Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 1,892 results by PatMan
NEVER use a SATA to PCIe connector - don't know who the hell thought of that idea but that is just asking for a problem since the SATA connectors were never designed to deliver that much power.
How much power is SATA cable rated for?I have 5830's that's undervolted, and was thinking of using SATA to PCI-E power cables.
IMO, just use PCI-E plug splitters. Some power supplies split a set of 6 wires (3 hot, 3 ground) to 2 6+2 plugs already (300 watts!). With SATA, you only have 1 hot and 2 grounds, and they are likely thinner gauge wire, plus the connectors are not rated for a significant power draw.
Here are the PCI-E power plug splitters that I use. They take in a 6 pin plug (or 6+2, but it only takes in 6) and output 2 6+2 plugs, essentially adding one additional PCI-E plug per splitter. I love them. They are $3 each with free shipping if bought in volume at newegg. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16812198018
Been looking for these in the UK - just can't find them anywhere. If anyone would be interested in sending a few over there's a small bounty on offer......Thanks muchly.
I offer BTC0.1 upon Alpha's confirmation the order has changed to a 50MH/s miner, no balance is due, and the shipping address has been changed.
I'll up that to BTC0.100001 with the same conditions, but including a tracking # & escrow. Sorry Og
But I am only saying 188 shipped to the USA is high price.
I rather 16 gauge cables .
Agreed, 18 gauge isn't enough & the price is too high. These reasons alone are enough not to buy one, but the workmanship, quality & history of Bitmain brand PSU's (S4) are even more reason to avoid these. Bitmain have already lost one of their own mining farms to fire, it's no surprise why looking at those pictures, you'd think they had learned their lesson.....
As far as PSU's go, you can't risk compromise: quality parts & workmanship win every time, something these don't have. It's just not worth the risk.
With Bitmains previous record with PSU's, I would be very wary of purchasing these potential fire hazards. However, having seen the terrible workmanship in the pics uploaded on the first page, I would now say avoid these PSU's at all costs. Stick to superior quality, proven & cheaper server PSU's off ebay.
These things could, quite literally, kill you. They should be banned worldwide.
Bitmain, what are you playing at
These things could, quite literally, kill you. They should be banned worldwide.
Bitmain, what are you playing at
Re: [UNO] Unobtanium Info & Discussion - Miners Update to 0.10
Block time on P2Pool passed 3 days, killing my node.
Is that with the mmpool version?
Re: [100 TH] mmpool.org - 1.5% fee DGM/PPS - tx fees/vardiff/merge mine/tor
@ mmpool : Are you using a Linux system for your pool software? If so, would it be possible for you to upload a copy of your Unobtaniumd for the many users who are still waiting for BW to implement the fix you kindly created to fix the merge mining defect?
I am using Linux but I don't think my binary will run on other systems due to differences in dynamically loaded library versions, etc. I could try and do a static build. In the meantime I put the changes to get merge mining working on unobtanium onto github: https://github.com/mmpool/Unobtanium/tree/merge_mining_fixThanks mmpool - & great work!
Re: [UNO] Unobtanium Info & Discussion - Miners Update to 0.10
Now, about the code. Does anyone know if there a reason why BW won't implement the fix in git? If not, I think forking it & applying the fix is the best option, as PatMan suggested, as it has been too long a delay already & is only putting people off the coin.
I can do this shortly. I'll post a link to the git repository when done.Pull request: https://github.com/unobtanium-official/Unobtanium/pull/17
Branch containing fix: https://github.com/mmpool/Unobtanium/tree/merge_mining_fix
Perfect, many thanks mmpool!
I'm seeing high cpu usage with the new wallet, between 7% - 27%, hopefully this can be cleaned up at a later date, but the main thing is that it seems to be working:
@ FK: It might be an idea to put the download link mmpool supplied on the main page & remove the outdated wallet download links temporarily until BW catches up - this will hopefully eliminate any more mistaken downloads & confusion?
Re: [300 TH] mmpool.org - 1.5% fee DGM/PPS - tx fees/vardiff/merge mine/tor/cjdns
@ mmpool : Are you using a Linux system for your pool software? If so, would it be possible for you to upload a copy of your Unobtaniumd for the many users who are still waiting for BW to implement the fix you kindly created to fix the merge mining defect?
Thanks in advance
Thanks in advance
Re: [UNO] Unobtanium Info & Discussion - Miners Update to 0.10
Fair warning
[Moderator Privileges now active below this post. Posts with cursing and personal attacks for next 12 hours will be removed.]
Visit the Uno Off Topic Thread if you just can't hold it in for the next 12 hours.
[Moderator Privileges now active below this post. Posts with cursing and personal attacks for next 12 hours will be removed.]
Visit the Uno Off Topic Thread if you just can't hold it in for the next 12 hours.
Thanks FK.
@ IYFTech - do you have a git account my man?
Re: [UNO] Unobtanium Info & Discussion - Miners Update to 0.10
I regret I do not posess any skills when it comes to building windows/mac wallets. Could probably do the gitian thing but it feels sloppy to me. I never even use precompiled linux binaries, I prefer to build my own.
Same here. Any windows wallet would have to be compiled using the fixed code also, so there is an urgent need to get it implemented, otherwise the windows wallets will also fail (I presume - I'm not big a windoze user).
Re: [UNO] Unobtanium Info & Discussion - Miners Update to 0.10
[ignored & reported]
Please refrain your hurling profanities at forum members, it is uncalled for & unnecessary. Feel free to use the ignore button if you do not wish to read certain posts, as I have done.
Thanks.
Re: [UNO] Unobtanium Info & Discussion - Miners Update to 0.10
I am of a mind to upload the fix file here so whoever wants it can add it to source and compile, since I don't have access to the github.
I & 100's of other miners would appreciate it if you did
EDIT: Or maybe fork it from git & submit the fix that way?
Re: [UNO] Unobtanium Info & Discussion - Miners Update to 0.10
Did you tell them it doesn't work - or did they implement the fix themselves?
It's getting boring waiting for this to be fixed, really. How about it?
It's getting boring waiting for this to be fixed, really. How about it?
Is Falling Knife, selfless volunteer in this community, your bitch or your nigger? Because from your tone, I am not quite sure.
Can I get you another Mint Julep Master? You be lookin mighty parched. I will go out and turn another trick so you can put another gold tooth in that pretty mouth of yours.
Hey @Patman: FUCK YOU
I was addressing whoever is responsible for implementing the fix on git so that everyone can enjoy the benefit of MM, not just a select few. FYI, I have also talked to FK via PM & he understands everyone's frustration & knows that I do not hold him responsible.
Please refrain your hurling profanities at forum members, it is uncalled for & unnecessary, especially when you are unaware of the subject details.
Thanks.
@ balu2 - thanks - but I'm not a twitter user. Maybe someone would like to mention it to him?
Re: [UNO] Unobtanium Info & Discussion - Miners Update to 0.10
So it required a slight code change. If one isn't comfortable making a quick code fix, then one shouldn't operate a pool. Small price to pay IMO.
I am not a coder, so I'm not comfortable making code changes. I also don't operate a pool, I run a private node for my own use, as do 100's of other p2pool users - who are also not coders.
But you highlight my point perfectly. If all that is required is to make a small change to the code on git - why has it not been done so that anyone & everyone, weather they use winblows or NIX, can make use of the MM capability? That was the whole point of having the hardfork wasn't it?
Re: [UNO] Unobtanium Info & Discussion - Miners Update to 0.10
...isn't the merge mining active?
It's active, but faulty:
Is the merge mining code working?
Ok, successfully merge mined a block: https://chainz.cryptoid.info/uno/block.dws?601321.htm
It required this code change:
Code:
diff --git a/src/rpcmining.cpp b/src/rpcmining.cpp
index 20aadfd..52fb24d 100644
--- a/src/rpcmining.cpp
+++ b/src/rpcmining.cpp
@@ -721,8 +721,13 @@ Value getauxblock(const Array& params, bool fHelp)
uint256 hashTarget = uint256().SetCompact(pblock->nBits);
Object result;
+#if 0
result.push_back(Pair("target", hashTarget.GetHex()));
result.push_back(Pair("hash", HexStr(BEGIN(hashTarget), END(hashTarget))));
+#endif
+ result.push_back(Pair("target", HexStr(BEGIN(hashTarget), END(hashTarget))));
+ result.push_back(Pair("hash", pblock->GetHash().GetHex()));
+
result.push_back(Pair("chainid", pblock->GetChainID()));
return result;
}
index 20aadfd..52fb24d 100644
--- a/src/rpcmining.cpp
+++ b/src/rpcmining.cpp
@@ -721,8 +721,13 @@ Value getauxblock(const Array& params, bool fHelp)
uint256 hashTarget = uint256().SetCompact(pblock->nBits);
Object result;
+#if 0
result.push_back(Pair("target", hashTarget.GetHex()));
result.push_back(Pair("hash", HexStr(BEGIN(hashTarget), END(hashTarget))));
+#endif
+ result.push_back(Pair("target", HexStr(BEGIN(hashTarget), END(hashTarget))));
+ result.push_back(Pair("hash", pblock->GetHash().GetHex()));
+
result.push_back(Pair("chainid", pblock->GetChainID()));
return result;
}
I'll integrate the coin into the mmpool after some more testing.
Re: [UNO] Unobtanium Info & Discussion - Miners Update to 0.1.0
Please advise when Bryce has implemented the fix by mmpool for merge mining to git repo - thanks.
Still waiting for some movement.......
Guys, correct me if I'm wrong please, but wasn't the whole point of having this hardfork to enable merge mining? If so, what is the point of doing so when there are no official wallets that work with merge mining? I've had the latest git repo compiled & running on my Xubuntu p2pool node for weeks now, but it still isn't capable of MM, and there hasn't been any action on git since 9th March. MMpool has submitted a fix that enables it, but it still hasn't been implemented - why not? What's the delay?
I'm a fan of UNO, but I'm sorry - this has been a shoddy implementation of something that doesn't work, & so far is not even officially supported? Surely the wallets for all OS's should have been compiled & tested way before hardforking so that everyone was able to upgrade when needed with the least possible fuss & confusion - hardforking before any wallets are ready is, well, ludicrous. Also, what is the point of compiling a windows wallet from the same code that doesn't work? It's pointless.
Rant over. Please fix the MM code before doing anything else.