Who is the new guy at teams 2nd place with 180 Gh/s solo?
Dunno about 180 GH/s but Amazingrando had around 120 GH/s pointed at MaxBTC.com for a while, and I don't think that was his entire farm either.
Team 'bitfury.org' 185 Gh/s and they showed up today.
Quote from: kano
Hmm so bitfury might have quite a bit of incentive in this FPGA vs ASIC discussion Smiley
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.915037
(weapon of choice? Cheesy)
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.915037
(weapon of choice? Cheesy)
That's FPGA-based solution...
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitfury-110ghs-per-rack-82941
Possibly we started new way - not mining rig, but a 42U mining rack :-)))))) A few racks only however... But there will be much more, not racks however, but 4-U devices producing gigahashes.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitfury-design-licensing-mass-production-83332
Soon I'll do some modelling about that future device, that can be used @ home and @ DC. And very soon production will start. Looking for ppl interested in first 500 chips (actually possible minus 220 chips because I have already some requests). And even more interested in those who will help us to sell. And also, right now you can take part in this development. However - very very soon - on 1-5 June it will be deadline for updates. So if you want some features, better to write about them right now, or it will be too late for first units. As every PCB/chassis redesign costs money, it is unlikely that we will be doing this every time.
Dunno what to say about ASICs vs FPGA... About ASICs - I've told in other topics, that doing really nice ASIC
would be difficult... And that such difficulty is well beyond to best our bitstream up to date for Spartan6 chips.
If someone would do Altera Hardcopy for example, that could be difficult to match against 28-nm upcoming chips. Well,
of course if you count in price of resulting chips also NRE costs invested... If counting just chip prices without NRE costs - then ASICs would look nice... But that's like counting video boards installed, not counting motherboards and electricity consumed in mining... So while these ASIC vs FPGA debate go - we do what we do, and it is definitely better than debating... If at moment of FPGA release, there will be massive FPGA installations and like +3 Th/s with Spartans, and then +7 - 12 Th/s on 28-nm FPGAs potential in the future, that would be nice countermeasure against ASIC deployment.
Going at first to lower $ / Mh/s rate for FPGA to levels of $0.60 without VAT. However if someone would manage implementing ASIC like implemented in ATI/AMD chips for example - that would be killer for FPGA, but that's unlikely for next year for sure, as there very few FPGA developers started to get here, and zero elite ASIC developers.
What's good with ASIC/FPGA solution - is that you can put several racks in your house basement and get significant hash rates. Also you can produce and use heat in useful manner. Currently with these two racks you can do that:
orion .bitcoin $ egrep 'CBlock|height' debug.log | grep CBlock -A 1
CBlock(hash=00000000000004e4e1ec, ver=1, hashPrevBlock=00000000000002544a75, hashMerkleRoot=70af1890ee, nTime=1337926615, nBits=1a0a8b5f, nNonce=3066984747, vtx=299)
SetBestChain: new best=00000000000004e4e1ec height=181502 work=333956803896197172810
--
CBlock(hash=00000000000005a4b5c3, ver=1, hashPrevBlock=00000000000000932258, hashMerkleRoot=9060425c62, nTime=1337938808, nBits=1a0a8b5f, nNonce=604793349, vtx=487)
SetBestChain: new best=00000000000005a4b5c3 height=181519 work=334072977122612445984
--
CBlock(hash=000000000000075be0b9, ver=1, hashPrevBlock=000000000000053744b0, hashMerkleRoot=31f4bf86c4, nTime=1337963994, nBits=1a0a8b5f, nNonce=3201488052, vtx=414)
SetBestChain: new best=000000000000075be0b9 height=181545 work=334250653821835804956
That's also answers questions - why we tried moving hashing power to deepbit. As you see we have found third block.... but on block chain there's different block... and that is annoying :-)))) We'll first investigate and then apply patch to this issue :-))))
But first fixing internet connection to level, when there will be constant hash output rate without any glitches, and then investigate what happens on the level of network protocol with modified bitcoind and a few monitoring nodes.
Hopefully I've answered question in proper topic.
PS. And also - this is easily could be verified - first deepbit could review shares and find that they are a bit different from regular miners - as there's only specific subset of work processed because of 82/128 core design (each core processes parts of nonces). Also you could see that bitfury.org really has working hashing power, and not some kind of talks. Actually shares and method of getting work could be easily identified by freq. analysis of some bits of nonce.
