I see that same "stability", in the time-frame just before the last "tweak".. also the same instability... That other miner only has a better average, because it has been running for weeks, with better averages...
LOL. That's the point. Bitmine's miner
is not stable, and you cannot blame that on the pool like you tried to do.
Love the 600GHs dips, and the 1200GHs spikes... you sure that isn't a stable 1.1GHs or 1.2GHs miner running?
Out of 168 hours last week that miner had 2 hours poor performance. Out of those same 168 hours, the Bitmine miner had 166 hours of poor performance. No wonder Bitmine's demo video only lasted a couple minutes.
No, out of 168 hours, that miner was apparently only running for a portion of 4 hours. I am sure the other runs were from individual boards, or the other unit with only 2 boards in it. Or did you not see that video?
Obviously, you are not looking at the same point that I was talking about. The last wide section is two separate runs, noted by the "gap" in the middle, where they obviously stopped mining, then started again, with new settings. The prior settings produced results that were consistent with the entire other chart you use for a reference.
However, you quoted my following question, and did not reply to it...
Show me that the other chart is a 1.0THs miner, running at only 1.0THs in CGminer, and not the results of a 1.1THs or a 1.2THs miners results. Or, not the result of 2x 600GHs miners running... or any other combination...
Surely, you got that chart from someone with that miner running, which is "confirmed" as running at only 1.0THs... or did you just pull up one that was close to 1.0THs and assume it was actually a 1.0THs miner? Not too many of those out there... None that I recall. Except the one being created now.