Topic: GekkoScience has a new pod miner, just in time for Christmas - page 16. (Read 6703 times)

Thank you! Very excited about this miner.

It's a brand-new product and we busted our butts to get the assembly line up to speed in time for the first batches to be out for Christmas, which is still 19 days off. Reseller stock requests are being filled right now, so they'll be "in stock" with resellers in one to two weeks.

When is it back in stock?

I've posted the details now back in the 2nd post
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.61350496

if you want to run the new r909 miner together with other compac f sticks, what should the cmd line look like to start all the miners via cgminer?

So to me it seems like you are the equivalent to a Dooms Day Prepper for the Bitcoin world?  I don't mean that to come off as an attack, but this will be my 9th year on this forum and there are still trustworthy pools/solo pools you can mine on.  What I do notice though is you follow any project Kano is involved with because YOU want something changed.  I am sure like you said there are others but it's YOU that follows into Sidehack's product releases talking about how it's not truly something.  Which as of right now and for the forseeable future it is as I do not see pools disappearing for awhile, and by the time they do this hardware will be the equiv to running an Antminer U1 on a modern day pool.

Another analogy when it comes to the end of the pools, would be again comparing a person watching for the end of the world and prepping for it.  It would be the same as calling every gun manufacturer and complaining that even though they only make the firearm that nobody will be able to make bullets for it if the world were to come to an end.  You are literally worried about something that isn't a problem and have been all over any Gekkoscience release because Kano is involved.  

So how about you set up your own stratum server and run instead of worrying about mining directly to Bitcoin core?  OR, how about you pay to have your own developer write a new miner specifically for people like you and the others you mention and then you don't have to follow people like Kano and Sidehack constantly trying to tell people that it's not a solo miner because in the future you can't just mine directly to core?  

Wouldn't even call it a problem (even though it can classify as a bug); separation of concerns is actually usually a pretty good idea.
Have one process for Bitcoin Core: bitcoind
One process for running the miner: cgminer
One process for connecting the two: Local Stratum server

Yes there are various ways to do it, just a certain person wants to make a deal out of me not directly fixing the problem that's in cgminer

The flags were deprecated in bitcoin core 0.12 in 2015 (it's now empty)
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/d449772cf69c01932fc5d72c46054815d6300b3c
And remove during 0.19 in 2019 (since it is empty)
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/e9a27cf338dc618b8ecab8984abc54d588de8a05

He seems to want to make it an issue for sidehack for some reason - no idea why.

Again, as before, I'm doing a driver that's opensource and free for everyone to use - with a couple of miners sent to me so I can write it.

Yes as I also stated clearly, cgminer still cannot mine directly to bitcoind, it fails to work, which is called a bug.
(since those changes above in core)

What about just running a stratum proxy along with bitcoin core and connecting to that with cgminer and your sweet new R909?

Unfortunaly not, it is a cgminer problem, and because there is no alternative to it for running this miner it belongs here.
Sorry, you did a great job on developing this miner and I am sure it will sell like "hot cakes" even without real solo mining.

Sounds like a Core problem. Also sounds like a problem that's already been discussed elsewhere and doesn't really need to be here too.

First, there is no FUD, and there is no personal agenda.


You better word it truthfully:
There is no bug in ck's code, there was a change from core after ck stop the support of cgminer and that stoped cgminers ability to mine
on the bitcoind.

I pointed that out here:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.54839526


There is no coercion by me!
You pointed it out the last time, and I get it, you won't do it, for obvious reason.

For me (and not only for me) it is a vital point of having the freedom of choice to solo mine on a bitcoind or a pool.
If all trustfull pools/solopools went away, I still got the opertunity to solo mine directly to core.

End of story

This looks really nice! Might have to pick one up if there's a reseller for my region. As always, love your work sidehack!

Please avoid spreading FUD for your own personal agenda, and at least word it truthfully.

To correct his FUD, what o_solo_miner is saying is that if I don't fix the bug in ck's code, that o_solo_miner insists I must fix for him, where it wont currently solo mine directly to a local bitcoind, then for some reason that is somehow relevant.
Sounds like a lousy attempt at coercion to me.

I do know how to fix it since I've already done it myself to ckpool ... but fixing it in cgminer hasn't been a priority since I'm also unsure about suggesting people do something that could easily lead to losing a block and then having them blame me for it.
While this may or may not seem likely to some, even o_solo_miner's attempt at coercion above makes me wary of such things.

I will also point out that someone put up a pull request to my git to fix this but that pull request can generate work that the miner will never get the reward if they find a block, in certain circumstances.

As I have made clear many times, I don't trust people's code that isn't tested properly.
Especially when it's involved with bitcoin blocks.

--

Edit: I will also point out that I have attempted to get core to simplify block testing for developers.
I've raised an issue quite a while ago and discussed it as can be seen:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/22119
I also explain there how I do full block testing at lower difficulty and the non-testing related issues with doing that.

That depends on what you are planning to do, mining on your own bitcoind or not.
IF this CGMiner version is not reduced in its original function, it will be a good replacement, if not, not worth to buy.

i see exactly the same as you
and the power consumption of the new r909 is in my opinion unbeatable at this performance then

Looks amazing, nice work! Is this based on six BM1397 chips?

Love home mining gear like this.
Well done!

Now just need Santa to deliver!

BM1397-based pod miner, amazing! The efficiency of these chips is so much better than what's in Futurebit's Apollo; depending on pricing, I can see the R909 making the Apollo 'Standard Unit' obsolete.
I'm definitely going to pick one up. (for mining and tinkering.. )

Thanks for the new device, looks nice and will also Order one