I agree with your point, but your math doesn't make any sense (I'll explain in a subsequent post).

On that note, blissz, can you confirm that you are redirecting mining pools for 90 seconds per hour?  Is that correct?

Thanks.

READ this thread.  SEARCH this thread.  Don't just POST.

Your view of efficiency is too narrow.  Each chain can have a unique voltage setting, which affects performance (including HW error rates).  There is no reason to not include this simple information in the status page, since obviously, we need this information to properly assess the overall status and assess the need for corresponding changes.

Can you please put the voltage in the status section?  It's hard to calculate efficiency with that missing in the status area.

Thanks.

How long did you wait for the machine to start up before checking or refreshing the status?

@blissz, not to beat a dead horse here but please let all of this recent yelling in the thread be an example of how what wasn't a big deal to you (removing or not listing the dev fee front and center) can be a major concern to others, and can really backfire in the long run.  I don't know who's right here, but I tend to believe you haven't done anything wrong, but it would have been (and will be) so much easier if your fee is prominently displayed in the front page.  The conspiracy theorists can go back to other subjects once this is done.

I do agree that you start mining so quickly (1, 3, 5 minutes in, whatever), that it does lend itself to appearing a little shady.  I think you should take your money 30 - 60 minutes in.  I don't like the fact that as we get our machines to work, constantly restarting them within 1-10 minutes, you're bank account is getting inflated for the wrong reason.  IMHO, you should get paid when the software is up and running as intended.  If for no other reason, than to have high integrity and honor in the process.

I know this will spark a backlash of people who want to pay you within the first 1, 3 or 5 minutes... but my opinion is valid as well.

What did use the 9$ coupon for?

The posts don’t mention how long it took for a fix.  That’s the concern.  There is a cost benefit analysis to be done based on the severity of the problem and time for the unit to return fixed, regardless of where it was fixed.

They are just cheap fans.  There is no reason not to have them at 100% if you can stand the noise.  They don't take up that much electricity anyway, even in high cost areas.

There appears to be a bug in v1.12 (non-beta).  Can you please confirm if this is indeed a bug, and if so, is this fixed in an upcoming version?

Notice how the frequency configuration does not match the frequency on the status page.  This is a pretty big deal, imo.  Hopefully I'm missing something.  Thx.

Configuration: https://preview.ibb.co/jAQCs6/advanced_configuration.png
Actual Status: https://preview.ibb.co/h6BVem/status.png
Kernel Log: https://pastebin.com/embed_js/XviQk8H6

did you send the kernel log ?  I hope everyone opining also sent the log like the dev asked.

No.  Just no.  I'm so perplexed that this rigid mindset still exists.  If people don't want to pay, they will change the code, change the hosts file, or do something else not to pay.  Don't you people realize people who are willing to pay are requesting reasonable small changes?  How foolish to ignore them into oblivion.  This stance is a shining example of shortsightedness.  Never be penny wise and pound foolish.

Ok, I'm done on the subject of fees.  Hope you/dev/whoever sees the light on being a little more flexible.

What method or product is everyone using to get precise measurements of energy usage per miner?  Is there a physical device or product people are running these through?  Thanks.

I think you'll find the point is, the dev isn't responsive on this subject.  For instance, you've suggested something.  Don't expect a substantive response on this subject.  As a result, people are finding workarounds.  It would have been easier and more profitable to be responsive as it relates to the fees when people first brought forward their concerns.  But alas, people learn in different ways.

Well that means I'm very confused, because from Bitmain's installation guide quote: "Note: The miner will stop running when the PCB temperature is over 85°C"  No note about the Temp(Chip).  Clarification from anyone who knows about this would be appreciated by all, I'm sure.

Got it, thank you!  To clarify, is there a different level of importance on the two temperature identifiers? Temp(PCB)   Temp(Chip).  In other words, my current temps are:

Temp(PCB)   Temp(Chip)
51               77
49               74
52               78

Does this mean I can ramp them up even more until the Temp(PCB) gets near 80, and I can disregard Temp(Chip)?

Is there any reason people are clocking these so low?  My D3s are running >600 with temps <80.  Is there a profitability aspect I'm missing?

What does that mean, "the miners all work great"??  Can you be a little more technical in your response?

This is what happens when the dev is not open to people's concerns regarding the fee and even the transparency of it.  People can come on and defend the dev all they want, and nip and paw at anyone who complains, but at the end of the day, if the concerns of users are not addressed (or appear to be dismissed), things like this will happen.  I'm not endorsing this.  But it is reality.  Dev, come on, just address these concerns a little.

Who has a problem with the dev fee?  I haven't heard anyone complaint that it isn't fair, especially since it was set at a very reasonable 1.5%.  What is irritating is that there are more posts about people posting than posts about the actual fee.  Stop kicking a dead horse.  The fee is 1.5%.  Don't like it?  Don't use the software.  Don't like people posting about it?  Pull up your big kid pants and ignore them like everyone else.  Yes, I see the irony in this - but it's to nudge everyone to move on.