At least these pools are mining Zen:

Miningspeed
Zenmine.Pro
Cryptobroker
Minez.Zone
ZenCash.Cloud
Miningpool.io
Blockoperations

The list is far from exhaustive. I'd maybe take a look at Minez.Zone, Blockoperations or Miningspeed, if you're looking for a Suprnova replacement.

The trading is actually open, like they promised. At 12:30 EDT/EST they dropped maintenance from Zen wallets and proceeded opening trading right after..

https://bittrex.com/Market/Index?MarketName=BTC-ZEN

ZEN Slack general -channel has the following pinned:


That's supposedly around 9 hours 15 minutes from now.

That is incorrect from where I am standing, but suprnova.cc seems to be a huge pool for Zen miners, yes.

You're right that miners should reduce the weight on this particular pool, until there is more hashing power in the network (which seems to be growing at a huge rate, btw).

12.5 * 110782 (block height) = 1384775, right?

I had a problem with (zend) blockchain (transaction validation) and peers myself, mined a couple of blocks which became orphans. The following steps fixed the issue for me:

• rm ~/.zen/peers.dat
• ./src/zend -reindex

The reindex takes currently around 1-2 hours. But after this things started working well. Didn't need to do a full git clone and rebuild.

No problem with S2 at 160F, but if you go somewhat beyond it will shutdown.

Congratulations, BITMAIN.

I have to disagree with the 'wait and see' part, while this was true for S2 for quite a time, there was a massive amount of units sold without any problem. Yes, we did see a lot of horrific pictures of UPS having played volleyball with the S2 deliveries (and BITMAIN maybe not having the perfect packaging strategy), but most of the deliveries had no issue.

I actually still have a couple of S1 units from the very first two auctions BITMAIN held back in 2013. Yes, those are the earlier revisions, I have actually given away some of the later revisions, because none of the S1's ever had any serious problems and are still running to this day. It's great to see an upgrade path for them, as I've been thinking of various options what to do with them.

However, the main point boils down to one word: Price.

The S2 was massively overpriced at launch, even with the coupons (but yes, I ordered, too, for support). With the S3 and especially the S1 to S3 upgrade, BITMAIN can really outprice themselves. They want margin, that's fine, but us miners are quite on the spot when it comes down to how much should the gear cost and that's a very fine line. Yes many will say it is too expensive, but BITMAIN have to win the majority over....rest will always complain.


Sidenote: Why BITMAIN and not the competition? Two words: Operating temperature. You can run these things in +70'C. Wow.

Solving this myself, the previous version did work without -o http:// . So to anyone who's wondering, running 4.3.4 successfully will simply require:

cgminer.exe -o http://localhost:8332 -u something -p something --btc-address insertbitcoinwalletaddresshere

Thanks for the tip, but adding --btc-address [insert bitcoin wallet address here] to the command-line does not change the picture. As said, cgminer 3.12.3 worked out of the box with these settings.

I've been solo mining with cgminer 3.12.3 and now updated to 4.3.4.

However, the same setup (BITMAIN AntMiner U1) which worked on the earlier version, no longer seems to work on the new. (Startup simply: "cgminer.exe -u blah -p blah -o 127.0.0.1:8332")

Running a --debug gives the following:

Popping work from get queue to get work
Testing pool stratum+tcp://localhost:8332
Succeeded delayed connect
Socket closed waiting in recv_line
Closing socket for stratum pool 0
Failed to parse a \n terminated string in recv_line
Initiate stratum failed
Closing socket for stratum pool 0
Waiting for work to be available from pools


I tried starting it with the --fix-protocol -option, but to no avail.

I have the same issue (BestShare at 0), latest firmware. Been hashing fine for a week otherwise.

Any clues?

My AntMiner S2 doesn't show any BestShare, the figure remains at 0.

The miner has been mining 100% fine otherwise for weeks. Has latest firmware. All my S1's show a BestShare and screenshots from other people's S2's seem to have a BestShare...

Any clues?

They mean it was the first public mining pool.

Agree, I detest this "Batch x, shipping on yy of month" crap.

Either have stock or don't. That'd be more the kind of way we've grown to expect BITMAIN to do business. Besides, it was fun.

You're almost begging for our opinions when asking for a refund on a forum, which really isn't a support channel of BITMAIN..

Dude, honestly, what on earth where you trying to accomplish with the 3 orders that you made?

All I see is that you sent them a partial payment without any intention to really complete the payment for them. For.. what?

To be able to re-sell them to some other dude on this forum with a mark-up, should they get sold-out like KnC and other pre-order vendors?

Obviously, I don't have to agree with you 100% (except for the part that I should get out more).. but you're right on the money with that fact that the ASIC doesn't need to look "pretty". To get the job done is the right attitude and it's not like we'd look like poster boys ourselves either.

Furthermore, it left me thinking about the 1.25U competitor.. If they consume between 1.2 - 1.35kW power, why bother with such a small factor (and risk with not being able to dissipate the heat effectively, hence more noise for fans spinning at max)? Yes, it is the coolest looking kid on the blockchain, but as most Data Centers can normally only facilitate up to between 8 to 12 kW of power per rack (including the equivalent in cooling), where lies the benefit in 1.25U when you can only fit 10 of those into a 42U rack maximum, leaving 70% of the rack unpopulated from a density point of view? Data Centers that could facilitate more power are few and far between.

In this sense, BITMAIN seems to be spot on with the sizing - but it does come down to the price and how well they can position themselves on the market. No doubt more competition is coming and the big names of the past are looking to regain their position.

Time to failure is 42% less, meaning that it will fail a lot sooner than if running at 70% load.

Can't really base this on much, as apple to apple comparison shows that no doubt BITMAIN's S2 looks to be a great box, but I can't help the feeling that re-using the 55nm chip is a bit "old tech re-factored". While one S2 will generally be more effective than equivalent GH/s of S1 AntMiners, the S2 just feels a bit pricey at the current prices due to the chosen approach and position in the newly changed market (Spondoolies "ultra cool" form factor and Chinese A1 copycat manufacturers supposedly selling 1TH/s at $3000 now).

When comparing physical density 1.25U (Spondoolies) vs. 4U (BITMAIN) the newcomer takes a clear lead, but it will be interesting to see BITMAIN's 28nm setup as it becomes available.

I'd be surprised if BITMAIN wouldn't drop the S2 price to position themselves more favourably.