User Tools

Site Tools


bitcoin:miners

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision
Previous revision
bitcoin:miners [2010/12/13 16:11]
donpdonp
bitcoin:miners [2016/06/25 11:25] (current)
Line 69: Line 69:
 = multiple miners = = multiple miners =
 <code> <code>
 +2010-Dec-1
 11:10 < JudStephenson> I have another question: If I have two computers generating hashes,  11:10 < JudStephenson> I have another question: If I have two computers generating hashes, 
                        what is to stop them from generating the same hashes? Since there                         what is to stop them from generating the same hashes? Since there 
Line 99: Line 100:
 = ATI cards = = ATI cards =
 <code> <code>
 +2010-Dec-5
 13:15 < xelister_> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_AMD_graphics_processing_units 13:15 < xelister_> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_AMD_graphics_processing_units
 13:17 < ArtForz> 6870 ~232Mh/s, 5850 ~240 13:17 < ArtForz> 6870 ~232Mh/s, 5850 ~240
Line 165: Line 167:
  
 <code> <code>
 +2010-Dec-10
 15:09 < ArtForz> if difficulty keeps rising like this even payoff of a 5970 @ $0.10/kWh is uncertain 15:09 < ArtForz> if difficulty keeps rising like this even payoff of a 5970 @ $0.10/kWh is uncertain
 15:12 < ArtForz> and at $.10/kWh that 5970 costs about $25/month in power 15:12 < ArtForz> and at $.10/kWh that 5970 costs about $25/month in power
Line 211: Line 214:
 </code> </code>
  
-13-Dec-2010+= more ASIC = 
 <code> <code>
 +13-Dec-2010
 15:49 < ArtForz> 300W per 5970   15:49 < ArtForz> 300W per 5970  
 15:50 < fabianhjr> ArtForz: you got 33 5970s? 0_o                                      15:50 < fabianhjr> ArtForz: you got 33 5970s? 0_o                                     
Line 248: Line 253:
 16:07 < nanotube__> ArtForz: how about you collect investment from other community      achristi~  16:07 < nanotube__> ArtForz: how about you collect investment from other community      achristi~ 
                     members, then distribute the chips pro-rata?                          members, then distribute the chips pro-rata?     
-16:07 < Kiba> he's a 37 years old fart                                                  altamic   +16:07 < Kiba> he's a 37 years old fart                                               
 16:07 < ArtForz> Phoebus: yup       16:07 < ArtForz> Phoebus: yup      
-16:07 < nanotube__> ArtForz: that way you get more volume, lower cost. and as a side    arcatan   +16:07 < nanotube__> ArtForz: that way you get more volume, lower cost. and as a side   
                     benefit... you don't end up with >50% of the network                      benefit... you don't end up with >50% of the network 
                                                                    
 </code> </code>
 +
 += new ati card= 
 +<code>
 +16:23 < fabianhjr> ArtForz: Are the new 6000 GPUs worth it?                     
 +16:24 < ArtForz> not really                                                         
 +16:24 < ArtForz> and 69xx will probably suck even worse     
 +16:26 < ArtForz> I got a 6870, not worth it                                           
 +16:27 < ArtForz> 235Mh/s, 150W, doesnt have much OC headroom                         
 +16:28 < ArtForz> and you need sdk 2.2 for it  
 +16:28 < ArtForz> = say goodbye to decent multiGPU performance
 +</code>
 +
 += nvidia telsa =
 +<code>
 +13:54 < ArtForz> DP: tesla C2050 = 257.6 GFLOPs, HD6970 = 337.9GFLOPs, HD5970 =        
 +                 464GFLOPs                                                             
 +13:55 < ArtForz> and the 5970 can do another 1856GFLOPs SP on the XYZW units in       
 +                 parallel to DP on the T unit   
 +</code>
 +
 += artforz summary =
 +<code>
 +09:11 < ArtForz> 16.5Ghash here
 +09:13 < ArtForz> 5 HD5770, 24 HD5970, 1 HD6870, 1 HD6970, for a total of 55 GPUs
 +09:13 < Sultan_> you lot have 5 computers?
 +09:13 < ArtForz> 9 
 +09:15 < ArtForz> with a total power draw of ~9kW 
 +</code>
 +
 += network hash rate =
 +<code>
 +< donpdonp> is it possible to estimate the gigahash rate of the entire network?
 +< ArtForz> estnextdiff 17571.2
 +< ArtForz> so thats 17571.2 * 2**32 / 600 hps or... 125.78 ghash
 +< donpdonp> whats the  / 600 hps for? 
 +< ArtForz> 600 seconds nominal per block
 +(one block generated every 10 minutes)
 +</code>
 +
 += PS3 =
 +<code>
 +08-Jan-2011
 +< ArtForz> rooted PS3 should have peak ~24.5Mhps 
 +< ArtForz> = all 7 SPEs + PPE   
 +</code>
 +
 += artforz bank account =
 +<code>
 +08-Jan-2011
 +< newsham> also are you keeping a large stock of btc or liquidating most
 +< ArtForz> I kept about 15%
 +< ArtForz> ~40kBTC currently
 +< ArtForz> I'll probably keep on selling 80% of daily production or so 
 +< molecular> who is buying all these? people speculating? I don't understand where the demand stems from?
 +< ArtForz> I'd guess so
 +</code>
 +
 += cartel / majority =
 +<code>
 +15-Jan-2011
 +< ArtForz> once a mienr (or a bucnh of collaborating miners) get > 50%, they can claim all generation and block transactions from getting into the chain
 +< molecular> on the other hand: if all the gamers start mining (some hype might happen), artforz's asics dont look so good any more
 +< molecular> ArtForz: is that your plan? take over btc and therefor kill it? can't be, right?
 +< ArtForz> I prefer to add hashrate slowly to stay at 15-25% of total network 
 +< ArtForz> it simply doesnt make much economic sense to grow beyond 33% or so  
 +< ArtForz> you're effectively competing against yourself 
 +< davex__> artforz: why does that matter?  it would be like having a monopoly on all gold mines.
 +< ArtForz> except you dont      
 +< ArtForz> lets say rest of network is 100Gh/s, you add 10, you're 9.1% of total, you add 50, you're 33.3% of total  
 +< newsham> what artforz is not counting on is that once he has large monopoly, he will be able to extract nice transaction fees if he so desires :)
 +< ArtForz> so ~ 3.5x payout for 5x the hardware 
 +< davex__> artforz: yeah true...  i guess it's also not reasonable to assume when you get to 50% everyone else will just give up, also.
 +< ArtForz> yep  
 +< ArtForz> and a mining cartel is really really obvious
 +< davex__> because you get lots of simultaneous solutions submitted?
 +< ArtForz> that and nobody else suddenly gets blocks
 +</code>
 +
 += ATI Driver rev =
 +<code>
 +18-jan-2011
 +ArtForz> for 5xxx, anythong >= 10.10 seems to work well
 +sipa> but it's not like the stream sdk where you shouldn't use the latest version
 +ArtForz> nah 
 +ArtForz> I run 4*5970 on 10.12 no problem
 +ArtForz> seems to be even a bit faster than 10.10 
 +ArtForz> btw, the multiGPU slowdown and CPU hogging is limited to OpenCL in sdk 2.2/2.3, CAL works fine
 +</code>
 +
 +<code>
 +15-feb-2011
 +<ArtForz> I mean, 6970 is pretty exactly as fast as 5870 for me
 +<retsilex> ArtForz: 6950 .. would you recommend it?  instead of 5870
 +<ArtForz> well... for 3D, yes, for mining.. no
 +<Diablo-D3> retsilex: 6xxx is useless for mining
 +<ArtForz> you need sdk2.3 for 69xx, which has broken OpenCL multigpu support
 +<Diablo-D3> retsilex: you're stuck with sdk 2.2 or 2.3, which is shit
 +<ArtForz> so unless you have a CAL miner, 69xx sucks ...
 +<Diablo-D3> retsilex: 6970 should be 15% faster than 5870
 +<Diablo-D3> but its not
 +<Diablo-D3> because the sdk fucks you over
 +<retsilex> ArtForz: your desktop uses which sdk, which drier version? and what linux?
 +<ArtForz> debian sid, 2.6.32, fglrx 10.9, sdk 2.1
 +
 +<foucist> ArtForz: i heard you were the guy to ask about the reason for the drop in stream processors between 5970 and the cards that come after :P
 +<ArtForz> foucist: pretyt simple really, 5xxx had pretty bad shader ALU use % in games on average
 +<ArtForz> so 6xxx got more fixed-function ahdrware, beefed up frontends, better mem controller, ... but shader ALU * MHz went down
 +</code>
 +
 +
bitcoin/miners.1292285494.txt.gz · Last modified: 2016/06/25 11:25 (external edit)