Cryptocoin Mining?

[Mark R]

Just a quick question, if you dont mind me asking.
If you have multiple mining rigs running do you also have monitors for those machines? Or once they are hashing away can you disconnect and reconnect to another machine?

You disconnect and leave them hashing away.
Set the BIOS to auto-power on when mains power is connected, and set the mining software to auto-run on bootup.

You can then use remote access software; remote desktop, VNC, SSH or whatever to monitor and control them.

What my mining set up looked like (before it was torn down and sold):
pic

 

[SwampDog35]

Thanks Mark.. I was wondering that. I have a iMac that I use for everything (even monitoring the pool). I was just making sure once the rigs are running there is no need to be hooked up to a monitor.

Like your old rig btw. Wanting to do something like that in my Garage(Air Conditioned).

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

You could also make dummy plugs. Worked well for my mining setup :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLHwaroZZkk

 

[taltamir]

You could also make dummy plugs. Worked well for my mining setup

Modern AMD cards removed the analog signal in DVI and are no longer compatible with dummy plugs or DVI to VGA adapters

 

[KingFatty]

I don't know, if there is no analog signal being sent to the DVI port, then it should be a DVI-D physical interface. If the physical interface is DVI-I, then it should be able to output an analog VGA signal and a digital DVI signal.

I guess I'm just saying it would be really weird to see a video card that did not have a DVI-I port?

 

[taltamir]

I guess I'm just saying it would be really weird to see a video card that did not have a DVI-I port?

Weird, yes. yet this is what happened. Latest gen AMD cards simply don't come with DVI-I. only DVI-D

check out
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...on%20R9%20290X

Of the 11 different models of Radeon R9 290X available for sale on newegg not a single one has DVI-I.
They either explicitly state they have DVI-D only. or they say they have "DVI" without specifying but you can look at the picture and clearly see that it is DVI-D and not DVI-I.

So, 100% of all 290X on offer have no DVI-I

 

[Chiropteran]

You could also make dummy plugs. Worked well for my mining setup :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLHwaroZZkk

Uh, unless something changed you don't need those. There was a time early on where dummy plugs were needed, but some catalyst driver a few years back removed this issue, the graphics cards work fine without a monitor attached.

If a recent driver broke this, I'd just go back to an older version that still works.

 

[Chiropteran]

BTC is legitimately too slow to ever be used for every day transactions.

Do you know how long it can takes before a merchant gets actual money from a credit card transaction? And do you know how long they have to wait before that transaction actually becomes irreversible (chargebacks)?

Bitcoin is incredibly fast, but if you want to be 99.9999% safe, you need to wait for a few confirmations. Still, a 0 confirmation bitcoin transaction is actually very safe, and for the sort of transaction that credit cards are trusted with bitcoin is just as safe if not safer, and plenty fast.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Something kind of weird. My 270x's are rock solid on cleverminer, but they occasionally crash on scryptguild. Meanwhile my 460gtx and 770gtx stay stable on scrytguild regardless... I can't really make sense of it.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

Uh, unless something changed you don't need those. There was a time early on where dummy plugs were needed, but some catalyst driver a few years back removed this issue, the graphics cards work fine without a monitor attached.

If a recent driver broke this, I'd just go back to an older version that still works.

Ah. Have been out of the mining game for awhile now.

 

[Subyman]

Do you know how long it can takes before a merchant gets actual money from a credit card transaction? And do you know how long they have to wait before that transaction actually becomes irreversible (chargebacks)?

Bitcoin is incredibly fast, but if you want to be 99.9999% safe, you need to wait for a few confirmations. Still, a 0 confirmation bitcoin transaction is actually very safe, and for the sort of transaction that credit cards are trusted with bitcoin is just as safe if not safer, and plenty fast.

Yeah, I don't get the transaction time nay-sayers. Cashing a check takes several days.

 

[JBT]

Ah. Have been out of the mining game for awhile now.

I was going to say I've been mining since January, and have never needed these on my headless cards.

 

[MaxFusion16]

Yeah, I don't get the transaction time nay-sayers. Cashing a check takes several days.

Checks aren't anonymous, neither are credit cards. If you have an issue with bitcoin, you are outta luck.

 

[BD2003]

Checks aren't anonymous, neither are credit cards. If you have an issue with bitcoin, you are outta luck.

Yeah, I don't see it working so well for in-person transactions, like buying a cup of coffee. But the vast majority of transactions I make aren't face to face, totally anonymous or require instant payment. There'd be zero issue with the lag time paying my power bill, ordering from amazon, etc.

Once the hysteria dies down, I'm sure cryptocurrency will find a place in the world. Too good of an idea to go away.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I find it odd that every time there is news that the velocity of bit-coin will rise (that is people will use it more) people thing that means its value will go up.

But given a static pool of any currency, an increase in the velocity of trade leads to inflation, which is to say the reduction of the currency's value. This is because the

'supply' of bit-coins = total number of bit-coins * average number of transactions for each coin (over a period of time, say a year, as money without time to spend it is worth nothing)

Total bit-coin value = coins people are willing to buy / total bit-coin supply

Total bit-coin value = coins people are willing to buy / (total number of bit-coins * average number of transactions for each coin )

If people increase the number of coins they are willing to buy the total value goes up. If people decrease how often they spend bit coins (on average) the value goes up: if 'average' bit-coins disappear the value goes up.

Like-wise:
If people decrease the number of coins they are willing to buy the total value goes down. If the number of 'average' coins available goes up then the total value goes down. If people increase how often they spend bit coins (on average) the value goes down.


So paradoxically, the number of coins people are willing to buy increases on news that, otherwise, should indicate that the total bit-coin value is going to go down.

The caveat being that if those willing buy bit-coins using a commodity you are not interested in and is NOT fungible, then the equilibrium doesn't rebalance. Such may be the case with massive Yuan purchases of bit-coin in a climate of Yuan price fixing.

 

[BD2003]

I find it odd that every time there is news that the velocity of bit-coin will rise (that is people will use it more) people thing that means its value will go up.

But given a static pool of any currency, an increase in the velocity of trade leads to inflation, which is to say the reduction of the currency's value. This is because the

'supply' of bit-coins = total number of bit-coins * average number of transactions for each coin (over a period of time, say a year, as money without time to spend it is worth nothing)

Total bit-coin value = coins people are willing to buy / total bit-coin supply

Total bit-coin value = coins people are willing to buy / (total number of bit-coins * average number of transactions for each coin )

If people increase the number of coins they are willing to buy the total value goes up. If people decrease how often they spend bit coins (on average) the value goes up: if 'average' bit-coins disappear the value goes up.

Like-wise:
If people decrease the number of coins they are willing to buy the total value goes down. If the number of 'average' coins available goes up then the total value goes down. If people increase how often they spend bit coins (on average) the value goes down.


So paradoxically, the number of coins people are willing to buy increases on news that, otherwise, should indicate that the total bit-coin value is going to go down.

The caveat being that if those willing buy bit-coins using a commodity you are not interested in and is NOT fungible, then the equilibrium doesn't rebalance. Such may be the case with massive Yuan purchases of bit-coin in a climate of Yuan price fixing.

The thing is though, if no one is actually using it, is isn't actually worth anything.

Doesn't the increased pool of bitcoin users willing to buy in counteract this anyway?

 

[pandemonium]

The lengths of this research are astounding, lol.

A group of forensic linguistics experts from Aston University believe the real creator of bitcoin is former law professor Nick Szabo.

The Aston University Centre for Forensic Linguistics, based in Birmingham, UK, unleashed 40 final-year students on Satoshi’s bitcoin whitepaper.

The team, headed by lecturer Dr Jack Grieve, compared the paper to the writing of 11 other individuals that have been named as Satoshi Nakamoto at one point in time.

The list of ‘suspects’ included; Dorian S Nakamoto; Vili Lehdonvirta; Michael Clea; Shinichi Mochizuki; Gavin Andresen; Nick Szabo; Jed McCaleb; Dustin D Trammel; Hal Finney; Wei Dai; Neal King, Vladimir Oksman and Charles Bry.

The team concluded that Szabo is the primary author of the bitcoin paper and, therefore, the probable creator of bitcoin.

Dr Grieve explained:

“The number of linguistic similarities between Szabo’s writing and the bitcoin whitepaper is uncanny, none of the other possible authors were anywhere near as good of a match.”

He continued: “We are pretty confident that out of the primary suspects Nick Szabo is the main author of the paper, though we can’t rule out the possibility that others contributed. Our study adds to the weight of evidence pointing towards Nick Szabo.”

The team found that Szabo was by far the closest match, with a large number of distinct linguistic traits appearing in the bitcoin paper and in Szabo’s blogs and other writings.

The phrases included: “trusted third parties”, “for our purposes”, “need for …”, “chain of …” among others. The bitcoin paper also includes commas before ‘and’ and ‘but’, plenty of hyphenation, ‘-ly’ adverbs, pronouns ‘we’ and ‘our’ in a paper supposedly written by a single author.

Furthermore, the researchers found that the bitcoin whitepaper was drafted using Latex, an open-source document preparation system. Latex is also used by Szabo for all his publications.

 

[IEC]

The other thing is he has the same letters as initials (N.S.) as would be expected if you wrote your name as "Nakamoto Satoshi" with the family name first as the Japanese do. Or as you might write it for a journal article, "Nakamoto, Satoshi". In either case it's actually quite common for people to use a pseudonym with the same starting letters as their real name.

 

[KingFatty]

I find it odd that every time there is news that the velocity of bit-coin will rise (that is people will use it more) people thing that means its value will go up.

...

So paradoxically, the number of coins people are willing to buy increases on news that, otherwise, should indicate that the total bit-coin value is going to go down.

When you talk about the total bitcoin value, what do you mean? Can you explain how the total value of bitcoin relates to the going price for a bitcoin?

I guess you are saying above that it's a paradox when the price of a bitcoin falls that people will buy more of those coins? I thought that was standard econ 101 where when the price for a thing falls, it moves along the demand curve to where more people will buy it at the lower price?

I don't see the paradox, unless it has something tricky with the way you are defining the total bitcoin value, and how that definition might differ from the price of an individual bitcoin?

Personally I did not use cash to buy bitcoin until its price fell below my own personal price threshold, then I paid cold hard cash out of my pocket to buy bitcoin directly. I didn't find my behavior to be paradoxical though?

 

[frowertr]

I have to use Dummy plugs on my 7950 rigs. Xubuntu will idle the cards without them.

 

[BD2003]

When you talk about the total bitcoin value, what do you mean? Can you explain how the total value of bitcoin relates to the going price for a bitcoin?

I guess you are saying above that it's a paradox when the price of a bitcoin falls that people will buy more of those coins? I thought that was standard econ 101 where when the price for a thing falls, it moves along the demand curve to where more people will buy it at the lower price?

I don't see the paradox, unless it has something tricky with the way you are defining the total bitcoin value, and how that definition might differ from the price of an individual bitcoin?

Personally I did not use cash to buy bitcoin until its price fell below my own personal price threshold, then I paid cold hard cash out of my pocket to buy bitcoin directly. I didn't find my behavior to be paradoxical though?

I believe what he's saying is that it's common belief that the more bitcoin is used, the more it's value will rise. But that an increase of it's use results in effectively raising the supply of bitcoin (since it's exchanging hands more frequently), thus decreasing the price per coin.

I'm not sure if I buy it completely, since there are lots of other confounding factors to draw so simple a conclusion, but there's logic to it.

The way I look at it....assuming bitcoin eventually becomes the defacto currency of e-commerce, the value of a bitcoin should correspond to the amount of dollars (or any other currency) it displaces. I dunno the numbers, I dunno if anyone does really....but given the limited supply of overall coins, the more it's used, the more dollars it displaces, the more it's worth.

Eventually it will have to stabilize, and then it seems unlikely that it'll be any better than a savings account as far as investment goes. But that stabilization can't happen until it's ubiquitous, which is hardly the case nowadays. It's current price reflects the optimism of its potential vs. the chance that it goes nowhere. I'm pretty sure it's here to stay, so long term (decades), I think it'll beat out the stock market. But not so sure that I'm willing to risk my life savings.

 

[KingFatty]

I think those twins, who were famous from the Facebook lawsuit thing, they invested heavily and said that if you equate bitcoin value to the value of the credit industry, then each bitcoin would be worth $10,000 today approximately. I guess they had a number for what we all currently spend on credit transactions etc.?

 

[Mark R]

I have to use Dummy plugs on my 7950 rigs. Xubuntu will idle the cards without them.

Interesting. Xubuntu ran my 7950s fine without dummies.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

When you talk about the total bitcoin value, what do you mean? Can you explain how the total value of bitcoin relates to the going price for a bitcoin?

I guess you are saying above that it's a paradox when the price of a bitcoin falls that people will buy more of those coins? I thought that was standard econ 101 where when the price for a thing falls, it moves along the demand curve to where more people will buy it at the lower price?

I don't see the paradox, unless it has something tricky with the way you are defining the total bitcoin value, and how that definition might differ from the price of an individual bitcoin?

Personally I did not use cash to buy bitcoin until its price fell below my own personal price threshold, then I paid cold hard cash out of my pocket to buy bitcoin directly. I didn't find my behavior to be paradoxical though?

BD summarized my point well, and his points are well made as well. All macro economic theory is idealized; that said

The way I look at it....assuming bitcoin eventually becomes the defacto currency of e-commerce, the value of a bitcoin should correspond to the amount of dollars (or any other currency) it displaces. I dunno the numbers, I dunno if anyone does really....but given the limited supply of overall coins, the more it's used, the more dollars it displaces, the more it's worth.

I see this differently. I don't see bit-coins displacing local currency, I see it as a safe way to send proxy money from one place to another. So, it's a medium of exchange between currencies and not a displacement of dollars.

For example, do you think tiger direct was holding bit-coins for very long when it was selling things for bit coins? That's irrational. Instead it likely exchanged those bit-coins for dollars BEFORE it ever even accepted the bit-coins! No fuss, no muss, no risk, and no credit-card fees

That's really the world of bit coins: a way to exchange value without needing the banks and their 3% fee. With this sort of perspective the value of a single bit-coin is irrelevant, though the price of mining a single coin should never fall below the value of using bit-coins: avoidance of transaction fees.

But maybe not, maybe major corporations will hold bit-coins for further online transactions...

 

[Attic]

Whitecoin is up to 60gh from ~10 a few days ago. I think a lot of that is from wafflepool which used to dominate it's hash at Doge and now it's showing "hidden" as where most of it's 35gh of mining power is going towards on any given hour of mining. If the increase on whitcoin continues for a few more days it will surpass dogecoins network speed.

With all that, i'm a bit stumped as to where the 63gh going towards WC came from. LTC network speed seems similar and dogecoin seems similar and 63gh is a ton of hashing power to come online and not detract from Dogecoin or Litecoins network speeds. Overall the 63gh now going to WC doesn't appear to have drawn down overall network speeds of Doge and LTC. If that's a sign of ASIC's ramping up then that is scary.



For anyone mining on the R9 270 i've had good results changing from intensity 18-20 to xintensity 4 with gpu-threads 2 and TC 5121. Better WU, less rejects similar kh/s.