Bitcoin Forum
December 09, 2016, 09:58:32 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 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Bounty[PAID OUT] : a bitstream for better utilizing the Cairnsmore1 157-294.5btc  (Read 20220 times)
Cranky4u
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 781



View Profile WWW
August 01, 2012, 11:36:06 AM
 #121

Regarding the Makomk's shortfin icarus 190mhs bitstream, things for me after the 14h testrun.
Bounty terms and pledges.

These are the final terms:

1. We need to be able to upload the bitstream on to boards with an usb cable. Check.
2. The bitstream needs to achieve an average speed of 760Mhs/board. Reports of this not happening on some boards, lets wait for more reports on this. 719Mhs, I do have 2/16 cores in there that arent apparrentley working and I have the option of plugging in a slower bitstream to these fgpa pairs. In my opinnion a solution achieved via this is kind of touch and go in relation of the bounty terms. AND im not going to try it for now because asfar as I know the recommended "swap is if fail" bitstream (makomk's 160mhs) wont detect the boards in cgminer... correct if im wrong here.
3. The bitstream does not include any forced donation of hashingpower.
4. The bitstream needs to be able to run stable without manual intervention for 48 consecutive hours. Not there yet, but things are looking good.
5. Enterpoint's own bistream development is excluded from recieving the bounty, however if they deliver before anyone else does it closes the bounty.
6. The bistream needs to be open sourced and documented. Not yet.
7. Many people have pledged more, under very specific terms, I will not count those pledges in to the total in this post, just to keep things simple.
8. If the bistream is released before 31.8.12 (8-31-12 for confused Us-residents) there are signifigant additions to the bounty that will be listed in a separate total, ilnluding the entire bounty.
9. glasswalkers solution, even if released by enterpoint will qualify for the bounty if all other qualifications are met.

/ccc?key=0Au2jspuzErkedHhDSEt5aTVPcUNMMjg4STVnOWV3VkE#gid=0[/url]

This is my opinnion of the state of the bounty, imho the race is still on, but we do have a clear leader.









As the starting party of the bounty...dare we say "Supreme holder of the terms"...we must bow to your view on the completion rate of the bounty before an award is given...

THE GAME IS STILL AFOOT!!! Tally ho  chaps...tweak those bit streams

1481277512
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481277512

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481277512
Reply with quote  #2

1481277512
Report to moderator
Once a transaction has 6 confirmations, it is extremely unlikely that an attacker without at least 50% of the network's computation power would be able to reverse it.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Lethos
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


Keep it Simple. Every Bit Matters.


View Profile WWW
August 01, 2012, 05:15:19 PM
 #122

I have now got the shortfin190 bitstream by Makomk working on 2 of my boards (~2 hours).

It seems to perform well, early days but I appear to be getting 650-700Mhash/s out of each board according to my pool.
It's U rating in cgminer seems to indicate this is fairly accurate averaging about 10 per board.

Lethos Designs | UK BTC Seller -  Local Bitcoins | BTC OTC Rating | 1EFhXfX9uXsbXBF3LC69GiVfS3SHCsyMR1
FPGA: 2x Quad XC6SLX150 Boards
Isokivi
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 924


Items flashing here available at btctrinkets.com


View Profile WWW
August 01, 2012, 05:55:26 PM
 #123

I would once again like to urge more people who own cm1's to contribute to this bounty, you know there are a handfull of brillian individuals workin very hard at the moment to provide us a more efficient tool for earning. Most of you are allready benefitting from this. Im not saying it's only because of this bounty.. but Im fairly sure the pace things have been progressing for the last week or so has much to do with this bounty and as any well-informed virtual miner knows time is everything in this game.

Bitcoin trinkets now on my online store: btc trinkets.com <- Bitcoin Tiepins, cufflinks, lapel pins, keychains, card holders and challenge coins.
spiccioli
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1376

nec sine labore


View Profile
August 01, 2012, 07:35:23 PM
 #124

I would once again like to urge more people who own cm1's to contribute to this bounty, you know there are a handfull of brillian individuals workin very hard at the moment to provide us a more efficient tool for earning. Most of you are allready benefitting from this. Im not saying it's only because of this bounty.. but Im fairly sure the pace things have been progressing for the last week or so has much to do with this bounty and as any well-informed virtual miner knows time is everything in this game.

As of now just 12 of us have sent some coins.

https://blockchain.info/address/1CM1bj7jxVskkvKE2kcw6L16rHMXL38aFm

spiccioli

misternoodle
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 108



View Profile
August 01, 2012, 08:28:52 PM
 #125

After trying 3 different cables I was able to get one board hashing on the Makomk 190 MHz bitstream.  It has been running for 6 hours now without problems.

I'm going to program a group of boards and see how consistently I can get the bitstream to run with only swapping out any cables on boards that fail.

Low cost and quality USB cables here:
http://www.sfcable.com/10U2-15103.html

I got a couple of these, working pretty well, a little cheaper too.

http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=103&cp_id=10303&cs_id=1030302&p_id=5447&seq=1&format=2
ebereon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 407


View Profile
August 01, 2012, 08:40:52 PM
 #126

I would once again like to urge more people who own cm1's to contribute to this bounty, you know there are a handfull of brillian individuals workin very hard at the moment to provide us a more efficient tool for earning. Most of you are allready benefitting from this. Im not saying it's only because of this bounty.. but Im fairly sure the pace things have been progressing for the last week or so has much to do with this bounty and as any well-informed virtual miner knows time is everything in this game.

As of now just 12 of us have sent some coins.

https://blockchain.info/address/1CM1bj7jxVskkvKE2kcw6L16rHMXL38aFm

spiccioli

i didn't send to the bounty wallet because I don't stick with the rules. For me the winner was the first one that got my boards faster then the twin_test, even if it would become chrisp with the TML bitstream, i had send my BTC to him.

But the first was Makomk and he got 10 BTC so far from me, the first 5 with the 140Mh bitstream.

Sorry for the bounty winner, my donation is already done.

eb
Lethos
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


Keep it Simple. Every Bit Matters.


View Profile WWW
August 01, 2012, 09:03:40 PM
 #127

I'm not achieving 760Mh/s, maybe at most 675Mh/s on the shortfin190.
So while it appears stable, it to me does not yet count towards the bounty, it however is a great achievement and I'm sure he is very close.

Lethos Designs | UK BTC Seller -  Local Bitcoins | BTC OTC Rating | 1EFhXfX9uXsbXBF3LC69GiVfS3SHCsyMR1
FPGA: 2x Quad XC6SLX150 Boards
ebereon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 407


View Profile
August 01, 2012, 09:17:48 PM
 #128

I'm not achieving 760Mh/s, maybe at most 675Mh/s on the shortfin190.
So while it appears stable, it to me does not yet count towards the bounty, it however is a great achievement and I'm sure he is very close.

The rule for the 760Mh is not related to your Pool! As my Pool shows sometimes 8.2Gh with my 10 boards, but MPBM shows me ~7.55 at the moment...

Just use MPBM or the new cgminer and what this soft shows you is the correct Mh your boards running at.

O_o
Lethos
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


Keep it Simple. Every Bit Matters.


View Profile WWW
August 01, 2012, 09:41:14 PM
 #129

I'm not achieving 760Mh/s, maybe at most 675Mh/s on the shortfin190.
So while it appears stable, it to me does not yet count towards the bounty, it however is a great achievement and I'm sure he is very close.

The rule for the 760Mh is not related to your Pool! As my Pool shows sometimes 8.2Gh with my 10 boards, but MPBM shows me ~7.55 at the moment...

Just use MPBM or the new cgminer and what this soft shows you is the correct Mh your boards running at.

O_o

You are right, the expectation (rule) of 760Mh/s does not have to be related to my pool, maybe because it's not stated how it is to be measured. It's also not mention that I have to use a very specific piece or version of software either, however I will update from 2.5 to 2.61, to see if it makes any difference, out of curiosity sake.

With how you structured your reply, it could be seen as a hostile retort, why?
I'm providing feedback and since many other bitstreams so far on CM1 can be a little off when it comes to the reported numbers in the software you use to mine with (cgminer / MPBM), what my pool reports is usually a reliable method to determine an accurate number. My U average per board is 10 in cgminer, so it is a little under double what I use to get before, that is about in line with my stated numbers above. I'm sure others get better results, I am however I am not one of those yet.

You choose not to be part of the bounty, you've already paid him directly. Fair enough. I however did choose to take part in the bounty, so what is the problem?

Lethos Designs | UK BTC Seller -  Local Bitcoins | BTC OTC Rating | 1EFhXfX9uXsbXBF3LC69GiVfS3SHCsyMR1
FPGA: 2x Quad XC6SLX150 Boards
ebereon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 407


View Profile
August 01, 2012, 10:11:14 PM
 #130

You are right, the expectation (rule) of 760Mh/s does not have to be related to my pool, maybe because it's not stated how it is to be measured. It's also not mention that I have to use a very specific piece or version of software either, however I will update from 2.5 to 2.61, to see if it makes any difference, out of curiosity sake.

With how you structured your reply, it could be seen as a hostile retort, why?
I'm providing feedback and since many other bitstreams so far on CM1 can be a little off when it comes to the reported numbers in the software you use to mine with (cgminer / MPBM), what my pool reports is usually a reliable method to determine an accurate number. My U average per board is 10 in cgminer, so it is a little under double what I use to get before, that is about in line with my stated numbers above. I'm sure others get better results, I am however I am not one of those yet.

You choose not to be part of the bounty, you've already paid him directly. Fair enough. I however did choose to take part in the bounty, so what is the problem?

I for sure have no problem with the bounty, but when people post wrong/mixed numbers that are not related to any rule as far as I know. Posts like that let it misinterpret that you wont to grudge Makomk as a potencial winner...

What is when your internet connection have problems, pool have problems, stales etc. You can't count what your pool says to the rule. The 760Mh rule was just taken from the standard hashrate of 2x icarus which is hashing at 380Mh. The hashrate of the unit is importand to the rule, not what the pool shows you. Thats all what i want to say.

eb
Lethos
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


Keep it Simple. Every Bit Matters.


View Profile WWW
August 01, 2012, 10:36:36 PM
 #131

You are right, the expectation (rule) of 760Mh/s does not have to be related to my pool, maybe because it's not stated how it is to be measured. It's also not mention that I have to use a very specific piece or version of software either, however I will update from 2.5 to 2.61, to see if it makes any difference, out of curiosity sake.

With how you structured your reply, it could be seen as a hostile retort, why?
I'm providing feedback and since many other bitstreams so far on CM1 can be a little off when it comes to the reported numbers in the software you use to mine with (cgminer / MPBM), what my pool reports is usually a reliable method to determine an accurate number. My U average per board is 10 in cgminer, so it is a little under double what I use to get before, that is about in line with my stated numbers above. I'm sure others get better results, I am however I am not one of those yet.

You choose not to be part of the bounty, you've already paid him directly. Fair enough. I however did choose to take part in the bounty, so what is the problem?

I for sure have no problem with the bounty, but when people post wrong/mixed numbers that are not related to any rule as far as I know. Posts like that let it misinterpret that you wont to grudge Makomk as a potencial winner...

What is when your internet connection have problems, pool have problems, stales etc. You can't count what your pool says to the rule. The 760Mh rule was just taken from the standard hashrate of 2x icarus which is hashing at 380Mh. The hashrate of the unit is importand to the rule, not what the pool shows you. Thats all what i want to say.

eb

Did you even read the second line of what I said?

Quote
So while it appears stable, it to me does not yet count towards the bounty, it however is a great achievement and I'm sure he is very close.

I'm happy with his work, I've made that clear when I've mentioned in this thread and Enterpoint's. It's better than what I had before, so I'm not complaining.
I have struggled to get my cm1's to cooperate with me from time to time, but not due his bitstream, it was software suggested by enterpoint (which is not necessarily their fault) and me having to ask the community the best way around it, which I tipped nicely for their help.

I don't have a grudge against Makomk, I of course expected glasswalker to win, as a early entry and had an advantage with his connection to enterpoint but I made it clear I didn't care who done it. But he appears to came close then ran into problems, bad luck I guess, it allowed others a chance at it. Makomk came in as the 2nd major entrant and provided an great bitstream that works all 4 chips just fine and has improved it regularly since to this point where I decided to try it.

But make no mistake, my numbers are not wrong or mixed just because they aren't the same as yours. It's feedback to show their might be a little variance in results, it's known that not all cm1 boards react the same, maybe mine is one of those. It's stable so I'm happy, but "no cigar" on it doing the results for the bounty yet for everyone. I have no doubt Makomk can pull that off in the next few days. Apparently their is a 200 version floating around, but I've not tried it yet.

Btw since I updated to 2.6.1, while it's early days, my average U went down from 10 to 9.5 per board. So I might be switching back, to 2.5 unless their is a tweak to be done that provides better results.


Lethos Designs | UK BTC Seller -  Local Bitcoins | BTC OTC Rating | 1EFhXfX9uXsbXBF3LC69GiVfS3SHCsyMR1
FPGA: 2x Quad XC6SLX150 Boards
tnkflx
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 346


View Profile
August 02, 2012, 07:54:25 AM
 #132

Donating 12.5 BTC. 25 if it's released before 31/08.

| Operating electrum.be & us.electrum.be |
Lethos
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


Keep it Simple. Every Bit Matters.


View Profile WWW
August 02, 2012, 08:35:21 AM
 #133

I have trialled a few other bitstreams of Makomk. All stable, and now settled back on the 190 (is their a 200?)
It does now appear to be performing a bit better, maybe all that re-flashing did it some good, U rate more like 11-12 per board, rather than 10 or lower.
Guess even though it verified as success, re-flashing it sometimes is needed.
The U rates are not all uniform yet, but it's an improvement over last time.

Either way, this according to Cgminer translates to a 750Mhash/s average, which does qualify for the bounty.
One of my boards certainly does mine better than the other, Need to find out if their is something wrong with the board, thus needs me to send it back to enterpoint or if further improvements in the bitstream can solve it.

If I remember rightly my boards are numbered 62-0418 and 62-0419, so I got one of the later boards.

Well done Makomk.

Lethos Designs | UK BTC Seller -  Local Bitcoins | BTC OTC Rating | 1EFhXfX9uXsbXBF3LC69GiVfS3SHCsyMR1
FPGA: 2x Quad XC6SLX150 Boards
Cranky4u
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 781



View Profile WWW
August 02, 2012, 09:31:38 AM
 #134

I have trialled a few other bitstreams of Makomk. All stable, and now settled back on the 190 (is their a 200?)
It does now appear to be performing a bit better, maybe all that re-flashing did it some good, U rate more like 11-12 per board, rather than 10 or lower.
Guess even though it verified as success, re-flashing it sometimes is needed.
The U rates are not all uniform yet, but it's an improvement over last time.

Either way, this according to Cgminer translates to a 750Mhash/s average, which does qualify for the bounty.
One of my boards certainly does mine better than the other, Need to find out if their is something wrong with the board, thus needs me to send it back to enterpoint or if further improvements in the bitstream can solve it.

If I remember rightly my boards are numbered 62-0418 and 62-0419, so I got one of the later boards.

Well done Makomk.
are you able to list bitstream and miner app used to achieve these figures?

Cranky4u
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 781



View Profile WWW
August 02, 2012, 10:33:51 AM
 #135

I am having some technical difficulties flashing my cm1 boards (62-0432 & 62-0433). I can follow the guides and bitcointalk.org hint to get down to step 4 in the manual - "Programming the bitstream". I then put in the command "xcsprog -c cm1 -p 0 iIxc6lx150.bit *.bit" but get an error of;
Can't open datafile xc6lx150.bit: No such file or directory
JDEC: ff ff 0xff 0xff
unkown JDEC manufacturer:ff
ISF Bitfile probably not loaded
root@cairnsmore:~#

I am using a Win 7 64 bit PC...any help on solving?

Lethos
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


Keep it Simple. Every Bit Matters.


View Profile WWW
August 02, 2012, 10:36:25 AM
 #136

I have trialled a few other bitstreams of Makomk. All stable, and now settled back on the 190 (is their a 200?)
It does now appear to be performing a bit better, maybe all that re-flashing did it some good, U rate more like 11-12 per board, rather than 10 or lower.
Guess even though it verified as success, re-flashing it sometimes is needed.
The U rates are not all uniform yet, but it's an improvement over last time.

Either way, this according to Cgminer translates to a 750Mhash/s average, which does qualify for the bounty.
One of my boards certainly does mine better than the other, Need to find out if their is something wrong with the board, thus needs me to send it back to enterpoint or if further improvements in the bitstream can solve it.

If I remember rightly my boards are numbered 62-0418 and 62-0419, so I got one of the later boards.

Well done Makomk.
are you able to list bitstream and miner app used to achieve these figures?

I did, I'm using Cgminer 2.5 (tried 2.61 aswell, no improvement), using Makomk's shortfin190 bitstream.

Lethos Designs | UK BTC Seller -  Local Bitcoins | BTC OTC Rating | 1EFhXfX9uXsbXBF3LC69GiVfS3SHCsyMR1
FPGA: 2x Quad XC6SLX150 Boards
Lethos
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


Keep it Simple. Every Bit Matters.


View Profile WWW
August 02, 2012, 10:49:06 AM
 #137

I am having some technical difficulties flashing my cm1 boards (62-0432 & 62-0433). I can follow the guides and bitcointalk.org hint to get down to step 4 in the manual - "Programming the bitstream". I then put in the command "xcsprog -c cm1 -p 0 iIxc6lx150.bit *.bit" but get an error of;
Can't open datafile xc6lx150.bit: No such file or directory
JDEC: ff ff 0xff 0xff
unkown JDEC manufacturer:ff
ISF Bitfile probably not loaded
root@cairnsmore:~#

I am using a Win 7 64 bit PC...any help on solving?


The command line works the same in linux and windows I believe, so I think you may have a small error in how you are using yours.
I notice you have a space between "-p" and the "0", also it's "-I" after that. Then the name of the first file and the second file, there is no space between -I and the first filename.
While that does not match the error completely it would be good to correct. Also make sure the bitstreams using the names you use are in the same directory as the xcsprog file, so it can find it. Renaming files is fine, as long as it is accurately named when you use it in the program.

I use:

xc3sprog -c cm1 -p0 -Ixc6lx150.bit shortfin190.bit
xc3sprog -c cm1 -p1 -Ixc6lx150.bit shortfin190.bit
xc3sprog -c cm1 -p2 -Ixc6lx150.bit shortfin190.bit
xc3sprog -c cm1 -p3 -Ixc6lx150.bit shortfin190.bit

(I renamed the shortfin files to be abit shorter to type out)
That flashes all 4 of the Chips. That finishes the flash then you just need to get it back into a mining state.


The below are two notes I copied from the main CM1 thread that I use to remind myself how to flash the Makomk bitstreams.
They explain essentially the same thing two different ways.
Quote
unplug one board
move SW1 switch 3 to OFF (start of programming)
plug it again, this makes the board the "active" board for xc3sprog (1)
issue a ./xc3sprog -c cm1 -j to see that the board is visible
issue the xc3sprog command for each FPGA
unplug the board again
move SW1 switch 3 to ON
move SW1 switch 1 to OFF (resets board) then after a few seconds to ON again
when the yellow leds are on, plug the board again

Quote
flash it like the twin_test.bit.

without flashing to SPI:
Code:
xc3sprog -c cm1 -p0 shortfin_icarus_cm1_test_160.bit
With flashing to SPI:
Code:
xc3sprog -c cm1 -p0 -Ixc6lx150.bit shortfin_icarus_cm1_test_160.bit

Make sure when flashing:
SW1 #3 off
SW6 #1 off

SW2 all on
SW5 all on
SW3 #2 off
SW4 #2 off

When mining:
SW1 #3 on
Others same as approve

Lethos Designs | UK BTC Seller -  Local Bitcoins | BTC OTC Rating | 1EFhXfX9uXsbXBF3LC69GiVfS3SHCsyMR1
FPGA: 2x Quad XC6SLX150 Boards
Lethos
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


Keep it Simple. Every Bit Matters.


View Profile WWW
August 02, 2012, 11:14:57 AM
 #138

I am having some technical difficulties flashing my cm1 boards (62-0432 & 62-0433). I can follow the guides and bitcointalk.org hint to get down to step 4 in the manual - "Programming the bitstream". I then put in the command "xcsprog -c cm1 -p 0 iIxc6lx150.bit *.bit" but get an error of;
Can't open datafile xc6lx150.bit: No such file or directory
JDEC: ff ff 0xff 0xff
unkown JDEC manufacturer:ff
ISF Bitfile probably not loaded
root@cairnsmore:~#

I am using a Win 7 64 bit PC...any help on solving?


it's something too painfully obvious for you to catch it. Either....

a) type dir and make sure you have xc6lx150.bit in the directory
b) it's actually xc3sprog...
c) the i should be capitalized and have a '-' in front of it

Good one, didn't notice that one.

Lethos Designs | UK BTC Seller -  Local Bitcoins | BTC OTC Rating | 1EFhXfX9uXsbXBF3LC69GiVfS3SHCsyMR1
FPGA: 2x Quad XC6SLX150 Boards
tf101
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 18


View Profile
August 02, 2012, 11:58:08 AM
 #139

Put me in for 2...

Work looks good so far.
Cranky4u
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 781



View Profile WWW
August 02, 2012, 12:17:46 PM
 #140

flashed successfully and tried mining with cgminer 2.6.1 but not working...test fails on startup

can someone post a picture of the dip switch settings for 190MHz settings so I can make sure they are right

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 »  All
  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!