Topic: DragonMint T1 16TH/S halongmining.com - page 59. (Read 87857 times)
-ck what work is involved pool side to support AsicBoost?
No manufacturer will make a new miner without asicboost now and lose the 20% efficiency gains. Efficiency is everything in this game and I can't see any maker passing it up now. It'll only be a matter of time.
Hopefully some manufacturers can offer some sort of updates to their recent equipment as well. Also, will the DRAGONMINT come
Pre configured with Slush, or your pool? Hopefully, it's yours, and it can help out Non-Corporate for once!
No manufacturer will make a new miner without asicboost now and lose the 20% efficiency gains. Efficiency is everything in this game and I can't see any maker passing it up now. It'll only be a matter of time.
The default software will not allow you to even mine on non-AsicBoost pools. You'd have to modify it to do so (at the cost of efficiency and voiding the warranty probably)
Halong clarified that the speed would be no different, it'd be 16T regardless, it's just efficiency that takes a hit if the software was modified to a non-AB pool.
I'm wondering when the other manufacturers will hop on the overt AB bandwagon.
Halong clarified that the speed would be no different, it'd be 16T regardless, it's just efficiency that takes a hit if the software was modified to a non-AB pool.
I'm wondering when the other manufacturers will hop on the overt AB bandwagon.
-ck said he was only seeing 1/4 speed after modifying to run on a non-AsicBoost pool, I'm inclined to believe him as he has one in hand.
The default software will not allow you to even mine on non-AsicBoost pools. You'd have to modify it to do so (at the cost of efficiency and voiding the warranty probably)
Halong clarified that the speed would be no different, it'd be 16T regardless, it's just efficiency that takes a hit if the software was modified to a non-AB pool.
I'm wondering when the other manufacturers will hop on the overt AB bandwagon.
Halong clarified that the speed would be no different, it'd be 16T regardless, it's just efficiency that takes a hit if the software was modified to a non-AB pool.
I'm wondering when the other manufacturers will hop on the overt AB bandwagon.
Thing that I'd like some clarity on, ASICboost was only suppost to improve the efficiency of a miner, not its hashing speed, so it did the same but used less power. Overall of course this would lead to either being able to push the miner faster for the same power usage (if the hardware could handle it) or running more individual miners but using the same power. (e.g. if it gave a 25% reduction in power, you could run 5 miners for the power you used to run 4 miners)
Is this new version of overt ASICboost different? There are hints that the Dragonmint miners will only run at 1/4 speed on non-asicboost pools. That sort of doesn't line up with how we all thought ASICboost
It's the same form of asicboost but avoiding the switching topology to enable/disable asicboost makes the chips simpler and smaller.Is this new version of overt ASICboost different? There are hints that the Dragonmint miners will only run at 1/4 speed on non-asicboost pools. That sort of doesn't line up with how we all thought ASICboost
Considering the nature of the AB patent and the Halong corporate attitude, personally I'm happy to say screw them and wait until Canaan joins the AB club.
I hope we're not holding our breath for long about the second part.
Ah, looks like a happy ending.
I still don't understand the obfuscation though. They could've been upfront about who and what they were without letting the important details slip. Even if they don't need the custom, they should've respected the well earned paranoia around here.
I still don't understand the obfuscation though. They could've been upfront about who and what they were without letting the important details slip. Even if they don't need the custom, they should've respected the well earned paranoia around here.
We aren't familiar with the intricacies of the Chinese way of doing business
Bitmain had it hidden from the public and had the patent for it meaning no one else could use the technology giving them an unfair advantage. The halong group paid dearly for the patent to buy it and then opened it up with the blockchain defensive patent license - this license means anyone can use the asicboost technology provided they don't patent anything else in their hardware. Think about it - they paid for the license, only to open it up for everyone. No one has an unfair technology advantage now.
Oh wow. Thank you!
Thing that I'd like some clarity on, ASICboost was only suppost to improve the efficiency of a miner, not its hashing speed, so it did the same but used less power. Overall of course this would lead to either being able to push the miner faster for the same power usage (if the hardware could handle it) or running more individual miners but using the same power. (e.g. if it gave a 25% reduction in power, you could run 5 miners for the power you used to run 4 miners)
Is this new version of overt ASICboost different? There are hints that the Dragonmint miners will only run at 1/4 speed on non-asicboost pools. That sort of doesn't line up with how we all thought ASICboost
It's the same form of asicboost but avoiding the switching topology to enable/disable asicboost makes the chips simpler and smaller.Is this new version of overt ASICboost different? There are hints that the Dragonmint miners will only run at 1/4 speed on non-asicboost pools. That sort of doesn't line up with how we all thought ASICboost
Considering the nature of the AB patent and the Halong corporate attitude, personally I'm happy to say screw them and wait until Canaan joins the AB club.
So here's the rub, and I'll quote my question from another thread.
It's the same form of asicboost but avoiding the switching topology to enable/disable asicboost makes the chips simpler and smaller. Thing that I'd like some clarity on, ASICboost was only suppost to improve the efficiency of a miner, not its hashing speed, so it did the same but used less power. Overall of course this would lead to either being able to push the miner faster for the same power usage (if the hardware could handle it) or running more individual miners but using the same power. (e.g. if it gave a 25% reduction in power, you could run 5 miners for the power you used to run 4 miners)
Is this new version of overt ASICboost different? There are hints that the Dragonmint miners will only run at 1/4 speed on non-asicboost pools. That sort of doesn't line up with how we all thought ASICboost
Is this new version of overt ASICboost different? There are hints that the Dragonmint miners will only run at 1/4 speed on non-asicboost pools. That sort of doesn't line up with how we all thought ASICboost
Yes, but why should pools change their protocol because one mining company says so? Why not make chips that hash at their advertised rates, and then ASICBOOT if your pool supports it to get up to higher rates?
Pools are designed to make money from miners. Do you think pools will refuse to implement it and shut out potential new customers?Will CKPool support it day 1?
I'm mining with an experimental sample already on ckpool.orgDo you have any real numbers of how it performs with Asicboost on or off on the pool?
Cheers
So here's the rub, and I'll quote my question from another thread.
Thing that I'd like some clarity on, ASICboost was only suppost to improve the efficiency of a miner, not its hashing speed, so it did the same but used less power. Overall of course this would lead to either being able to push the miner faster for the same power usage (if the hardware could handle it) or running more individual miners but using the same power. (e.g. if it gave a 25% reduction in power, you could run 5 miners for the power you used to run 4 miners)
Is this new version of overt ASICboost different? There are hints that the Dragonmint miners will only run at 1/4 speed on non-asicboost pools. That sort of doesn't line up with how we all thought ASICboost
Is this new version of overt ASICboost different? There are hints that the Dragonmint miners will only run at 1/4 speed on non-asicboost pools. That sort of doesn't line up with how we all thought ASICboost
By the way I forgot to mention with my rewritten driver and this hardware's capabilities, it is an excellent match for p2pool; probably the first ASIC in a very long time to be. The reject rate I'm getting at my pool with this miner is <0.1%
Yes, but why should pools change their protocol because one mining company says so? Why not make chips that hash at their advertised rates, and then ASICBOOT if your pool supports it to get up to higher rates?
Pools are designed to make money from miners. Do you think pools will refuse to implement it and shut out potential new customers?Will CKPool support it day 1?
I'm mining with an experimental sample already on ckpool.orgDo you have any real numbers of how it performs with Asicboost on or off on the pool?
Cheers
MyRig tweeted yesterday and Halong Mining retweeted that the DragonMint has received FCC certification. In addition, Halong Mining has printed the FCC logo on the decal affixed to the side panel of the DragonMint. See: https://i.imgur.com/dZeTlvw.png
However, after searching the FCC's Equipment Authorization database for "Halong Mining", "Halong", and "MyRig", I am unable to confirm the existence of this certification, finding zero results. I performed the search here under the "Applicant Name" field: https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm
The search page screenshot is here: https://i.imgur.com/tL8qUGJ.png
The null results screenshot is here https://i.imgur.com/aW7sK9w.png
Halong Mining, please share information to clarify the discrepancy between your claim and what exists in the FCC's database.
However, after searching the FCC's Equipment Authorization database for "Halong Mining", "Halong", and "MyRig", I am unable to confirm the existence of this certification, finding zero results. I performed the search here under the "Applicant Name" field: https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm
The search page screenshot is here: https://i.imgur.com/tL8qUGJ.png
The null results screenshot is here https://i.imgur.com/aW7sK9w.png
Halong Mining, please share information to clarify the discrepancy between your claim and what exists in the FCC's database.
Yes, but why should pools change their protocol because one mining company says so? Why not make chips that hash at their advertised rates, and then ASICBOOT if your pool supports it to get up to higher rates?
Pools are designed to make money from miners. Do you think pools will refuse to implement it and shut out potential new customers?Will CKPool support it day 1?
I'm mining with an experimental sample already on ckpool.orgDo you have any real numbers of how it performs with Asicboost on or off on the pool?
Cheers
Seems to me that Bitmain is going to have to change their slogan for the S9: "The worlds most efficient miner".
Yes, but why should pools change their protocol because one mining company says so? Why not make chips that hash at their advertised rates, and then ASICBOOT if your pool supports it to get up to higher rates?
Pools are designed to make money from miners. Do you think pools will refuse to implement it and shut out potential new customers?Will CKPool support it day 1?
I'm mining with an experimental sample already on ckpool.org 
So I activated my slush account waiting for demo unit.
Once I get it I will meter power used against hash .
My thoughts on forced asic boost. It would even playing field if every pool does it.
It would be transparent if every pool does it.
Will it work maybe.
If I do 16.2 th at 1400 -1500 watts on slush that works for me.
but I want to mine on -ck pool I do on and off.
I want to mine on bravo-mining I do on and off
I also like to mine on mmpool.org
I hope a few of them switch to asicboost tec.
I am in favor of trying it out.
Once I get it I will meter power used against hash .
My thoughts on forced asic boost. It would even playing field if every pool does it.
It would be transparent if every pool does it.
Will it work maybe.
If I do 16.2 th at 1400 -1500 watts on slush that works for me.
but I want to mine on -ck pool I do on and off.
I want to mine on bravo-mining I do on and off
I also like to mine on mmpool.org
I hope a few of them switch to asicboost tec.
I am in favor of trying it out.
Well I see no reason why BCH pools couldnt also support overt AsicBoost. Hopefully it will become widely adopted by all pools, then there really is no need to worry about AsicBoost, it'll just be a 16TH miner.
Yes, but why should pools change their protocol because one mining company says so? Why not make chips that hash at their advertised rates, and then ASICBOOT if your pool supports it to get up to higher rates?
Saying you're selling a SHA-256 miner that runs at 16 TH/s is a misdirection at best and an outright lie at worst if it'll only run at that speed on certain pools.
I find this asicboost weird too since they have to modify the pool for it to show the 16th hashrate. I guess normal miners gotta check if they still get the same returns on slushpool once there are alot of dragonmints on it since it works 16th on asicboost pools and lesser on other pools. If the dragon miners do less work but are getting paid for more in those asicboost pools, then, all other miners on that pool should have less returns. Best to double check later on. U never know how it is with new tech.
Yes, but why should pools change their protocol because one mining company says so? Why not make chips that hash at their advertised rates, and then ASICBOOT if your pool supports it to get up to higher rates?
Pools are designed to make money from miners. Do you think pools will refuse to implement it and shut out potential new customers?Will CKPool support it day 1?
Yes, but why should pools change their protocol because one mining company says so? Why not make chips that hash at their advertised rates, and then ASICBOOT if your pool supports it to get up to higher rates?
Pools are designed to make money from miners. Do you think pools will refuse to implement it and shut out potential new customers? Jump to: