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 [2011/01/15 09:56]
donpdonp
bitcoin:miners [2016/06/25 11:25] (current)
Line 300: Line 300:
 = PS3 = = PS3 =
 <code> <code>
 +08-Jan-2011
 < ArtForz> rooted PS3 should have peak ~24.5Mhps  < ArtForz> rooted PS3 should have peak ~24.5Mhps 
 < ArtForz> = all 7 SPEs + PPE    < ArtForz> = all 7 SPEs + PPE   
Line 306: Line 307:
 = artforz bank account = = artforz bank account =
 <code> <code>
 +08-Jan-2011
 < newsham> also are you keeping a large stock of btc or liquidating most < newsham> also are you keeping a large stock of btc or liquidating most
 < ArtForz> I kept about 15% < ArtForz> I kept about 15%
Line 313: Line 315:
 < ArtForz> I'd guess so < ArtForz> I'd guess so
 </code> </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.1295114212.txt.gz ยท Last modified: 2016/06/25 11:25 (external edit)