my point that cloud mining (as is) cannot provide any advantage over simply slowly buying BTC.
Mining is fun at home, much less fun at a hosting site or colo and completely meaningless in a "cloud mine"-it does not reward either your soul or your pocket.

[zvisha]

Zvi, I am still having an issue with my SP10 running with intake temperatures at or below 0c. Technical support suggested that I update my firmware to 2.5.13, however it is unavailable in the web GUI.

I found the following kb regarding the issue with low intake temps, http://www.spondoolies-tech.com/blogs/technical-blog/15824368-version-2-5-12

That support article seems to indicate that it is for SP20. SP3X. Is it even possible to apply that firmware to an SP10? If not is there a manual workaround that can be done to get the unit hashing with lower than 0 degree intake?

"Version 2.5.12 became the official, 2.5.6 removed and 2.5.13 is the latest experimental.
2.5.12 - different handling of BIST and Murata flow - improves stability.
2.5.13 - sets default (after factory reset) values to 1275/288 in SP3x/SP2x. Redirection bug fixed. Handling of ambient temperatures lower then 0c added."

2.X.X are for SP2x and SP3x. Update to latest version (I think it is 1.5. - you might need to update FW twice (till it says that you have the latest image).

[raskul]

With all due respect to Guy, this will never work for a simple reason that there is absolutely NO incentive to EVER use mining contracts vs buying bitcoin outright (in OECD countries). With the price of bitcoin approaching the cost of production for marginal players, all profit of such contract will be retained by the cloud mining company. I looked at every single cloud mining operation, and basically it is just a license to lose money (for buyers of such contracts, of course).

In theory, cloud mining has to prove that buying such mining contract will result in the GUARANTEED lower price per BTC acquired than could be obtained by buying bitcoin on the open market. However, such proof does not exist at the moment and is unlikely to exist in the future as well. Case closed.

People say the exact same thing about buying miners and have been saying it since GPU mining. Cloud miners have lower up front costs involved due to not needing to ship all around the world and they generally have cheap electricity decreasing running costs. In that scenario, if cloud mining is unprofitable, then buying miners is even less profitable for the majority of people.

Cloud mining will attract a different breed of people than mining with physical hardware. Cloud miners will be less hardcore and more likely to jump ship at the first whiff of unprofitability. They would probably have no notion of the concept behind p2pool and would have no qualms about pointing their hashes at the most profitable pool even if it were the largest pool with over 51% of the overall hashrate.

While I agree with you about cloud mining and I think it is bad for the industry it looks like it is the same as the weather .

We can talk about it as much as we want but we can't change it.

I don't see anyone refuting my point that cloud mining (as is) cannot provide any advantage over simply slowly buying BTC.
Mining is fun at home, much less fun at a hosting site or colo and completely meaningless in a "cloud mine"-it does not reward either your soul or your pocket.

at this point, i probably agree with you, however, to speculate, -what if SP-Tech came along with a cloud mining plan which was not only profitable, for the investor, but fulfilled those fun hobby-type requirements that we all have when we first plug in a new miner? What form would that take? Or is that something which you might just not see, for yourself, happening?
Would it be a hosting plan on purchased hardware that you watch hashing on a webcam live-feed - if you could trade h/w (instead of trading TH/s - you could trade the actual hashboards) with other users? i'm just rolling my head around and letting out the thoughts now. lol.

here's my picture of a perfect cloud mining contract:

The purchasing (hire-purchase perhaps?) of full hashboards, instead of piddly little GH/s.
Flexibility to change pools remotely, at the click of a button.
live-feed webcams watching over a warehouse of immersion cooled SP100's (i just made that up)
trading platform with other cloud users, to control pricing and p2p trading of your purchased hashboards.
Fees paid pro-rata by the user, not taken from mined rewards - if fees don't get paid, hashboards power down.
and most importantly - majority of the mining profit to the end user.

i think too much, granted. but some of these ideas are, for me, what might make a perfect cloud mining contract - in essence, i would still want to own the hardware, rather than rent TH/s.