Swedish ASIC miner company kncminer.com

[xyzzy099]

No one said they are worried about a 25% attack, this is conjecture. But why choose ghash.io/cex.io when they are obviously becoming a large part of the network, why help them when there are other pools that offer the same service?

If wizkid reached 25% I would move sure, takes two seconds. If I had maybe 7-10TH more hashrate I would be solo mining and not even worry about a pool.

I see this kind of thinking on here a lot, even from people who I know to be very intelligent (Bargraphics, for example ), but I just don't understand how you get there.

It seems to me a logical conclusion that the pools that attract the most users are likely to be pools that are doing whatever it is that miners need/want them to do.

Do you really believe that integrity of the bitcoin network REQUIRES that miners intentionally choose pools that are less successful at attracting miners?  Isn't that kind of a contradiction?

If it's true that the bitcoin network literally requires this kind of behavior on the part of miners, the bitcoin network is doomed, and rightly so.

I suspect that if mining continues to be a centralized affair such as it is now, it may really be the death of the bitcoin network - but don't fool yourself into thinking that encouraging miners to mine on small pools will help the problem - at best, you are discouraging pool operators from competing aggressively, and becoming the best that they can be.

As I have said before, I believe that the only possible real solution is distributed pooled mining like P2pool.  I believe that some distributed pool will eventually emerge that will be good enough and attract enough users that it becomes the 'best' pool (however that is defined), and then the integrity of the bitcoin network will be safe for good.

In the short term, trying to pretend that some miners making a conscious choice to 'save' the network by choosing smaller pools arbitrarily is just self-delusional, contradictory, and will result in pools that are less responsive to the needs of miners.

If you really, really want to 'save' the network right now then design the perfect distributed pool.  Otherwise, make what money you can until someone else does.

[opentoe]

[2013-11-21 18:02:14] KnC: core 4-166 was disabled due to 10 HW errors in a row


On my upgrade board. Not sure how to handle.

Did you let it run for a while and heat up a little?

[Biffa]

[2013-11-21 18:02:14] KnC: core 4-166 was disabled due to 10 HW errors in a row


On my upgrade board. Not sure how to handle.

That's normal

[Phoenix1969]

[2013-11-21 18:02:14] KnC: core 4-166 was disabled due to 10 HW errors in a row


On my upgrade board. Not sure how to handle.

Did you let it run for a while and heat up a little?

Dude....cores enabling & disabling is totally normal.....relax
Happens to about 5 of the 9 boards I have.....  
and some of those are faster than the others with all cores running....
I actually noticed that some of the miners with cores disabling have a lower error rate than those that keep all cores running too..
again... totally normal....

[Bargraphics]

I'm curious to know how much power Bargraphics is using for that payout

Going to have to ask KnC All hosted happily with them

No one said they are worried about a 25% attack, this is conjecture. But why choose ghash.io/cex.io when they are obviously becoming a large part of the network, why help them when there are other pools that offer the same service?

If wizkid reached 25% I would move sure, takes two seconds. If I had maybe 7-10TH more hashrate I would be solo mining and not even worry about a pool.

I see this kind of thinking on here a lot, even from people who I know to be very intelligent (Bargraphics, for example ), but I just don't understand how you get there.

It seems to me a logical conclusion that the pools that attract the most users are likely to be pools that are doing whatever it is that miners need/want them to do.

Do you really believe that integrity of the bitcoin network REQUIRES that miners intentionally choose pools that are less successful at attracting miners?  Isn't that kind of a contradiction?

If it's true that the bitcoin network literally requires this kind of behavior on the part of miners, the bitcoin network is doomed, and rightly so.

I suspect that if mining continues to be a centralized affair such as it is now, it may really be the death of the bitcoin network - but don't fool yourself into thinking that encouraging miners to mine on small pools will help the problem - at best, you are discouraging pool operators from competing aggressively, and becoming the best that they can be.

As I have said before, I believe that the only possible real solution is distributed pooled mining like P2pool.  I believe that some distributed pool will eventually emerge that will be good enough and attract enough users that it becomes the 'best' pool (however that is defined), and then the integrity of the bitcoin network will be safe for good.

In the short term, trying to pretend that some miners making a conscious choice to 'save' the network by choosing smaller pools arbitrarily is just self-delusional, contradictory, and will result in pools that are less responsive to the needs of miners.

If you really, really want to 'save' the network right now then design the perfect distributed pool.  Otherwise, make what money you can until someone else does.

I agree with you, but I try to do my part in educating people about various pools. If people get scared, irrationally or rationally, it effects BTC Price. If BTC price goes down because of this fear then it effects me so I try to help people realise that you don't need pretty pictures to mine. You just need a pool with great uptime, decent stats, and frequent payouts.

I also try to educate people that BTCGuild is taking 3% of your hardearned money.
That Ghash.io has a sister site CEX.io and you can draw your own conclusions on how much of the network they have between themselves.

People will choose what they choose for the reasons they choose but hopefully with a little more education they can make an informed choice.

[Phoenix1969]

Excellently stated Bar....

[xyzzy099]

I'm curious to know how much power Bargraphics is using for that payout

Going to have to ask KnC All hosted happily with them

No one said they are worried about a 25% attack, this is conjecture. But why choose ghash.io/cex.io when they are obviously becoming a large part of the network, why help them when there are other pools that offer the same service?

If wizkid reached 25% I would move sure, takes two seconds. If I had maybe 7-10TH more hashrate I would be solo mining and not even worry about a pool.

I see this kind of thinking on here a lot, even from people who I know to be very intelligent (Bargraphics, for example ), but I just don't understand how you get there.

It seems to me a logical conclusion that the pools that attract the most users are likely to be pools that are doing whatever it is that miners need/want them to do.

Do you really believe that integrity of the bitcoin network REQUIRES that miners intentionally choose pools that are less successful at attracting miners?  Isn't that kind of a contradiction?

If it's true that the bitcoin network literally requires this kind of behavior on the part of miners, the bitcoin network is doomed, and rightly so.

I suspect that if mining continues to be a centralized affair such as it is now, it may really be the death of the bitcoin network - but don't fool yourself into thinking that encouraging miners to mine on small pools will help the problem - at best, you are discouraging pool operators from competing aggressively, and becoming the best that they can be.

As I have said before, I believe that the only possible real solution is distributed pooled mining like P2pool.  I believe that some distributed pool will eventually emerge that will be good enough and attract enough users that it becomes the 'best' pool (however that is defined), and then the integrity of the bitcoin network will be safe for good.

In the short term, trying to pretend that some miners making a conscious choice to 'save' the network by choosing smaller pools arbitrarily is just self-delusional, contradictory, and will result in pools that are less responsive to the needs of miners.

If you really, really want to 'save' the network right now then design the perfect distributed pool.  Otherwise, make what money you can until someone else does.

I agree with you, but I try to do my part in educating people about various pools. If people get scared, irrationally or rationally, it effects BTC Price. If BTC price goes down because of this fear then it effects me so I try to help people realise that you don't need pretty pictures to mine. You just need a pool with great uptime, decent stats, and frequent payouts.

I also try to educate people that BTCGuild is taking 3% of your hardearned money.
That Ghash.io has a sister site CEX.io and you can draw your own conclusions on how much of the network they have between themselves.

People will choose what they choose for the reasons they choose but hopefully with a little more education they can make an informed choice.

I don't disagree with anything in this post.  But it seems to me that educating people about pool choices is one thing, and advising miners to arbitrarily leave any pool that exceeds some arbitrary percentage of network hashrate is something completely differeent.

[r1senfa17h]

I purchased 2 of the recent fire-sale modules for my 4-port Jupiter, but needed to add a couple of pin headers to support all six modules.

I've never really soldered anything before and had no idea what I was doing, but I managed to get everything working! It took a few tries though. I made the assumption that the two blank spaces were simply solder filled holes, but no matter how hot I heated them, I couldn't melt them. I ended up just soldering to the surface.

I'm currently running my existing 4 modules on ports 2-5 so that I can simply attach the new ones onto the side of my open-case Jupiter using ports 1 and 6.

The point of me sharing this is simply to show my excitement and proof that even a noob like me can make this work!

[Biffa]

As I have said before, I believe that the only possible real solution is distributed pooled mining like P2pool.  I believe that some distributed pool will eventually emerge that will be good enough and attract enough users that it becomes the 'best' pool (however that is defined), and then the integrity of the bitcoin network will be safe for good.

In the short term, trying to pretend that some miners making a conscious choice to 'save' the network by choosing smaller pools arbitrarily is just self-delusional, contradictory, and will result in pools that are less responsive to the needs of miners.

If you really, really want to 'save' the network right now then design the perfect distributed pool.  Otherwise, make what money you can until someone else does.

The problem with p2pool is that for most its barrier to entry technical level is too steep for the majority of people.

I mean this is the instructions for setting it up in Windows: https://asktom.cf/index.php?topic=18313.msg712967#msg712967

And this in Linux: https://asktom.cf/index.php?topic=62842.msg734371#msg734371

Vs,

Change one line in your miner to point to elgius or two to point to most other pools.

I could get it to work if I can be bothered to find the time, but if someone came up with a simple install process for p2pool then it would probably gain traction much faster.

I love the concept. It actually fits in with the Bitcoin ethos really well, but man they need to make it easier to use.

[Bitcoinorama]

The point of me sharing this is simply to show my excitement and proof that even a noob like me can make this work!

Officially, I cannot condone what you have done! you have voided your warranty.

(Unoffically; Result! )

[lemonte]

I purchased 2 of the recent fire-sale modules for my 4-port Jupiter, but needed to add a couple of pin headers to support all six modules.

I've never really soldered anything before and had no idea what I was doing, but I managed to get everything working! It took a few tries though. I made the assumption that the two blank spaces were simply solder filled holes, but no matter how hot I heated them, I couldn't melt them. I ended up just soldering to the surface.

I'm currently running my existing 4 modules on ports 2-5 so that I can simply attach the new ones onto the side of my open-case Jupiter using ports 1 and 6.

The point of me sharing this is simply to show my excitement and proof that even a noob like me can make this work!

Nice work!!! I'm a noob myself and could imagine myself completely messing it up.

[xyzzy099]

As I have said before, I believe that the only possible real solution is distributed pooled mining like P2pool.  I believe that some distributed pool will eventually emerge that will be good enough and attract enough users that it becomes the 'best' pool (however that is defined), and then the integrity of the bitcoin network will be safe for good.

In the short term, trying to pretend that some miners making a conscious choice to 'save' the network by choosing smaller pools arbitrarily is just self-delusional, contradictory, and will result in pools that are less responsive to the needs of miners.

If you really, really want to 'save' the network right now then design the perfect distributed pool.  Otherwise, make what money you can until someone else does.

The problem with p2pool is that for most its barrier to entry technical level is too steep.

I mean this is the instructions for setting it up in Windows: https://asktom.cf/index.php?topic=18313.msg712967#msg712967

And this in Linux: https://asktom.cf/index.php?topic=62842.msg734371#msg734371

Vs,

Change one line in your miner to point to elgius or two to point to most other pools.

I agree.  That is just one of many challenges for P2pool as it now exists.

[Biffa]

As I have said before, I believe that the only possible real solution is distributed pooled mining like P2pool.  I believe that some distributed pool will eventually emerge that will be good enough and attract enough users that it becomes the 'best' pool (however that is defined), and then the integrity of the bitcoin network will be safe for good.

In the short term, trying to pretend that some miners making a conscious choice to 'save' the network by choosing smaller pools arbitrarily is just self-delusional, contradictory, and will result in pools that are less responsive to the needs of miners.

If you really, really want to 'save' the network right now then design the perfect distributed pool.  Otherwise, make what money you can until someone else does.

The problem with p2pool is that for most its barrier to entry technical level is too steep.

I mean this is the instructions for setting it up in Windows: https://asktom.cf/index.php?topic=18313.msg712967#msg712967

And this in Linux: https://asktom.cf/index.php?topic=62842.msg734371#msg734371

Vs,

Change one line in your miner to point to elgius or two to point to most other pools.

I agree.  That is just one of many challenges for P2pool as it now exists.

If I have a crack at it will it work ok with my KNC miner?

[xyzzy099]

As I have said before, I believe that the only possible real solution is distributed pooled mining like P2pool.  I believe that some distributed pool will eventually emerge that will be good enough and attract enough users that it becomes the 'best' pool (however that is defined), and then the integrity of the bitcoin network will be safe for good.

In the short term, trying to pretend that some miners making a conscious choice to 'save' the network by choosing smaller pools arbitrarily is just self-delusional, contradictory, and will result in pools that are less responsive to the needs of miners.

If you really, really want to 'save' the network right now then design the perfect distributed pool.  Otherwise, make what money you can until someone else does.

The problem with p2pool is that for most its barrier to entry technical level is too steep.

I mean this is the instructions for setting it up in Windows: https://asktom.cf/index.php?topic=18313.msg712967#msg712967

And this in Linux: https://asktom.cf/index.php?topic=62842.msg734371#msg734371

Vs,

Change one line in your miner to point to elgius or two to point to most other pools.

I agree.  That is just one of many challenges for P2pool as it now exists.

If I have a crack at it will it work ok with my KNC miner?

Firmware 0.97 and up worked pretty well the last time I tried it.

[r1senfa17h]

The point of me sharing this is simply to show my excitement and proof that even a noob like me can make this work!

Officially, I cannot condone what you have done! you have voided your warranty.

(Unoffically; Result! )

No worries, I completely understood that I was voiding my warranty.

[OmegaNemesis28]

[2013-11-21 18:02:14] KnC: core 4-166 was disabled due to 10 HW errors in a row


On my upgrade board. Not sure how to handle.

Did you let it run for a while and heat up a little?

Dude....cores enabling & disabling is totally normal.....relax
Happens to about 5 of the 9 boards I have.....  
and some of those are faster than the others with all cores running....
I actually noticed that some of the miners with cores disabling have a lower error rate than those that keep all cores running too..
again... totally normal....

Even like this so rapidly?


 [2013-11-21 18:42:30] Accepted 00f0f125 Diff 271/165 KnC 0
 [2013-11-21 18:42:34] KnC: core 4-191 was enabled back from disabled state
 [2013-11-21 18:42:37] Accepted 001d09c4 Diff 2.26K/165 KnC 0
 [2013-11-21 18:42:41] KnC: core 4-158 was enabled back from disabled state
 [2013-11-21 18:42:41] KnC: core 4-166 was enabled back from disabled state
 [2013-11-21 18:42:43] KnC: core 4-184 was enabled back from disabled state
 [2013-11-21 18:42:43] Accepted 00e2a07b Diff 289/165 KnC 0
 [2013-11-21 18:42:45] Accepted 007694d3 Diff 552/165 KnC 0
 [2013-11-21 18:42:49] KnC: core 4-172 was enabled back from disabled state
[2013-11-21 18:43:53] KnC: core 4-176 was disabled due to 10 HW errors in a row
 [2013-11-21 18:43:55] Accepted 007ba6a5 Diff 529/165 KnC 0
 [2013-11-21 18:43:59] KnC: core 4-160 was disabled due to 10 HW errors in a row


It happens quite a lot and I see my Gh/s drop consistently from 340 to 290 the second it tops off. It never stays at 340.
I'm not panicking or anything, I'm just trying to get a feel of what I should be getting vs what I actually am, and to make sure I actually installed this thing right.

[vesperwillow]

Nothing like seeing those Mercury and Saturn modules powering the Jupes instead! lol

[Phoenix1969]

[2013-11-21 18:02:14] KnC: core 4-166 was disabled due to 10 HW errors in a row


On my upgrade board. Not sure how to handle.

Did you let it run for a while and heat up a little?

Dude....cores enabling & disabling is totally normal.....relax
Happens to about 5 of the 9 boards I have.....  
and some of those are faster than the others with all cores running....
I actually noticed that some of the miners with cores disabling have a lower error rate than those that keep all cores running too..
again... totally normal....

Even like this so rapidly?


 [2013-11-21 18:42:30] Accepted 00f0f125 Diff 271/165 KnC 0
 [2013-11-21 18:42:34] KnC: core 4-191 was enabled back from disabled state
 [2013-11-21 18:42:37] Accepted 001d09c4 Diff 2.26K/165 KnC 0
 [2013-11-21 18:42:41] KnC: core 4-158 was enabled back from disabled state
 [2013-11-21 18:42:41] KnC: core 4-166 was enabled back from disabled state
 [2013-11-21 18:42:43] KnC: core 4-184 was enabled back from disabled state
 [2013-11-21 18:42:43] Accepted 00e2a07b Diff 289/165 KnC 0
 [2013-11-21 18:42:45] Accepted 007694d3 Diff 552/165 KnC 0
 [2013-11-21 18:42:49] KnC: core 4-172 was enabled back from disabled state
[2013-11-21 18:43:53] KnC: core 4-176 was disabled due to 10 HW errors in a row
 [2013-11-21 18:43:55] Accepted 007ba6a5 Diff 529/165 KnC 0
 [2013-11-21 18:43:59] KnC: core 4-160 was disabled due to 10 HW errors in a row


It happens quite a lot and I see my Gh/s drop consistently from 340 to 290 the second it tops off. It never stays at 340.
I'm not panicking or anything, I'm just trying to get a feel of what I should be getting vs what I actually am, and to make sure I actually installed this thing right.

oh WOW, no...sorry....
First, try wiggle the pci cords, then if no workie...proceed to enablecores, and back to the firmware you want...I have best luck with the beta 0.98.1 still....
hope it comes to life for ya..
you should use bertmod to watch until you find the problem, apply fix, then reboot without it....
Good luck...

P.S....You did take the sticker off the bottom of the arctic cooler, right?
How many boards?   figure about 140 per board is what your average should be....

[Biffa]

[2013-11-21 18:02:14] KnC: core 4-166 was disabled due to 10 HW errors in a row


On my upgrade board. Not sure how to handle.

Did you let it run for a while and heat up a little?

Dude....cores enabling & disabling is totally normal.....relax
Happens to about 5 of the 9 boards I have.....  
and some of those are faster than the others with all cores running....
I actually noticed that some of the miners with cores disabling have a lower error rate than those that keep all cores running too..
again... totally normal....

Even like this so rapidly?


 [2013-11-21 18:42:30] Accepted 00f0f125 Diff 271/165 KnC 0
 [2013-11-21 18:42:34] KnC: core 4-191 was enabled back from disabled state
 [2013-11-21 18:42:37] Accepted 001d09c4 Diff 2.26K/165 KnC 0
 [2013-11-21 18:42:41] KnC: core 4-158 was enabled back from disabled state
 [2013-11-21 18:42:41] KnC: core 4-166 was enabled back from disabled state
 [2013-11-21 18:42:43] KnC: core 4-184 was enabled back from disabled state
 [2013-11-21 18:42:43] Accepted 00e2a07b Diff 289/165 KnC 0
 [2013-11-21 18:42:45] Accepted 007694d3 Diff 552/165 KnC 0
 [2013-11-21 18:42:49] KnC: core 4-172 was enabled back from disabled state
[2013-11-21 18:43:53] KnC: core 4-176 was disabled due to 10 HW errors in a row
 [2013-11-21 18:43:55] Accepted 007ba6a5 Diff 529/165 KnC 0
 [2013-11-21 18:43:59] KnC: core 4-160 was disabled due to 10 HW errors in a row


It happens quite a lot and I see my Gh/s drop consistently from 340 to 290 the second it tops off. It never stays at 340.
I'm not panicking or anything, I'm just trying to get a feel of what I should be getting vs what I actually am, and to make sure I actually installed this thing right.

How many modules do you have installed?
What PSU?
Which firmware are you on?
How long have you left it? Mine settles down after a while
Whats the GH/s at the pool?

What I see with mine is a flurry of activity every now and then if I watch cgminer for a long time.

Remember that 5 of those messages are cores being turned back on, and two being turned off.

If you don't want to see them at all then you could try something like firmware 0.96 which doesn't turn the cores on and off.

But the most important thing is what your output averages out to at the pool over 24-48 hours.

[warhawk187]

I purchased 2 of the recent fire-sale modules for my 4-port Jupiter, but needed to add a couple of pin headers to support all six modules.

I've never really soldered anything before and had no idea what I was doing, but I managed to get everything working! It took a few tries though. I made the assumption that the two blank spaces were simply solder filled holes, but no matter how hot I heated them, I couldn't melt them. I ended up just soldering to the surface.

I'm currently running my existing 4 modules on ports 2-5 so that I can simply attach the new ones onto the side of my open-case Jupiter using ports 1 and 6.

The point of me sharing this is simply to show my excitement and proof that even a noob like me can make this work!

Is there any way the empty ports can be used without soldering and risk voiding the warranty? I thought I had 4 extra ports in my Saturn, but really only have 2 and debating whether or not its worth the risk to add the 3rd. I have some soldering experience, but not on anything this nice.  

Are these controller boards available from KnC in case of a failure? Will the new controller boards be compatible with the current upgrade modules, or vice versa?