Pool is still live, and I believe recently paid out to somebody.

The reason you're not seeing any work is because it appears you're hitting the wrong server. try:
Fires right up here, looking for 1BETBTCcom

As for manually doing it, check out the FAQ at the pool site.
Also of interest might be this post about using autoit to semi-automate this using vanitygen (and not vanityminer): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=25804.msg11084323#msg11084323

oclvanityminer(64) is the recommended road to go down though.

Finally got around to poking at things - that was indeed it, saves some hunting


Was going for an angle view ( http://i.imgur.com/abKI0X4.png ) but I think the top-down one shows the problem pretty well; the pin wasn't wetted by the solder, probably for the reason you've pointed out before.. paste drying out.

Should be a simple fix with a touch of flux and a heat gun

Indeed - That text at the top is the tiny "GekkoScience" silkscreen. The smallest I personally ever work with is 0402, which is plenty tiny and uncomfortable enough, and yet far from the smallest passives found in modern mobile devices.

Because people are still willing to pay those prices - whether because they don't know any better (i.e. the seller's basically taking advantage of ignorance, even if not willful), or because the buyer assigns that value to the object based on other characteristics (maybe trying to complete a collection, for example).

A secondary thing is that there's a minimum value for these things anyway - people have to put in time for packaging+shipping, the packaging+shipping itself has a cost, and below a certain base value for the product, the aforementioned aren't worth the bother.  So while a Block Erupter USB, when calculating $/Gh from say an Antminer S7 would be almost worthless, a more reasonable market price is between $5 and $10.  Lower than $5 and you'd be better off yanking the heatspreader off and try selling that separately as 'jewelry', for example

Maybe they're working on the website?  The "block #" column is incorrect right now anyway; that's supposed to be the height in the block chain, not Slush's internal block ID.

Yeah, it's no longer 'dangerous', but it'll at least provide too low a voltage for higher hash rates.. might as well designate a "just don't turn it here" area

Thanks!  Bit of both, 4 were gifted away, 2 went to people who bought from me.  Haven't got any others lined up and I've got a bunch of travels ahead of me or I'd see about making more to have some in stock 'just in case' I'd order some more out of USA direct.  Most of the cost is probably in 'labor', but FUN > ROI and all that.

Technically not - it's PP, but I'm reasonable certain it doesn't have any of the dissipative agents mixed in, so if you're very unlucky you might be able to build up a charge on it or yourself and poke at just the right place to fry something.  Testing that requires equipment we certainly don't have laying around   You'd have to try pretty hard, though - the way it's in the box you're most likely to grab it either by the USB plug, heat sink or any of the sides, which is all ground plane connected to All The Things™.  It's also the same materials combination used in the packaging for the Block Erupter USB, the Antminer U1 and U2 and the iMiner (though that one doesn't count, being enclosed itself).  I'm pretty confident none of those 6 are going to come back with tales of rubbing cats on their heads and zapping a something on there

Now that I've got my stock of Compacs (6 via-via + the 2 direct that I'll keep, bitshopper hasn't opened sales yet unfortunately), I finally updated the packaging stuff.  The booklet remains much the same, other than the change in pot direction and a few wording and URL changes.

The back now has a bit of text and puts the GekkoScience logo over the heatsink:


I'll send GekkoScience a box along with some other goodies (@sidehack: is the send-from address you've been using also the mailing address to use?).

If anybody wanted to use it as a basis for their own, the InkScape design files are up here (for as long as that URL is valid): http://www.filedropper.com/gekkosciencecompacpackaging-quartetsize
The box is a "quartet" size PP box, which is larger than a poker card size box.  The Compac won't fit (well) in most poker size boxes length-wise, so if you were to get boxes, just keep that in mind.

Included in the design files:

	front	getting started	clocking	LEDs, FAQ, specs	back opaque	back transparent	foam template

No need to guess; he's mentioned before he's in The Netherlands.  As long as it's deemed for personal use and a maximum of 5 plants it's not seen as a commercial venture and all they'll do, if discovered, is take away and destroy the plants - which in practice means cops don't bother even if it's 'in plain view' as it just generates paperwork. Dutch 'gedoogbeleid' is weird that way.

or temporarily stop the one that's giving the HW errors - it'll be the one that also stops blinking?

approximately 0.000029991/day under ideal circumstances, i.e. less than you're getting from all your faucets + sig campaigns + spammery.

If you just want a 50/50 split, I'd suggest using the --balance option instead, or use --load-balance without setting quotas (they default to an even split across pools).  You do need one of those commands or else it'll just be in failover mode, regardless of you having used --quota

In terms of your command line, have a look at the documentation:
"Will give poola 1/3 of the work and poolb 2/3 of the work."

so in your case you might use any one of:

Yet another alternative would be to use the --rotate option, presuming the pools perform much the same then rotating through the pools every N minutes has roughly the same 'even split' effect.

While the Compac will run passive at 8Gh/s, I wouldn't really recommend it - never mind if putting it into an enclosed space with limited surface area for cooling (which the R1 largely appears to be, ventilation holes notwithstanding).

By going from this: http://i.imgur.com/py58ywm.png
to this, maybe: http://i.imgur.com/0kg4rC2.png
( I can't see your signature, had to pop it open in an incognito window.  My variant of the blocker script happily assigns a high score to my own signature, for that matter )

But honestly the complaint is mostly the nature of signatures since ad campaigns, and not really signatures in general; but if signature campaigns aren't really policed (should it get even worse), then removing signatures in general would be the idea.

Seems unlikely to happen, so blocker script it is; doesn't take care of nonsense posts, but at least removes some of the eyesores.

Bitmain may sell some down the line.  Ditto Avalon.  If you check out the usual Chinese marketplaces, you might find some older Avalon and A1s pop up there.

The only open offer I'm currently aware of is the SF3301 through dualminer.com: http://www.dualminer.com/SFARDS-SF3301-40-chip-package_p_34.html
There's at least one other forum member who has worked with those chips (J4bberwock).

Though if you have $300k to throw at the problem just for chips, you should probably just contact the manufacturers directly and see what stock they'd be willing to part with.

Yeah, I figure the placement&soldering will have improved and continue to improve over time
I'll try poking at the components here and there when I get around to it to see if I can get the LED blinking away.

---

Review by 'Ken' at one of the reseller shops:

blocks: https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pools
luck (weekly): http://organofcorti.blogspot.com/2015/10/october-4th-2015-mining-pool-statistics.html

Just make sure that if you get any long-term results before breaking even, you check whether the calculator being used takes the reward halving come half-way-ish 2016 into account; this one does not at this time.

cybtc write-up: http://www.cybtc.com/article-1961-1.html

The answer to all of those is "yes/no - because (network) consensus"

1. It's entirely possible to change the reward halving schedule, or even remove halving, in a new set of rules - but unless you get the majority of the network to agree to those new rules, any blocks you generate that go against their rules will simply be rejected by them.

2. Older clients won't work because A. if they're used to mine against, they would be creating invalid blocks (see above) or B. if they're used for verification they simply won't know what to do with transactions/blocks that use the newer rules or find them in violation of the older rules, and won't accept and/or relay them.  If the majority of the network has updated, that effectively means your client will be stuck in the past.

3. There's nothing preventing that, other than the network consensus.  The network - whether you view that as miners, nodes, services - isn't likely to adopt such a change without some very serious discussion and agreement overall.

You can see this sort of thing with the recent block size change proposals.  There's nothing to stop people from making software that has different rules, like XT with BIP101, but (in this case) any blocks generated that break with existing rules (a block larger than 1MB) would get rejected.  That's why most of these proposals introduce a method by which a minimum portion of the network needs to have indicated support for the change (what you're alluding to with "95% of the last 1000 blocks", although those values can be chosen differently and arbitrarily) before the change actually goes into effect for those clients.

If a good chunk of the network still keeps with existing rules then you end up with forks of the block chain, like what happened a while back with v2 vs v3 blocks.. some miners had indicated they were all set for v3 blocks, but when the change went into effect they actually tripped all over themselves and the block chain forked for a few blocks until those miners woke up and smelled the coffee.

The block size is a highly politicized but ideologically fairly minor change and it's proving very difficult to find consensus on that issue so far - imagine trying to push through any change that would actually touch Bitcoin's supply characteristics

"bug attacks from the bitcoin core"
"re-centralizing the bitcoin currency"

You're not doing very well on making more sense of your questions.

The 777Coin sig campaign manager might want to nix posts like these from the tally.