Replying to a few posts in one.
maybe it was also possible to drive an pine64 with it (the better raspberry with mutch less powerconsumption) it needs only 6Watt max. maybe without doing any else then a commandline wallet and a Webfrontend for it based on Node.js or ngix webserver
EDIT:
Wow new 1.4 Version has a LiPo 3,7 V charging circut included ! so it sounds perfect for it and they reduce the power consumption to 2,5 Watt
If that's based on
http://wiki.pine64.org/images/1/1d/Power_Consumption.jpg someone needs to learn maths, 5.1*0.53 is not 2.5, there's also no comment on what the SBC is doing (I'd suspect that's idling).
Take a look at
Pine64+ there are 3 Versions with 512, 1024 and 2048 MB Ram 15, 19 and 29 USD. They only use 5V 0,51 A tested at Version 1.4 and they have directly a 3.7 V LiPo Loader onboard. At time the most powerfull Single Board Computer with the lowest powerconsumption. Raspberry 12 Watt, BananaPi 7,8 Watt and this little devil 2,5 Watt
Both the Pine64 and the Pi3 run the A53 CPU core at the same speed that would mean their performance is likely to be equivalent. The Pine64 may be able to run fully 64 bit, the Pi3 currently cannot but it' not clear if that will make any difference in performance, the reports I've seen so far suggest that 64bit arm linux is still buggy, 64bit will also lead to larger pointers and some variable sizes which will lead to the same code needing more memory.
No Raspberry Pi uses 12W, the Pi3 suggests a ~12W PSU however at least half that capacity is to allow for USB peripherals meaning the Pi3 needs around 6W for the SBC. There is even evidence that the Pi3 needs just over 1W at idle and under 4W full load (
http://raspi.tv/2016/how-much-power-does-raspberry-pi3b-use-how-fast-is-it-compared-to-pi2b). Based on my experience I think full load on the Pi3 is a bit higher (nearer 6W) however I've not seen any of the older Pi models need over 5W for full load.
i think the pi would have the same problems like your stick... takes 9 Watt permanent peek to 10 Watt at boot time. got all 4 Versions at home + all Bananapi Versions... Pine64+ is now on the way 2 times ...
As above, no it doesnt! Most of the pi models are 5W max, the Pi3 is 6-7W max for the SBC.
and as a useful quote from the Pine64 FAQ (
http://www.pine64.com/faq-pine-64#toggle-id-20)
The board is powered by +5v microUSB port. Exactly how much power is required, in terms of current. (mA), is depending on what you hook up to the board. An official 2.0A (2000mA) power supply is available at the Pine64 store with ample power to run the board for most applications.
So they also suggest a 2A PSU for the board + 2x USB devices, compared to the Pi3's 2.5A PSU for board + 4x USB devices. That would suggest they're power requirement are fairly similar.
The one advantage the Pine64 does have over most other boards is the option to have 2GB of ram.
After all that the SBC I'm interested in trying out with the EGC wallet is the C.H.I.P. this is a $9 board that includes eMMC storage, lipo charger, and wifi and 0.5-1W power draw. The potential issues are only 512MB or ram and single core SOC, this is likely to make compiling the wallet more challenging, and my make running it difficult as well. If it works its literally a case of plug in power and go (everything else you need is included on a $9 board).
A lite version of the daemon could be made for this purpose, removing some of the unnecessary code. PoW mining code for example. I can begin looking into this.
My personal vision of the solar miner has always been a daemon, 'command line' as called, with a web interface. Keeping the cost down with no display, which would be almost useless for an outdoor application, and removing the unnecessary overhead of the Qt and supporting environment in my mind makes this an obvious approach.
My initial reaction is I like how the Pine64's name fits with EverGreenCoin.
Of course, power consumption is a much greater concern. Making the C.H.I.P. more fitting, plus the lower cost. But, as mentioned, it being able to compile and run the daemon, even a lite version, remains to be seen. Some testing will have to be done.
I have asked Gabi to chime in here. Again, thanks for the input everyone.
EDIT: Ordered my C.H.I.P. to experiment with.
(I had to add a swap file on a USB stick for the compilation but that's not a huge issue).
Of course, power consumption is a much greater concern. Making the C.H.I.P. more fitting, plus the lower cost. But, as mentioned, it being able to compile and run the daemon, even a lite version, remains to be seen. Some testing will have to be done.
