You are correct that the goal was to get rid of ASICs, not FPGAs.  However, I don't know that I buy that this "CVP-13" is an FPGA.  Sure it can handle several mining algorithms, but it appears to be an integrated circuit designed specifically for the application of running mining.

Irrespective of whether it is an ASIC or an FPGA, the net result is the same.  Their website clam 3 CVP-13's can run on a machine at 1600W for 720h/s.  That's the same power as it takes to run 6 1080TIs (200 H/s).   

1080TI mining is simply not feasible right now (I stopped in October of last year after hitting my 50k Raven goal).  The net hash rate has more than doubled and even the numbers put out by the FPGA are unimpressive.

3 CVP-13's cost ~$16500  + 500 for other computer parts for a $17k investment vs. 6 1080 TI's + computer ($5000 less if you roll the dice on used)

Assuming $0.10/kWh for power:

Today the 1080 TI machine makes $1.28/day mining GRIN = 3906.25 days to pay itself off (10.7 yrs)
Today the 3 CVP-13 machine makes $2.23/day mining RVN = 7623.32 days to pay itself off (20.9 years)

So if we agree that CVP-13 is a permissible FPGA, and we assume that they can mass produce it to double the net hash rate of Raven in 3 months, people have been investing that strongly in this device to reap a reward 21 years from now?

The numbers don't lie, and miners would have to be extraordinarily stupid to investing that many resources in FPGAs for Ravencoin with so distant a payout.  There are ASICS out there, and they likely have much better numbers than this CVP-13 "FPGA"

So first, thank you for a miner that works.  I run the SimpleMining OS, and thus far GMiner, BMiner, and Lolminer have all failed me trying to run Cuckatoo, but you guys rock!

The only problem I have now is inconsistency across cards.  I have 6 1080TIs.  four work well, two are struggling.

09:47:44] INFO - cuckatoo - 0: 0.42 g/s 1: 1.63 g/s 2: 1.63 g/s 3: 1.66 g/s 4: 0.63 g/s 5: 1.66 g/s
[09:48:04] INFO - cuckatoo - 0: 0.42 g/s 1: 1.68 g/s 2: 1.64 g/s 3: 1.66 g/s 4: 0.63 g/s 5: 1.66 g/s
[09:48:08] INFO - cuckatoo - #26 Share accepted, 109 ms. [DEVICE 2]
[09:48:12] INFO - cuckatoo - New job from grincuckatoo31.usa.nicehash.com, ID: 37559059, HEIGHT: 272000, DIFF: 4.00
[09:48:24] INFO - =========== Device Health ===========
[09:48:24] INFO - |ID|TEMP|PWR|FAN|CCLK|MCLK|CUTL|MUTL|
[09:48:24] INFO - | 0| 50|122| 85|1961|5760| 100| 16|
[09:48:24] INFO - | 1| 62|233| 85|1784|5760| 100| 38|
[09:48:24] INFO - | 2| 66|241| 85|1759|5760| 100| 34|
[09:48:24] INFO - | 3| 59|242| 85|1746|5760| 100| 33|
[09:48:24] INFO - | 4| 56|161| 85|1949|5760| 100| 19|
[09:48:24] INFO - | 5| 63|238| 85|1746|5760| 100| 38|
[09:48:24] INFO - =====================================
[09:48:24] INFO - cuckatoo - Total Speed: 7.72 g/s, Total Shares: 26, Rejected: 0. Up Time: 0D 00:08
[09:48:24] INFO - cuckatoo - Fidelity: 0: 0.000 1: 1.292 2: 1.200 3: 0.543 4: 0.575 5: 0.645
[09:48:24] INFO - cuckatoo - 0: 0.42 g/s 1: 1.70 g/s 2: 1.65 g/s 3: 1.66 g/s 4: 0.63 g/s 5: 1.66 g/s
[09:48:35] INFO - cuckatoo - New job from grincuckatoo31.usa.nicehash.com, ID: 37562326, HEIGHT: 272001, DIFF: 4.00


GPU 0 and 4 are being provided with little power, and are running a high CCLK even though I've turned their overclock down to 0.  The odd thing is that GPI 0 and 1 are both MSI Gaming X 1080TI's, and perform nearly identically on other algorithms.  Not sure why this one is different.  Any ideas?

So i downloaded the new GUI wallet a while back... it did not work-- unexpected critical error, cannot connect to server.

I later tried Zend --reindex... ran through the whole block chain.  Closed it, tried Gui wallet, still did not work.

Tried some other things, then reindexed again.  Still wallet did not work.

tried running gui wallet while zend ran in a separate window, and that worked.

closed zend window, wallet stopped working...

If i try running just the GUI wallet without manually starting zend, I still get the same unexpected critical error.

Is it intended that zend has to be started in a separate window?  Or is this a bug or a problem with my setup?

-J

And PS~ GPU miners simply moved on to other coins.  What are you going to do when the new Z9 makes your mini Z9 obsolete?

Per the black paper, there is supposed to be a block every 30 seconds, or two blocks per minute. 

2297509   Wed, 27 Jun 2018 02:39:21 GMT
vs
2297478   Wed, 27 Jun 2018 02:26:27 GMT

is 31 blocks in almost 13 minutes, where we would expect 26 -- an extra 19%.

You call it FUD, but when I asked the question, time stamps for the blocks being mined were appearing out of sequential chronological order:

2287767   Sat, 23 Jun 2018 08:13:34 GMT
2287766   Sat, 23 Jun 2018 08:13:20 GMT
2287765   Sat, 23 Jun 2018 08:13:02 GMT
2287764   Sat, 23 Jun 2018 08:08:22 GMT
2287763   Sat, 23 Jun 2018 08:12:41 GMT
2287762   Sat, 23 Jun 2018 08:07:46 GMT
2287761   Sat, 23 Jun 2018 08:07:22 GMT


It's still happening now:

2297509   Wed, 27 Jun 2018 02:39:21 GMT
2297508   Wed, 27 Jun 2018 02:36:29 GMT
2297507   Wed, 27 Jun 2018 02:36:28 GMT
2297506   Wed, 27 Jun 2018 02:38:40 GMT
2297505   Wed, 27 Jun 2018 02:38:29 GMT
2297504   Wed, 27 Jun 2018 02:38:21 GMT
2297503   Wed, 27 Jun 2018 02:35:16 GMT
2297502   Wed, 27 Jun 2018 02:35:15 GMT
2297501   Wed, 27 Jun 2018 02:37:50 GMT
2297500   Wed, 27 Jun 2018 02:37:32 GMT
2297499   Wed, 27 Jun 2018 02:34:39 GMT
2297498   Wed, 27 Jun 2018 02:36:27 GMT
2297497   Wed, 27 Jun 2018 02:34:01 GMT
2297496   Wed, 27 Jun 2018 02:35:56 GMT
2297495   Wed, 27 Jun 2018 02:32:55 GMT
2297494   Wed, 27 Jun 2018 02:35:22 GMT
2297493   Wed, 27 Jun 2018 02:35:14 GMT
2297492   Wed, 27 Jun 2018 02:35:07 GMT
2297491   Wed, 27 Jun 2018 02:34:38 GMT
2297490   Wed, 27 Jun 2018 02:34:00 GMT
2297489   Wed, 27 Jun 2018 02:30:28 GMT
2297488   Wed, 27 Jun 2018 02:32:54 GMT
2297487   Wed, 27 Jun 2018 02:32:44 GMT
2297486   Wed, 27 Jun 2018 02:32:35 GMT
2297485   Wed, 27 Jun 2018 02:32:26 GMT
2297484   Wed, 27 Jun 2018 02:31:32 GMT
2297483   Wed, 27 Jun 2018 02:27:04 GMT
2297482   Wed, 27 Jun 2018 02:30:27 GMT
2297481   Wed, 27 Jun 2018 02:28:38 GMT
2297480   Wed, 27 Jun 2018 02:27:34 GMT
2297479   Wed, 27 Jun 2018 02:23:31 GMT
2297478   Wed, 27 Jun 2018 02:26:27 GMT

When I look at block explorers for other coins -- ZCash, Bitcoin Gold, Zen Cash, Ravencoin, etc.  None of them have this issue.

Seems to me that the hack is still ongoing, the hackers just aren't taking complete control of the network.

Verge under attack again? 

2287767   c299bd1cce6380e333971cfadd85121511f319faecc169acf76b4d704f2d6b4f   1   730.00000000   Sat, 23 Jun 2018 08:13:34 GMT
2287766   9688de78a91714f8f9f8562ee533eb9a9f0fd0d8994bc6fab3d697d088737025   1   730.00000000   Sat, 23 Jun 2018 08:13:20 GMT
2287765   d561d8aacd59d1808593d02f327b73c33e9ea7bb029a726358b55df74f8e6b4b   1   730.00000000   Sat, 23 Jun 2018 08:13:02 GMT
2287764   d75181d4479a9e49eabff2eea39ebb8c7c7ff2ab0777bee7a3f69e0843f98af8   2   42.95000000   Sat, 23 Jun 2018 08:08:22 GMT
2287764   ff1c9b53b8f27bffdbbfe29ad87af6d0e48737788df9754fdbfdcad1e68e5ec8   2   730.10000000   Sat, 23 Jun 2018 08:08:22 GMT
2287763   2203c1c2b2eded45d15638440135e3327dfa58653affd44ff472c777d3ed864a   2   2502.90000000   Sat, 23 Jun 2018 08:12:41 GMT
2287763   5a734d0c8f9fcdc9db0cb7973559acd5a4edd5c450ef5e340ff9f3ced952883b   1   730.10000000   Sat, 23 Jun 2018 08:12:41 GMT
2287762   f1664dc89e10702dbf49364c3dcd582d3e6fcb30e3ef5b92b10cbff7311d7ef2   1   1950.58082200   Sat, 23 Jun 2018 08:07:46 GMT
2287762   58cf42baa797391f4829c8f359dc585acd21162548132ab1a8c48195e78acc19   1   730.10000000   Sat, 23 Jun 2018 08:07:46 GMT
2287761   5f00e7a2afbc3bd578fb7e27f9f67908cb7106a6fa7cd53cd3c0ada27cf496ba   1   0.23990500   Sat, 23 Jun 2018 08:07:22 GMT

Nice calculator, but you are WAY off on Verge x-17 for suprnova.com.  Note that the "net hash rate" displayed by Suprnova for xvg-x17 is not the real net hash rate...

I'm seeing bad performance on Equihash for 1080 TIs with the same settings I previously used.  It went from 800-820 (Bminer 6.1 & 7.0) to 790-805 (Bminer 8.0).  Am I missing something?

Look at a verge explorer.  Hacker is up to his old tricks despite the “fix”

I periodically get a "Stratum connection interrupted" message when mining Ravencoin with enemy 1.08 at Suprnova.cc.  Once it happens the miner stops, and I keep infoabout what block is being mined "Stratum conection interrupted" error messages.

Once I restart the miner it works fine.  This has happened before with other ccminer based miners, but never happened with Suprminer 1.6

So I'm stuck between using Suprminer, at a 5-10% loss of efficiency, or enemy miner and keeping a constant watch on my rigperformance. 

Does anyone have a fix for this?  Can the next version simply restart itself when a "stratum connection interrupted" error arisesin x16r?

People have covered the red flags ad nauseum.  So what is the counterargument?

1.  Token Pay is on the inside and has invested heavily in Verge.  
2.  It is not unusual for parties to reach an agreement in principle and close a deal later, after parties do their due diligence/meet conditions precedent to signing.  
3.  If they plan to use the crowdfund to do marketing after the announcement, they need to convert the crowdfund to cash no?  I don't know many ad agencies that accept verge.
4.  If it is a scam, they may learn a hard lesson from Renwick Haddow, assuming it is the cops that find them first wherever they go hide.

-J

First of all, don't feed the initial troll~  Second, the coin is ASIC-resistant, not ASIC-proof.  If there is enough money incentive, someone will develop an ASIC for it. However, the whitepaper already establishes that if ASICS become a problem the Devs are willing to change the algorithm (i.e. by adding Equihash into the mix) in order to break any ASICS that come out.  Ultimately whether there will be ASICS for this coin will depend on 1) the success of the coin, and 2) how many other coins adopt/copy the x16s algorithm.  As I understand it the algorithms are the same in x16r as in x16s, only the order is made different/random.  Any suggestion that x16s is less resistant to ASICs is silly.  As to whether the claim that it is more ASIC resistant than x16r, I'll leave that one to someone who is more familiar with vlsi design than I am (1 class 20ish years ago~), but I suspect that modifying a switching circuit is not going to make a drastic difference in the design of an ASIC.